Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recommendations for visual feedback about problems within BPMN process models

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Software and Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Business process modeling is a key task in business process management because, besides representing processes, the process models are used, for example, for communication purposes among stakeholders. When not correctly modeled, process models may diminish businesses’ profitability. In this work, we conducted a survey with 57 participants, where we gathered a list of modelers’ needs regarding the feedback they would like to get about problems in process models. For example, modelers would like to get feedback according to their level of experience and be able to activate/deactivate automatic validation. Then, we built a catalog of required features that represents a set of features that process modeling tools should address regarding feedback about problems in process models. Furthermore, we mapped the identified modelers’ needs to how a group of process modeling tools provides such kind of feedback and to the solutions found in the literature. Finally, based on the gaps found in the mapping, we provide a set of recommendations for visual feedback about problems in process models, which can guide the development of future process modeling tools. Our work focuses on the Business Process Model and Notation because it is an ISO standard, supported by several process modeling and execution tools.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.bizagi.com/.

  2. https://www.linkedin.com/.

  3. https://www.facebook.com/.

  4. https://www.twitter.com/.

  5. https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/enterprise-business-process-analysis.

References

  1. Ahmed Awad, M.W.: Visualization of compliance violation in business process models. In: Business process management workshops, pp. 182–193 (2009)

  2. Arning, K., Ziefle, M., Jakobs, E.M.: Usability and learnability of graphical notation systems in process modeling languages. In: The International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing (COMA ’13), pp. 1–6 (2013)

  3. Babbie, E.R.: The Practice of Social Research. Nelson Education, Scarborough (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS Scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018(6), 114–123 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012733.pub2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barbosa, S., Silva, B.: Interação Humano-Computador. Elsevier Brasil (2010)

  6. Boyce, C., Neale, P.: Conducting in-depth interviews: a guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews. Evaluation 2(May), 1–16 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730210154225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brooke, J.: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry (1996)

  8. Brooke, J.: Sus: a retrospective. J. Usability Stud. 8, 29–40 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brown, B., Balatsoukas, P., Williams, R., Sperrin, M., Buchan, I.: Interface design recommendations for computerised clinical audit and feedback: hybrid usability evidence from a research-led system. Int. J. Med. Inform. 94, 191–206 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bryman, A.: Social research methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53(9), 1689–1699 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Corradini, F., Ferrari, A., Fornari, F., Gnesi, S., Polini, A., Re, B., Spagnolo, G.O.: A Guidelines framework for understandable BPMN models (2017)

  12. Corradini, F., Ferrari, A., Fornari, F., Gnesi, S., Polini, A., Re, B., Spagnolo, G.O.: A guidelines framework for understandable BPMN models. Data Knowl. Eng. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2017.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dechsupa, C., Vatanawood, W., Thongtak, A.: Hierarchical verification for the BPMN design model using state space analysis. IEEE Access 7, 16795–16815 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2892958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dias, C.L.D.B.: Behavior analysis of process modeling tools based on anti-patterns (2018)

  15. Dumas, M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33143-5

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Egyed, A.: Fixing inconsistencies in UML design models. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07), pp. 292–301 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2007.38

  17. Elo, S., Kyngäs, H.: The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62(1), 107–115 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fink, A.: How to Conduct Surveys, 6th edn. SAGE Publications, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fink, A.: The Survey Handbook (2003). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986328

  20. Fowler, F.J.J.: Survey Research Methods, vol. 134(4). SAGE Publications (2007)

  21. Geiger, M., Harrer, S., Lenhard, J., Wirtz, G.: BPMN 2.0: the state of support and implementation. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grossman, J.D.: Color Conventions and Application Standards, pp. 209–218. Springer, Boston (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9754-1_7

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Haisjackl, C., Soffer, P., Lim, S.Y., Weber, B.: How do humans inspect BPMN models: an exploratory study. Softw Syst Model 17, 655–673 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0563-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Johansson, L.O., Wärja, M., Carlsson, S.A.: An evaluation of business process model techniques, using Moody’s quality criterion for a good diagram (2012)

  25. Jonathan, L., Feng, J.H., Hochheiser, H.: Research Methods in Human–Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Killich, S., Luczak, H., Schlick, C., Weissenbach, M., Wiedenmaier, S., Ziegler, J.: Task modelling for cooperative work. Behav. Inf. Technol. 18(5), 325–338 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/014492999118913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krishna, A., Poizat, P., Salaün, G.: Vbpmn: automated verification of BPMN processes (tool paper). In: International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods, pp. 323–331. Springer (2017)

  28. Krogstie, J.: Evaluating UML using a generic quality framework (2003)

  29. Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159–174 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Laue, R., Awad, A.: Visual suggestions for improvements in business process diagrams. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 22, 385–399 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Leopold, H., Mendling, J., Günther, O.: Learning from quality issues of BPMN models from industry. IEEE Softw. 33(4), 26–33 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2015.81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewis, J.R., Sauro, J.: The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 5619 LNCS, pp. 94–103 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12

  33. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Van Der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 127–136 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Moody, D.: What makes a good diagram? Improving the cognitive effectiveness of diagrams in is development. In: Advances in Information Systems Development, pp. 481–492. Springer US (2007)

  35. Object Management Group (OMG): BPMN Specification—Business Process Model and Notation (2015)

  36. Recker, J.: BPMN Modeling—Who, Where, How and Why (2008)

  37. Recker, J.: Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Bus. Process Manag. J. 16(1), 181–201 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151011018001

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Reder, A., Egyed, A.: Model/analyzer: a tool for detecting, visualizing and fixing design errors in UML. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE ’10, pp. 347–348. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1858996.1859069

  39. Robson, C., McCartan, K.: Real World Research, 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Roy, S., Sajeev, A.S., Bihary, S., Ranjan, A.: An empirical study of error patterns in industrial business process models. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 7(2), 140–153 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2013.10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rozman, T., Polancic, G., Horvat, R.V.: Analysis of most common process modeling mistakes in BPMN process models. In: 2008 BPM and Workflow Handbook. University of Maribor Slovenia (2008)

  42. Saldaña, J.: The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TEST.2002.1041893

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Sedrakyan, G., Poelmans, S., Snoeck, M.: Assessing the influence of feedback-inclusive rapid prototyping on understanding the semantics of parallel UML statecharts by novice modellers. Inf. Softw. Technol. 82, 159–172 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Shi, W., Sun, X., Li, B., Duan, Y., Liu, X.: Using feature-interface graph for automatic interface recommendation: a case study. In: Proceedings—2015 3rd International Conference on Advanced Cloud and Big Data, CBD 2015, pp. 296–303 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/CBD.2015.55

  45. Snoeck, M., de Oca, I.M.M., Haegemans, T., Scheldeman, B., Hoste, T.: Testing a selection of bpmn tools for their support of modelling guidelines. In: IFIP Working Conference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, pp. 111–125. Springer (2015)

  46. Stein Dani, V., Freitas, C.M.D.S., Thom, L.H.: Ten years of visualization of business process models: A systematic literature review. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 66, 103347 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2019.04.006

  47. Suchenia, A., Ligeza, A.: Event anomalies in modeling with BPMN. Int. J. Comput. Technol. Appl. 6(5), 789–797 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Suchenia, A., Potempa, T., Ligeza, A., Jobczyk, K., Kluza, K.: Selected Approaches Towards Taxonomy of Business Process Anomalies, pp. 65–85. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47208-9_5

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Sun, X., Li, B., Duan, Y., Shi, W., Liu, X.: Mining Software Repositories for Automatic Interface Recommendation (2016). https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5475964

  50. Van Der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw. Eng. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/507984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vidacic, T., Strahonja, V.: Taxonomy of anomalies in business process models. In: José Escalona, M., Aragón, G., Linger, H., Lang, M., Barry, C., Schneider, C. (eds.) Information System Development, pp. 283–294. Springer, Berlin (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Witt, S., Feja, S., Hadler, C., Speck, A., Pulvermüller, E.: Visualization of checking results for graphical validation rules. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 532, 120–136 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22689-7_9

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the national research funding agency CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) for the financial support. This study was also financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001. We also acknowledge the support we had received from the Graduate Program in Computer Science and the Institute of Informatics, UFRGS. Special thanks to the modelers and developers we interviewed in our work. We are also profoundly grateful to the reviewers for their comments that helped us to improve our paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Informatics, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, 91.501-970, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

    Vinicius Stein Dani, Carla Maria Dal Sasso Freitas & Lucinéia Heloisa Thom

Authors
  1. Vinicius Stein Dani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carla Maria Dal Sasso Freitas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lucinéia Heloisa Thom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinicius Stein Dani.

Additional information

Communicated by Jeff Gray.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Questionnaire

This Appendix presents the questionnaire (see Table 7) used to gather data from a random sample of participants with academic and business background, and some level of experience in the business process modeling task.

Interview

This Appendix presents the detailed interview script (see Table 8) used for conducting each interview.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stein Dani, V., Freitas, C.M.D.S. & Thom, L.H. Recommendations for visual feedback about problems within BPMN process models. Softw Syst Model 21, 2039–2065 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-021-00972-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-021-00972-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation