The Effect of Modularity Representation and Presentation Medium on the Understandability of Business Process Models in BPMN

Many factors influence the creation of understandable business process models for an appropriate audience. Understandability of process models becomes critical particularly when a process is complex and its model is large in structure. Using modularization to represent such models hierarchically (e.g. using sub-processes) is considered to contribute to the understandability of these models. To investigate this assumption, we conducted an experiment that involved 2 large-scale real-life business process models that were modeled using BPMN v2.0 (Business Process Model and Notation). Each process was modeled in 3 modularity forms: fully-flattened, flattened where activities are clustered using BPMN groups, and modularized using separately viewed BPMN sub-processes. The objective is to investigate if and how different forms of modularity representation in BPMN collaboration diagrams influence the understandability of process models. In addition to the forms of modularity representation, we also looked into the presentation medium (paper vs. computer) as a factor that potentially influences model comprehension. Sixty business practitioners from a large organization participated in the experiment. The results of our experiment indicate that for business practitioners, to optimally understand a BPMN model in the form of a collaboration diagram, it is best to present the model in a ‘fully-flattened’ fashion (without using collapsed sub-processes in BPMN) in the ‘paper’ format.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8]  P. Harmon.  The State of Business Process Management , 2013 .

[9]  Kees M. van Hee,et al.  Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems , 2002, Cooperative information systems.

[10]  Graham J Hole,et al.  How to Design and Report Experiments , 2002 .

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

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

[13]  Agnes Koschmider,et al.  Visualising Process Model Hierarchies , 2013, ECIS.

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

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

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

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

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

[19]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? , 2011, MIS Q..

[20]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods , 2003, ECIS.

[21]  Frank Leymann,et al.  Workflow-Based Applications , 1997, IBM Syst. J..

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

[23]  Ron Weber,et al.  A model of systems decomposition , 1989, ICIS '89.

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

[25]  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.

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

[27]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using Ibm Spss Statistics , 2017 .