Abstract
Many software professionals think about Business Process Modeling (BPM) as a way of representing all of the steps and details of a daily work execution. BPM is nevertheless also devoted to defining the broad outlines of a particular process and how internal improvements (like automation or worker support) can align with an organization’s business strategy. Business processes in their aggregated form (i.e. one entire business process represented by one black box element) do provide information on their scope (so can be seen as a tactical-level source of information) and, if mixed in a common representation with business objectives and goals, we can trace the impact of their execution, reengineering or IT-support on the strategy. Most of the work on the ability of novice modelers to represent a business process has focused on the operational perspective rather than the latter tactical and strategic ones. Evaluating the quality of higher level representations is also, to a large extend, an open issue. This paper aims to overview the performance of novice modelers when representing such tactical-level elements and tracing their strategic impact through a quasi-experiment. More specifically, subjects are given a complex case and have to draw a Business Use-Case Diagram which is a representation combining all of these elements. Results show that: (1) the proposed quality assessment is suitable when compared to a domain and modeling expert’s solution; (2) the cognitive style of modelers has no impact on the quality of the representations they produce.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The online appendix can be found at: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/ccn327m4g4/1.
References
Alotaibi, Y.: Business process modelling challenges and solutions: a literature review. J. Intell. Manuf. 27(4), 701–723 (2016)
Wautelet, Y.: A model-driven it governance process based on the strategic impact evaluation of services. J. Syst. Softw. 149, 462–475 (2019)
Aysolmaz, B., Reijers, H.A.: Use cases for understanding business process models. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10253, pp. 428–442. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59536-8_27
Figl, K., Recker, J.: Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences for process representations. Req. Eng. 21(1), 63–85 (2016)
de Oca, I.M.-M., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., Rodríguez-Morffi, A.: A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Inf. SW Tech. 58, 187–205 (2015)
Oppl, S.: Which concepts do inexperienced modelers use to model work?-an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of MKWI 2018 (2018)
Turetken, O., Vanderfeesten, I., Claes, J.: Cognitive style and business process model understanding. In: Metzger, A., Persson, A. (eds.) CAiSE 2017. LNBIP, vol. 286, pp. 72–84. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60048-2_7
Bolloju, N., Leung, F.S.: Assisting novice analysts in developing quality conceptual models with UML. Commun. ACM 49(7), 108–112 (2006)
Dhillon, M.K., Dasgupta, S.: Individual differences and conceptual modeling task performance: examining the effects of cognitive style, self-efficacy, and application domain knowledge. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 483–496. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21759-3_35
Eric, S.: Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)
Van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software, vol. 10. Wiley, Chichester (2009)
O. UML, OMG (2017) unified modeling language version 2.5.1 (2017)
Wahli, U., et al.: Building SOA solutions using the rational SDP. IBM (2007)
Johnston, S., et al.: Rational UML profile for business modeling. IBM Developer Works (2004). http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/5167.html
Wautelet, Y., Poelmans, S.: Aligning the elements of the RUP/UML business use-case model and the BPMN business process diagram. In: Grünbacher, P., Perini, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2017. LNCS, vol. 10153, pp. 22–30. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_2
Wautelet, Y.: Using the RUP/UML business use case model for service development governance: a business and IT alignment based approach. In: 22nd IEEE Conference on Business Informatics, CBI, pp. 121–130. IEEE (2020)
Monsalve, C., April, A., Abran, A.: Business process modeling with levels of abstraction. In: IEEE Colombian Conference on Communication and Computing (IEEE COLCOM 2015), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2015)
Wautelet, Y., Poelmans, S.: An integrated enterprise modeling framework using the RUP/UML business use-case model and BPMN. In: Poels, G., Gailly, F., Serral Asensio, E., Snoeck, M. (eds.) PoEM 2017. LNBIP, vol. 305, pp. 299–315. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70241-4_20
Weske, M.: Business Process Management Architectures. Springer, Cham (2007)
Monsalve, C., April, A., Abran, A.: Requirements elicitation using BPM notations: focusing on the strategic level representation. ACACOS 11, 235–241 (2011)
von Rosing, M., White, S., Cummins, F., de Man, H.: Business process model and notation-BPMN (2015)
Fettke, P.: How conceptual modeling is used. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 43 (2009)
Dzepina, A., Lehner, F.: Business process model quality-results from a SLR (2018)
Reijers, H.A., Freytag, T., Mendling, J., Eckleder, A.: Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decis. Support Syst. 51(3), 339–349 (2011)
De Meyer, P., Claes, J.: An overview of process model quality literature-the comprehensive process model quality framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07930 (2018)
Krogstie, J.: A semiotic approach to quality in requirements specifications. In: Liu, K., Clarke, R.J., Andersen, P.B., Stamper, R.K., Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (eds.) Organizational Semiotics. ITIFIP, vol. 94, pp. 231–249. Springer, Boston (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35611-2_14
Krogstie, J.: Evaluating UML using a generic quality framework. In: UML and the Unified Process, pp. 1–22. IGI Global (2003)
Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994)
Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 91–102 (2006)
Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: A conceptual modeling quality framework. SW Qual. J. 20(1), 201–228 (2012)
Moody, D.L., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T., Solvberg, A.: Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on SW Engineering, pp. 295–305. IEEE (2003)
Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G.: Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In: Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Olivé, A. (eds.) Information System Concepts. IAICT, pp. 216–231. Springer, Boston, MA (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34870-4_22
Frederiks, P.J., Van der Weide, T.P.: Information modeling: the process and the required competencies of its participants. Data Knowl. Eng. 58(1), 4–20 (2006)
Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. BPM J. (2006)
Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_4
Mendling, J., Neumann, G., van der Aalst, W.: Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 113–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76848-7_9
Mendling, J., Verbeek, H., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M., Neumann, G.: Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP ref. model. Data Knwl. Eng. 64(1), 312–329 (2008)
Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89224-3
Allinson, C.W., Hayes, J.: The cognitive style index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. J. Manag. Stud. 33(1), 119–135 (1996)
Allinson, C., Hayes, J.: The cognitive style index: technical manual and user guide (2012)
Ornstein, R.E.: The psychology of consciousness (1972)
Wautelet, Y.: Representing, modeling and engineering a collaborative supply chain management platform. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Supply Chain Manag. 5(3), 1–23 (2012)
Wautelet, Y., Kolp, M., Penserini, L.: Service-driven iterative software project management with I-Tropos. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 24(7), 975–1011 (2018)
España, S., Condori-Fernandez, N., González, A., Pastor, Ó.: Evaluating the completeness and granularity of functional requirements specifications: a controlled experiment. In: 2009 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 161–170. IEEE (2009)
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Cham (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Aghakhani, G., Heeren, K., Wautelet, Y., Poelmans, S., Kolp, M. (2024). On the Ability of Novice Modelers to Identify, Represent and Trace Strategic and Tactical Conceptual Elements in Business Process and Enterprise Modeling. In: Sales, T.P., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A., Pufahl, L., Karastoyanova, D., van Sinderen, M. (eds) Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing. EDOC 2023 Workshops . EDOC 2023. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 498. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54712-6_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54712-6_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-54711-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-54712-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)