2. Jakob Pinggera
Stefan Zugal
Barbara Weber
Dirk Fahland
Hajo Reijers
Irene Vanderfeesten
Matthias Weidlich
Jan Mendling
Pnina Soffer
Jan Claes
Geert Poels PAGE 2
3. Process Models in BPM
common identify problems in
understanding the business process
discover opportunities
execute for improvement
PAGE 3
4. Quality Problems
Error rates between 10% and 50% in industrial process
model collections
(Mendling 2009, Fahland et al. 2009, Mendling et al. 2008)
impedes comprehensibility and maintainability
of process models
(Mendling 2008, Weber & Reichert 2008, Weber et al. 2011)
• Non intention-revealing or inconsistent naming
(Mendling et al. 2010)
• Redundant process fragments (Hallerbach et al. 2010)
• Large and unnecessarily complex process models
(Soto et al. 2008)
PAGE 4
6. Challenges
Good communication Significant process
between stakeholders modeling skills and
and effective good modeling
negotiation processes support
Elicitation Formalization
PAGE 6
7. Overall objective: Improve Formalization
1. Learn from process modelers
2. Investigate tool/notation impact on modeling
3. Support modeling:
• modeling methodology
• modeling notation
• modeling tools
Elicitation Formalization
PAGE 7
8. Analyze Formalization as a Process
Formalization
Elicitation Comprehension
Reconciliation Modeling
PAGE 8
9. Outline
process modeling
• motivation
• elicitation + formalization
capture as a process
• conceptual idea
• what does it look like
insights:
• dialogue document
• modeling styles
• eye-tracking
PAGE 9
10. Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
iterative, highly flexible process
depends on individual modeler
3 successive phases
Comprehension
Reconciliation Modeling
PAGE 10
11. What does the PPM look like?
same product (process model)
PAGE 11
12. What does the PPM look like?
same product (process model)
record modeling steps
PAGE 12
16. Outline
process modeling
• motivation
• elicitation + formalization
capture as a process
• conceptual idea
• what does it look like
some insights
• dialogue document
• attention fixation
• modeling styles
PAGE 16
18. Dialogue document
P.J.M. Frederiks and Th.P. van der Weide: Information modeling: The process and the required
competencies of its participants. Data and Knowledge Engineering 58 (2006) 1, 4-20. PAGE 18
19. Dialogue document
Factor of interest: Organization of dialogue
document
Factor levels: Breadth-first, Depth-first, Random
26. Approach
Understandable Non-understandable
models models
J. Claes, I. Vanderfeesten, H.A. Reijers, J. Pinggera, M. Weidlich, S. Zugal, B. Weber, J. Mendling, G. Poels and D. Fahland.
Tying Process Model Quality to the Modeling Process: The Impact of Structuring, Movement, and Speed. Accepted to 10th
International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2012)
PAGE 26
27. Structured modeling
Creating blocks ‘as a whole’ (before moving on to
the creation of the rest of the model)
ACT
ACT X X
ACT
PAGE 27
34. Summary
creating a formal model is a process in itself
we record and measure this process of modeling
modeling is difficult
structure dialogue document has an impact
modeling styles differ – relation with model quality
in search of what makes modeling difficult
PAGE 34
35. Take away
good modelers model quickly
good modelers model structuredly
36. The future
questions:
• can we improve the process of process modeling?
• can we develop effective modeling instructions?
• can we provide effective tool support?
X X
PAGE 36
37. Questions?
S.N. Cant, D.R. Jeffery and B Henderson-Sellers: A conceptual model of cognitive complexity of
elements of the programming process. Information and Software Technology 37 (1995) 7, pp.
351-362.
J. Claes, I. Vanderfeesten, H.A. Reijers, J. Pinggera, M. Weidlich, S. Zugal, B. Weber, J.
Mendling, G. Poels and D. Fahland. Tying Process Model Quality to the Modeling Process: The
Impact of Structuring, Movement, and Speed. Accepted to 10th International Conference on
Business Process Management (BPM 2012)
P.J.M. Frederiks and Th.P. van der Weide: Information modeling: The process and the required
competencies of its participants. Data and Knowledge Engineering 58 (2006) 1, 4-20.
A. Hallerbach, T. Bauer and M. Reichert: Capturing Variability in Business Process Models: The
Provop Approach. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 22
(2010) 6–7, pp. 519–546.
J. Mendling: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction
and Guidelines for Correctness, Springer, 2008.
J. Mendling: Empirical Studies in Process Model Verification. Transactions on Petri Nets and
Other Models of Concurrency II, Springer, 2009, pp. 208–224.
G. Miller: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for
Processing Information. Psychological Review 63 (1956), pp. 81-87.
J. Mendling, H.A. Reijers and J. Recker, Activity Labeling in Process Modeling: Empirical Insights
and Recommendations, Information Systems 35 (2010) 4, pp. 467-482.
J. Mendling, H.M.W. Verbeek, B.F. van Dongen, W.M.P. van der Aalst and G. Neumann:
Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPCs of the SAP Reference Model, Data & Knowledge
Engineering 64 (2008) 1, pp. 312-329.
J. Pinggera, P. Soffer, S. Zugal, B. Weber, M. Weidlich, D. Fahland, H.A. Reijers and J. Mendling:
Modeling Styles in Business Process Modeling. In: Proc. BPMDS ’12 (accepted), 2012.
Hajo Reijers
P. Rittgen, Quality and perceived usefulness of process models, In: Proc. SAC’10, 2010, pp. 65-
h.a.reijers@tue.nl 72.
A.-W. Scheer, ARIS - Business Process Modeling, 3rd ed., Springer 2000.
M. Soto, A. Ocampo and J. Munch: The Secret Life of a Process Description: A Look into the
http://www.reijers.com Evolution of a Large Process Model, In: Proc. ICSP'08, 2008, pp. 257-268.
Twitter: @MultumNonMulta B. Weber and M. Reichert: Refactoring Process Models in Large Process Repositories In: Proc.
CAiSE'08 (2008), pp. 124-139.
B. Weber, M. Reichert, J. Mendling and H.A. Reijers: Refactoring Large Process Model
Repositories.. Computers and Industry 62(2011) 5, pp. 467-486.
PAGE 37