The Influence of Using Collapsed Sub-processes and Groups on the Understandability of Business Process Models

Many factors influence the creation of business process models which are understandable for a target audience. Understandability of process models becomes more critical when size and complexity of the models increase. Using vertical modularization to decompose such models hierarchically into modules is considered to improve their understandability. To investigate this assumption, two experiments were conducted. The experiments involved 2 large-scale real-life business process models that were modeled using BPMN v2.0 (Business Process Model and Notation) in the form of collaboration diagrams. 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 was to investigate if and how different forms of modularity representation (used for vertical modularization) in BPMN collaboration diagrams influence the understandability of process models. In addition to the forms of modularity representation, the presentation medium (paper vs. computer) and model reader’s level of business process modeling competency were investigated as factors that potentially influence model comprehension. 60 business practitioners from a large organization and 140 graduate students participated in our experiments. The results indicate that, when these three modularity representations are considered, it is best to present the model in a ‘flattened’ form (with or without the use of groups) and in the ‘paper’ format in order to optimally understand a BPMN model. The results also show that the model reader’s business process modeling competency is an important factor of process model comprehension.

[1]  Agnes Koschmider,et al.  Automatic User Assistance For Business Process Modeling , 2007, RCIS.

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

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

[4]  Kathrin Figl Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models , 2017, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[5]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Experimentation in Software Engineering , 2012, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[6]  Agnes Koschmider,et al.  User Assistance For Business Process Model Decomposition , 2007 .

[7]  John Krogstie,et al.  Quality in Business Process Modeling , 2016, Springer International Publishing.

[8]  Irene T. P. Vanderfeesten,et al.  Cognitive Style and Business Process Model Understanding , 2017, CAiSE Workshops.

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

[10]  Ron Weber,et al.  Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  Onur Demirörs,et al.  Factors influencing the understandability of process models: A systematic literature review , 2018, Inf. Softw. Technol..

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

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

[14]  John Krogstie,et al.  Quality of Business Process Models , 2012, PoEM.

[15]  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.

[16]  Jan van Moll,et al.  Subject-oriented plural method meets BPMN: a case study , 2015, S-BPM ONE.

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

[18]  Geert Poels,et al.  Understanding Business Domain Models: The Effect of Recognizing Resource-Event-Agent Conceptual Modeling Structures , 2011, J. Database Manag..

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

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

[21]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Business Process Quality Management , 2015, Handbook on Business Process Management.

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

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

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

[25]  Robert Heinrich Business Process Quality , 2014 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[32]  Onur Demirörs,et al.  Business Process Modeling Pluralized , 2013, S-BPM ONE.

[33]  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.

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

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

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

[37]  Mario Piattini,et al.  A conceptual modeling quality framework , 2011, Software Quality Journal.

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

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

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

[41]  Paul Bellis,et al.  Theoretical Foundations , 2021, Hinduism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[50]  Alberto Trombetta,et al.  BPMN: An introduction to the standard , 2012, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

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

[52]  Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn,et al.  Influential Characteristics of Enterprise Information System User Interfaces , 2019, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[53]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Handbook on Business Process Management 1: Introduction, Methods, and Information Systems , 2010, BPM 2010.

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