Intuitive Comprehensibility of Process Models

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.

[1]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations , 2010, Inf. Syst..

[2]  Jan Recker,et al.  How Novices Model Business Processes , 2010, BPM.

[3]  Marc Stickdorn,et al.  This is service design thinking : basics--tools--cases : 領域横断的アプローチによるビジネスモデルの設計 , 2012 .

[4]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Understanding the Occurrence of Errors in Process Models Based on Metrics , 2007, OTM Conferences.

[5]  Zahir Tari,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS, OTM Confederated International Conferences CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS 2007, Vilamoura, Portugal, November 25-30, 2007, Proceedings, Part II , 2007, OTM Conferences.

[6]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A , 2006, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[7]  Peter Mertens,et al.  Lexikon der Wirtschaftsinformatik , 1987 .

[8]  Andreas L. Opdahl,et al.  Understanding the determinants of business process modelling in organisations , 2011, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[9]  Peter Rittgen.  Collaborative modeling of business processes: a comparative case study , 2009, SAC '09.

[10]  J. Recker,et al.  Does It Matter Which Process Modelling Language We Teach or Use? An Experimental Study on Understanding Process Modelling Languages without Formal Education , 2007 .

[11]  Chris Rupp,et al.  Requirements Engineering und Management , 2009, HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[12]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[13]  Yvonne Rogers.  Pictorial representations of abstract concepts relating to human-computer interaction , 1986, SGCH.

[14]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[15]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Compliance aware business process design , 2008 .

[16]  A. Diekmann.  Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen , 2007 .

[17]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Tangible Business Process Modeling - Methodology and Experiment Design , 2009, Business Process Management Workshops.

[18]  Jan Mendling,et al.  What Makes Process Models Understandable? , 2007, BPM.