Abstract
Through quantitative analysis, previous researches had proven a significant preference towards a specific set of notations for modeling business processes. The drawn conclusion revealed a significantly correlated coefficient preference to Norm Process Chart for using easily recognizable symbols to intuitively elicit clear understanding in representing business process models. Further interpretative analysis to qualitatively enhance these findings will only prove and strengthen the above claimed beyond reasonable doubt. The approach is to measure respondent level of accuracy in interpreting 3 different case studies modeled using 3 different modeling techniques shown to respondents in three different randomized sequences. The analysis includes correlating the finding against the time taken as well as respondents’ level of confidence in interpreting these models. The significantly correlated results again confirmed beyond reasonable doubt Norm Process Chart being respondents ultimate choice. Further comparative analysis between results from an earlier investigation against the latter, revealed similar patterns in respondents’ responses despite respondents dispersed ethnicity and educational backgrounds.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Bose R, Manvel B (1984) Introduction to combinatorial theory. Wiley, New York
Carter D (1997) Doing quantitative psychological research: from design to report. Psychology Press, Hove
Holt A, Ramsey H, Grimes J (1983) Coordination system technology as the basis for a programming environment. ITT Tech J (Electr Commun) 57(4):307–314
Howitt D, Cramer D (1999) A guide to computing statistics with SPSS for Windows—Version 8. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Indulska M, Recker J, Rosemann M, Green P (2009) Business process modeling: current issues and future challenges. In: van Eck P, Gordijn J, Wieringa R (eds) Advanced information systems engineering—CAiSE 2009, LNCS, vol 5565. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 501–514
Jaffar A, Rowland H, Alderson A, Flecther M (2003) An empirical comparison of some business processes notations. In: Arabnia HR (ed) International conference on information and knowledge engineering—IKE’03, CSREA Press, Las Vegas, pp 344–350
Joppe M (2010) The research process. http://www.htm.uoguelph.ca/MJResearch/ResearchProcess/default.html. Accessed Mar 2010
Knowledge Based Systems, Inc. (2010) A structured approach to enterprise modeling and analysis. http://www.idef.com/default.html. Accessed Mar 2010
Moody DL (2009) The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35(6):756–779
Ould M (1995) Business process modelling and analysis for reengineering and improvement. Wiley, New York
Research Methods Knowledge Base (2010) Likert scaling. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/scallik.php. Accessed Mar 2010
Acknowledgments
This research has been partially supported by the grant of GACR No. P202/10/0761.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this paper
Cite this paper
Al-wahaishi, S., Jaffar, A., Vondrák, I., Snášel, V., Pokorný, J. (2011). Preferences of Business Process Models: Interpretative Analysis on Spontaneously Common Symbols. In: Pokorny, J., et al. Information Systems Development. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9790-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9790-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-9645-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-9790-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)