Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models

Visual process models are meant to facilitate comprehension of business processes. However, in practice, process models can be difficult to understand. The main goal of this article is to clarify the sources of cognitive effort in comprehending process models. The article undertakes a comprehensive descriptive review of empirical and theoretical work in order to categorize and summarize systematically existing findings on the factors that influence comprehension of visual process models. Methodologically, the article builds on a review of forty empirical studies that measure objective comprehension of process models, seven studies that measure subjective comprehension and user preferences, and thirty-two articles that discuss the factors that influence the comprehension of process models. The article provides information systems researchers with an overview of the empirical state of the art of process model comprehension and provides recommendations for new research questions to be addressed and methods to be used in future experiments.

[1]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Improving the quality of data models: empirical validation of a quality management framework , 2003, Inf. Syst..

[2]  Jörg Becker,et al.  Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Modellierung , 1995, Wirtschaftsinf..

[3]  Maria Kozhevnikov,et al.  The new object‐spatial‐verbal cognitive style model: Theory and measurement , 2009 .

[4]  Barbara Weber,et al.  Investigating the Process of Process Modeling with Eye Movement Analysis , 2012, Business Process Management Workshops.

[5]  Matthias Weidlich,et al.  Using Glossaries to Enhance the Label Quality in Business Process Models , 2009 .

[6]  Jan Mendling,et al.  The State of the Art of Business Process Management Research as Published in the BPM Conference , 2015, Business & Information Systems Engineering.

[7]  Jan Mendling,et al.  On the Usage of Labels and Icons in Business Process Modeling , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..

[8]  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.

[9]  Leonardo Guerreiro Azevedo,et al.  Detection of naming convention violations in process models for different languages , 2013, Decis. Support Syst..

[10]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Design science in information systems research , 2006, Wirtschaftsinf..

[11]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  What do the pictures mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[12]  Palash Bera Does Cognitive Overload Matter in Understanding Bpmn Models? , 2012, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  Factors of process model comprehension - Findings from a series of experiments , 2012, Decis. Support Syst..

[14]  Marjan Hericko,et al.  Business process model and notation: The current state of affairs , 2015, Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  On the importance of flow direction in business process models , 2014, 2014 9th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications (ICSOFT-EA).

[16]  John Krogstie,et al.  The Influence of Syntactic Quality on Pragmatic Quality of Enterprise Process Models , 2015, Complex Syst. Informatics Model. Q..

[17]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension , 2011, Inf. Syst..

[18]  Marjan Hericko,et al.  An empirical investigation of intuitive understandability of process diagrams , 2016, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[19]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A Study Into the Factors That Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[20]  Ralf Laue,et al.  Measuring the Understandability of Business Process Models - Are We Asking the Right Questions? , 2010, Business Process Management Workshops.

[21]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Quality Assessment of Business Process Models Based on Thresholds , 2010, OTM Conferences.

[22]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  On the User Perception of Configurable Reference Process Models — Initial Insights , 2005 .

[23]  J. Sweller Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load , 2010 .

[24]  Angelika Dimoka,et al.  On the Foundations of NeuroIS: Reflections on the Gmunden Retreat 2009 , 2010, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Making sense of business process descriptions: An experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[26]  Jörg Becker,et al.  Grundsätze ordnungsmässiger Modellierung , 1995 .

[27]  Sven Overhage,et al.  Quality Marks, Metrics, and Measurement Procedures for Business Process Models , 2012, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[28]  Thomas Leich,et al.  Understanding understanding source code with functional magnetic resonance imaging , 2014, ICSE.

[29]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Complexity Metrics for business Process Models , 2006, BIS.

[30]  Dirk Fahland,et al.  Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling: The Issue of Maintainability , 2009 .

[31]  Thomas D. Wilson,et al.  Human Information Behavior , 2000, Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..

[32]  Peter Loos,et al.  On the Theoretical Foundations of Research into the Understandability of Business Process Models , 2014, ECIS.

[33]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Imperative versus Declarative Process Modeling Languages: An Empirical Investigation , 2011, Business Process Management Workshops.

[34]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Measuring and visualising the quality of models , 2013, 2013 IEEE 1st International Workshop on Communicating Business Process and Software Models Quality, Understandability, and Maintainability (CPSM).

[35]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Managing Structural and Textual Quality of Business Process Models , 2012, SIMPDA.

[36]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Enhancing understandability of process models through cultural-dependent color adjustments , 2016, Decis. Support Syst..

[37]  Jan Mendling,et al.  The Impact of Secondary Notation on Process Model Understanding , 2009, PoEM.

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

[39]  Geert Poels,et al.  Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions , 2007, Data Knowl. Eng..

[40]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Refactoring large process model repositories , 2011, Comput. Ind..

[41]  Ned Kock,et al.  Communication flow orientation in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: Results from a field study , 2009, Decis. Support Syst..

[42]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Cognitive Load Effects on End User Understanding of Conceptual Models: An Experimental Analysis , 2004, ADBIS.

[43]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation , 2010, SLE.

[44]  Sven Overhage,et al.  Qualitätsmerkmale, -metriken und -messverfahren für Geschäftsprozessmodelle , 2012, Wirtschaftsinf..

[45]  Björn Niehaves,et al.  Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research , 2015, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[46]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  An Integrative Framework of the Factors Affecting Process Model Understanding: A Learning Perspective , 2010, AMCIS.

[47]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[48]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Reducing the cognitive complexity of business process models , 2009, 2009 8th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics.

[49]  Ross Brown,et al.  Storyboard augmentation of process model grammars for stakeholder communication , 2014, 2014 International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications (IVAPP).

[50]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A study on the effects of routing symbol design on process model comprehension , 2013, Decis. Support Syst..

[51]  Susanne Patig,et al.  IT Requirements of Business Process Management in Practice - An Empirical Study , 2010, BPM.

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

[53]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Tying Process Model Quality to the Modeling Process: The Impact of Structuring, Movement, and Speed , 2012, BPM.

[54]  S. Palmer,et al.  A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. , 2012, Psychological bulletin.

[55]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[56]  M. D’Esposito Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[57]  Marian Petre,et al.  Cognitive dimensions 'beyond the notation' , 2006, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[58]  Azim Danesh,et al.  A discussion and test of a communication flow optimization approach for business process redesign , 2008 .

[59]  R.N. Charette,et al.  Why software fails [software failure] , 2005, IEEE Spectrum.

[60]  Ralf Laue,et al.  Influence factors for local comprehensibility of process models , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[61]  Marlon Dumas,et al.  Criteria and Heuristics for Business Process Model Decomposition , 2016, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[62]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Towards an Integrated Framework for Invigorating Process Models: A Research Agenda , 2015, Business Process Management Workshops.

[63]  Agnes Koschmider,et al.  A Comprehensive Overview of Visual Design of Process Model Element Labels , 2015, Business Process Management Workshops.

[64]  Peter Meso,et al.  The Effects of Decomposition Quality and Multiple Forms of Information on Novices' Understanding of a Domain from a Conceptual Model , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[65]  J. Biggs,et al.  Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. , 2004, The British journal of educational psychology.

[66]  Pnina Soffer,et al.  Identifying and Quantifying Visual Layout Features of Business Process Models , 2015, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[67]  S. Palmer Common region: A new principle of perceptual grouping , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[68]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Business Process Modeling: Perceived Benefits , 2009, ER.

[69]  Yair Wand,et al.  Conceptualizing Routing Decisions in Business Processes: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Testing , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[70]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Learning from Quality Issues of BPMN Models from Industry , 2016, IEEE Software.

[71]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Adopting the Cognitive Complexity Measure for Business Process Models , 2006, 2006 5th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics.

[72]  Florian Johannsen,et al.  Testing the Impact of Wand and Weber's Decomposition Model on Process Model Understandability , 2014, ICIS.

[73]  Anand Jeyaraj,et al.  Journal of Information Technology Management Validation of Business Process Models Using Swimlane Diagrams , 2022 .

[74]  Michael R. Olsson,et al.  Beyond 'needy' individuals: Conceptualizing information behavior , 2006, ASIST.

[75]  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 .

[76]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the deep structure of information systems , 1995, Inf. Syst. J..

[77]  Jan Recker,et al.  The Effects of Content Presentation Format and User Characteristics on Novice Developers' Understanding of Process Models , 2011, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[78]  Jorge S. Cardoso,et al.  Process control-flow complexity metric: An empirical validation , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC'06).

[79]  William R. King,et al.  Understanding the Role and Methods of Meta-Analysis in IS Research , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[80]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Using business process models to better understand the dependencies among user stories , 2016, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[81]  Erik Hemmer,et al.  Where is the "I" in "IS Research"? The Quest for a Coherent Research Stream in the Context of Human Information Behavior , 2011 .

[82]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models , 2015, Software & Systems Modeling.

[83]  Lutz J. Heinrich,et al.  Informationsmanagement: Grundlagen, Aufgaben, Methoden , 2011 .

[84]  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..

[85]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Factors and measures of business process modelling: model building through a multiple case study , 2005, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[86]  Jan Recker,et al.  Empirical investigation of the usefulness of Gateway constructs in process models , 2013, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[87]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Understanding Declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results , 2016, Software & Systems Modeling.

[88]  Capers Jones,et al.  Why software fails , 1996 .

[89]  Jan Mendling,et al.  25 Challenges of Semantic Process Modeling , 2014 .

[90]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review , 2002, MIS Q..

[91]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  Influence Factors of Understanding Business Process Models , 2008, BIS.

[92]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Syntax highlighting in business process models , 2011, Decis. Support Syst..

[93]  C Ludvigsen Learning quality. , 1993, Nursing times.

[94]  Christine Natschläger Deontic BPMN , 2011, DEXA.

[95]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning , 2002 .

[96]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[97]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  The Influence of Notational Deficiencies on Process Model Comprehension , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[98]  Detlef Seese,et al.  Towards Validating Prediction Systems for Process Understandability: Measuring Process Understandability , 2008, 2008 10th International Symposium on Symbolic and Numeric Algorithms for Scientific Computing.

[99]  Ralf Laue,et al.  Cognitive Complexity in Business Process Modeling , 2011, CAiSE.

[100]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[101]  Jan Recker,et al.  Process Model Comprehension: The Effects of Cognitive Abilities, Learning Style, and Strategy , 2014, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[102]  Angelika Dimoka,et al.  On the Use of Neuropyhsiological Tools in IS Research: Developing a Research Agenda for NeuroIS , 2012, MIS Q..

[103]  Mojca Indihar Stemberger,et al.  The impact of business process orientation on financial and non-financial performance , 2008, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[104]  Irene T. P. Vanderfeesten,et al.  The Effect of Modularity Representation and Presentation Medium on the Understandability of Business Process Models in BPMN , 2016, BPM.

[105]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Good and Bad Excuses for Unstructured Business Process Models , 2007, EuroPLoP.

[106]  Yair Wand,et al.  Goal-Driven Multi-Process Analysis , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[107]  Jan Recker,et al.  Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences for process representations , 2016, Requirements Engineering.

[108]  Ron Weber,et al.  Guidelines for Empirical Evaluations of Conceptual Modeling Grammars , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[109]  Gernot R. Müller-Putz,et al.  Electroencephalography (EEG) as a Research Tool in the Information Systems Discipline: Foundations, Measurement, and Applications , 2015, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[110]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  Findings from an Experiment on Flow Direction of Business Process Models , 2015, EMISA.

[111]  Pnina Soffer,et al.  How Does It Look? Exploring Meaningful Layout Features of Process Models , 2015, CAiSE Workshops.

[112]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Towards Systematic Usage of Labels and Icons in Business Process Models , 2008, EMMSAD.

[113]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Hierarchy on Model Understandability - A Cognitive Perspective , 2011, MoDELS.

[114]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Evaluation of BPMN Models Quality - A Family of Experiments , 2008, ENASE.

[115]  R. Felder,et al.  Applications, Reliability and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles* , 2005 .

[116]  Glenn J. Browne,et al.  Stopping rule use during information search in design problems , 2004 .

[117]  Jan Mendling,et al.  On Measuring the Understandability of Process Models , 2009, Business Process Management Workshops.

[118]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Refactoring of Process Model Activity Labels , 2010, NLDB.

[119]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Enabling a User-Friendly Visualization of Business Process Models , 2014, Business Process Management Workshops.

[120]  Peter Loos,et al.  Understanding Understandability of Conceptual Models - What Are We Actually Talking about? , 2012, ER.

[121]  Kurt Sandkuhl,et al.  Experiences from Selecting a BPM Notation for an Enterprise , 2015, BIS.

[122]  John Krogstie,et al.  The Influence of Syntactic Quality of Enterprise Process Models on Model Comprehension , 2015, CAiSE Forum.

[123]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[124]  Bernhard Thalheim,et al.  Theories in Business and Information Systems Engineering , 2016, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[125]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Towards EPC Semantics based on State and Context , 2006, EPK.

[126]  Markus Kohlbacher,et al.  Intuitive Comprehensibility of Process Models , 2013, S-BPM ONE.

[127]  René Riedl,et al.  Application Strategies for Neuroscience in Information Systems Design Science Research , 2013, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[128]  Márcio de Oliveira Barros,et al.  An Experiment on Process Model Understandability Using Textual Work Instructions and BPMN Models , 2015, 2015 29th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering.

[129]  Andreas Oberweis,et al.  Revising the Vocabulary of Business Process Element Labels , 2015, CAiSE.

[130]  Varun Grover,et al.  NEW STATE OF PLAY IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH : THE PUSH TO THE EDGES 1 , 2015 .

[131]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG) , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[132]  Jan Recker,et al.  Continued use of process modeling grammars: the impact of individual difference factors , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[133]  Kurt Sandkuhl,et al.  Selecting the "Right" Notation for Business Process Modeling: Experiences from an Industrial Case , 2015, BIR.

[134]  David A. Carrington,et al.  Experimenting with Aesthetics-Based Graph Layout , 2000, Diagrams.

[135]  Peter Loos,et al.  Business Process Frameworks , 2015, Handbook on Business Process Management.

[136]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Empirical studies of information visualization: a meta-analysis , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[137]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Assessing the best-order for business process model refactoring , 2013, SAC '13.

[138]  Jörg Kienzle Models in Software Engineering , 2012 .

[139]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Managing Process Model Complexity via Concrete Syntax Modifications , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.

[140]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Eye-Tracking the Factors of Process Model Comprehension Tasks , 2013, CAiSE.

[141]  Peter Loos,et al.  Comparing the Control-Flow of EPC and Petri Net from the End-User Perspective , 2005, Business Process Management.

[142]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Understandability , 2009, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[143]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load While Learning to Use a Computer Program , 1996 .

[144]  Peter Loos,et al.  From Measuring the Quality of Labels in Process Models to a Discourse on Process Model Quality: A Case Study , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[145]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  Towards a Usability Assessment of Process Modeling Languages , 2009 .

[146]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Managing Process Model Complexity Via Abstract Syntax Modifications , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.

[147]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Quality indicators for business process models from a gateway complexity perspective , 2012, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[148]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Understanding healthcare processes , 2013 .

[149]  Sandra Seiz,et al.  On a Study of Layout Aesthetics for Business Process Models Using BPMN , 2010, BPMN.

[150]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Task-specific visual cues for improving process model understanding , 2016, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[151]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[152]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Understanding Business Process Models: The Costs and Benefits of Structuredness , 2012, CAiSE.

[153]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  On the Cognitive Effectiveness of Routing Symbols in Process Modeling Languages , 2010, BIS.

[154]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Detection and prediction of errors in EPC business process models , 2007 .

[155]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Configuration vs. adaptation for business process variant maintenance: An empirical study , 2014, Inf. Syst..

[156]  Marian Petre,et al.  Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming , 1995, CACM.

[157]  Stefan Zugal,et al.  Investigating Differences between Graphical and Textual Declarative Process Models , 2014, CAiSE Workshops.

[158]  Glenn J. Browne,et al.  Cognitive Stopping Rules for Terminating Information Search in Online Tasks , 2007, MIS Q..

[159]  Jörg Becker,et al.  Configurative Process Modeling - Outlining an Approach to Increased Business Process Model Usability , 2004 .

[160]  Ahmed Awad,et al.  Visual suggestions for improvements in business process diagrams , 2011, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..