Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support

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

BPMDS 2017, EMMSAD 2017: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling pp 153–168Cite as

Eye Tracking Experiments on Process Model Comprehension: Lessons Learned

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 287))

Abstract

For documenting business processes, there exists a plethora of process modeling languages. In this context, graphical process models are used to enhance the process comprehensibility of the stakeholders involved. The large number of available modeling languages, however, aggravates process model comprehension and increases the knowledge gap between domain and modeling experts. Upon this, one major challenge is to identify factors fostering the comprehension of process models. This paper discusses the experiences we gathered with the use of eye tracking in experiments on process model comprehension and the lessons learned in this context. The objective of the experiments was to study the comprehension of process models expressed in terms of four different modeling languages (i.e., BPMN, eGantt, EPC, and Petri Net). This paper further provides recommendations along nine identified categories that can foster related experiments on process model comprehension.

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.

    http://www.smivision.com/en/gaze-and-eye-tracking-systems/products/iview-x-hi-speed.html.

  2. 2.

    Sample material downloadable from: www.dropbox.com/sh/our1qp7vkpv020i/AABr3a24DwCKjWAU_2DDCIWMa?dl=0.

References

  1. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Task-specific visual cues for improving process model understanding. Inf. Softw. Technol. 79, 63–78 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Martini, M., Pinggera, J., Neuratuer, M., Sachse, P., Furtner, M., Weber, B.: The impact of working memory and the process of process modelling on model quality: investigating experienced versus inexperienced modellers. In: Scientific Reports, vol. 6 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Turetken, O., Rompen, T., Vanderfeesten, I., Dikici, A., Moll, J.: The effect of modularity representation and presentation medium on the understandability of business process models in BPMN. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 289–307. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Recker, J., Reijers, H.A., van de Wouw, S.G.: Process model comprehension: the effects of cognitive abilities, learning style and strategy. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34, 199–222 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: Proceedings of ACIS 2007, pp. 356–366 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: How visual cognition influences process model comprehension. Decis. Support Syst. 96, 1–16 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Döhring, M., Reijers, H.A., Smirnov, S.: Configuration vs. adaptation for business process variant maintenance: an empirical study. Inf. Syst. 39, 108–133 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bandara, W., Gable, G.G., Rosemann, M.: Factors and measures of business process modelling: model building through a multiple case study. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 14, 347–360 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ottensooser, A., Fekete, A., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Menictas, C.: Making sense of business process descriptions: an experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations. J. Syst. Softw. 85, 596–606 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Weber, B., Pinggera, J., Neurauter, M., Zugal, S., Martini, M., Furtner, M., Sachse, P., Schnitzer, D.: Fixation patterns during process model creation: initial steps toward neuro-adaptive process modeling environments. In: Proceedings of the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 600–609 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rodrigues, R.D.A., Barros, M.D.O., Revoredo, K., Azevedo, L.G., Leopold, H.: An experiment on process model understandability using textual work instructions and BPMN models. In: 29th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, pp. 41–50 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J.: Eye-tracking the factors of process model comprehension tasks. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 224–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38709-8_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Haisjackl, C., Barba, I., Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Hadar, I., Reichert, M., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Understanding declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results. Softw. Syst. 15, 325–352 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Recker, J.: Empirical investigation of the usefulness of gateway constructs in process models. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22, 673–689 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sánachez-González, L., Garcia, F., Ruiz, F., Mendling, J.: Quality indicators for business process models from a gateway complexity perspective. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 1159–1175 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kock, N., Verville, J., Danesh-Pajou, A., Deluca, D.: Communication flow orientation in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: results from a field study. Decis. Support Syst. 45, 562–575 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Figl, K., Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: The influence of notational deficiencies on process model comprehension. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 14, 312–338 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: The effects of content presentation format and user characteristics on novice developers’ understanding of process models. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 28, 65–84 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Figl, K., Strembeck, M.: Findings from an experiment on flow direction of business process models. In: International Workshop on EMISA 2015, pp. 59–73 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Figl, K., Laue, R.: Influence factors for local comprehensibility of process models. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 82, 96–110 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1532–1539 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Dobesova, Z., Malcik, M.: Workflow diagrams and pupil dilatation in eye tracking testing. In: Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Techniques Applications, pp. 59–64 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hogrebe, F., Gehrke, N., Nüttgens, M.: Eye tracking experiments in business process modeling: agenda setting and proof of concept. In: Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, pp. 183–188 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: Factors of process model comprehension - findings from a series of experiments. Decis. Support Syst. 53, 195–206 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Weitlaner, D., Guettinger, A., Kohlbacher, M.: Intuitive comprehensibility of process models. In: S-BPM ONE-running Processes, vol. 360, pp. 52–71 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jošt, G., Huber, J., Heričko, M., Polančič, G.: An empirical investigation of intuitive understandability of process diagrams. Comput. Stand. Interface 48, 90–111 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. SMI: iView X Hi-Speed (2016). http://www.smivision.com/en/gaze-and-eye-tracking-systems/products/iview-x-hi-speed.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2017

