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.

EMMSAD++@CAiSE 2018

35 views

Published on

Slides of my presentation at COGNISE (part of EMMSAD++) workshop at CAiSE conference, 12 June 2018, Tallinn, Estonia

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

EMMSAD++@CAiSE 2018

  1. 1. 1/18 | www.janclaes.info Joshua De Bock and Jan Claes The origin and evolution of syntax errors in simple sequence flow models in BPMN
  2. 2. 2/18 | www.janclaes.info Context – introductory statements  Conceptual models are useful  Conceptual models contain errors  Syntax errors are the easiest to study objectively  Syntax errors are the least relevant to study  To study errors, study the creation process  Process-data is available for ‘process models’
  3. 3. 3/18 | www.janclaes.info Problem statement About syntax errors in simple sequence flow models  How do these errors emerge?  What is the earliest moment that potential errors can be detected?  Which evolution do errors go through during modeling?
  4. 4. 4/18 | www.janclaes.info How many syntax errors? Send PO to factory Send PO to warehouse Update contact info Update financial info Close file Gateway combines join and split semantics ERRORIRRESOLUTIONCONFUSION
  5. 5. 5/18 | www.janclaes.info Syntax error or not? Close file If the model is finished: YES If the model in not finished: NO
  6. 6. 6/18 | www.janclaes.info Syntax error or not? Send PO to warehouse Update contact info Update financial info Close file (wrong symbol)(missing symbol) DEFINITE ERRORUNCERTAIN ERROR
  7. 7. 7/18 | www.janclaes.info Transitions
  8. 8. 8/18 | www.janclaes.info Data collection  Tool = Cheetah Experimental Platform  Task = build sequence flow model from structured textual description  Language = subset BPMN constructs  start event + end event  XOR gateway + AND gateway (split + join)  Activity + edge (including label)  Participants = 126 master students Business Engineering at Ghent University in 2015
  9. 9. 9/18 | www.janclaes.info Syntax issues 12% 6% 23% 17% 12% 30% Syntax issues during modeling UE UI UC DE DI DC 8% 34% 58% Syntax issues after modeling DE DI DC No uncertain issues remain in the final model
  10. 10. 10/18 | www.janclaes.info Origin of syntax issues 48% 0% 0%0% 0% 51% Origin of DE UE DI DC UI UC / 37% 10% 1%2%0% 49% Origin of DI UI DE DC UE UC / 61% 7% 0% 1% 0% 31% Origin of DC UC DE DI UE UI /
  11. 11. 11/18 | www.janclaes.info Evolution of uncertain syntax issues 30% 65% 2% 2% Evolution of UE / DE DI DC 17% 83% 0% 1% Evolution of UI / DI DE DC 20% 80% 0% 0% Evolution of UC / DC DE DI
  12. 12. 12/18 | www.janclaes.info Evolution of definite syntax issues 64%7% 13% 17% Evolution of DE / DI DC DE 5% 0% 0% 94% Evolution of DI / DE DC DI 33% 0% 1% 66% Evolution of DC / DE DI DC
  13. 13. 13/18 | www.janclaes.info Conclusion …from this limited dataset and modeling language …with this artificial case and participants Issues are often detectable at an early stage
  14. 14. 14/18 | www.janclaes.info Future work – Origin of syntax issues 99% 1% Origin of U1e / Ulx 94% 3%3% Origin of UJx / UDS U1e 92% 8% Origin of ULx / U1e 86% 8% 6% Origin of P / 1e Sa 83% 17% Origin of UBs / U1e 78% 22% Origin of UN / U1e 78% 22% Origin of W / UW 71% 13% 1% 13% 2% Origin of C / UC U1e 1e Jx 67% 33% Origin of Be / Ube 57% 43% Origin of Ja / Uja 54%31% 7% 8% Origin of T / UT 1e W 51% 49% Origin of Sx / Usx 51%41% 1% 0% 7% Origin of Jx / Ujx DS U1e 1e 49% 51% 0% 0% Origin of 1e / U1e C Sx 40% 60% Origin of Bs / Ubs 19% 70% 1% 0% 0% 10% Origin of LX / ULx U1e Sx W 1e 18% 73% 9% Origin of N / UN Sx 15% 85% Origin of DS / UDS
  15. 15. 15/18 | www.janclaes.info Future work – Evolution of syntax issues 70% 6% 5% 9% 9% 0%1% Evolution of 1e / 1e Jx C Lx T P 67% 33% Evolution of Lx / Lx 60% 40% Evolution of 0se / Ose 56%35% 9% Evolution of UDS / DS UJx 52% 48% Evolution of U0se / 0se 34% 59% 3% 2% 2% Evolution of Sx / Sx Lx 1e N 30% 70% Evolution of USa / Sa 30% 70% Evolution of N / N 29% 70% 1% Evolution of ULx / Lx U1e 25% 75% Evolution of UJa / Ja 22% 78% Evolution of USx / Sx 21% 71% 4% 4% Evolution of W / W T Lx 18% 67% 9% 2% 1%2% 0% 1%0% Evolution of U1e / 1e ULx Lx Jx UJx Bs UN C 17% 83% Evolution of UC / C 17% 83% Evolution of UW / W 17% 83% Evolution of UBs / Bs 15% 85% Evolution of UJx / Jx 14% 86% Evolution of Ja / Ja 12% 63% 25% Evolution of Sa / Sa P 11% 89% Evolution of UN / N 10% 90% Evolution of E / E 7% 93% 0% Evolution of C / C 1e 7% 92% 1% Evolution of Jx / Jx C 1% 99% Evolution of UE / E
  16. 16. 16/18 | www.janclaes.info Future work – Transition paths Transition path of C Transition path of Jx
  17. 17. 17/18 | www.janclaes.info Future work – Transition paths Transition path of C Transition path of Jx
  18. 18. 18/18 | 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

×