Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Quality Issues in BPMN Models: an Exploratory Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (BPMDS 2015, EMMSAD 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 214))

Abstract

Even though considerable progress regarding the technical perspective on modeling and supporting business processes has been achieved, it appears that the human perspective is still often left aside. In particular, we do not have an in-depth understanding of how process models are inspected by humans, what strategies are taken, and what cognitive processes are involved. This paper takes a first step towards such an understanding and reports an exploratory study investigating how humans identify quality issues in BPMN process models. Providing preliminary answers to initial research questions, we also indicate other research questions that can be investigated using this approach. Our qualitative analysis shows that humans adapt different strategies on how to identify quality issues. Finally, we observed for different quality dimensions quality issues that were spotted by a large number of subjects (e.g., deadlocks), but also quality issues that did not seem to bother the participants of this study (e.g., line crossings).

This research is supported by Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P23699-N23, P26140–N15

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Rittgen, P.: Quality and perceived usefulness of process models. Proc. SAC 2010, pp. 65–72 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Scheer, A.W.: ARIS–Business Process Modeling, 3rd ed. Springer (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Refactoring large process model repositories. Computers in Industry 62, 467–486 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mendling, J.: Empirical studies in process model verification. In: Jensen, K., van der Aalst, W.M.P. (eds.) Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency II. LNCS, vol. 5460, pp. 208–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Recker, J.: Activity Labeling in Process Modeling: Empirical Insights and Recommendations. Information Systems 35, 467–482 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosa, M.L., ter Hofstede, A., Wohed, P., Reijers, H., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.P.: Managing Process Model Complexity via Concrete Syntax Modifications. IEEE Trans. Industrial Informatics 7, 255–265 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wynn, M.T., Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Business process verification - finally a reality!. Business Proc. Manag. Journal 15, 74–92 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Soffer, P., Kaner, M.: Complementing business process verification by validity analysis: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. J. Database Manag. 22, 1–23 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Krogstie, J.: Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems: A Quality Approach. Springer (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Koehler, J., Vanhatalo, J.: Process Anti-Patterns: How to Avoid the Common Traps of Business Process Modeling. Technical report, IBM ZRL Research Report 3678 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction and Guidelines for Correctness. Springer (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Roy, S., Sajeev, A., Bihary, S., Ranjan, A.: An Empirical Study of Error Patterns in Industrial Business Process Models. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 99(2013). doi:10.1109/TSC.2013.10

  14. Soffer, P., Kaner, M., Wand, Y.: Towards understanding the process of process modeling: theoretical and empirical considerations. In: Proc. ER-BPM 2011. (2011) 357–369

    Google Scholar 

  15. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A Study into the Factors that Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A 41, 449–462 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models. Software & Systems Modeling 1–23 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B.: Assessing the impact of hierarchy on model understandability-a cognitive perspective. In: Proc. EESSMod 2011, pp. 123–133 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schrepfer, M., Wolf, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: The impact of secondary notation on process model understanding. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 161–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Information & Software Technology 52, 127–136 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., La Rosa, M., Uba, R.: Fast Detection of Exact Clones in Repositories of Business Process Models. Information Systems 38, 619–633 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Purchase, H.: Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding? In: Proc. GD 1997. (1997) 248–261

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bassey, M.: Case study research in educational settings. Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Open University Press (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zugal, S., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Empirical Evaluation of Test Driven Modeling. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 4, 23–43 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, P.C.V., Park, S.J.: Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge. Information Systems Research 17, 81–99 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Figl, K., Strembeck, M.: On the importance of flow direction in business process models (2014) Poster presented at ICSOFT-EA

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schoenfeld, A.H., Herrmann, D.: Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition 8, 484–494 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Recker, J.: Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with bpmn. Business Process Management Journal 16, 181–201 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Costain, G.F.: Cognitive Support During Object oriented Software Development: The Case of UML Diagrams, Ph.D thesis, University of Auckland (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nielsen, J.: Estimating the number of subjects needed for a thinking aloud test. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 41, 385–397 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kühne, S., Kern, H., Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Business process modeling with continuous validation. JSEP 22, 547–566 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Becker, M., Laue, R.: A comparative survey of business process similarity measures. Computers in Industry 63, 148–167 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Levenshtein, W.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 707–710 (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., van Dongen, B.F., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36, 498–516 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: The ICoP framework: identification of correspondences between process models. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 483–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Consistency Measurement Based on Behavioral Profiles of Process Models. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 37, 410–429 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Smirnov, S., Reijers, H., Weske, M.: From fine-grained to abstract process models: A semantic approach. Inf. Syst. 37, 784–797 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Cornelia Haisjackl, Jakob Pinggera, Stefan Zugal, Shao Yi Lim & Barbara Weber

  2. University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Pnina Soffer

Authors
  1. Cornelia Haisjackl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jakob Pinggera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pnina Soffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Zugal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shao Yi Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Barbara Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Zugal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Luxembourg Institute of Science & Technology, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Khaled Gaaloul

  2. Munich University of Applied Sciences, Munich, Germany

    Rainer Schmidt

  3. Université Paris 1 Panthéon – Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Selmin Nurcan

  4. Lusofona University, Lisbon, Portugal

    Sérgio Guerreiro

  5. Luxembourg Institute of Science & Technology, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Qin Ma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Zugal, S., Lim, S.Y., Weber, B. (2015). Identifying Quality Issues in BPMN Models: an Exploratory Study. In: Gaaloul, K., Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., Guerreiro, S., Ma, Q. (eds) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2015 2015. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 214. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19237-6_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19237-6_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19236-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19237-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation