On the Theoretical Foundations of Research into the Understandability of Business Process Models

Against the background of the growing significance of Business Process Management (BPM) for Information Systems (IS) research and practice, especially the field of Business Process Modeling gains more and more importance. Business process models support communication about as well as the coordination of processes and have become a widely adopted tool in practice. As the understandability of business process models plays a crucial role in communication processes, more and more studies on process model understandability have been conducted in IS research. This article aims at investigating underlying theories of research into business process model understandability by means of an in-depth analysis of 126 systematically retrieved research articles on the topic. It shows in how far process model understandability research is multi-theoretically founded. Identified theories differ regarding addressed subject matters, their coverage, their focus as well as the underlying notion of model understanding, which is exemplarily demonstrated and discussed in this article. Moreover, implications of the findings are discussed and an outlook on future business process model understandability research and on the integration potential of theories in this field is given.

[1]  Paolo Tonella,et al.  Optimizing the Trade-Off between Complexity and Conformance in Process Reduction , 2011, SSBSE.

[2]  Danilo Caivano,et al.  Prediction Models for BPMN Usability and Maintainability , 2009, 2009 IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing.

[3]  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 .

[4]  Michael Becker,et al.  Towards Customer-Individual Configurations of Business Process Models , 2012, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[5]  Ned Kock,et al.  Communication-focused business process redesign: assessing a communication flow optimization model through an action research study at a defense contractor , 2003 .

[6]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[7]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Quality and comprehension of UML interaction diagrams-an experimental comparison , 2005, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[8]  António Rito Silva,et al.  Using roles and business objects to model and understand business processes , 2005, SAC '05.

[9]  Andreas Meyer,et al.  Data Support in Process Model Abstraction , 2012, ER.

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

[11]  Alessandro Marchetto,et al.  Domain-Driven Reduction Optimization of Recovered Business Processes , 2012, SSBSE.

[12]  José Javier Dolado,et al.  Evaluation of the comprehension of the dynamic modeling in UML , 2004, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[13]  Peter Loos,et al.  Understanding understandability of conceptual models - what are we actually talking about? - Supplement , 2013 .

[14]  José Javier Dolado,et al.  An Initial Experimental Assessment of the Dynamic Modelling in UML , 2004, Empirical Software Engineering.

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

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

[17]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[18]  David A. Carrington,et al.  User Preference of Graph Layout Aesthetics: A UML Study , 2000, GD.

[19]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  THE MIND'S EYE IN CHESS , 1988 .

[20]  Barbara Weber,et al.  Toward enhanced life‐cycle support for declarative processes , 2012, J. Softw. Evol. Process..

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

[22]  Peter Loos,et al.  On the Relevance of Design Knowledge for Design-Oriented Business and Information Systems Engineering , 2010, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

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

[24]  Mario Piattini Velthuis,et al.  Measurement in business processes: a systematic review , 2010 .

[25]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A Discourse on Complexity of Process Models , 2006, Business Process Management Workshops.

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

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

[28]  Marian Petre,et al.  Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A 'Cognitive Dimensions' Framework , 1996, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[29]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Defining Metrics for UML Statechart Diagrams in a Methodological Way , 2003, ER.

[30]  Ron Weber,et al.  An Ontological Model of an Information System , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[31]  John Krogstie,et al.  Modelling of the People, by the People, for the People , 2007 .

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

[33]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Evaluating workflow process designs using cohesion and coupling metrics , 2008, Comput. Ind..

[34]  Olga Levina,et al.  Granularity as a Cognitive Factor in the Effectiveness of Business Process Model Reuse , 2009, BPM.

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

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

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

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

[39]  Jan Recker Understanding Quality in Process Modelling: Towards a Holistic Perspective , 2007, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

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

[41]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UMLFamily of Diagrams , 2009, SLE.

[42]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Prediction of Business Process Model Quality Based on Structural Metrics , 2010, ER.

[43]  Sara Jones,et al.  The Untrained Eye: How Languages for Software Specification Support Understanding in Untrained Users , 1999, Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

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

[46]  Barbara Weber,et al.  Assessing Process Models with Cognitive Psychology , 2011, EMISA.

[47]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Sometimes Less is More: Are Process Modeling Languages Overly Complex? , 2007, 2007 Eleventh International IEEE EDOC Conference Workshop.

[48]  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.

[49]  James C. Spohrer,et al.  Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fifth Workshop , 1993 .

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

[51]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[52]  R E Mayer Comprehension as affected by structure of problem representation , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[53]  Peter Loos,et al.  Towards the Reconstruction and Evaluation of Conceptual Model Quality Discourses - Methodical Framework and Application in the Context of Model Understandability , 2012, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[54]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects , 2008, BPM.

[55]  Timo Lainem Enhancing Participant Business Process Perception through Business Gaming , 2001, HICSS.

[56]  D. Kolb Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , 1983 .

[57]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[59]  John R. Anderson A spreading activation theory of memory. , 1983 .

[60]  Dov Dori,et al.  A graph grammar-based formal validation of object-process diagrams , 2012, Software & Systems Modeling.

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

[62]  John Krogstie,et al.  Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[63]  Peter Rittgen Quality and perceived usefulness of process models , 2010, SAC '10.

[64]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages : the issue of understandability , 2009, BPMDS 2009.

[65]  Ian Hacking,et al.  Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science , 1983 .

[66]  G A Cioffi,et al.  Theoretically speaking , 2015, Nature Photonics.

[67]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Complexity metrics for Workflow nets , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

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

[69]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Explanatory Design Theory , 2010, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[70]  Geert Poels,et al.  Distance-based software measurement: necessary and sufficient properties for software measures , 2000, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[71]  Erika Rogers,et al.  A Cognitive Theory of Visual Interaction , 1995 .

[72]  Werner Esswein,et al.  Rules from Cognition for Conceptual Modelling , 2012, ER.

[73]  A. Bandura Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[74]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[75]  Jan Recker,et al.  How Much Language Is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation , 2008, CAiSE.

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

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

[78]  Li Zhang,et al.  Evaluating Cognitive Complexity Measure of Processes with Weyuker Properties , 2009 .

[79]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

[80]  Mario Piattini,et al.  METRICS FOR UML STATECHART DIAGRAMS , 2005 .

[81]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Visualizing Large Business Process Models: Challenges, Techniques, Applications , 2012, Business Process Management Workshops.

[82]  Xi Liu,et al.  Simplified Business Process Model Mining Based on Structuredness Metric , 2011, 2011 Seventh International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security.

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

[84]  Barbara Weber,et al.  Expressiveness and Understandability Considerations of Hierarchy in Declarative Business Process Models , 2015, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[85]  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.

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

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

[88]  P. Ackerman,et al.  Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective. , 1994 .

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

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

[91]  Eileen Kraemer,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of a UML Sequence Diagram with Adornments to Support Understanding of Thread Interactions , 2007, 15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC '07).

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

[93]  Database and Expert Systems Applications , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[94]  Bill Curtis,et al.  Process modeling , 1992, CACM.

[95]  Markus Nüttgens,et al.  Eye Tracking Experiments in Business Process Modeling: Agenda Setting and Proof of Concept , 2011, EMISA.

[96]  Elaine J. Weyuker,et al.  Evaluating Software Complexity Measures , 2010, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[97]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Refactoring Process Models in Large Process Repositories , 2008, CAiSE.

[98]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[99]  A. Selçuk Güceglioglu,et al.  Using Software Quality Characteristics to Measure Business Process Quality , 2005, Business Process Management.

[100]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[101]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Empirical Validation of Metrics for UML Statechart Diagrams , 2003, ICEIS.

[102]  Jan Recker,et al.  Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN , 2010, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

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

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

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

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

[107]  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..

[108]  A. Paivio Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. , 1991 .

[109]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Using Controlled Experiments for Validating UML Statechart Diagrams Measures , 2007, IWSM/Mensura.

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

[111]  B. Biddle,et al.  Role Theory: Concepts and Research , 1966 .

[112]  Danilo Caivano,et al.  Assessing the Influence of Stereotypes on the Comprehension of UML Sequence Diagrams: A Controlled Experiment , 2008, MoDELS.

[113]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[114]  Jörg Becker,et al.  Guidelines of Business Process Modeling , 2000, Business Process Management.

[115]  Stefan Oppl,et al.  Towards Intuitive Modeling of Business Processes: Prospects for Flow- and Natural-Language Orientation , 2009, TAMODIA.

[116]  Sandro Morasca,et al.  Property-Based Software Engineering Measurement , 1996, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[117]  Diogo R. Ferreira,et al.  Understanding Spaghetti Models with Sequence Clustering for ProM , 2009, Business Process Management Workshops.

[118]  A.,et al.  Cognitive Engineering , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[119]  Neil A. Ernst,et al.  A Framework for Empirical Evaluation of Model Comprehensibility , 2007, International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MISE'07: ICSE Workshop 2007).

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

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

[122]  C. G. Jung Psychological Types , 2000 .

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

[124]  José Javier Dolado,et al.  An empirical comparison of the dynamic modeling in OML and UML , 2005, J. Syst. Softw..

[125]  Jorge S. Cardoso,et al.  Evaluating the process control-flow complexity measure , 2005, IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'05).

[126]  Björn Niehaves,et al.  Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process , 2009, ECIS.

[127]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Cognitive Fit in Requirements Modeling: A Study of Object and Process Methodologies , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[128]  Oliver Holschke,et al.  Impact of Granularity on Adjustment Behavior in Adaptive Reuse of Business Process Models , 2010, BPM.

[129]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[130]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Dimensions of Business Processes Quality (QoBP) , 2008, Business Process Management Workshops.

[131]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[132]  Jan Mendling,et al.  On a Quest for Good Process Models: The Cross-Connectivity Metric , 2008, CAiSE.

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

[134]  Helen C. Purchase,et al.  Which Aesthetic has the Greatest Effect on Human Understanding? , 1997, GD.

[135]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Evaluating the effect of composite states on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams , 2005, MoDELS'05.

[136]  Jorge S. Cardoso,et al.  Business Process Control-Flow Complexity: Metric, Evaluation, and Validation , 2008, Int. J. Web Serv. Res..

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

[138]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states—A family of empirical studies , 2009, Empirical Software Engineering.

[139]  Michael Derntl,et al.  Cognitive effectiveness of visual instructional design languages , 2010, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[140]  Nelson Goodman,et al.  Languages of Art, an Approach to a Theory of Symbols , 1970 .

[141]  Mario Piattini,et al.  The impact of structural complexity on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams , 2010, Inf. Sci..

[142]  Barbara Weber,et al.  The Impact of Testcases on the Maintainability of Declarative Process Models , 2011, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[143]  Guttorm Sindre,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Process Models: Empirical Testing of a Quality Framework , 2002, ER.

[144]  Sophie Dupuy-Chessa,et al.  Evaluating Choreographies in BPMN 2.0 Using an Extended Quality Framework , 2011, BPMN.

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

[146]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

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

[148]  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..

[149]  Michael Rebstock,et al.  Usability of Modelling Languages for Model Interpretation: An Empirical Research Report , 2011, Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[150]  Susanne Patig,et al.  A Practical Guide to Testing the Understandability of Notations , 2008, APCCM.

[151]  W.M.P. van der Aalst,et al.  Business Process Management: A Comprehensive Survey , 2013 .

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

[153]  Félix García,et al.  Towards thresholds of control flow complexity measures for BPMN models , 2011, SAC.

[154]  Subhasish Dasgupta,et al.  Individual Differences and Conceptual Modeling Task Performance: Examining the Effects of Cognitive Style, Self-efficacy, and Application Domain Knowledge , 2011, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[155]  David A. Carrington,et al.  UML collaboration diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension , 2002, Proceedings First International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis.

[156]  Jinwoo Kim,et al.  Why Are Some Diagrams Easier to Work With? : Effects of Diagrammatic Representation on the Cognitive Integration Process of Systems Analysis and Design , 1999 .

[157]  Jafar Habibi,et al.  A Semantic Framework for Business Process Modeling Based on Architecture Styles , 2012, 2012 IEEE/ACIS 11th International Conference on Computer and Information Science.

[158]  Patrick van Bommel,et al.  Elementary Patterns for Converting Textual and Visual Formalisms based on Set Theory and ORM , 2011, J. Digit. Inf. Manag..

[159]  Akhilesh Bajaj,et al.  COGEVAL: A Propositional Framework Based on Cognitive Theories To Evaluate Conceptual Models , 2004, CAiSE Workshops.

[160]  Ned Kock,et al.  An experimental study of process representation approaches and their impact on perceived modeling quality and redesign success , 2005, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

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

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

[163]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Comprehending Object and Process Models: An Empirical Study , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[164]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Using Practitioners for Assessing the Understandability of UML Statechart Diagrams with Composite States , 2007, ER Workshops.

[165]  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..

[166]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Measurement in business processes: a systematic review , 2010, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

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

[168]  Angelo Susi,et al.  reBPMN: Recovering and reducing business processes , 2012, 2012 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM).

[169]  Yair Wand,et al.  Towards Understanding the Process of Process Modeling: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations , 2011, Business Process Management Workshops.

[170]  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.

[171]  Barbara Weber,et al.  Investigating the Process of Process Modeling with Cheetah Experimental Platform , 2010, ER-POIS@CAiSE.

[172]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Defining and Validating Metrics for UML Statechart Diagrams , 2002 .

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

[174]  August-Wilhelm Scheer,et al.  ARIS - Business Process Frameworks , 1998 .

[175]  N. Goodman,et al.  Languages of art : an approach to a theory of symbols , 1979 .

[176]  Jinwoo Kim,et al.  A cognitive engineering study on the development of an object oriented process modeling formalism , 1997, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[177]  Peter Loos,et al.  Empirical research in business process management - analysis of an emerging field of research , 2010, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[178]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems research , 2006 .

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

[180]  Nigel P. Melville,et al.  Theories Used in Information Systems Research: Identifying Theory Networks in Leading IS Journals , 2009, ICIS.

[181]  David J. Gilmore,et al.  Comprehension and Recall of Miniature Programs , 1984, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..