Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Towards a Data-Driven Framework for Measuring Process Performance Read chapter Read first chapter

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Eye Tracking Experiments on Process Model Comprehension: Lessons Learned

Authors : Michael Zimoch, Rüdiger Pryss, Johannes Schobel, Manfred Reichert

Published in: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

For documenting business processes, there exists a plethora of process modeling languages. In this context, graphical process models are used to enhance the process comprehensibility of the stakeholders involved. The large number of available modeling languages, however, aggravates process model comprehension and increases the knowledge gap between domain and modeling experts. Upon this, one major challenge is to identify factors fostering the comprehension of process models. This paper discusses the experiences we gathered with the use of eye tracking in experiments on process model comprehension and the lessons learned in this context. The objective of the experiments was to study the comprehension of process models expressed in terms of four different modeling languages (i.e., BPMN, eGantt, EPC, and Petri Net). This paper further provides recommendations along nine identified categories that can foster related experiments on process model comprehension.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Cognitive Insights into Business Process Model Comprehension: Preliminary Results for Experienced and Inexperienced Individuals
next chapter Teaching and Learning State-Oriented Business Process Modeling. Experience Report
Footnotes
Literature
1.
Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Task-specific visual cues for improving process model understanding. Inf. Softw. Technol. 79, 63–78 (2016)CrossRef
2.
Martini, M., Pinggera, J., Neuratuer, M., Sachse, P., Furtner, M., Weber, B.: The impact of working memory and the process of process modelling on model quality: investigating experienced versus inexperienced modellers. In: Scientific Reports, vol. 6 (2016)
3.
Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl. Eng. 55, 243–276 (2005)CrossRef
4.
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). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-540-75183-0_​4 CrossRef
5.
Turetken, O., Rompen, T., Vanderfeesten, I., Dikici, A., Moll, J.: The effect of modularity representation and presentation medium on the understandability of business process models in BPMN. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 289–307. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-45348-4_​17 CrossRef
6.
Recker, J., Reijers, H.A., van de Wouw, S.G.: Process model comprehension: the effects of cognitive abilities, learning style and strategy. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34, 199–222 (2014)
7.
Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: Proceedings of ACIS 2007, pp. 356–366 (2007)
8.
Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: How visual cognition influences process model comprehension. Decis. Support Syst. 96, 1–16 (2017)
9.
Figl, K., Recker, J.: Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences for process representations. Requirements Eng. 21, 63–85 (2016)CrossRef
10.
Döhring, M., Reijers, H.A., Smirnov, S.: Configuration vs. adaptation for business process variant maintenance: an empirical study. Inf. Syst. 39, 108–133 (2014)
11.
Bandara, W., Gable, G.G., Rosemann, M.: Factors and measures of business process modelling: model building through a multiple case study. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 14, 347–360 (2005)CrossRef
12.
Ottensooser, A., Fekete, A., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Menictas, C.: Making sense of business process descriptions: an experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations. J. Syst. Softw. 85, 596–606 (2012)CrossRef
13.
Weber, B., Pinggera, J., Neurauter, M., Zugal, S., Martini, M., Furtner, M., Sachse, P., Schnitzer, D.: Fixation patterns during process model creation: initial steps toward neuro-adaptive process modeling environments. In: Proceedings of the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 600–609 (2016)
14.
Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 127–136 (2010)CrossRef
15.
Rodrigues, R.D.A., Barros, M.D.O., Revoredo, K., Azevedo, L.G., Leopold, H.: An experiment on process model understandability using textual work instructions and BPMN models. In: 29th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, pp. 41–50 (2015)
16.
Petrusel, R., Mendling, J.: Eye-tracking the factors of process model comprehension tasks. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 224–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-38709-8_​15 CrossRef
17.
Haisjackl, C., Barba, I., Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Hadar, I., Reichert, M., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Understanding declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results. Softw. Syst. 15, 325–352 (2016)CrossRef
18.
Recker, J.: Empirical investigation of the usefulness of gateway constructs in process models. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22, 673–689 (2013)
19.
Sánachez-González, L., Garcia, F., Ruiz, F., Mendling, J.: Quality indicators for business process models from a gateway complexity perspective. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 1159–1175 (2012)CrossRef
