Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Conceptual Modeling

ER 2021: Conceptual Modeling pp 74–84Cite as

Top-Down Versus Operational-Only Business Process Modeling: An Experimental Evaluation of the Approach Leading to Higher Quality Representations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 13011))

Abstract

Business process modeling (BPMo) is of primary importance for assessing the current state of an organizations’ practices to discover inefficiencies, redesign business processes, and build software solutions. High-quality representations best capture the true nature of the organization. This paper investigates the hypothesis of whether Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Business Process Diagrams (BPDs) created through a Top-Down Modeling Approach (TDMA) are of higher quality than those made from an operational perspective only. An experiment was conducted where novice modelers were to model a case based on a textual description. The test group used the TDMA by first modeling strategic, tactical aspects using a Business Use-Case Model (BUCM) before the operational realization with BPMN BPDs. In contrast, the control group did not use the BUCM. Representations were then evaluated for overall semantic and syntactic quality by extracting metrics from known literature. Both groups have similar syntactic quality at a granular level. Nevertheless, BPMN BPDs created using TDMA are more complete: required tasks in process execution are significantly more present. An increase in completeness can be beneficial in understanding complex organizations and facilitate modular software development. Alternatively, the diagrams were significantly more complex with more linearly independent paths within workflows than needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Amoako-Gyampah, K., Salam, A.F.: An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Inf. Manag. 41(6), 731–745 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arndt, S., Magnotta, V.: Generating random series with known values of Kendall’s tau. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 65(1), 17–23 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Avila, D.T., dos Santos, R.I., Mendling, J., Thom, L.H.: A systematic literature review of process modeling guidelines and their empirical support. BPM J. (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Corradini, F., et al.: A guidelines framework for understandable BPMN models. Data Knowl. Eng. 113, 129–154 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. De Meyer, P., Claes, J.: An overview of process model quality literature-the comprehensive process model quality framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07930 (2018)

  8. Dikici, A., Turetken, O., Demirors, O.: Factors influencing the understandability of process models: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 93, 112–129 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gassen, J.B., Mendling, J., Thom, L.H., de Oliveira, J.P.M.: Business process modeling: vocabulary problem and requirements specification. In: SIGDOC 2014, pp. 1–10 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Krogstie, J., et al.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 91–102 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89224-3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. de Oca, I.M.M., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., Rodríguez-Morffi, A.: A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Inf. Soft. Technol. 58, 187–205 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Overhage, S., Birkmeier, D.Q., Schlauderer, S.: Qualitätsmerkmale,-metriken und-messverfahren für geschäftsprozessmodelle. Wirtschaftsinformatik 54(5), 217–235 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pinggera, J., et al.: Modeling styles in business process modeling. In: Bider, I., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 151–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31072-0_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Recker, J.: Business process quality management. In: Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 167–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00416-2_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. BPM J. 12, 249–254 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A.: Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson, Harlow (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schmidt, D.: Guest editor’s introduction: model-driven engineering. Computer 39(2), 25–31 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vanderfeesten, I., Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Van der Aalst, W.: Quality metrics for business process models. BPM Workflow Handb. 144, 179–190 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wautelet, Y.: Using the RUP/UML business use case model for service development governance: a business and it alignment based approach. In: CBI2020, vol. 2, pp. 121–130 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wautelet, Y., Poelmans, S.: Aligning the elements of the RUP/UML business use-case model and the BPMN business process diagram. In: Grünbacher, P., Perini, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2017. LNCS, vol. 10153, pp. 22–30. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Wautelet, Y., Poelmans, S.: An integrated enterprise modeling framework using the RUP/UML business use-case model and BPMN. In: Poels, G., Gailly, F., Serral Asensio, E., Snoeck, M. (eds.) PoEM 2017. LNBIP, vol. 305, pp. 299–315. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70241-4_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Pavani Vemuri, Yves Wautelet, Stephan Poelmans & Simon Verwimp

  2. HEC Liège, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Samedi Heng

Authors
  1. Pavani Vemuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yves Wautelet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephan Poelmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Simon Verwimp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Samedi Heng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pavani Vemuri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing and IT, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

    Aditya Ghose

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers | University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Jennifer Horkoff

  3. Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil

    Vítor E. Silva Souza

  4. Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada

    Jeffrey Parsons

  5. Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada

    Joerg Evermann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Vemuri, P., Wautelet, Y., Poelmans, S., Verwimp, S., Heng, S. (2021). Top-Down Versus Operational-Only Business Process Modeling: An Experimental Evaluation of the Approach Leading to Higher Quality Representations. In: Ghose, A., Horkoff, J., Silva Souza, V.E., Parsons, J., Evermann, J. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13011. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89022-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89022-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89021-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89022-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation