1 Introduction
Process models visually represent the flow of an organization’s business activities. One of the top tasks of process model applications is to help those involved understand the process (Indulska et al.
2009) in order to appreciate its benefits and enable organizations to profit fully from the positive impacts of process management (Škrinjar et al.
2008). Decisions made on the basis of process models tend to be better than those that are not, therefore process models can help to increase revenue, and the efficiency of managing and monitoring business processes is improved. Process models are instrumental in defining information system requirements and help to reveal errors during the requirements engineering phase, when it is comparatively easy and inexpensive to correct them (Charette
2005). Thus, improved comprehensibility of process models has a direct significance for the development, efficiency, and costs of information systems. Comprehensibility of models not only facilitates a common understanding of processes between users and system engineers but also helps improve the quality of models.
Prior contributions to the area of process-model comprehension examine a variety of influence factors in isolation, so a comprehensive body of knowledge that might provide an overview of the research field is lacking. Literature reviews are essential for progress in a field of study. Webster and Watson (
2002, p. 14) note for the information systems (IS) field that “the literature review represents the foundation for research in IS. As such, review articles are critical to strengthening IS as a field of study.” In a similar vein, Recker and Mendling (
2016) conclude for the business process management (BPM) discipline that literature reviews “are required in BPM that assist the development of novel theory about processes and their management.” Therefore, the main objective of this article is to gain systematic insight into existing findings on what factors influence the intuitiveness and understandability of process models. In short, the article addresses the cognitive aspects of acquiring and interpreting information on business processes that are presented in process diagrams.
In the context of the special issue, the article’s focus is on the use aspect of human information-seeking behavior, which is defined as the “totality of human behavior in relation to sources and channels of information, including both active and passive information seeking, and information use” (Wilson
2000, p. 49). Since the article looks at a specific source and channel of information – visual process models – which represent formal externalized knowledge of the kinds of enterprise processes that are available in most organizations (Patig et al.
2010), “information seeking” is considered in the narrow sense of seeking information inside a process model. The focus on comprehension is directly connected to the mental part of behavior related to using information, which is described as “the physical and mental acts involved in incorporating the information found into the person’s existing knowledge base” (Wilson
2000, p. 50). Comprehension of process models is a type of intrapersonal information behavior in which the information is supplied in the form of a process model (Heinrich et al.
2014). In a narrower sense, behavior related to intrapersonal information encompasses tasks like the reception, selection, organization and use of information to solve tasks (Heinrich et al.
2014). As several factors that influence comprehension are considered in the article, it fits into the category of cognitivist information behavior research, which focuses on the individual user of information. However, it also considers how variations in the information artifact “process model” influence shared, intersubjective sense-making (Olsson
2005), so it extends the human information behavior research on information delivery through IS to the area of process modeling by looking at the visualization of process models and the cognitive fit between process models and tasks and users (Hemmer and Heinzl
2011).
Building on a thorough review, the article integrates findings related to theoretical perspectives and empirical data in the field into an overarching framework in order to categorize the factors that influence the comprehension of process models. The article also compares the variables that empirical research has addressed with the variables mentioned in theoretical discussions of process-model comprehension, including discussions of modeling guidelines. This endeavor is especially important because modeling guidelines have not been well tied to experimental findings (Mendling
2013).
There is a vast amount of literature on human comprehension of conceptual models in areas that range from separate evaluations of modeling notations to reviews on how to evaluate conceptual models (e.g., Burton-Jones et al.
2009; Parsons and Cole
2005; Moody
2005; Gemino and Wand
2004). This article focuses on studies which investigate the factors that influence the comprehension of one specific type of models-business process models. In contrast to Houy et al. (2012,
2014), who focus on defining the dependent variable (model comprehension), measurement instruments, and the theoretical underpinning used in experimental studies, we focus on an overview of the independent variables (the sources of cognitive load and their relationship to the dependent variable of model comprehension).
The number of empirical studies on cognitive aspects of process models is increasing rapidly, and this topic includes a recent stream of work on the cognitive load involved in model creation (Pinggera et al.
2013; e.g., Claes et al.
2012). In contrast, the scope of the present article does not so much include the creation of process models but rather how they are understood.
This article is organized as follows: It begins with an introductory background on cognitive load in model comprehension. Then it describes how the literature search was conducted, articulates the selection criteria, and identifies the main works included in the review. Next, it presents a framework for influence factors, and based on this framework, analyzes research designs and types of variables and summarizes the results of empirical studies. After contrasting empirical studies with theoretical viewpoints and presenting research gaps, the article provides ideas for future directions in research methods and discusses the limitations of the review.
2 Process Model Comprehension and Cognitive Load
A visual model must be comprehensible if it is to be useful since, as Lindland et al. (
1994, p. 47) put it, “not even the most brilliant solution to a problem would be of any use if no one could understand it.” Therefore, model comprehension is a primary measure of pragmatic model quality, as distinguished from syntactic quality, which refers to how a model corresponds to a particular notation, and semantic quality, which refers to how a model corresponds to a domain (Lindland et al.
1994; Overhage et al.
2012). Research in the area of data models shows that comprehensibility is the most important influence factor in the assessment of a model’s overall quality, outranking completeness, correctness, simplicity, and flexibility (Moody and Shanks
2003).
An important reference discipline for intrapersonal information-related behavior like process model comprehension is cognitive psychology (Heinrich et al.
2014). A basic precondition for comprehension is that a model does not overwhelm a reader’s working memory. Working memory may become a bottleneck in comprehending complex models because it limits the amount of information that can be heeded at any one time (Baddeley
1992). The cognitive load theory (Sweller
1988), which provides a general framework for designing the presentation of instructional material to ease learning and comprehension, can also be applied to the field of process model comprehension. Overall, the working memory’s maximum capacity should be available for “germane” cognitive load, which refers to the actual processing of the information and the construction of mental structures that organize elements of information into patterns (i.e., schema).
Intrinsic cognitive load is concerned with the “complexity of information that must be understood” (Sweller
2010, p. 124). Together the characteristics of the process model, such as model-based metrics, and the content of the labels and the characteristics of the comprehension task determine the intrinsic cognitive load of a comprehension task. Therefore, cognitive load is also influenced by how comprehension is measured, as comprehension performance in an experiment varies according to the questions asked (Figl and Laue
2015) and the kind and amount of assistance given to subjects (e.g., Soffer et al.
2015).
While it is difficult to change a process model’s intrinsic cognitive load without changing the behavior and content of the process being modeled, the visual presentation can be changed and can have a significant impact on cognitive load without changing the modeled process. How a process is visualized relates to the “extraneous” cognitive load (Kirschner
2002). If the same process is modeled using different notations or another layout for the labels and the overall model, the resulting models will have comparable intrinsic cognitive loads but differ in their extraneous cognitive loads, affecting comprehension (Chandler and Sweller
1996). Moody (
2009) identifies nine principles for designing notations so they do not cause more extraneous cognitive load than necessary: semiotic clarity, graphic economy, perceptual discriminability, visual expressiveness, dual coding, semantic transparency, cognitive fit, complexity management, and cognitive integration.
Moreover, individuals differ in their processing capacity. Cognitive load is higher for novices than for experts, because they lack the experience and have not yet developed and stored schemas in long-term memory to ease processing. Knowledge and experience with process models tends to facilitate better and faster comprehension, regardless of the cognitive load.
3 Research Method
While exhaustiveness can never be guaranteed for a literature review (vom Brocke et al.
2015), effort was made to choose criteria for reference selection that would maximize the comprehensiveness of the review. The following sections describe how the literature search was conducted and the references were selected.
3.1 Primary Search of English Literature
We collected a base of articles on the comprehension of process models from three sources: bibliographic databases; a forward search with Google Scholar, a citation-indexing service; and two review articles on process model comprehension from Houy et al. (
2012,
2014).
3.1.1 Bibliographic Databases
Ending in May 2016, our systematic literature search used seven bibliographic databases (EBSCO Host, ProQuest, ISI Web of Science Core Collection, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore Digital Library) and Google Scholar, a citation-indexing service, guided by four search criteria:
-
Search fields: title, abstract, key words (metadata, anywhere except full text).
-
Search string: (“quality” OR understand* OR “readability”) AND Title = (“process”) AND Title = (model* OR representation* OR diagram*).
-
Document types = conference publications, journals articles, books.
-
Timespan = none.
The search string was adapted based on the database because only in some databases was it possible to limit search fields, topics (e.g., process models), or research areas (e.g., computer science or business economics). We included not only journal articles but also conference papers published in reputable conference proceedings because they are recommended as source material in the IS field (Webster and Watson
2002). We limited the literature selection to sources published in English.
This search yielded 2666 papers, and a manual scan for relevance performed by viewing titles and abstracts reduced the total to 137 articles. Eliminating duplicates resulted in a total of 108 articles. Then, we reviewed the 108 articles in close detail to determine whether they fulfilled the article selection criteria, as described below.
3.1.2 Forward Search
For each empirical article we selected that measures process model comprehension objectively – plus a few more, which were later discarded in the final selection because of missing details and other reasons – we conducted a forward search on Google Scholar of current works (“cited by”) to account for the most recent papers. We repeated the forward search for each empirical paper that was identified, performing forward search for a total of fifty articles in June 2016. There were as few as 0 and as many as 251 citing papers (mean = 40.80, median = 21.50) for the initially selected papers. By adding all of the references we found into a Google library, we avoided repeated screening of articles. Taken together, we scanned 1050 articles by viewing titles and abstracts and reading the paper if a decision could not be made on basis of the abstract to determine whether they fulfilled our selection criteria. After duplicates were eliminated, this search yielded an additional 79 articles.
3.1.3 Prior Review Articles
We cross-checked the references in Houy et al. (
2012,
2014), which discuss how 42 articles measure conceptual model comprehension and investigate the theoretical foundations of 126 articles on model comprehension. Based on these two articles, we added 92 articles to the initial set.
3.2 Selection Criteria for Type of Process Model and Visualization
We excluded all studies that did not investigate visual, procedural process models as research objects. Although some general principles may apply to all conceptual models, specific frameworks for the quality of the various types of models (e.g., data models, process models) are needed because of fundamental differences between the types of models (Moody
2005). Therefore, we removed from consideration any articles that investigate the comprehension of conceptual models other than process models. For instance, among the discarded articles were graph drawings and ER diagrams. We included UML activity diagrams (UML AD) but discarded UML sequence, class, interaction and statechart diagrams.
We focus on
procedural process models because they follow the same underlying representation paradigm. An increasing number of studies also investigate
declarative process models (e.g., Haisjackl and Zugal
2014; Haisjackl et al.
2016; Zugal et al.
2015). In comparison to
procedural (or imperative) process models, which specify all possible alternatives for execution,
declarative process models focus on modeling the constraints that prevent undesired alternatives for execution (Fahland et al.
2009). While articles on procedural and declarative process models share a discussion of similar constructs (e.g., comprehension of parallelism or exclusivity of process paths), the extensive differences in visual representation render these articles unusable for comparing study results.
One characteristic of the visualization of process models that contrasts with the characteristics of other conceptual models is their representation as node-link diagrams. Some studies on comparable representations (e.g., flowcharts) share this basic visualization paradigm of process models, so it made sense to include them in the review even though these studies did not use the term “process model.”
3.3 Selection Criteria for Articles
Our review contains articles that offer three types of contributions on process model comprehension:
-
empirical studies that measure the comprehension of process models objectively.
-
empirical studies that measure user preferences and the comprehension of process models subjectively.
-
“theoretical” discussions on the comprehension of process models.
