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 . On the other hand, actual process models display a wide range of problems that impede upon their understandability . 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 . 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 , 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 specific 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. ). This appeals to one’s ability to model , arguably the most important capability of a modeler according to its expected eect 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 .
- 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, pp. 744–755, 2013.
- 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, pp. 438–450, 2013.
- J. Pinggera: The Process of Process Modeling. PhD thesis, University of Innsbruck, Department of Computer Science, 2014.
- J. Pinggera, S. Zugal, M. Furtner, P. Sachse, M. Martini and B. Weber: The Modeling Mind: Behavior Patterns in Process Modeling. In: Proc. BPMDS’14, pp. 1–16, 2014.
- M. Neurauter, J. Pinggera, M. Martini, A. Burattin, M. Furtner, P. Sachse and B. Weber: The Influence of Cognitive Abilities and Cognitive Load on Business Process Models and Their Creation. In: Proc. NeuroIS’15, pp. 107–115, 2015.
- J. Pinggera, P. Soffer, D. Fahland, M. Weidlich, S. Zugal, B. Weber, H. Reijers and J. Mendling: Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model. Software & Systems Modeling 14(3):1055–1080, 2015.
- B. Weber, M. Neurauter, J. Pinggera, S. Zugal, M. Furtner, M. Martini and P. Sachse: Measuring Cognitive Load During Process Model Creation. In: Proc. NeuroIS’15, pp. 129–136, 2015.
- J. Claes, I. Vanderfeesten, J. Pinggera, H. Reijers, B. Weber and G. Poels: A visual analysis of the process of process modeling. Information Systems and e-Business Management 13(1):147–190, 2015.
- M. Martini, J. Pinggera, M. Neurauter, P. Sachse, M. Furtner and B. Weber: The impact of working memory and the “process of process modelling” on model quality: Investigating experienced versus inexperienced modellers. Scientific Reports 6(25561), 2016.
- B. Weber, J. Pinggera, M. Neurauter, S. Zugal, M. Martini, M. Furtner, P. Sachse and D. Schnitzer: Fixation Patterns During Process Model Creation: Initial Steps Toward Neuro-adaptive Process Modeling Environments. In: Proc. HICSS’16, pp. 600–609, 2016.
 Kock, N., Verville, J., Danesh-Pajou, A., DeLuca, D.: Communication flow orientation in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: results from a field study. DSS 46 (2009) 562-575
 Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verication, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. Springer (2008)
 Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jrgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. EJIS 15 (2006) 91-102
 Van der Aalst, W., Ter Hofstede, A.: Verication of work ow task structures: A petri-net-baset approach. IS 25 (2000) 43-69
 Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: Proc. ICBIS ’10. (2006) 1-12
 Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods-a review and comparative analysis. ISJ (2007)
 Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientic Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35 (2009) 756-779
 Rittgen, P.: Negotiating Models. In: Proc. CAiSE ’07. (2007) 561-573
 Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H., Weide, T.: A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In: Proc. ER ’05. (2005) 128-143
 Persson, A., Stirna, J.: Towards Dening a Competence Prole for the Enterprise Modeling Practitioner. The Practice of Enterprise Modeling (2010) 232-245