  34. Majaranta, P., Aoki, H., Donegan, M., Hansen, D.W., Hansen, J.P., Hyrskykari, A., Räihä, K.: Gaze Interaction and Applications of Eye Tracking: Advances in Assistive Technologies. IGI Global, Hershey (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Adept\(_{flex}\) – supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. J. Int. Inf. Syst. 10, 93–129 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang, W., Ding, H., Dong, J., Ren, C.: A comparison of business process modeling methods. In: International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, pp. 1136–1141 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Salvucci, D.D., Goldberg, J.H.: Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In: Proceedings of 2000 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research Application, pp. 71–78 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  38. OMG: Business Process Management and Notation 2.0 (2016). www.bpmn.org. Accessed 11 Oct 2016

  39. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41, 639–650 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Person, J.L.: Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sommer, M.: Zeitliche Darstellung und Modellierung von Prozessen mithilfe von Gantt-Diagrammen. Bachelors Thesis, Ulm University (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bernstein, V., Soffer, P.: Identifying and quantifying visual layout features of business process models. In: Gaaloul, K., Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., Guerreiro, S., Ma, Q. (eds.) CAISE 2015. LNBIP, vol. 214, pp. 200–213. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19237-6_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-05352-8_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models. Softw. Syst. Model. 14, 1081–1103 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Linden, D., Zamansky, A., Hadar, I.: How cognitively effective is a visual notation? On the inherent difficulty of operationalizing the physics of notations. In: Schmidt, R., Guédria, W., Bider, I., Guerreiro, S. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2016. LNBIP, vol. 248, pp. 448–462. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39429-9_28

    Google Scholar 

  46. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. J. Inf. Syst. 36, 881–897 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Koschmider, A., Reijers, H.A., Dijkman, R.: Empirical support for the usefulness of personalized process model views. In: Multikonf Wirtschaftsinformatik (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Claes, J., Vanderfessten, I., Pinggera, J., Reihers, H.A., Weber, B., Poels, G.: A visual analysis of the process of process modeling. Inf. Syst. e-Business Manage. 13, 147–190 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Figl, K.: Comprehension of procedural visual business process models. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59, 41–57 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mili, H., Tremblay, G., Jaoude, G.B., Lefebvre, É., Elabed, L., Boussaidi, G.E.: Business process modeling languages: sorting through the alphabet soup. ACM Comput. Surv. 43, 1–56 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Michael Zimoch, Rüdiger Pryss, Johannes Schobel & Manfred Reichert

Authors
  1. Michael Zimoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rüdiger Pryss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes Schobel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. 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. University of Haifa , Haifa, Israel

    Iris Reinhartz-Berger

  2. University of Duisburg-Essen , Duisburg, Germany

    Jens Gulden

  3. Université de Paris 1 Panthéon - Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Selmin Nurcan

  4. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Wided Guédria

  5. Saint Louis University , St. Louis, Missouri, USA

    Palash Bera

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zimoch, M., Pryss, R., Schobel, J., Reichert, M. (2017). Eye Tracking Experiments on Process Model Comprehension: Lessons Learned. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Gulden, J., Nurcan, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2017 2017. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 287. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59466-8_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation