The impact of secondary notation on process model understanding

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

Volumn 39 LNBIP, Issue , 2009, Pages 161-175

  Schrepfer, Matthias ^a   Wolf, Johannes ^a   Mendling, Jan ^a   Reijers, Hajo A ^b  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Modeling expertise; Process modeling; Secondary notation

Indexed keywords

PATTERN RECOGNITION; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

BUSINESS PROCESS; BUSINESS PROCESS MODELING; COMPREHENSION; EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION; PROCESS MODEL; PROCESS MODELING; SECONDARY NOTATION; VISUAL NOTATIONS; BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; VISUAL CUES;

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING; PROCESS ENGINEERING;

EID: 84876373188     PISSN: 18651348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-05352-8_13     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5-51 (2003)
2. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Lassen, K.B.: Translating unstructured workflow processes to readable BPEL: Theory and implementation. Information and Software Technology 50(3), 131-159 (2008)
3. Agarwal, R., De, P., Sinha, A.P.: Comprehending object and process models: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4), 541-556 (1999) (Pubitemid 129304117)
4. Rolón Aguilar, E., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: An exploratory experiment to validate measures for business process models. In: First International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS (2007)
5. Aranda, J., Ernst, N., Horkoff, J., Easterbrook, S.: A framework for empirical evaluation of model comprehensibility. In: MISE 2007: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering,Washington, DC, USA, p. 7. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)
6. Bandara, W., Gable, G.G., Rosemann, M.: Critical success factors of business process modeling (2007)
7. Batra, D., Wishart, N.A.: Comparing a rule-based approach with a pattern-based approach at different levels of complexity of conceptual data modelling tasks. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 61(4), 397-419 (2004)
8. Bonner, S.E., Pennington, N.: Cognitive processes and knowledge as determinants of auditor expertise. Journal of Accounting Literature 10(1), 1-50 (1991)
9. Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.: How good are these uml diagrams? an empirical test of the wand and weber good decomposition model. In: Applegate, L., Galliers, R., DeGross, J.I. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), pp. 101-114 (2002)
10. Byron, L., Wattenberg, M.: Stacked graphs - geometry & aesthetics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14(6), 1245-1252 (2008)
11. Cardoso, J.: Evaluating Workflows and Web Process Complexity. In: Workflow Handbook 2005, pp. 284-290. Future Strategies, Inc. (2005)
12. Chase, W.G., Simon, H.A.: The mind's eye in chess. Visual Information Processing (1973)
13. Chattratichart, J., Kuljis, J.: Some Evidence for Graphical Readership, Paradigm Preference, and the Match-Mismatch Conjecture in Graphical Programs. In: 13th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (2001)
14. Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering 58(3), 358-380 (2006) (Pubitemid 43994225)
15. Dehnert, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Bridging The Gap Between Business Models AndWorkflow Specifications. International J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 13(3), 289-332 (2004) (Pubitemid 39503058)
16. Ericsson, K.A., Lehmann, A.C.: Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology 47(1), 273-305 (1996) (Pubitemid 126416109)
17. Gilmore, D.J., Green, T.R.G.: Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 21(1), 31-48 (1984) (Pubitemid 15103096)
18. Green, T.M., Ribarsky, W., Fisher, B.: Building and applying a human cognition model for visual analytics. Information Visualization 8(1), 1-13 (2009)
19. Hahn, J., Kim, J.: Why are some diagrams easier to work with? effects of diagrammatic representation on the cognitive integration process of systems analysis and design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 6 (1999)
20. Horowitz, P., Hill, W.: The art of electronics, 2nd edn. University Press, Cambridge (1989)
21. Reijers, H.A., Seese, D., Melcher, J., Mendling, J.: On measuring the understandability of process models. In: Proceedings of BPM Workshops 2009 - ER-BPM Workshop. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear)
22. Kovalyov, A., Esparza, J.: A polynomial algorithm to compute the concurrency relation of free-choice signal transition graphs. In: Prof. of the International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, WODES 1996, Edinburgh, pp. 1-6 (1996)
23. Lakhotia, A.: Understanding someone else's code: Analysis of experiences. Journal of Systems and Software 23(3), 269-275 (1993)
24. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48-63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
25. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) BIS 2008. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 142- 153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
26. Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
27. Moher, T.G., Mak, D.C., Blumenthal, B., Leventhal, L.M.: Comparing the Comprehensibility of Textual and Graphical Programs: The Case of Petri Nets. In: Cook, C.R., Scholtz, J.C., Spohrer, J.C. (eds.) Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fifth Workshop: Papers Presented at the Fifth Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers, December 3-5, pp. 137-161. Ablex Pub. (1993)
28. Petre, M.: Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38(6), 33-44 (1995)
29. Petre, M.: Cognitive dimensions 'beyond the notation'. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 17(4), 292-301 (2006)
30. Purchase, H.C.: Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding? In: Di Battista, G. (ed.) GD 1997. LNCS, vol. 1353, pp. 248-261. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
31. Purchase, H.C., McGill, M., Colpoys, L., Carrington, D.: Graph drawing aesthetics and the comprehension of uml class diagrams: an empirical study. In: APVis 2001: Proceedings of the 2001 Asia-Pacific symposium on Information visualisation, Darlinghurst, Australia, pp. 129-137. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2001)
32. Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? an experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: Toleman, M., Cater-Steel, A., Roberts, D. (eds.) 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 356-366. The University of Southern Queensland (2007)
33. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Modularity in process models: Review and effects. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 20-35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
34. Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mulyar, N.: Workflow Control-Flow Patterns: A Revised View. BPM Center Report BPM-06-22, BPMcenter. org (2006)
35. Sarshar, K., Loos, P.: Comparing the control-flow of EPC and petri net from the end-user perspective. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 434-439. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) (Pubitemid 41490786)
36. TheFreeDictionary.com. Expertise (2009)
37. White, S.A.: Introduction to BPMN. BPTrends (July 2004)
38. zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 465-479. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)