Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model

Software and Systems Modeling

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 1055-1080

  Pinggera, Jakob ^a   Soffer, Pnina ^b   Fahland, Dirk ^c   Weidlich, Matthias ^d   Zugal, Stefan ^a   Weber, Barbara ^a   Reijers, Hajo A ^c,f   Mendling, Jan ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^c EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^d TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^e VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

^f Hyland Software   (United States)

Author keywords

Business process modeling; Cluster analysis; Modeling styles; Process of process modeling

Indexed keywords

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; SEMANTICS; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

BUSINESS PROCESS; BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; CONCEPTUAL MODEL; LARGE-SCALE MODELING; MODEL CREATION; PRAGMATIC QUALITIES; PROCESS MODELING; QUALITY ASPECTS;

PROCESS ENGINEERING;

EID: 84940959323     PISSN: 16191366     EISSN: 16191374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10270-013-0349-1     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Aguilar, E., Ruiz, F., García, F., Piattini, M.: Evaluation measures for business process models. In: Proceedings of the SAC ’06, pp. 1567–1568 (2006)
2. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: Proceedings of the BPM, vol. 1806 of LNCS, pp. 241–262. Springer (2000)
3. Brooks, R.: Towards a theory of the cognitive processes in computer programming. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 9, 737–751 (1977)
4. Cant, S., Jeffery, D., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A conceptual model of cognitive complexity of elements of the programming process. Inf Softw Technol 37(7), 351–362 (1995)
5. Cardoso, J.: Business process control-flow complexity: metric, evaluation, and validation. Int. J. Web Serv. Res. 5(2), 49–76 (2008)
6. Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I.T.P., Reijers, H.A., Pinggera, J., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Fahland, D., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Poels, G.: Tying process model quality to the modeling process: the impact of structuring, movement, and speed. In: Proceedings of the BPM ’12, pp. 33–48 (2012)
7. Crapo, A.W., Waisel, L.B., Wallace, W.A., Willemain, T.R.: Visualization and the process of modeling: a cognitive-theoretic view. In: Proceedings of the KDD ’00, pp. 218–226 (2000)
8. Frederiks, P., Weide, T.: Information modeling: the process and the required competencies of its participants. Data Knowl. Eng. 58(1), 4–20 (2006)
9. Gray, P.: Psychology. Worth Publishers, UK (2007)
10. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: Proceedings of the ICBIS ’10, pp. 1–12 (2006)
11. Guindon, R.: Designing the design process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5(2), 305–344 (1990)
12. Guindon, R., Curtis, B.: Control of cognitive processes during software design: what tools are needed?. In: Proceedings of the CHI ’88, pp. 263–268 (1988)
13. Hamerly, G., Elkan, C.: Alternatives to the k-means algorithm that find better clusterings. In: Proceedings of the CIKM ’02, pp. 600–607 (2002)
14. Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H., Weide, T.: A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In: Proceedings of the ER ’05, pp. 128–143 (2005)
15. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. EJIS 15(1), 91–102 (2006)
16. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. 11(1), 65–100 (1987)
17. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994)
18. MacQueen, J.: Some methods of classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of the Berkeley Symposium on Mathemtical Statistics and Probability, pp. 281–297 (1967)
19. McCracken, M.W.: Models of designing: understanding software engineering education from the bottom up. In: Proceedings of the CSEET ’02, pp. 55–63, (2002)
20. Mendling, J.: Metrics for process models: empirical foundations of verification, error prediction, and guidelines for correctness. Springer (2008)
21. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Proceedings of the BPM ’07, pp. 48–63 (2007)
22. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)
23. Mendling, J., Verbeek, H., van Dongen, B., van der Aalst, W., Neumann, G.: Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 312–329 (2008)
24. Miller, G.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63, 81–97 (1956)
25. Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(3), 243–276 (2005)
26. Moody, D.L.: The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)
27. Morris, W.T.: On the art of modeling. Manag. Sci. 13(12), B-707–B-717 (1967)
28. Newell, A.: Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1990)
29. Newell, A., Simon, H.: Human Problem Solving. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1972)
30. Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educ. Psychol. 38(1), 1–4 (2003)
31. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Gerven, P.W.M.V.: Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ. Psychol. 38(1), 63–71 (2003)
32. Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM, 38(6), 33–44 (1995)
33. Pinggera, J., Furtner, M., Martini, M., Sachse, P., Reiter, K., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the process of process modeling with eye movement analysis. In: Proceedings of the ER-BPM ’12, pp. 438–450 (2013)
34. Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Fahland, D., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Modeling styles in business process modeling. In: Proceedings of the BPMDS ’12, pp. 151–166 (2012)
35. Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the process of process modeling with cheetah experimental platform. In: Proceedings of the ER-POIS’10, pp. 13–18 (2010)
36. Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: How the structuring of domain knowledge can help casual process modelers. In: Proceedings of the ER ’10, pp. 445–451 (2010)
37. Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weidlich, M., Fahland, D., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Tracing the process of process modeling with modeling phase diagrams. In: Proceedings of the ER-BPM ’11, pp. 370–382 (2012)
38. Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A 41(3), 449–462 (2011)
39. Rittgen, P.: Negotiating models. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE ’07, pp. 561–573 (2007)
40. Rolón, E., Cardoso, J., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Analysis and validation of control-flow complexity measures with bpmn process models. Enterp. Bus.-Process Inf. Syst. Model. 29, 58–70 (2009)
41. Shanteau, J.: How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychol. 81(1), 75–86 (1992)
42. Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods-a review and comparative analysis. Inf. Syst. J. 21(3), 249–268 (2011)
43. Soffer, P., Kaner, M., Wand, Y.: Towards understanding the process of process modeling: theoretical and empirical considerations. In: Proceedings of the ER-BPM ’11, pp. 357–369 (2011)
44. Stirna, J., Persson, A., Sandkuhl, K.: Participative enterprise modeling: experiences and recommendations. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE ’07, pp. 546–560 (2007)
45. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12(2), 257–285 (1988)
46. Tegarden, D.P., Sheetz, S.D.: Cognitive activities in OO development. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud. 54, 779–798 (2001)
47. Tracz, W.: Computer programming and the human thought process. Softw. Pract. Exp. 9(2), 127–137 (1979)
48. Van der Aalst, W., Ter Hofstede, A.: Verification of workflow task structures: a petri-net-baset approach. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 43–69 (2000)
49. van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14, 5–51 (2003)
50. Willemain, T.R.: Model formulation: what experts think about and when. Oper. Res. 43(6), 916–932 (1995)
51. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B.: Assessing the impact of hierarchy on model understandability—a cognitive perspective. In: Proceedings of the EESSMod ’11, pp. 123–133 (2011)
52. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H., Reichert, M.U., Weber, B.: Making the case for measuring mental effort. In: Proceedings of the EESSMod ’12, pp. 37–42 (2012)
53. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Assessing process models with cognitive psychology. In: Proceedings of the EMISA ’11, pp. 177–182 (2011)
54. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models. In: Proceedings of the BPMDS ’12, pp. 167–181 (2012)