3.3.1 Empirical Studies that Measure the Comprehension of Process Models and User Preferences
We focus on empirical studies (experiments, questionnaire studies) with process models as their research objects, humans as participants, and comprehension as a dependent variable. Similar to the selection criteria Chen and Yu (
2000) use, we checked every study for fulfillment of several criteria:
3.3.2 “Theoretical” Discussions on the Comprehension of Process Models
The literature analysis revealed a large number of articles that deal with process model comprehension (e.g., modeling guidelines) but do not present a study that measures model comprehension. These articles are also useful as a theoretical lens through which to draw a comprehensive map of what is known and what is not in the field, to build a framework for reviewing empirical research, and to uncover inconsistencies and gaps in the research. While these articles are diverse in nature, the fulfillment of three criteria was required if they were to be considered eligible as articles that offer “theoretical” discussions of process model comprehension:
-
Identification of independent variables that may affect comprehension.
-
Relationship to the comprehension of procedural process models.
-
Sufficient level of detail.
The articles’ relationship to the comprehension of procedural process models (e.g., adapting theories of the overall field of conceptual model comprehension research to the specific field of process models) was an important criterion. While Moody’s (
2009) seminal work on designing modeling notations, for instance, is highly cited, we included any article that introduces these design principles to process modeling (Figl et al.
2009,
2010; Genon et al.
2010).
3.4 Final Selection of Literature
Based on the initial search, we screened and read in detail 279 articles, choosing 76 papers (27%): 38 (50%) that fulfill the criteria for a study that objectively measures the comprehension of process models, 7 (9%) that fulfill the criteria for measuring subjective comprehension and user preferences, and 31 (41%) that fulfill the criteria for offering a “theoretical” discussion. Table
1 lists the number of articles we found for each category based on where we found it. Literature databases were the primary source, and Google Scholar was the secondary source.
Table 1
Chosen articles by source
Studies that measure objective comprehension |
Count | 16 | 19 | 3 | 38 |
% | 15% | 24% | 3% | 14% |
Studies that measure subjective comprehension or user preferences |
Count | 3 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
% | 3% | 5% | 0% | 2% |
“Theoretical” discussions of the factors that influence the comprehension of process models |
Count | 12 | 14 | 5 | 31 |
% | 11% | 18% | 6% | 11% |
Not chosen |
Count | 77 | 42 | 84 | 203 |
% | 71% | 53% | 91% | 73% |
Total |
Count | 108 | 79 | 92 | 279 |
Of the 203 articles that were not selected, 79 (39%) were not closely related to model comprehension, 64 (32%) did not address procedural process models, 27 (13%) were related to active modeling instead of model comprehension, 8 (4%) reported too little detail (e.g., no details on the tasks used to measure objective comprehension empirically), 5 (2%) that were conference versions of a journal paper published later, 11 (5%) that mentioned no independent variable of interest (e.g., evaluating a tool or evaluating a single notation without a reference value), 5 (2%) that mentioned no dependent variable of interest (e.g., articles that measure only comprehension time and not comprehension accuracy), 3 (1%) that dealt with a modeling tool and 1 (2%) (Moher et al.
1993) that we could access only in part.
Based on personalized Google Scholar updates, two additional articles about studies that measure model comprehension objectively were added in October 2016, leading to a final size of 40 articles of this type.
3.5 Search of German Literature
As this field of research seems to be particularly prevalent in German-speaking areas – 80% of selected articles have at least one author who was employed by or had graduated from a German-speaking university – we performed an additional literature search in German. Repeating the literature search in the databases did not deliver adequate results with German search terms, so in September 2016 we followed three strategies to account for literature published in German:
-
We scanned all sixty German references that were cited in the final list of selected articles.
-
We searched in the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog KVK (meta search for Germany, Austria, Switzerland) for combinations of the search terms “Prozessmodell*/Prozessdiagramm*/Geschäftsprozessmodell*” with the search terms “verständlich*/lesbar*” (774 search results).
-
We searched the proceedings of the major German conference series “Wirtschaftsinformatik” in the AIS Electronic Library (139 search results) and screened the titles and abstracts of sixty-one German issues of the journal “Wirtschaftsinformatik/BISE” (1999–2008) in SpringerLink online.
Based on this literature search, we identified one reference in the German-language literature that fulfilled all of the criteria for offering a relevant theoretical discussion. The article describes the “clarity” aspect (including the goal of comprehensibility) of the “guidelines of modeling” (GOM) (Becker et al.
1995) in relation to process modeling. Therefore, there were thirty-two theoretical articles in the final sample.
3.6 Coding
We first coded the forty-seven empirical studies manually using coding tables in Excel, and later imported the coding tables to SPSS for further analysis. They are reproduced in a shortened version in Online Appendices B and C.
We selected a concept-centric approach with which to structure our descriptive literature review (Webster and Watson
2002). The first coding table is study-based, so each line represents an article and the study it describes, as none of the articles present more than one study (see Table 4 in Online Appendix B, available via springerlink.com). The second coding table is variable-based: each line represents an independent variable for which its effect on model comprehension and/or user preference is reported by a study (see Table 5 in Online Appendix C). The main concepts in our context are independent variables that cause variation in the dependent variables. For all empirical studies, measurement of variables and statistical results for main, relevant effects on model comprehension are reproduced in detail. We analyzed and compared the design, the participants, analysis methods, and publication outlets in detail.
Unfortunately, the statistics reported in many studies are neither sufficiently detailed to calculate effect sizes in order to combine findings in a meta-analysis nor are p-values consistently reported, which would be a requirement for using vote-counting formulas (King and He
2005). Therefore, we inductively developed a coding schema for the “level of evidence” based on the articles’ reporting of statistical results. These evidence ratings are meant to be interpreted only in relation to each other for this selection of empirical studies. Table 3 (in Online Appendix A) gives an overview of the categories, which we developed based on the result descriptions (the statistical reporting) in the empirical articles. We distinguished among five levels of evidence (no evidence, conflicting evidence, weak evidence, moderate evidence, and strong evidence), so the variable-based overview in Online Appendix C provides not only a descriptive summary of the direction and significance of an effect of an independent variable on comprehension, but also provides an evidence rating for the effect.
In addition, we characterized sample sizes in relation to each other by dividing them into quartiles (small, medium, large, very large), as detailed in Table
2 (in Online Appendix A). The two indicators – level of evidence and quartile of sample size – are used to ease comparison of the studies’ results.
Table 6 (in Online Appendix D) provides an overview of all independent variables that are identified in the theoretical discussions, relevant to the comprehension of process models, and investigated in the studies. We derived the related influence factors inductively from papers that offer theoretical discussions and assigned category labels to the main thematic areas, as is done in a qualitative content analysis (Mayring
2003). We sorted all variables that the empirical studies include according to categories. This tabular representation allows us to tie together all of the variables that have been reviewed and to discuss differences among the key variables addressed in theoretical and empirical work. Table 7 (in Online Appendix D) is a condensed version of Table 6 (in Online Appendix D). We used this categorization to derive a framework for independent variables and to organize and classify the empirical material, as presented in Sect.
4.1 below.
6 Limitations and Future Research Directions
As with all descriptive reviews, the current work has limitations.
6.1 Selection of Literature
To mitigate the degree of subjectivity, we reported detailed search criteria and inclusion criteria for the selected articles, but limitations to generalizability lie in the choice of these selection criteria. Because of the focus on individual process models, we did not take into account the literature on process model repositories (e.g., on different visualization opportunities for larger model collections) and on connections to other types of models.
In addition, we considered only those articles that have a strong relationship to process models. There is considerable cognitive research in the larger field of conceptual modeling and visualization in general that may offer insights and perspectives that are relevant to the comprehension of process models.
6.2 Categories of the Framework
The dimensions of the categories and subcategories of the framework differ widely. For instance, many user characteristics are stable and cannot be changed (e.g., native language, cognitive style), so we can adapt the models to the individual users, but not the other way around. (Modeling training and experience could change over time, but they are given at one point in time.) Moreover, it is possible to change a model’s primary and secondary notational factors (e.g., layout, symbols, highlighting) while preserving informational equivalence, but models whose characteristics (e.g., size metrics) differ are typically not informationally equivalent. The review discusses such distinctions in terms of intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load, but caution must be applied, as the relative importance of findings in different categories cannot be compared with each other directly, and different numbers of studies were selected in each category. In addition, the influence factors of different categories might interact in a variety of ways, but a full discussion of all possible interaction effects lies beyond the scope of this review, which focuses on the main effects of the independent variables, and would also be difficult because only a few articles report interaction effects.
6.3 Reporting of Studies
To move the research field forward, this article encourages scholars to report exact p-values and effect sizes when describing the statistical results of future experiments in order to combine probability values in a meta-analysis. Such details would ease the management of variation in results among experiments and the determination of the effects’ consistency and strength. To deal with the existing shortcomings of the descriptions of the results, we developed a coding schema with which to categorize the level of evidence regarding the effects. One limitation of this categorization is that, if a study investigates, for example, more than one type of user or model, its chance of reporting “conflicting” evidence about an effect is higher than it is for simpler studies that look at the effect of only one independent variable on comprehension.
We refrained from taking the quality of study designs into account because a wide range of study designs other than randomized, controlled experiments have been used that would not fit into existing coding schemas, such as those used for clinical trials. By not taking all study characteristics into account, our level-of-evidence rating, which is based primarily on descriptions of statistical results, might differ from the statements of more cautious authors. For instance, we rated the level of evidence of the effects of two variables on comprehension as “strong” based on the reported statistical results, while the authors themselves argue that “the number of models is too small to make strong claims” (Reijers and Mendling
2011, p. 9).
Future research might standardize ways to describe the research design and the experimental manipulations, which would ease comparisons of the quality of studies in this research area.
6.4 Type of Contribution
Concerning the nature of the theoretical contribution based on the five theory types in IS research (Gregor
2006), this review article provides
descriptions of the current state of research in the field regarding the independent variables that affect comprehension. Moreover, the article contributes to theory-building by
explaining and
predicting the comprehensibility of process models. The review provides an overview of why and how some variables affect comprehension. However, although the review extracts the relevant variables mentioned in existing modeling guidelines, it is beyond its scope to
prescribe how to construct process models.
Given that the preconditions for reporting mentioned in the last section are satisfied, future work could offer a precise prediction theory on how certain changes in a process model, its notation, the user group, or the task type will affect model comprehension, thereby laying the foundation for future prescriptive modeling guidelines.
7 Conclusion
The descriptive review presented here provides a deepened and contextualized body of knowledge on process model comprehension. By developing a comprehensive framework of the factors that influence comprehension, the article adds substantially to the creation of a cumulative tradition of empirical work on model comprehension and provides a basis to be systematically updated by new studies. Thus, the article sheds light on the types of variables that influence intrapersonal information-acquiring behavior as it relates to process models.
From a research perspective, the article provides a foundation for future process modeling research, thereby establishing a potential to be adapted to other areas of conceptual modeling. Literature reviews like this one give scholars a quick overview of existing literature and motivate them to investigate knowledge gaps and formulate new research hypotheses on influence variables that have not been addressed (Webster and Watson
2002).
Moreover, the article contributes to advancing the field of human information behavior research. While other reviews provide overviews of empirical studies on human information behavior in computer-mediated contexts (e.g., Hemmer and Heinzl
2011), this review is the first to address human information behavior in the conceptual modeling field, another central research topic in the IS field. Process modeling is at the core of designing information systems, so the article sheds light on an important facet of information-use behavior in the IS discipline: how the information in process models is incorporated into readers’ existing knowledge.
From a practical perspective, the article helps to explain how to develop useful and understandable process models and how best to exploit process modeling as a cognitive tool for a variety of users. In the long run, the article can also contribute to the development of process models that are optimized for human understanding and problem-solving. While the article focuses on model product quality – that is, the comprehensibility of a finished model – its identification of influence factors can help to guide and improve the quality of the modeling process by helping model designers to focus on the criteria that can prevent comprehension problems. Thus, the article’s insights can also be used in process modeling training and in educational texts.
The article also has direct and immediate significance for business process modeling practice, as its findings can inform ongoing revisions of process modeling notations and tool development. Future research can refine and evaluate existing practical guidelines for process modeling based on the review of empirical insights presented here.