Empirical investigation of the usefulness of Gateway constructs in process models

Process modeling grammars are used to create scripts of a business domain that a process-aware information system is intended to support. A key grammatical construct of such grammars is known as a Gateway. A Gateway construct is used to describe scenarios in which the workflow of a process diverges or converges according to relevant conditions. Gateway constructs have been subjected to much academic discussion about their meaning, role and usefulness, and have been linked to both process-modeling errors and process-model understandability. This paper examines perceptual discriminability effects of Gateway constructs on an individual's abilities to interpret process models. We compare two ways of expressing two convergence and divergence patterns – Parallel Split and Simple Merge – implemented in a process modeling grammar. On the basis of an experiment with 98 students, we provide empirical evidence that Gateway constructs aid the interpretation of process models due to a perceptual discriminability effect, especially when models are complex. We discuss the emerging implications for research and practice, in terms of revisions to grammar specifications, guideline development and design choices in process modeling.

[1]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Workflow Patterns , 2004, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[2]  Bill C. Hardgrave,et al.  Comparing Object-Oriented and Extended-Entity-Relationship Data Models , 1995 .

[3]  Jan Recker,et al.  Teaching Business Process Modelling: Experiences and Recommendations , 2009, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[4]  Ekkart Kindler,et al.  Liveness, Fairness, and Recurrence in Petri Nets , 1999, Inf. Process. Lett..

[5]  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..

[6]  Keng Siau,et al.  Identifying Difficulties in Learning Uml , 2006, Inf. Syst. Manag..

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

[8]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

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

[10]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction , 1991 .

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

[12]  Marta Indulska,et al.  How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? , 2006, Data Knowl. Eng..

[13]  Peter Meso,et al.  The Effects of Decomposition Quality and Multiple Forms of Information on Novices' Understanding of a Domain from a Conceptual Model , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Representing part-whole relations in conceptual modeling: an empirical evaluation , 2008 .

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

[16]  W. M. P. V. D. Aalsta,et al.  YAWL : yet another workflow language , 2015 .

[17]  Mark von Rosing,et al.  Business Process Model and Notation - BPMN , 2015, The Complete Business Process Handbook, Vol. I.

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

[19]  W. Winn.  Encoding and retrieval of information in maps and diagrams , 1990 .

[20]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Fundamentals of control flow in workflows , 2003, Acta Informatica.

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

[22]  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.

[23]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

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

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

[26]  R. Carey,et al.  Understanding instructions. , 1992, Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN.

[27]  Yair Wand,et al.  Assigning Ontological Meaning to Workflow Nets , 2010, J. Database Manag..

[28]  Jeffrey Parsons.  An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representing Property Precedence on the Comprehension of Conceptual Schemas , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[29]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Verifying Workflows with Cancellation Regions and OR-joins: An Approach Based on Relaxed Soundness and Invariants , 2007, Comput. J..

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

[31]  Wil M.P. van der Aalst,et al.  YAWL: yet another workflow language , 2005, Inf. Syst..

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

[33]  Geert Poels,et al.  Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions , 2007, Data Knowl. Eng..

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

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

[36]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures , 2007 .

[37]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Investigations on Soundness Regarding Lazy Activities , 2006, Business Process Management.

[38]  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.

[39]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

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

[41]  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.

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

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

[44]  Ekkart Kindler,et al.  On the semantics of EPCs: Resolving the vicious circle , 2006, Data Knowl. Eng..

[45]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Graphics and Human Information Processing: A Review of Five Books , 1985 .

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

[47]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Comparing a rule-based approach with a pattern-based approach at different levels of complexity of conceptual data modelling tasks , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[48]  F. Schmidt,et al.  General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[50]  Ute Beyer,et al.  Process-Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology , 2005 .

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

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

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

[54]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management , 1998, J. Circuits Syst. Comput..

[55]  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..

[56]  Jefry J. Machesky,et al.  Data Analysis and Learning: An Experimental Study of Data Modeling Tools , 1989, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[57]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Towards Understanding Process Modeling - The Case of the BPM Academic Initiative , 2011, BPMN.

[58]  August-Wilhelm Scheer,et al.  ARIS - Business Process Modeling , 1998 .

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

[60]  Ron Weber,et al.  Guidelines for Empirical Evaluations of Conceptual Modeling Grammars , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[61]  Xianggui Qu,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis , 2007, Technometrics.

[62]  Jan Recker,et al.  Continued use of process modeling grammars: the impact of individual difference factors , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

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

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

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

[66]  Chechen Liao,et al.  The impact of data models and task complexity on end-user performance: an experimental investigation , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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