IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/binfse/v62y2020i2d10.1007_s12599-019-00577-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Using Collapsed Sub-processes and Groups on the Understandability of Business Process Models

Author

Listed:
  • Oktay Turetken

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

  • Ahmet Dikici

    (TÜBİTAK BİLGEM Software Technologies Research Institute)

  • Irene Vanderfeesten

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

  • Tessa Rompen

    (Philips Healthcare)

  • Onur Demirors

    (Izmir Institute of Technology)

Abstract

Many factors influence the creation of business process models which are understandable for a target audience. Understandability of process models becomes more critical when size and complexity of the models increase. Using vertical modularization to decompose such models hierarchically into modules is considered to improve their understandability. To investigate this assumption, two experiments were conducted. The experiments involved 2 large-scale real-life business process models that were modeled using BPMN v2.0 (Business Process Model and Notation) in the form of collaboration diagrams. Each process was modeled in 3 modularity forms: fully-flattened, flattened where activities are clustered using BPMN groups, and modularized using separately viewed BPMN sub-processes. The objective was to investigate if and how different forms of modularity representation (used for vertical modularization) in BPMN collaboration diagrams influence the understandability of process models. In addition to the forms of modularity representation, the presentation medium (paper vs. computer) and model reader’s level of business process modeling competency were investigated as factors that potentially influence model comprehension. 60 business practitioners from a large organization and 140 graduate students participated in our experiments. The results indicate that, when these three modularity representations are considered, it is best to present the model in a ‘flattened’ form (with or without the use of groups) and in the ‘paper’ format in order to optimally understand a BPMN model. The results also show that the model reader’s business process modeling competency is an important factor of process model comprehension.

Suggested Citation

  • Oktay Turetken & Ahmet Dikici & Irene Vanderfeesten & Tessa Rompen & Onur Demirors, 2020. "The Influence of Using Collapsed Sub-processes and Groups on the Understandability of Business Process Models," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(2), pages 121-141, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:binfse:v:62:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s12599-019-00577-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s12599-019-00577-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12599-019-00577-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12599-019-00577-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathrin Figl, 2017. "Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 59(1), pages 41-67, February.
    2. François Bodart & Arvind Patel & Marc Sim & Ron Weber, 2001. "Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 384-405, December.
    3. Hajo A. Reijers & Jan Mendling & Jan Recker, 2010. "Business Process Quality Management," International Handbooks on Information Systems, in: Jan vom Brocke & Michael Rosemann (ed.), Handbook on Business Process Management 1, pages 167-185, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jan Mendling & Jan Recker & Hajo A. Reijers & Henrik Leopold, 2019. "An Empirical Review of the Connection Between Model Viewer Characteristics and the Comprehension of Conceptual Process Models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 1111-1135, October.
    2. Ben Roelens & Geert Poels, 2015. "The Development and Experimental Evaluation of a Focused Business Model Representation," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(1), pages 61-71, February.
    3. A. Maes & G. Poels, 2006. "Development of a user evaluations based quality model for conceptual modeling," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/406, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    4. Paul L. Bowen & Robert A. O'Farrell & Fiona H. Rohde, 2009. "An Empirical Investigation of End-User Query Development: The Effects of Improved Model Expressiveness vs. Complexity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 565-584, December.
    5. Boot, Walter R. & Dunn, Cheryl L. & Fulmer, Bachman P. & Gerard, Gregory J. & Grabski, Severin V., 2022. "An eye tracking experiment investigating synonymy in conceptual model validation," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    6. Yair Wand & Ron Weber, 2002. "Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling—A Research Agenda," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 363-376, December.
    7. Andrew Burton-Jones & Peter N. Meso, 2006. "Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 38-60, March.
    8. Vijay Khatri & Iris Vessey & V. Ramesh & Paul Clay & Sung-Jin Park, 2006. "Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 81-99, March.
    9. Roman Lukyanenko & Wolfgang Maass & Veda C. Storey, 2022. "Trust in artificial intelligence: From a Foundational Trust Framework to emerging research opportunities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1993-2020, December.
    10. Daniel Lübke & Maike Ahrens & Kurt Schneider, 2021. "Influence of diagram layout and scrolling on understandability of BPMN processes: an eye tracking experiment with BPMN diagrams," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 99-131, June.
    11. Guan, Jian & Levitan, Alan S. & Kuhn, John R., 2013. "How AIS can progress along with ontology research in IS," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 21-38.
    12. G. Poels & A. Maes & F. Gailly & R. Paemeleire, 2004. "The Pragmatic Quality of Resources-Events-Agents Diagrams: An Experimental Evaluation," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/219, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    13. Sebastian Schlauderer & Sven Overhage, 2018. "BoSDL: An Approach to Describe the Business Logic of Software Services in Domain-Specific Terms," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 60(5), pages 393-413, October.
    14. Roger Clarke & Andrew Burton-Jones & Ron Weber, 2016. "On the Ontological Quality and Logical Quality of Conceptual-Modeling Grammars: The Need for a Dual Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 365-382, June.
    15. G. Poels & A. Maes & F. Gailly & R. Paemeleire, 2004. "User Comprehension of Accounting Information Structures: An Empirical Test of the REA Model," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/254, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    16. Andreas L. Opdahl & Brian Henderson-Sellers, 2004. "A Template for Defining Enterprise Modelling Constructs," Journal of Database Management (JDM), IGI Global, vol. 15(2), pages 39-73, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:binfse:v:62:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s12599-019-00577-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.