The Process of Process Modeling

Considering the heavy usage of business process modeling in all types of business contexts, it is important to acknowledge both the relevance of process models and their associated quality issues. On the one hand, it has been shown that a good understanding of a process model has a positive impact on the success of a modeling initiative [1]. On the other hand, actual process models display a wide range of problems that impede upon their understandability [2]. Clearly, an in-depth understanding of the factors of process model quality is in demand.

The quality of process models can be evaluated along a wide spectrum of properties, such as syntactic correctness or semantic accuracy [3]. Most research in the eld puts a strong emphasis on the product or outcome of the process modeling act [4, 5]. For this category of research, the resulting model is the object of analysis. Many other works – instead of dealing with the quality of individual models – focus on the characteristics of modeling languages [6, 7]. However, these studies put less emphasis on the fact that model quality is presumably dependent upon the modeling process that was followed to create it. While there is work on micro-management of creating models [8], there is a notable research gap on how the process of process modeling can be analyzed quantitatively.

In this stream of research, we address this specifi c problem. In particular, we focus on the formalization phase in which a process modeler is faced with the challenge of constructing a syntactically correct model that reflects a given domain description (cf. [9]). This appeals to one’s ability to model [10], arguably the most important capability of a modeler according to its expected e ect on the quality of the ensuing model. The formalization of process models – which can be considered a process in itself – is crucial for obtaining a good modeling result and to overcome quality problems right from the start [2].

Publications

  • J. Pinggera, S. Zugal, M. Weidlich, D. Fahland, B. Weber, J. Mendling and H. Reijers: Tracing the Process of Process Modeling with Modeling Phase Diagrams. In: Proc. ER-BPM ’11, pp. 370–382, 2012.  
  • J. Pinggera, P. Soffer, S. Zugal, B. Weber, M. Weidlich, D. Fahland, H. Reijers and J. Mendling: Modeling Styles in Business Process Modeling. In: Proc. BPMDS ’12, pp. 151–166, 2012.  
  • J. Pinggera, M. Furtner, M. Martini, P. Sachse, K. Reiter, S. Zugal and B. Weber: Investigating the Process of Process Modeling with Eye Movement Analysis. In: Proc. ER-BPM ’12 (accepted), 2012.  
  • J. Claes, I. Vanderfeesten, H. Reijers, J. Pinggera, M. Weidlich, S. Zugal, D. Fahland, B. Weber, J. Mendling and G. Poels: Tying Process Model Quality to the Modeling Process: The Impact of Structuring, Movement, and Speed. In: Proc. BPM ’12, pp. 33–48, 2012.  
  • J. Claes, I. Vanderfeesten, J. Pinggera, H. Reijers, B. Weber and G. Poels: Visualizing the Process of Process Modeling with PPMCharts. In: Proc. TAProViz ’12 (accepted), 2012.  

References

[1] Kock, N., Verville, J., Danesh-Pajou, A., DeLuca, D.: Communication flow orientation in business process modeling and its eff ect on redesign success: results from a field study. DSS 46 (2009) 562-575

[2]  Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Veri cation, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. Springer (2008)

[3]  Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jrgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. EJIS 15 (2006) 91-102

[4]  Van der Aalst, W., Ter Hofstede, A.: Veri cation of work ow task structures: A petri-net-baset approach. IS 25 (2000) 43-69

[5]  Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: Proc. ICBIS ’10. (2006) 1-12

[6]  Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods-a review and comparative analysis. ISJ (2007)

[7]  Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scienti c Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35 (2009) 756-779

[8]  Rittgen, P.: Negotiating Models. In: Proc. CAiSE ’07. (2007) 561-573

[9]  Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H., Weide, T.: A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In: Proc. ER ’05. (2005) 128-143

[10]  Persson, A., Stirna, J.: Towards De ning a Competence Pro le for the Enterprise Modeling Practitioner. The Practice of Enterprise Modeling (2010) 232-245