Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

BPMS2@BPM2018

15 views

Published on

Slides of my presentation at BPMS2 workshop at BPM conference, 10 September 2018, Sydney, Australia

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

BPMS2@BPM2018

  1. 1. 1/15 | www.janclaes.info Jeroen Bolle and Jan Claes Investigating the trade-off between the effectiveness and efficiency of process modeling
  2. 2. 2/15 | www.janclaes.info Motivation Previous research  Differentiated process modeling technique  Proposed effects on effectiveness and efficiency Dataset and info can be downloaded at http://www.janclaes.info/experiments February 2015 Ghent University 146 master students Business Engineering BPM course
  3. 3. 3/15 | www.janclaes.info Motivation Jan Claes, Irene Vanderfeesten, Frederik Gailly, Paul Grefen, Geert Poels, The Structured Process Modeling Method (SPMM) - What is the best way for me to construct a process model?, Decision Support Systems, Vol 100, p. 57-76, 2017 EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY Low R2 values High R2 values
  4. 4. 4/15 | www.janclaes.info Research question Is there a trade-off between effectiveness and efficiency in process modeling?  Is there a revision phase at the end of modeling? (revising = investing time and effort = lower efficiency)  Does this revision phase result in higher quality? (revising = correcting errors = higher effectiveness)
  5. 5. 5/15 | www.janclaes.info Measurements  Time: number of seconds in timeframe  Effort: number of operations in timeframe  Syntactic quality  Number of syntax errors made in timeframe  Number of syntax errors solved in timeframe Dataset of this paper at DOI 10.17632/5b8by4k244.1 For syntax error determination in partial models, see De Bock & Claes (2018)
  6. 6. 6/15 | www.janclaes.info Results Numberoferrorsper100elementsinfinalmodel Total modeling time Errors made Errors solved Errors remaining
  7. 7. 7/15 | www.janclaes.info Results Total time Total effort Errors made -0,200 (p=0,820) -0,003 (p=0,970) Errors solved 0,253* (p=0,050) 0,349** (p=0,000) Errors remaining -0,183* (p=0,044) -0,229* (p=0,012)
  8. 8. 8/15 | www.janclaes.info Revision phase How to determine time ‘t’ ?  Modeling phase: most of the creation  Revision phase: moving, deleting, or renaming elements, extensive scrolling  Revision phase: also creates after deletes or to close gaps etc. Result: 81 of 121 modelers had a revision phase Modeling phase Revision phase t
  9. 9. 9/15 | www.janclaes.info Revision phase RevisionModeling RevisionModeling
  10. 10. 10/15 | www.janclaes.info Results Errors made in revision phase minus errors made in modeling phase Errors solved in revision phase minus errors solved in modeling phase Relatively more errors made in modeling phase per100elementsperseconds
  11. 11. 11/15 | www.janclaes.info Results Errors made in revision phase minus errors solved in revision phase Errors made in revision phase and Errors solved in revision phase 21% Relatively more errors made than solved in revision phase per100elementsperseconds
  12. 12. 12/15 | www.janclaes.info Conclusions Is there a trade-off between effectiveness and efficiency in process modeling?  No relation between time/effort and errors made  Relation between time/effort and errors solved Is there a revision phase at the end of modeling?  81 of 121 modelers (66%) had a revision phase Does this revision phase result in higher quality?  48% higher, 41% equal, 21% lower number of errors
  13. 13. 13/15 | www.janclaes.info Discussion Only mild support for hypotheses  33% no revision phase  14% contra-productive revision phase  28% no productive revision phase  25% productive revision phase
  14. 14. 14/15 | www.janclaes.info Limitations  Difficult comparison  We normalized to model size and model duration  We did not normalize to number of errors made  No discrimination between error types  Solving a major error while introducing a minor error…  Only syntax errors  Most objective to measure, but least relevant?  Subjective measures by limited number of people  E.g., naïve revision phase approach  Limited external validity  121 master students Business Engineering at UGent
  15. 15. 15/15 | www.janclaes.info  Do you have any questions?  Do you have feedback? Thanks for you attention! Jan Claes jan.claes@ugent.be www.janclaes.info

×