20.
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. Decis. Support Syst. 45, 562–575 (2009)CrossRef
21.
Figl, K., Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: The influence of notational deficiencies on process model comprehension. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 14, 312–338 (2013)
22.
Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: The effects of content presentation format and user characteristics on novice developers’ understanding of process models. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 28, 65–84 (2011)
23.
Figl, K., Strembeck, M.: Findings from an experiment on flow direction of business process models. In: International Workshop on EMISA 2015, pp. 59–73 (2015)
24.
Figl, K., Laue, R.: Influence factors for local comprehensibility of process models. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 82, 96–110 (2015)CrossRef
25.
List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1532–1539 (2006)
26.
Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-28108-2_​37 CrossRef
27.
Dobesova, Z., Malcik, M.: Workflow diagrams and pupil dilatation in eye tracking testing. In: Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Techniques Applications, pp. 59–64 (2015)
28.
Hogrebe, F., Gehrke, N., Nüttgens, M.: Eye tracking experiments in business process modeling: agenda setting and proof of concept. In: Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, pp. 183–188 (2011)
29.
Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: Factors of process model comprehension - findings from a series of experiments. Decis. Support Syst. 53, 195–206 (2012)
30.
Weitlaner, D., Guettinger, A., Kohlbacher, M.: Intuitive comprehensibility of process models. In: S-BPM ONE-running Processes, vol. 360, pp. 52–71 (2013)
31.
Krogstie, J.: Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems. Springer, London (2012)
32.
Jošt, G., Huber, J., Heričko, M., Polančič, G.: An empirical investigation of intuitive understandability of process diagrams. Comput. Stand. Interface 48, 90–111 (2016)CrossRef
33.
34.
Majaranta, P., Aoki, H., Donegan, M., Hansen, D.W., Hansen, J.P., Hyrskykari, A., Räihä, K.: Gaze Interaction and Applications of Eye Tracking: Advances in Assistive Technologies. IGI Global, Hershey (2011)
35.
Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Adept\(_{flex}\) – supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. J. Int. Inf. Syst. 10, 93–129 (1998)CrossRef
36.
Wang, W., Ding, H., Dong, J., Ren, C.: A comparison of business process modeling methods. In: International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, pp. 1136–1141 (2006)
37.
Salvucci, D.D., Goldberg, J.H.: Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In: Proceedings of 2000 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research Application, pp. 71–78 (2000)
38.
39.
van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41, 639–650 (1999)
40.
Person, J.L.: Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood (1981)
41.
Sommer, M.: Zeitliche Darstellung und Modellierung von Prozessen mithilfe von Gantt-Diagrammen. Bachelors Thesis, Ulm University (2012)
42.
Bernstein, V., Soffer, P.: Identifying and quantifying visual layout features of business process models. In: Gaaloul, K., Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., Guerreiro, S., Ma, Q. (eds.) CAISE 2015. LNBIP, vol. 214, pp. 200–213. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-19237-6_​13 CrossRef
43.
Schrepfer, M., Wolf, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: The impact of secondary notation on process model understanding. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 161–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-05352-8_​13 CrossRef
44.
Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models. Softw. Syst. Model. 14, 1081–1103 (2015)CrossRef
45.
Linden, D., Zamansky, A., Hadar, I.: How cognitively effective is a visual notation? On the inherent difficulty of operationalizing the physics of notations. In: Schmidt, R., Guédria, W., Bider, I., Guerreiro, S. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2016. LNBIP, vol. 248, pp. 448–462. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-39429-9_​28
46.
Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. J. Inf. Syst. 36, 881–897 (2011)CrossRef
47.
Koschmider, A., Reijers, H.A., Dijkman, R.: Empirical support for the usefulness of personalized process model views. In: Multikonf Wirtschaftsinformatik (2012)
48.
Claes, J., Vanderfessten, I., Pinggera, J., Reihers, H.A., Weber, B., Poels, G.: A visual analysis of the process of process modeling. Inf. Syst. e-Business Manage. 13, 147–190 (2015)CrossRef
49.
Figl, K.: Comprehension of procedural visual business process models. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59, 41–57 (2017)CrossRef
50.
Mili, H., Tremblay, G., Jaoude, G.B., Lefebvre, É., Elabed, L., Boussaidi, G.E.: Business process modeling languages: sorting through the alphabet soup. ACM Comput. Surv. 43, 1–56 (2010)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Eye Tracking Experiments on Process Model Comprehension: Lessons Learned
Authors
Michael Zimoch
Rüdiger Pryss
Johannes Schobel
Manfred Reichert
Copyright Year
2017
Book
Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59465-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-59466-8

Copyright Year: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59466-8_10

Premium Partner

    Image Credits