Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG)

Abstract

a b s t r a c tBusiness process modeling is heavily applied in practice, but important quality issues have not been addressed thoroughly by research. A notorious problem is the low level of modeling competence that many casual modelers in process documentation projects have. Existing approaches towards model quality might be of benefit, but they suffer from at least one of the following problems. On the one hand, frameworks like SEQUAL and the Guidelines of Modeling are too abstract to be applicable for novices and non-experts in practice. On the other hand, there are collections of pragmatic hints that lack a sound research foundation. In this paper, we analyze existing research on relationships between model structure on the one hand and error probability and understanding on the other hand. As a synthesis we propose a set of seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Each of these guidelines builds on strong empirical insights, yet they are formulated to be intuitive to practitioners. Furthermore, we analyze how the guidelines are prioritized by industry experts. In this regard, the seven guidelines have the potential to serve as an important tool of knowledge transfer from academia into modeling practice.

On the Cognitive Effectiveness of Routing Symbols in Process Modeling Languages

“…This situation may also be present for externalized visual process models. The body of literature on error analysis of process models suggests the existence of systematic reasoning fallacies concerning routing elements [15]. Since correct interpretation of routing elements in process models is inevitable for overall understanding of the process depicted, we thus conjecture that different visualisations of routing elements in different process modeling languages determine, at least partly, to which extent different process model languages support understandability and the quality of the user experience.…”

“…-Graphic Parsimony: Parsimony is an indicator of graphical model complexity and is determined by the use of embedded symbols and distinct graphic symbols [20]. High graphic complexity of a modeling language, e.g., the use of too many constructs and routing elements in one model, may impair understanding and therefore should be avoided [15].…”

“…In process models, points of convergence or divergence are typically expressed through routing elements such as "Gateways", "Connectors, or "Splits" and "Joins" [29]. While these routing elements are sometimes well-defined formally [9], they remain a key reason for modeling errors such as violation of deadlock and synchronization rules [16], and may further lead to understandability problems with practitioners [15].…”

A template-based approach for responsibility management in executable business processes

“…Consequently, to enforce their correct execution, it is necessary to implement them by manually adding activities for them in the executable process model. This is not desirable, especially when the process model has many activities (it is not uncommon to find process models with more than 15 activities (Mendling, Reijers, and van der Aalst 2010)) and there are several responsibilities for each activity (which is not uncommon either, e.g., in best practice frameworks). For instance, in our running example, despite its small size, at least 8 activities have to be added manually to model all responsibilities, one for each responsibility type assigned to an activity.…”

An Exploratory Study of IT-Enabled Collaborative Process Modeling

“…A complementary stream of research could build upon our conceptualization of the IT-enabled modeling process to study the emergent implications on the outcome of the modeling process, i.e., the quality of the model produced. Such work could build on existing work on different quality measures of process models, e.g., soundness [25], understandability [20] or re-use [26].…”