Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation

  • Conference paper
Software Language Engineering (SLE 2010)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6563))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

BPMN 2.0 is an OMG standard and one of the leading process modelling notations. Although the current language specification recognises the importance of defining a visual notation carefully, it does so by relying on common sense, intuition and emulation of common practices, rather than by adopting a rigorous scientific approach. This results in a number of suboptimal language design decisions that may impede effective model-mediated communication between stakeholders. We demonstrate and illustrate this by looking at BPMN 2.0 through the lens of the Physics of Notations, a collection of evidence-based principles that together form a theory of notation design. This work can be considered a first step towards making BPMN 2.0’s visual notation more cognitively effective.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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.

References

  1. OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Specification 2.0 V0.9.15. Object Management Group Inc. (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of Notations: Towards a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35, 756–779 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Larkin, J., Simon, H.: Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11, 65–99 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Britton, C., Jones, S.: The Untrained Eye: How Languages for Software Specification Support Understanding by Untrained Users. Human Computer Interaction 14, 191–244 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kosslyn, S.M.: Graphics and Human Information Processing: A Review of Five Books. Journal of the American Statistical Association 80(391), 499–512 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hitchman, S.: The Details of Conceptual Modelling Notations are Important - A Comparison of Relationship Normative Language. Communications of the AIS 9(10) (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business Process Modeling - a Comparative Analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS) 10(4), 333–363 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  8. van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems Journal 30(4), 245–275 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Green, T., Blandford, A., Church, L., Roast, C., Clarke, S.: Cognitive Dimensions: Achievements, New Directions, and Open Questions. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 17, 328–365 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moody, D.L.: Theory Development in Visual Language Research: Beyond the Cognitive Dimensions of Notations. In: Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VLHCC 2009), pp. 151–154 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jorgensen, H.: Process Models Representing Knowledge for Action: a Revised Quality Framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 91–102 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Krogstie, J., Solvberg, A.: Information systems engineering - conceptual modeling in a quality perspective. In: Kompendiumforlaget, Trondheim, Norway (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Popper, K.R.: Science as Falsification. In: Routledge, Keagan, P. (eds.) Conjectures and Refutations, London, pp. 30–39 (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moody, D.L.: Review of archimate: The road to international standardisation. Technical report, Report commissioned by the ArchiMate Foundation and BiZZDesign B.V, Enschede, The Netherlands (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Moody, D., van Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: An analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams. In: Gašević, D., Lämmel, R., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 16–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R.: Improving the Effectiveness of Visual Representations in Requirements Engineering: An Evaluation of i* Visual Syntax (Best Paper Award). In: Proc. of the 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2009), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 171–180. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Genon, N., Amyot, D., Heymans, P.: Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UCM Visual Notation (to appear, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bertin, J.: Sémiologie graphique: Les diagrammes - Les réseaux - Les cartes. Gauthier-VillarsMouton & Cie (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mendling, J., Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.: Seven Process Modelling Guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology 52(2), 127–136 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mendling, J., Reijers, H., 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 

  21. Schrepfer, M., Wolf, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: The Impact of Secondary Notation on Process Model Understanding. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 39, pp. 161–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Figl, K., Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: On the Cognitive Effectiveness of Routing Symbols in Process Modeling Languages. In: Abramowicz, W., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) BIS 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 47, pp. 230–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Mendling, J., Recker, J., Reijers, H.A.: On the Usage of Labels and Icons in Business Process Modeling. Computer, 40–58 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Figl, K., Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Towards a Usability Assessment of Process Modeling Languages. In: Proc. of the 8th Workshop Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten (EPK 2009), Berlin, Germany. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 554, pp. 118–136 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Muehlen, M.z., Recker, J.: How Much Language Is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Genon, N., Heymans, P., Moody, D.L.: BPMN 2.0 Process Models: Analysis according to the “Physics” of Notations Principles. Technical report, PReCISE - University of Namur (2010), http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~nge/BPMN/BPMN2_PoN_Analysis.pdf

  28. Vessey, I.: Cognitive Fit: A Theory-based Analysis of the Graphs versus Tables Literature. Decision Sciences 22, 219–240 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Koedinger, K., Anderson, J.: Abstract planning and conceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science 14, 511–550 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Winn, W.: An Account of How Readers Search for Information in Diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology 18, 162–185 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Blankenship, J., Danseraeau, D.F.: The effect of animated node-link displays on information recall. The Journal of Experimental Education 68(4), 293–308 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Persson, A.: Enterprise Modelling in Practice: Situational Factors and their Influence on Adopting a Participative Approach. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Goodman, N.: Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Winn, W.: Encoding and Retrieval of Information in Maps and Diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 33(3), 103–107 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Biederman, I.: Recognition-by-Components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding. Psychological Review 94(2), 115–147 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Green, D.M., Swets, J.A.: Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Wiley, Chichester (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Petre, M.: Why Looking Isn’t Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Communications of ACM 38(6), 33–44 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Masri, K., Parker, D., Gemino, A.: Using Iconic Graphics in Entity Relationship Diagrams: The Impact on Understanding. Journal of Database Management 19(3), 22–41 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pierce, C.: The Essential Writings. Prometheus Books (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bar, M., Neta, M.: Humans Prefer Curved Visual Object. Psychological Science 17(8), 645–648 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Citrin, W.: Strategic Directions in Visual Languages Research. ACM Computing Surveys 24(4) (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Flood, R., Carson, E.: Dealing with Complexity: an Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science. Plenum Press, New York (1993)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style. Cody-Cassidy Press (June 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lynch, K.: The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge (1960)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lamping, J., Rao, R.: The Hyperbolic Browser: a Focus + Context Technique for Visualizing Large Hierarchies. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 7, 33–55 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Turetken, O., Schuff, D., Sharda, R., Ow, T.: Supporting Systems Analysis and Design Through Fisheye Views. Communications of ACM 47(9), 72–77 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim, J., Hahn, J., Hahn, H.: How Do We Understand a Systeme with (So) Many Diagrams? Cognitive Integration Processes in Diagrammatic Reasoning. Information Systems Research 11(3), 284–303 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Paivio, A.: Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mendling, J., Recker, J., Reijers, H.: On the Usage of Labels and Icons in Business Process Modeling. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design, IJISMD (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Nordbotten, J., Crosby, M.: The Effect of Graphic Style on Data Model Interpretation. Information Systems Journal 9(2), 139–156 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Miller, G.A.: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psycological Review, 81–97 (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How Do Practitioners Use Conceptual Modelling in Practice? Data and Knowledge Engineering 58, 358–380 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PReCISE, University of Namur, Belgium

    Nicolas Genon & Patrick Heymans

  2. University of Ottawa, Canada

    Daniel Amyot

Authors
  1. Nicolas Genon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Heymans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Amyot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Dept., Clemson University, SC 29634, Clemson, USA

    Brian Malloy

  2. Institute for Computer Science, University of Koblenz, P.O.Box 201602, 56016, Koblenz, Germany

    Steffen Staab

  3. Mathematics and Computer Science Dept., Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, 5612 AZ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Mark van den Brand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Genon, N., Heymans, P., Amyot, D. (2011). Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds) Software Language Engineering. SLE 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6563. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19440-5_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19440-5_25

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19439-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19440-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation