Empirical investigation of the usefulness of gateway constructs in process models

European Journal of Information Systems

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 673-689

  Recker, Jan ^a  

^a QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Gateway constructs; process model comprehension; process modeling; visual expressiveness

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

BUSINESS DOMAIN; DISCRIMINABILITY; EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION; PARALLEL SPLIT; PROCESS MODEL UNDERSTANDABILITY; PROCESS MODELING; PROCESS-AWARE INFORMATION SYSTEMS; VISUAL EXPRESSIVENESS;

PROCESS ENGINEERING;

EID: 84887105855     PISSN: 0960085X     EISSN: 14769344     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2012.50     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. BATRA D and WISHART NA (2004) Comparing a rule-based approach with a pattern-based approach at different levels of complexity of conceptual data modelling tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 61(4), 397-419.
2. BODART F, PATEL A, SIM M andWEBER R (2001) Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Information Systems Research 12(4), 384-405.
3. BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006) Business Process Modeling Notation Specification. Final Adopted Specification. Object Management Group, [WWW document] http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/OMG-Final-Adopted-BPMN-1-0-Spec-06-02-11.pdf, (accessed 20 February 2012).
4. BRITTON C and JONES S (1999) The untrained eye: how languages for software specification support understanding in untrained users. Human-Computer Interaction 14(1), 191-244.
5. BURTON-JONES A andMESO P (2008) The effects of decomposition quality and multiple forms of information on novices' understanding of a domain from a conceptual model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(12), 784-802.
6. BURTON-JONES A, WAND Y and WEBER R (2009) Guidelines for empirical evaluations of conceptual modeling grammars. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(6), 495-532
7. CHANDLER P and SWELLER J (1991) Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction 8(4), 293-332.
8. CHENG PC-H, MARRIOTT K and SHIMOJIMA A (2004) Why diagrams are (sometimes) six times easier than words: benefits beyond locational indexing. In Diagrammatic Representation and Inference (BLACKWELL AF, Ed), pp 167-174, Springer, Cambridge, England.
9. DAVIES I, GREEN P, ROSEMANN M, INDULSKA M and GALLO S (2006) How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering 58(3), 358-380.
10. DEBEVOISE T and GENEVA R (2008) The Microguide to Process Modeling in BPMN. BookSurge Publishing, Charleston, SC.
11. DUMAS M, VAN DER AALST WMP and TER HOFSTEDE AHM (Eds) (2005) Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software through Process Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
12. FAUL F, ERDFELDER E, LANG A-G and AXEL B (2007) G Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39(2), 175-191.
13. GEMINO A and WAND Y (2004) A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering 9(4), 248-260.
14. GEMINO A and WAND Y (2005) Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55(3), 301-326.
15. HAIR JF, BLACK WC, BABIN BJ and ANDERSON RE (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
16. HARDGRAVE BC and DALAL NP (1995) Comparing object-oriented and extended-entity-relationship data models. Journal of Database Management 6(3), 15-21.
17. HITCHMAN S (2002) The details of conceptual modelling notations are important-a comparison of relationship normative language. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 9(10), 167-179.
18. IRANI P, TINGLEY M and WARE C (2001) Using perceptual syntax to enhance semantic content in diagrams. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 21(5), 76-85.
19. JARVENPAA SL and MACHESKY JJ (1989) Data analysis and learning: an experimental study of data modeling tools. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 31(4), 367-391.
20. KIEPUSZEWSKI B, TER HOFSTEDE AHM and VAN DER AALST WMP (2003) Fundamentals of control flow in workflows. Acta Informatica 39(3), 143-209.
21. KINDLER E (2005) On the semantics of EPCs: resolving the vicious circle. Data & Knowledge Engineering 56(1), 23-40.
22. KINDLER E and VAN DER AALST WMP (1999) Liveness, fairness, and recurrence. Information Processing Letters 70(6), 269-274.
23. KOCK N, VERVILLE J, DANESH-PAJOU A and DELUCA D (2009) Communication flow orientation in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: results from a field study. Decision Support Systems 46(2), 562-575.
24. KOSSLYN SM (1985) Graphics and human information processing. Journal of the American Statistical Association 80(391), 499-512.
25. KUNZE M, LUEBBE A, WEIDLICH M and WESKE M (2011) Towards understanding process modeling-the case of the BPM academic initiative. In Business Process Model and Notation: 3rd International Workshop (DIJKMAN RM, HOFSTETTER J and KOEHLER J, Eds), pp 44-58, Springer, Lucerne, Switzerland.
26. LARKIN JH and SIMON HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11(1), 65-100.
27. LIAO C and PALVIA PC (2000) The impact of data models and task complexity on end-user performance: an experimental investigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52(5), 831-845.
28. LOHSE GL (1997) The role of working memory on graphical information processing. Behaviour and Information Technology 16(6), 297-308.
29. MAES A and POELS G (2007) Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 63(3), 769-792.
30. MARCUS N, COOPER M and SWELLER J (1996) Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology 88(1), 49-63.
31. MENDLING J (2008) Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction and Guidelines for Correctness. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
32. MENDLING J, REIJERS H and VAN DER AALST WMP (2010a) Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology 52(2), 127-136.
33. MENDLING J, REIJERS HA and RECKER J (2010b) Activity labeling in process modeling: empirical insights and recommendations. Information Systems 35(4), 467-482.
34. MENDLING J, SANCHEZ-GONZALEZ L, GARCIA F and LA ROSA M (2012a) Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models. Journal of Systems and Software 85(5), 1188-1197.
35. MENDLING J, STREMBECK M and RECKER J (2012b) Factors of process model comprehension-findings from a series of experiments. Decision Support Systems 53(1), 195-206.
36. MILLER GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2), 81-97
37. MOODY DL (2009) The 'Physics' of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6), 756-779.
38. NEWELL A and SIMON HA (1972) Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
39. OMG (2011) Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN)-Version 2.0. Object Management Group [WWW document] http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/, (accessed 17 March 2011).
40. PARSONS J (2011) An experimental study of the effects of representing property precedence on the comprehension of conceptual schemas. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 12(6), 401-422.
41. PETRE M (1995) Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Communications of the ACM 38(6), 33-44.
42. PUHLMANN F andWESKE M (2006) Investigations on soundness regarding lazy activities. In Business Process Management-BPM 2006 (DUSTDAR S, FIADEIRO JL and SHETH AP, Eds), pp 145-160, Springer, Vienna, Austria.
43. PURCHASE HC, WELLAND R, MCGILL M and COLPOYS L (2004) Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of entity relationship notations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 61(2), 187-203.
44. RECKER J (2010) Continued use of process modeling grammars: the impact of individual difference factors. European Journal of Information Systems 19(1), 76-92.
45. RECKER J and DREILING A (2011) The effects of content presentation format and user characteristics on novice developers' understanding of process models. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 28(6), 65-84.
46. RECKER J and ROSEMANN M (2009) Teaching business process modeling-experiences and recommendations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 25(32), 379-394.
47. RECKER J, ROSEMANN M, INDULSKA M and GREEN P (2009) Business process modeling: a comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(4), 333-363.
48. REIJERS HA, FREYTAG T, MENDLING J and ECKLEDER A (2011a) Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decision Support Systems 51(3), 339-349.
49. REIJERS HA and MENDLING J (2011) A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man & Cybernetics, Part A 41(3), 449-462.
50. REIJERS HA, MENDLING J and DIJKMAN RM (2011b) Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Information Systems 36(5), 881-897.
51. SCHEER A-W (2000) ARIS-Business Process Modeling. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
52. SCHMIDT FL and HUNTER J (2004) General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86(1), 162-173.
53. SHANKS G, TANSLEY E, NUREDINI J, TOBIN D and WEBER R (2008) Representing part-whole relations in conceptual modeling: an empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly 32(3), 553-573.
54. SIAU K (2004) Informational and computational equivalence in comparing information modeling methods. Journal of Database Management 15(1), 73-86.
55. SIAU K and LOO P-P (2006) Identifying difficulties in learning UML. Information Systems Management 23(3), 43-51.
56. SILVER B (2009) BPMN Method and Style: A Levels-based Methodology for BPM Process Modeling and Improvement Using BPMN 2.0. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos, CA.
57. SOFFER P, KANER M and WAND Y (2010) Assigning ontological meaning to workflow nets. Journal of Database Management 21(3), 1-35.
58. TREISMAN AM and GELADE G (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology 12(1), 97-136.
59. VAN DER AALST WMP (1998) The application of petri nets to workflow management. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 8(1), 21-66.
60. VAN DER AALST WMP and TER HOFSTEDE AHM (2005) YAWL: yet another workflow language. Information Systems 30(4), 245-275.
61. VAN DER AALST WMP, TER HOFSTEDE AHM, KIEPUSZEWSKI B and BARROS AP (2003) Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5-51.
62. VERBEEK HMV, VAN DER AALST WMP and TER HOFSTEDE AHM (2007) Verifying workflows with cancellation regions and OR-joins: an approach based on relaxed soundness and invariants. The Computer Journal 50(3), 294-314.
63. WESKE M (2007) Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
64. WHITE SA and MIERS D (2008) BPMN Modeling and Reference Guide. Future Strategies, Lighthouse Point, FL.
65. WINN WD (1990) Encoding and retrieval of information in maps and diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 33(3), 103-107.
66. WINN WD (1993) An account of how readers search for information in diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology 18(2), 162-185.