The effect of modularity representation and presentation medium on the understandability of business process models in BPMN

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 9850 LNCS, Issue , 2016, Pages 289-307

  Turetken, Oktay ^a   Rompen, Tessa ^b   Vanderfeesten, Irene ^a   Dikici, Ahmet ^c   Van Moll, Jan ^b  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b PHILIPS RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (Germany)

^c SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF TURKEY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

BPMN; Business process model; Comprehension; Group; Modularity; Sub process; Understandability

Indexed keywords

ENTERPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; MODULAR CONSTRUCTION;

BPMN; BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; COMPREHENSION; GROUP; MODULARITY; SUB PROCESS; UNDERSTANDABILITY;

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA PROCESSING;

EID: 84990050289     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_17     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
2. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. -Part A Syst. Hum. 41, 449-462 (2011)
3. Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: On the theoretical foundations of research into the understandability of business process models. In: ECIS 2014, pp. 1-38 (2014)
4. Recker, J.: Empirical investigation of the usefulness of Gateway constructs in process models. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22, 673-689 (2012)
5. Sanchez-Gonzalez, L., Garcia, F., Ruiz, F., Mendling, J.: Quality indicators for business process models from a gateway complexity perspective. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 1159-1174 (2012)
6. Zugal, S., et al.: Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models. Softw. Syst. Model. 14, 1081-1103 (2013)
7. 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)
8. Moody, D.L.: Cognitive load effects on end user understanding of conceptual models: an experimental analysis. In: Benczúr, A.A., Demetrovics, J., Gottlob, G. (eds.) ADBIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3255, pp. 129-143. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
9. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36, 881-897 (2011)
10. Figl, K., Koschmider, A., Kriglstein, S.: Visualising process model hierarchies. In: ECIS 2013, p. 180 (2013)
11. Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Workflow-based applications. IBM Syst. J. 36, 102-123 (1997)
12. van der Aalst, W., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)
13. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Assessing the impact of hierarchy on model understandability -a cognitive perspective. In: Kienzle, J. (ed.) MODELS 2011 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 7167, pp. 123-133. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
14. Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Understanding understandability of conceptual models -what are we actually talking about? In: Atzeni, P., Cheung, D., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2012 Main Conference 2012. LNCS, vol. 7532, pp. 64-77. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
15. Johannsen, F., Leist, S., Braunnagel, D.: Testing the impact of wand and weber’s decomposition model on process model understandability. In: ICIS 2014, pp. 1-13 (2014)
16. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: A model of systems decomposition. In: ICIS 1989 (1989)
17. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states—A family of empirical studies. Empir. Softw. Eng. 14, 685-719 (2009)
18. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) EMMSAD 2012 and BPMDS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 167-181. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
19. Wolf, C., Harmon, P.: The State of Business Process Management. BP Trends, Newton (2014)
20. Field, A., Hole, G.: How to Design and Report Experiments. SAGE Publications Ltd., Los Angeles (2003)
21. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: Factors of process model comprehension—findings from a series of experiments. Decis. Support Syst. 53, 195-206 (2012)
22. Melcher, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Seese, D., Laue, R., Gadatsch, A.: Measuring the understandability of business process models -are we asking the right questions? In: Muehlen, M., Su, J. (eds.) BPM 2010 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 66, pp. 37-48. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
23. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319-340 (1989)
24. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425-478 (2003)
25. Moody, D.L.: The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: ECIS 2003 Proceedings, Paper 79 (2003)
26. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M.: Do ontological deficiencies in modeling grammars matter? MIS Q. 35, 57-79 (2011)
27. Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE Publications Ltd., Los Angeles (2013)