Abstract
Business process modeling languages support enterprises in visualizing workflows in a graphical representation. Many studies provide recommendations about which modeling language to choose and how to represent models in terms of usability. However, there is no support in how to present detailed instructions regarding the execution of process tasks. We denote such instructions as task annotations which have to be considered during process execution to ensure process success. Integrating this information in an understandable way into process models is challenging and has not been sufficiently researched. This paper describes a novel study to address how task annotations can be presented in process models intuitively. In an experimental setup, we compare different representation formats for different task settings and evaluate them regarding the aspects effectiveness, mental efficiency and satisfaction. We found empirical support that image- and diagram-based representations are intuitively comprehensible across all task settings regardless of the user’s level of experience or education. Furthermore, we could statistically prove inferiority of textual task annotations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Batoulis, K., Eid-Sabbagh, R.-H., Leopold, H., Weske, M., Mendling, J.: Automatic business process model translation with BPMT. In: Franch, X., Soffer, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNBIP, vol. 148, pp. 217–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38490-5_21
Fahland, D., et al.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of understandability. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_29
Fichtner, M., Schönig, S., Jablonski, S.: How LIME explanation models can be used to extend business process models by relevant process details. In: ICEIS 2022, Vol. 2, pp. 527–534. SciTePress (2022)
Figl, K., Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Towards a usability assessment of process modeling languages. In: 8th GI-Workshop Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten (EPK), CEUR-WS, pp. 138–156. Citeseer (2009)
Figl, K., Recker, J.: Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences for process representations. Requirements Eng. 21(1), 63–85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-014-0210-2
Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Eng. 9(4), 248–260 (2004)
Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: On the theoretical foundations of research into the understandability of business process models. In: ECIS 2014, Tel Aviv, Israel (2014)
Jošt, G., Huber, J., Heričko, M.: An empirical investigation of intuitive understandability of process diagrams. Comput. Stand. Interf. 48, 90–111 (2016)
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_4
Mohs, C., Hurtienne, J., Kindsmüller, M.: IUUI-intuitive use of user interfaces: Auf dem Weg zu einer wissenschaftlichen Basis für das Schlagwort “Intuitivität." MMI-Interaktiv 11(11), 75–84 (2006)
Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P., Schielzeth, H.: The coefficient of determination R 2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. J. Royal Soc. Interface 14(134), 20170213 (2017)
Naumann, A., Hurtienne, J.: Benchmarks for intuitive interaction with mobile devices. In: MobileHCI 2010, pp. 401–402 (2010)
Nielson, J.: Usability 101: introduction to usability (2009)
Orendt, E., Fichtner, M., Henrich, D.: Robot programming by non-experts: intuitiveness and robustness of one-shot robot programming. In: RO-MAN 2016, pp. 192–199. IEEE (2016)
Palash, B.: Does cognitive overload matter in understanding Bpmn models? J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 52(4), 59–69 (2012)
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15618-2_5
Rodrigues, R. et al.: An experiment on process model understandability using textual work instructions and BPMN models. In: 29th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, pp. 41–50. IEEE (2015)
Shackel, B.: Usability - context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. Interact. Comput. 21(5–6), 339–346 (2009)
Wegerich, A., Löffler, D., Maier, A.: Handbuch zur IBIS Toolbox-Evaluation Intuitiver Benutzbarkeit. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2018)
Weitlaner, D., Guettinger, A., Kohlbacher, M.: Intuitive comprehensibility of process models. In: Fischer, H., Schneeberger, J. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2013. CCIS, vol. 360, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36754-0_4
Wiedmann, P.: Agiles Geschäftsprozessmanagement auf Basis gebrauchssprachlicher Modellierung. PhD thesis, University of Bayreuth, Germany (2017)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fichtner, M., Fichtner, U.A., Jablonski, S. (2022). An Experimental Study of Intuitive Representations of Process Task Annotations. In: Sellami, M., Ceravolo, P., Reijers, H.A., Gaaloul, W., Panetto, H. (eds) Cooperative Information Systems. CoopIS 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13591. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17834-4_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17834-4_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-17833-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-17834-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)