Why a Diagram is Only Sometimes Worth a Thousand Words : An Analysis of the BPMN 2 . 0 Visual Notation

The Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) has recently emerged as an international standard for modelling business processes. This is one of the most important developments in the history of the IS field, which has the potential to unify the business process management (BPM) field in the same way UML has unified software engineering. Like most business process modelling notations, BPMN is a visual language: it uses diagrams as the primary means for documenting, analysing, communicating and designing business processes. This paper conducts a systematic analysis of the BPMN 2.0 visual notation using a theory for visual notation design (the Physics of Notations). The analysis reveals some serious flaws in the BPMN visual notation, which represent potential barriers to its usability and effectiveness in practice, particularly for communicating with end users. The conclusion from our analysis is that radical surgery is required for BPMN 2.0 to achieve its goal of providing a common language for communicating between business and technical experts. A broader goal of this paper is to raise awareness about the importance of visual representation in IS modelling, which has historically received little scientific attention. Finally, the paper demonstrates how a design theory can be used to improve IS practice.

[1]  Colin Wheildon,et al.  Type & Layout: Are You Communicating or Just Making Pretty Shapes? , 2005 .

[2]  Ray Welland,et al.  Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of entity relationship notations , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  David John Jankowski,et al.  A cognitive information processing and information theory approach to diagram clarity: A synthesis and experimental investigation , 1999, J. Syst. Softw..

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

[5]  J. Sweller.  COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY, LEARNING DIFFICULTY, AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN , 1994 .

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

[7]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Understanding corporate data models , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[8]  C. P. Goodman,et al.  The Tacit Dimension , 2003 .

[9]  E. Tansley,et al.  Using ontology to validate conceptual models , 2003, CACM.

[10]  Jintae Lee,et al.  Design Rationale Systems: Understanding the Issues , 1997, IEEE Expert.

[11]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[12]  Martina Ziefle,et al.  It ’ s a bunch of shapes connected by lines ” : Evaluating the Graphical Notation System of Business Process Modeling Languages , 2009 .

[13]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  The role of working memory on graphical information processing , 1997, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[14]  David A. Carrington,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Aesthetics-based Graph Layout , 2002, Empirical Software Engineering.

[15]  Marc M. Lankhorst,et al.  Enterprise Architecture at Work - Modelling, Communication and Analysis, 2nd Edition , 2005, The Enterprise Engineering Series.

[16]  Carlos A. Maldonado,et al.  Do Common User Interface Design Patterns Improve Navigation? , 2002 .

[17]  Steve Hitchman,et al.  The Details of Conceptual Modelling Notations are Important - A Comparison of Relationship Normative Language , 2002, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Keng Siau,et al.  Unified Modeling Language: A Complexity Analysis , 2001, J. Database Manag..

[19]  I. Spence.  Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  Jinwoo Kim,et al.  How Do We Understand a System with (So) Many Diagrams? Cognitive Integration Processes in Diagrammatic Reasoning , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  William Winn,et al.  An Account of How Readers Search for Information in Diagrams , 1993 .

[22]  Michael Scaife,et al.  Cognitive Science Approaches To Understanding Diagrammatic Representations , 2001, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[23]  Daniel Moody,et al.  What Makes a Good Diagram? Improving the Cognitive Effectiveness of Diagrams in IS Development , 2006 .

[24]  W. Winn,et al.  Encoding and retrieval of information in maps and diagrams , 1990 .

[25]  Laura R. Novick.  The Importance of Both Diagrammatic Conventions and Domain-Specific Knowledge for Diagram Literacy in Science: The Hierarchy as an Illustrative Case , 2006, Diagrams.

[26]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[27]  Patrick Heymans,et al.  Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation , 2010, Requirements Engineering.

[28]  Elazar J. Pedhazur,et al.  Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach , 1994 .

[29]  Corin A. Gurr,et al.  Effective Diagrammatic Communication: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Issues , 1999, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[30]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars , 1993, Inf. Syst. J..

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

[32]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge–Wand–Weber Model , 2002, Software and Systems Modeling.

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

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

[35]  R. Atkinson,et al.  Structuring the Transition From Example Study to Problem Solving in Cognitive Skill Acquisition: A Cognitive Load Perspective , 2003 .

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

[37]  Donald F. Dansereau,et al.  The Effect of Animated Node-Link Displays on Information Recall , 2000 .

[38]  Jacques Bertin,et al.  Semiology of Graphics - Diagrams, Networks, Maps , 2010 .

[39]  Jiajie Zhang,et al.  Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[40]  P. Kidwell,et al.  The mythical man-month: Essays on software engineering , 1996, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing.

[41]  Steven M. Crooks,et al.  Learning Effects of Print and Digital Geographic Maps , 2002 .

[42]  P. Quinlan.  Visual feature integration theory: past, present, and future. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[43]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Abstract Planning and Perceptual Chunks: Elements of Expertise in Geometry , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[44]  T Boersema,et al.  Evaluation of a set of graphic symbols. , 1983, Applied ergonomics.

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

[46]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Anatomy of a Design Theory , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[47]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Using Iconic Graphics in Entity-Relationship Diagrams: The Impact on Understanding , 2008, J. Database Manag..

[48]  Ravindra S. Goonetilleke,et al.  Effects of training and representational characteristics in icon design , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[50]  David Harel,et al.  On visual formalisms , 1988, CACM.

[51]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  Cognitive evaluation of system representation diagrams , 1995, Inf. Manag..

[52]  Iris Vessey,et al.  The Role of Cognitive Fit in the Relationship Between Software Comprehension and Modification , 2006, MIS Q..

[53]  Jock D. Mackinlay,et al.  Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information , 1986, TOGS.

[54]  Werner Esswein,et al.  Toward a formal research framework for ontological analyses , 2007, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[55]  Guy Fitzgerald,et al.  Information systems development: methodologies, techniques and tools (3rd edition) , 2003 .

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

[57]  Lera Boroditsky,et al.  Do English and Mandarin Speakers Think Differently About Time , 2008 .

[58]  E. Tufte,et al.  The visual display of quantitative information , 1984, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

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

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

[61]  Mary Elizabeth Lynch,et al.  The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences , 1988 .

[62]  William C. Howell,et al.  Population stereotypy in code design , 1968 .

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

[64]  Pourang Irani,et al.  Diagramming information structures using 3D perceptual primitives , 2003, TCHI.

[65]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[66]  Stephen Michael Kosslyn,et al.  Graph Design for the Eye and Mind , 2006 .

[67]  Richard R. Weber.  Ontological Foundations of Information Systems: Coopers and Lybrand , 1997 .

[68]  Pourang Irani,et al.  Using Perceptual Syntax to Enhance Semantic Content in Diagrams , 2001, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[69]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

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

[71]  James Gaston Bloodsworth.  Legibility of Print. , 1993 .

[72]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

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

[74]  Fred P. Brooks,et al.  The Mythical Man-Month , 1975, Reliable Software.

[75]  David D. Woods,et al.  How Experienced Users Avoid Getting Lost in Large Display Networks , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[76]  N. Goodman,et al.  Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols , 1971 .

[77]  Peter C.-H. Cheng,et al.  Why Diagrams Are (Sometimes) Six Times Easier than Words: Benefits beyond Locational Indexing , 2004, Diagrams.

[78]  Andrew Fish,et al.  Visual qualities of the Unified Modeling Language:Deficiencies and Improvements , 2007, IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2007).

[79]  Wayne Citrin.  Strategic directions in visual languages research , 1996, CSUR.

[80]  Edward Rolf Tufte,et al.  The visual display of quantitative information , 1985 .

[81]  C. K. Ogden.  A Source Book Of Gestalt Psychology , 2013 .

[82]  D. L. Moody.  Dealing with "Map Shock": A Systematic Approach to Managing Complexity in Requirements Analysis , 2006 .

[83]  M. Wertheimer.  Laws of organization in perceptual forms. , 1938 .

[84]  Martha E. Crosby,et al.  The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation , 1999, Inf. Syst. J..

[85]  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 .

[86]  Alex White,et al.  The Elements of Graphic Design: Space, Unity, Page Architecture, and Type , 2002 .

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

[88]  A. Treisman.  Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[89]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Complexity effects on end user understanding of data models : An experimental comparison of large data model representation methods , 2002, ECIS.

[90]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[91]  Jon Oberlander.  Grice for graphics: Pragmatic implicature in network diagrams , 1995 .

[92]  Christopher Alexander.  Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1964 .

[93]  Keng Siau,et al.  Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modeling Methods , 2004, J. Database Manag..

[94]  Jonathan Rosenhead,et al.  Soft Systems Methodology in Action , 1991 .

[95]  John F. Sowa,et al.  Extending and Formalizing the Framework for Information Systems Architecture , 1992, IBM Syst. J..

[96]  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.