Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Ability of Novice Modelers to Identify, Represent and Trace Strategic and Tactical Conceptual Elements in Business Process and Enterprise Modeling

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing. EDOC 2023 Workshops (EDOC 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 498))

  • 76 Accesses

Abstract

Many software professionals think about Business Process Modeling (BPM) as a way of representing all of the steps and details of a daily work execution. BPM is nevertheless also devoted to defining the broad outlines of a particular process and how internal improvements (like automation or worker support) can align with an organization’s business strategy. Business processes in their aggregated form (i.e. one entire business process represented by one black box element) do provide information on their scope (so can be seen as a tactical-level source of information) and, if mixed in a common representation with business objectives and goals, we can trace the impact of their execution, reengineering or IT-support on the strategy. Most of the work on the ability of novice modelers to represent a business process has focused on the operational perspective rather than the latter tactical and strategic ones. Evaluating the quality of higher level representations is also, to a large extend, an open issue. This paper aims to overview the performance of novice modelers when representing such tactical-level elements and tracing their strategic impact through a quasi-experiment. More specifically, subjects are given a complex case and have to draw a Business Use-Case Diagram which is a representation combining all of these elements. Results show that: (1) the proposed quality assessment is suitable when compared to a domain and modeling expert’s solution; (2) the cognitive style of modelers has no impact on the quality of the representations they produce.

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

Access this chapter

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 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 74.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The online appendix can be found at: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/ccn327m4g4/1.

References

  1. Alotaibi, Y.: Business process modelling challenges and solutions: a literature review. J. Intell. Manuf. 27(4), 701–723 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Wautelet, Y.: A model-driven it governance process based on the strategic impact evaluation of services. J. Syst. Softw. 149, 462–475 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aysolmaz, B., Reijers, H.A.: Use cases for understanding business process models. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10253, pp. 428–442. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59536-8_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Figl, K., Recker, J.: Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences for process representations. Req. Eng. 21(1), 63–85 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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. SW Tech. 58, 187–205 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Oppl, S.: Which concepts do inexperienced modelers use to model work?-an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of MKWI 2018 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Turetken, O., Vanderfeesten, I., Claes, J.: Cognitive style and business process model understanding. In: Metzger, A., Persson, A. (eds.) CAiSE 2017. LNBIP, vol. 286, pp. 72–84. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60048-2_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bolloju, N., Leung, F.S.: Assisting novice analysts in developing quality conceptual models with UML. Commun. ACM 49(7), 108–112 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dhillon, M.K., Dasgupta, S.: Individual differences and conceptual modeling task performance: examining the effects of cognitive style, self-efficacy, and application domain knowledge. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 483–496. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21759-3_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Eric, S.: Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software, vol. 10. Wiley, Chichester (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  12. O. UML, OMG (2017) unified modeling language version 2.5.1 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wahli, U., et al.: Building SOA solutions using the rational SDP. IBM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Johnston, S., et al.: Rational UML profile for business modeling. IBM Developer Works (2004). http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/5167.html

  15. 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 

  16. Wautelet, Y.: Using the RUP/UML business use case model for service development governance: a business and IT alignment based approach. In: 22nd IEEE Conference on Business Informatics, CBI, pp. 121–130. IEEE (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Monsalve, C., April, A., Abran, A.: Business process modeling with levels of abstraction. In: IEEE Colombian Conference on Communication and Computing (IEEE COLCOM 2015), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Weske, M.: Business Process Management Architectures. Springer, Cham (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Monsalve, C., April, A., Abran, A.: Requirements elicitation using BPM notations: focusing on the strategic level representation. ACACOS 11, 235–241 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  21. von Rosing, M., White, S., Cummins, F., de Man, H.: Business process model and notation-BPMN (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fettke, P.: How conceptual modeling is used. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 43 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dzepina, A., Lehner, F.: Business process model quality-results from a SLR (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reijers, H.A., Freytag, T., Mendling, J., Eckleder, A.: Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decis. Support Syst. 51(3), 339–349 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  26. Krogstie, J.: A semiotic approach to quality in requirements specifications. In: Liu, K., Clarke, R.J., Andersen, P.B., Stamper, R.K., Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (eds.) Organizational Semiotics. ITIFIP, vol. 94, pp. 231–249. Springer, Boston (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35611-2_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Krogstie, J.: Evaluating UML using a generic quality framework. In: UML and the Unified Process, pp. 1–22. IGI Global (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 91–102 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: A conceptual modeling quality framework. SW Qual. J. 20(1), 201–228 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moody, D.L., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T., Solvberg, A.: Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on SW Engineering, pp. 295–305. IEEE (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G.: Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In: Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Olivé, A. (eds.) Information System Concepts. IAICT, pp. 216–231. Springer, Boston, MA (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34870-4_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Frederiks, P.J., Van der Weide, T.P.: Information modeling: the process and the required competencies of its participants. Data Knowl. Eng. 58(1), 4–20 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. BPM J. (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Mendling, J., Neumann, G., van der Aalst, W.: Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 113–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76848-7_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Mendling, J., Verbeek, H., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M., Neumann, G.: Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP ref. model. Data Knwl. Eng. 64(1), 312–329 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89224-3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Allinson, C.W., Hayes, J.: The cognitive style index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. J. Manag. Stud. 33(1), 119–135 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Allinson, C., Hayes, J.: The cognitive style index: technical manual and user guide (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ornstein, R.E.: The psychology of consciousness (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wautelet, Y.: Representing, modeling and engineering a collaborative supply chain management platform. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Supply Chain Manag. 5(3), 1–23 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wautelet, Y., Kolp, M., Penserini, L.: Service-driven iterative software project management with I-Tropos. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 24(7), 975–1011 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  44. España, S., Condori-Fernandez, N., González, A., Pastor, Ó.: Evaluating the completeness and granularity of functional requirements specifications: a controlled experiment. In: 2009 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 161–170. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Ghazaleh Aghakhani & Manuel Kolp

  2. KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Koen Heeren, Yves Wautelet & Stephan Poelmans

Authors
  1. Ghazaleh Aghakhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Koen Heeren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yves Wautelet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephan Poelmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manuel Kolp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yves Wautelet .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Tiago Prince Sales

  2. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Sybren de Kinderen

  3. Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria

    Henderik A. Proper

  4. Technical University of Munich, Heilbronn, Germany

    Luise Pufahl

  5. University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Dimka Karastoyanova

  6. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Marten van Sinderen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Aghakhani, G., Heeren, K., Wautelet, Y., Poelmans, S., Kolp, M. (2024). On the Ability of Novice Modelers to Identify, Represent and Trace Strategic and Tactical Conceptual Elements in Business Process and Enterprise Modeling. In: Sales, T.P., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A., Pufahl, L., Karastoyanova, D., van Sinderen, M. (eds) Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing. EDOC 2023 Workshops . EDOC 2023. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 498. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54712-6_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54712-6_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-54711-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-54712-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation