Skip to main content

Intuitive Comprehensibility of Process Models

  • Conference paper
S-BPM ONE - Running Processes (S-BPM ONE 2013)

Abstract

The number of researches in the field of practical business process modeling (BPM) as well as process model (PM) quality and its influencing factors is very low. In this paper we address two aspects in that regard. We investigate the use of semiformal modeling languages in companies. To that end, we performed a pen and paper experiment involving 43 participants in 2011. Thereof, we derived four process design archetypes. The results reveal that formal BPM has still not been accepted as a useful practice in firms - mainly flowcharts are used for process design. We seize this circumstance in the second part of this work focussing on the comprehensibility of BPM languages. Based on the survey data of 77 employees obtained in 2012, we analyzed to what extent different PMs are understood by individuals. We found that the comic representation storyboard design is intuitive and easily understood. BPMN and UML also achieved good results, albeit subject to certain restrictions. Participants had problems with EPC and across all notations with concurrent activities. We therefore recommend the use of storyboards in field BPM as well as further accompanying investigations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Recker, J., Safrudin, N., Rosemann, M.: How Novices Model Business Processes. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 29–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Grosskopf, A., Edelman, J., Weske, M.: Tangible Business Process Modeling – Methodology and Experiment Design. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 489–500. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Eikebrokk, T.R., Iden, J., Olsen, D.H., Opdahl, A.L.: Understanding the determinants of business process modelling in organisations. Business Process Management Journal 17, 639–662 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. Business Process Management Journal 12, 249–254 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rittgen, P.: Collaborative modeling of business processes: a comparative case study. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2009), pp. 225–230. ACM, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What Makes Process Models Understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl. Eng. 55, 243–276 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pohl, K., Rupp, C.: Basiswissen Requirements Engineering: Aus- und Weiterbildung zum Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering; Foundation-Level nach IREB-Standard. Dpunkt.verlag, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hiller, C., Minar-Hoedel, P., Zahradnik, H.: Prozessmanagement: Komplexe Prozesse einfach steuern. Goldegg, Vienna (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Allweyer, T.: Geschaeftsprozessmanagement: Strategie, Entwurf, Implementierung, Controlling. W3L, Herdecke (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rosemann, M.: Stichwort Prozessmodell. In: Mertens, P., et al. (eds.) Lexikon der Wirtschaftsinformatik, p. 334. Springer, Berlin (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hogrebe, F., Pagel, S., Juergens, A., Nuettgens, M.: EPK-Varianten auf dem Pruefstand: Explorative Studie zur Gebrauchstauglichkeit von eEPK und oEPK. In: Nuettgens, M., Rump, F.J., Mendling, J., Gehrke, N. (eds.) EPK 2009, Berlin. Geschaeftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten. 8. Workshop der Gesellschaft fuer Informatik e.V (GI) und Treffen ihres Arbeitskreises “Geschaeftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten (WI-EPK)”, pp. 195–212 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Isselhorst, T.: Modellierung von Kontextontologien zur Informationsbedarfsermittlung in der Unternehmensfuehrung. In: Lehner, F., Noesekabel, H., Kleinschmidt, P. (eds.) Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik Band, vol. 2, pp. 83–96. GITO, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Recker, J.C., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: Toleman, M., Cater-Steel, A., Roberts, D. (eds.) 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Toowoomba (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eppler, M.J., Burkhard, R.A.: Knowledge visualization. In: Schwartz, D. (ed.) Encycolpedia of Knowledge Management, pp. 551–560. Idea Group Inc., London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers, Y.: Pictorial representations of abstract concepts relating to human-computer interaction. SIGCHI Bull. 18, 43–44 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Recker, J.: Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations. Inf. Syst. 35, 467–482 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moody, D.L.: The physics of notions: towards a scientific basis for constructing visual notions in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35, 759–782 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guenther, A., Schuepferling, D., Pikalek, C.: Dokumentation von Anforderungen - gut dokumentiert ist halb gebaut. In: Rupp, C. (ed.) Requirements-Engineering und -Management, pp. 183–245. Hanser, Munich (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Versteegen, G.: Konfigurations management. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Mendling, J., Neumann, G., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Understanding the Occurrence of Errors in Process Models Based on Metrics. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 113–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Keller, C., Kuehn, R., Schlegel, T.: Vorgehensmodell zum Einsatz von Storyboarding als Basistechnik fuer die kontext- und modellbasierte Ableitung von Interaction-Cases fuer ubiquitaere Systeme. Informatik 2011: Informatik schafft Communities, P- 192, 297 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J.: This is service design thinking. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Diekmann, A.: Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Weitlaner, D., Guettinger, A., Kohlbacher, M. (2013). Intuitive Comprehensibility of Process Models. In: Fischer, H., Schneeberger, J. (eds) S-BPM ONE - Running Processes. S-BPM ONE 2013. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 360. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36754-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36754-0_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-36753-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-36754-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics