Identifying and Quantifying Visual Layout Features of Business Process Models

Business process models abstract complex business processes by representing them as graphical models. Their layout, solely determined by the modeler, affects their understandability. It would be beneficial to systematically study this effect and support the construction of understandable models. However, this requires a basic set of measureable key visual features, depicting the layout properties that are meaningful to the human user. The aim of this research is thus twofold. First, to empirically identify key visual features of business process models which are perceived as meaningful to the user. Second, to quantify the features into metrics, which are applicable to business process models. The paper reports an exploratory study which resulted in a set of key visual layout features. The metrics derived from these features are presented and demonstrated by applying them to example models.

[1]  Michael Havey,et al.  Essential business process modeling , 2005 .

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

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

[4]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness , 2008, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.

[5]  Jan Mendling.  Validation of Metrics as Error Predictors , 2008 .

[6]  Ron Weber,et al.  Ontological Clarity, Cognitive Engagement, and Conceptual Model Quality Evaluation: An Experimental Investigation , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[8]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  A linear time layout algorithm for business process models , 2014, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

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

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

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

[12]  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.

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

[14]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Quality metrics for business process models , 2007 .

[15]  Helen C. Purchase,et al.  Metrics for Graph Drawing Aesthetics , 2002, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[16]  Leif Singer,et al.  A Simple Algorithm for Automatic Layout of BPMN Processes , 2009, 2009 IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing.

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

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

[19]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

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

[21]  Michael Himsolt,et al.  Comparing and Evaluating Layout Algorithms within GraphEd , 1995, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[22]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[23]  Stefanie Rinderle-Ma,et al.  Business Process Visualization - Use Cases, Challenges, Solutions , 2006, ICEIS.

[24]  Kozo Sugiyama,et al.  Layout Adjustment and the Mental Map , 1995, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[25]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Edges, Structure, and Constraints: The Layout of Business Process Models , 2011 .

[26]  Ross Brown,et al.  Visualization Support for Managing Large Business Process Specifications , 2005, Business Process Management.

[27]  A. Stinchcombe.  Information and Organizations , 2019 .

[28]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft , 2007, Inf. Organ..

[29]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Business Process Modeling- A Comparative Analysis , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[30]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  Designing Interfaces with Social Presence: Using Vividness and Extraversion to Create Social Recommendation Agents , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[31]  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.

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

[33]  A. Twycross.  Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches Creswell John W Sage 320 £29 0761924426 0761924426 [Formula: see text]. , 2004, Nurse researcher.

[34]  E. Taylor-Powell,et al.  Analyzing Qualitative Data , 2003 .

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