skip to main content
10.1145/2554850.2554940acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How social distance of process designers affects the process of process modeling: insights from a controlled experiment

Published:24 March 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

The increasing adoption of process-aware information systems (PAISs) by enterprises has resulted in large process model collections. Usually, process models are created either by in-house domain experts or external consultants. Thereby, high model quality is crucial, i.e., process models should be syntactically correct and sound, and also reflect the real business processes properly. While numerous guidelines exist for creating correct and sound process models, there is only little work dealing with cognitive aspects affecting process modeling. This paper addresses this gap and presents a controlled experiment using construal level theory. We investigate the influence the social distance of a process designer to the modeled domain has on the creation of process models. In particular, we are able to show significant differences between high and low social distance in respect to model quality and granularity. The results may help enterprises to compose adequate teams for creating or optimizing business process models.

References

  1. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A.: Refactoring Large Process Model Repositories. Computers in Industry 62 (2011) 467--486 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verifiation, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. Springer (2008) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: A Study into the Factors that Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions on (2011) 1--14 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Moody, D.: Theoretical and Practical Issues in Evaluating the Quality of Conceptual Models: Current State and Future Directions. DKE 55 (2005) 243--276 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., Cardoso, J.: What Makes Process Models Understandable? In: Proc. 5th BPM. (2007) 48--63 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence Factors of Understanding Business Process Models. In: Proc. 11th Int'l Conf. Business Inf. Systems. (2008) 142--153Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., Uthmann, C. V.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: Proc. 1st BPM. Volume 1806., Springer-Verlag (2000) 30--49 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., van Der Aalst, W. M.: Seven Process Modeling Guidelines (7PMG). Inf. & Software Techn. 52 (2010) 127--136 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the Process of Process Modeling with Cheetah Experimental Platform. In: Proc. 1st Int'l WS Empirical Research Proc.-Oriented Inf. Sys., Hammamet (2010)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Figl, K., Weber, B.: Individual Creativity in Designing Business Processes. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops, Springer (2012) 294--306Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Figl, K., Laue, R.: Cognitive Complexity in Business Process Modeling. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer (2011) 452--466 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., Wakslak, C.: Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 17 (2007) 83--95Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Todorov, A., Goren, A., Trope, Y.: Probability as a Psychological Distance: Construal and Preferences. J Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 473--482Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Trope, Y., Liberman, N.: Construal-level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological Review 117 (2010) 440--463Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kolb, J., Kammerer, K., Reichert, M.: Updatable Process Views for User-centered Adaption of Large Process Models. In: Proc 10th Intl. Conf. on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC'12), Shanghai (2012) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kolb, J., Reichert, M.: Data Flow Abstractions and Adaptations through Updatable Process Views. In: Proc 27th Symposium On Applied Computing (SAC'13), Coimbra, Portugal (2013) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kolb, J., Reichert, M.: Using Concurrent Task Trees for Stakeholder-centered Modeling and Visualization of Business Processes. In: Proc S-BPM ONE 2012, CCIS 284. (2012) 237--251Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolb, J., Rudner, B., Reichert, M.: Towards Gesture-based Process Modeling on Multi-Touch Devices. In: Proc 1st Int'l Workshop on Human-Centric Process-Aware Information Systems (HC-PAIS'12), Gdansk, Poland (2012) 280--293Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolb, J., Rudner, B., Reichert, M.: Gesture-based Process Modeling Using Multi-Touch Devices. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (IJISMD) 4 (2013) (to appear) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Pronin, E., Olivola, C. Y., Kennedy, K.a.: Doing Unto Future Selves As You Would Do Unto Others: Psychological Distance and Decision Making. Personality & Social Psych. Bulletin 34 (2008) 224--36Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Day, S., Bartels, D.: Representation over Time: The Effects of Temporal Distance on Similarity. Cognition 106 (2008) 1504--1513Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y.: The Effect of Temporal Distance on Level of Mental Construal. J Exp. Social Psychology 38 (2002) 523--534Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N.: Spatial Distance and Mental Construal of Social Events. Psych. Science 17 (2006) 278--82Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Moody, D. L.: The "Physics" of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. Software Eng. 35 (2008) 756--779 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluation Techniques for Systems Analysis and Design Modelling Methods: a Review and Comparative Analysis. Information System Journal 21 (2011) 249--268Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Krogstie, J.: Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems. Springer (2012) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Holschke, O., Rake, J., Levina, O.: Granularity as a Cognitive Factor in the Effectiveness of Business Process Model Reuse. LNCS 5701 (2009) 245--260 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Figl, K., Derntl, M.: The Impact of Perceived Cognitive Effectiveness on Perceived Usefulness of Visual Conceptual Modeling Languages. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer (2011) 78--91 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Moody, D.: Cognitive Load Effects on End User Understanding of Conceptual Models: An Experimental Analysis. In: Advances in Databases and Information Systems, Springer (2004) 129--143Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Wolf, C., Harmon, P.: The State of Business Process Management 2012. BPTrends Report (2012)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modeling. IEEE Software 11 (1994) 42--49 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. OMG: Business Process Management Notation (BPMN) 2.0 (2010)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Recker, J., Safrudin, N., Rosemann, M.: How Novices Model Business Processes. In: Proc. 9th Int'l Conf Business Process Management (BPM'10), New York, USA (2010) 29--44 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Rittgen, P.: Quality and Perceived Usefulness of Process Models. In: Proc. ACM SAC 2010, New York, New York, USA, ACM Press (2010) 65--72 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering - An Introduction. Kluwer (2000) Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Zimoch, M.: Experiments on Influence of Construal Level During Process Modeling. Bachelor Thesis, Ulm University (2012)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Siegel, S., Castellan, J.: Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Editions (1988)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects. Proc. 5th BPM (2008) 20--35 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., Recker, J.: Activity Labeling in Process Modeling: Empirical Insights and Recommendations. Inf. Sys. 35 (2010) 467--482 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Schrepfer, M., Wolf, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A.: The Impact of Secondary Notation on Process Model Understanding. Proc. PoEM 09 (2009) 161--175Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 and Knowledge Eng. 64 (2008) 312--329 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Aguilar, E. R., Sanchez, L., Carballeira, F. G., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M., Caivano, D., Visaggio, G.: Prediction Models for BPMN Usability and Maintainability. Proc. CEC 09 (2009) 383--390 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Fahland, D., Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: Modeling Styles in Business Process Modeling. Proc. BPMDS '12 (2012) 151--166Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. 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. Software & Systems Modeling (2013) 1--26Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. How social distance of process designers affects the process of process modeling: insights from a controlled experiment

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SAC '14: Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
      March 2014
      1890 pages
      ISBN:9781450324694
      DOI:10.1145/2554850

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 24 March 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SAC '14 Paper Acceptance Rate218of939submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader