Abstract
With the growing investments in getting to know and controlling their business processes, organizations produce many business process models. These models have become crucial instruments in the process lifecycle and therefore it is important that they are correct and clear representations of reality. They should contain as few errors and confusions as possible. Because we assume a causal relation between confusion and errors, we investigated it empirically. For our observation group, the data shows a correlation and temporal ordering between both. More in detail, avoiding implicit and redundant events and gateways is related with making less errors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For details, see the 2015 experiment at https://www.janclaes.info/experiments.
- 2.
Statistically significant result.
- 3.
Results are not statistically significant.
References
Moreno-Montes De Oca, I., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., et al.: A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Inf. Softw. Technol. 58, 187–205 (2015)
Aguilar-Savén, R.S.: Business process modelling: review and framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 90, 129–149 (2004)
Recker, J.: Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Bus. Process Manag. J. 16, 181–201 (2010)
Grosskopf, A., Edelman, J., Weske, M.: Tangible business process modeling – methodology and experiment design. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 489–500. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12186-9_46
Hassan, N., Recker, J., Bernhard, E.: A study of the use of business process modelling at Suncorp, Brisbane, Australia (2011)
Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: What business process modelers can learn from programmers. Sci. Comput. Program. 65, 4–13 (2007)
Mendling, J., Verbeek, H.M.W., Van Dongen, B.F., et al.: Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model. Data Knowl. Eng. 64, 312–329 (2008)
Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Gailly, F., et al.: The structured process modeling method (SPMM) - what is the best way for me to construct a process model? Decis. Support Syst. 100, 57–76 (2017)
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_35
De Bock, J., Claes, J.: The origin and evolution of syntax errors in simple sequence flow models in BPMN. In: Matulevičius, R., Dijkman, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2018. LNBIP, vol. 316, pp. 155–166. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92898-2_13
Figl, K.: Comprehension of procedural visual business process models - a literature review. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59, 41–71 (2017)
De Meyer, P., Claes, J.: An overview of process model quality literature - The Comprehensive Process Model Quality Framework (2018)
Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45594-9_3
Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 127–136 (2010)
Mendling, J., Sánchez-González, L., García, F., et al.: Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models. J. Syst. Softw. 85, 1188–1197 (2012)
Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Ruiz, F., et al.: Quality indicators for business process models from a gateway complexity perspective. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 1159–1174 (2012)
La Rosa, M., Ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Wohed, P., et al.: Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics. 7, 255–265 (2011)
La Rosa, M., Wohed, P., Mendling, J., et al.: Managing process model complexity via abstract syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics. 7, 614–629 (2011)
Bolle, J., Claes, J.: Investigating the trade-off between the effectiveness and efficiency of process modeling. In: Daniel, F., Sheng, Quan Z., Motahari, H. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNBIP, vol. 342, pp. 121–132. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11641-5_10
Chen, C.: Top 10 unsolved information visualization problems. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 25, 12–16 (2005)
Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero, M., et al.: A conceptual modeling quality framework. Softw. Qual. J. 20, 201–228 (2012)
Rockwell, S., Bajaj, A.: COGEVAL: applying cognitive theories to evaluate conceptual models. Adv. Top. Database Res. 4, 255–282 (2005)
Rogers, Y., Scaife, M.: How can interactive multimedia facilitate learning? In: Lee, J. (ed.) 1st International Workshop on Intelligence and Multimodality in Multimedia Interfaces. Research and Applications, pp. 1–25. AAAI (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Claes, J., Vandecaveye, G. (2019). The Impact of Confusion on Syntax Errors in Simple Sequence Flow Models in BPMN. In: Proper, H., Stirna, J. (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops. CAiSE 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 349. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20948-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20948-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20947-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20948-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)