Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Suitability of BPMN Correct Usage by Users with Different Profiles: An Empirical Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2017 (ICCSA 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10404))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A declared purpose of the BPMN standard was to provide a business process modeling language, amenable of being used for modelers regardless of their technical background. This aim was intended to be achieved by extensive documentation of the syntax rules of the notation, as well as by proposed best practices for process modeling from practitioners. The wide acceptance of BPMN standard seems to accomplished the mentioned purpose, namely when considering its usage in business oriented process documentation and improvement scenarios, as well as in IT implementation of process diagrams supported by software tools. However, a relevant question can be raised regarding the correctness of business process diagrams produced by modelers with different profiles. This issue is important since the conformance of produced process diagrams to the syntax rules of the language determines the quality of the modeling process whatever its purpose is. Therefore, the main aim of this work was to gather statistical evidence that could validate the assertion that, BPMN diagrams, they have the same level of correctness, irrespective of the technical profile of people involved in modeling tasks. This paper reports a between-groups empirical study with business-oriented and IT-oriented profiles modelers.

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 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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). dtc/2010-05-04 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dumas, M., et al. (eds.): Process-Aware Information Systems. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Erl, T.: SOA: Principles of Service Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Indulska, M., et al.: Measuring method complexity: the case of the business process modeling notation. BPM Center Report (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style. Cody-Cassidy Press, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jedlitschka, A., Pfahl, D.: Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE 2005), pp. 95–104. IEEE Computer Society, (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kitchenham, B.A., et al.: Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(8), 721–734 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Basili, V.R., et al.: The goal question metric approach. Encycl. Softw. Eng. 2, 528–532 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  9. AcademyHealth: Research Methods and Techniques. http://www.hsrmethods.org/glossary.aspx. Accessed May 2014

  10. Correia, A.: Quality of process modeling using BPMN: a model-driven approach. Ph.D. thesis, DI, UNL-FCT, Lisboa (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bass, L., et al.: Software Architecture in Practice. Addison-Wesley/Pearson Education, Boston/Upper Saddle River (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Richters, M., Gogolla, M.: Validating UML models and OCL constraints. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 265–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi:10.1007/3-540-40011-7_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Gogolla, M., Bohling, J., Richters, M.: Validation of UML and OCL models by automatic snapshot generation. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 265–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45221-8_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Aguilar, E.R., et al.: Evaluation measures for business process diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1567–1568. ACM (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rolon, E., et al.: Prediction diagrams for BPMN usability and maintainability. In: IEEE Conference on Proceedings of the Commerce and Enterprise Computing, CEC 2009, pp. 383–390. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Birkmeier, D., Overhage, S.: Is BPMN really first choice in joint architecture development? An empirical study on the usability of BPMN and UML activity diagrams for business users. In: Heineman, G.T., Kofron, J., Plasil, F. (eds.) QoSA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6093, pp. 119–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13821-8_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Recker, J.C., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by Portuguese funds through the Center of Naval Research (CINAV), Portuguese Naval Academy, Portugal.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CINAV, Alfeite, 2810-001, Almada, Portugal

    Anacleto Correia

  2. INESC-ID, UL-IST, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1, 1048-001, Lisbon, Portugal

    António Gonçalves

Authors
  1. Anacleto Correia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. António Gonçalves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anacleto Correia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Osvaldo Gervasi

  2. University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy

    Beniamino Murgante

  3. Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria

    Sanjay Misra

  4. University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

    Giuseppe Borruso

  5. Polytechnic University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Carmelo M. Torre

  6. University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Ana Maria A.C. Rocha

  7. Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

    David Taniar

  8. Kyushu Sangyo University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Bernady O. Apduhan

  9. Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia

    Elena Stankova

  10. University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

    Alfredo Cuzzocrea

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Correia, A., Gonçalves, A. (2017). Suitability of BPMN Correct Usage by Users with Different Profiles: An Empirical Study. In: Gervasi, O., et al. Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2017. ICCSA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10404. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62392-4_49

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62392-4_49

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62391-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62392-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation