Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support

International Conference on Evaluation and Modeling Methods of Systems Analysis and Development

BPMDS 2016, EMMSAD 2016: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling pp 97–112Cite as

Considering Social Distance as an Influence Factor in the Process of Process Modeling

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 248))

Abstract

Enterprise repositories comprise numerous business process models either created by in-house domain experts or external business analysts. To enable a widespread use of these process models, high model quality (e.g., soundness) as well as a sufficient level of granularity are crucial. Moreover, they shall reflect the actual business processes properly. Existing modeling guidelines target at creating correct and sound process models, whereas there is only little work dealing with cognitive issues influencing model creation by process designers. This paper addresses this gap and presents a controlled experiment investigating the construal level theory in the context of process modeling. In particular, we investigate the influence the social distance of a process designer to the modeled domain has on the creation of process models. For this purpose, we adopt and apply a gamification approach, which enables us to show significant differences between low and high social distance with respect to the quality, granularity, and structure of the created process models. The results obtained give insights into how enterprises shall compose teams for creating and evolving process models.

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   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The full data set can be found in http://bit.ly/1VB2aS3.

  2. 2.

    According to [39], \(\alpha>\) 0.6 acceptable reliability; 0.7 < \({\alpha }\) <0.9 good reliability.

References

  1. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Refactoring large process model repositories. Comput. Ind. 62(5), 467–486 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. In: Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans. pp. 1–14 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(3), 243–276 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) BIS 2008. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 142–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. BPM Research Cluster: Cheetah Experimental Platform (2016). http://bpm.q-e.at/?page_id=56

  10. Figl, K., Weber, B.: Individual creativity in designing business processes. In: Bajec, M., Eder, J. (eds.) CAiSE Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 112, pp. 294–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Figl, K., Laue, R.: Cognitive complexity in business process modeling. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 452–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., Wakslak, C.: Construal levels and psychological distance: effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 17, 83–95 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Todorov, A., Goren, A., Trope, Y.: Probability as a psychological distance: construal and preferences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43, 473–482 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Trope, Y., Liberman, N.: Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117, 440–463 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Day, S., Bartels, D.: Representation over time: the effects of temporal distance on similarity. Cognition 106, 1504–1513 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Liberman, N., Sagristano, M.D., Trope, Y.: The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 523–534 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fujita, K., Henderson, M.D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N.: Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychol. Sci. 17, 278–282 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pronin, E., Olivola, C.Y., Kennedy, K.A.: Doing unto future selves as you would do unto others: psychological distance and decision making. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 224–236 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kolb, J., Zimoch, M., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: How social distance of process designers affects the process of process modeling: insights from a controlled experiment. In: Proceedings of the SAC 2014. pp. 1364–1370 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.: From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification". In: MindTrek 2015. pp. 9–15 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zichermann, G., Cunningham, C.: Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bartle, R.A.: Designing Virtual Worlds. New Riders, Berkeley (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Davis, A., Khazanchi, D., Murphy, J., Zigurs, I., Owens, D.: Avatars, people, and virtual worlds: foundations for research in metaverses. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10, 90–117 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Moody, D.L.: The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Krogstie, J.: Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems. Springer, London (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Holschke, O., Rake, J., Levina, O.: Granularity as a cognitive factor in the effectiveness of business process model reuse. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 245–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: On application of structural decomposition for process model abstraction. In: Proceedings of the BPSC 2009. pp. 110–122 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moody, D.L.: Cognitive load effects on end user understanding of conceptual models: an experimental analysis. In: Benczúr, A.A., Demetrovics, J., Gottlob, G. (eds.) ADBIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3255, pp. 129–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Wolf, C., Harmon, P.: The state of business process management 2012. In: BPTrends Report (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38, 33–44 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Recker, J., Safrudin, N., Rosemann, M.: How novices model business processes. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 29–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Rittgen, P.: Quality and Perceived Usefulness of Process Models. In: Proceedings of the 24th Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2010). pp. 65–72 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mendling, J., Neumann, G.: Error Metrics for Business Process Models. In: Proceedings of the CAISE 2007. pp. 53–56 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering - An Introduction. Kluwer, Norwell (2000)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Höst, M., Regnell, B., Wohlin, C.: Using students as subjects a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empirical Softw. Eng. 5, 201–214 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Svahnberg, M., Aurum, A., Wohlin, C.: Using students as subjects - an empirical evaluation. In: ESEM 2008, ACM. pp. 288–290 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kline, P.: Handbook of Psychological Testing, vol. 2. Routledge, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sirkin, M.: Statistics for the Social Sciences, vol. 3. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tversky, A., Kahnemann, D.: Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn. Psychol. 5, 207–232 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kyung, E.J., Menon, G., Trope, Y.: Construal level and temporal judgments of the past: the moderating role of knowledge. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 21, 734–739 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Aguilar, E.R., Sanchez, L., Carballeira, F.G., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M., Caivano, D., Visaggio, G.: Prediction models for BPMN usability and maintainability. In: Proceedings of the CEC 2009. pp. 383–390 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model. Soft Syst. Model. 14, 1055–1080 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Aparicio, A.F., Vela, F.L.G., Sánchez, J.L.G., Montes, J.L.I.: Analysis and application of gamification. In: New Trends in Interaction, Virtual Reality and Modeling, Human-Computer Interaction Series. pp. 113–126 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Santorum, M., Front, A., Rieu, D.: ISEAsy: a social business process management platform. In: Lohmann, N., Song, M., Wohed, P. (eds.) BPM 2013 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 171, pp. 125–137. Springer, Switzerland (2014)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Brito, T.P., Paes, J., Moura, A.B.: Game-based learning in IT service transition. In: Proceedings of the CSEDU 2014. pp. 110–116 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Brown, R.A.: Conceptual modelling in 3D virtual worlds for process communication. In: Proceedings of the APCCM 2010. pp. 25–32 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  50. West, S., Brown, R.A., Recker, J.C.: Collaborative Business Process Modeling Using 3D Virtual Environments. In: Proceedings of the APCCM. pp. 51–60 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kathleen, N., Brown, R.A., Kriglstein, S.: Storyboard augmentation of process model grammars for stakeholder communication. In: Proceedings of the IVAPP 2014. pp. 114–121 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Databases and Information Systems, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany

    Michael Zimoch, Jens Kolb & Manfred Reichert

Authors
  1. Michael Zimoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jens Kolb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manfred Reichert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Zimoch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Munich University of Applied Scienc, Munich, Germany

    Rainer Schmidt

  2. Luxembourg Inst. of Science & Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Wided Guédria

  3. Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Ilia Bider

  4. Univ. Lusófona de Humanidades e Techn., Lisboa, Portugal

    Sérgio Guerreiro

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zimoch, M., Kolb, J., Reichert, M. (2016). Considering Social Distance as an Influence Factor in the Process of Process Modeling. In: Schmidt, R., Guédria, W., Bider, I., Guerreiro, S. (eds) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2016 2016. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 248. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39429-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation