The document discusses the complexities of process modeling in business process management (BPM), highlighting high error rates and quality issues due to communication challenges, inconsistent naming, and overly complex models. It outlines a structured approach to process model development focusing on elicitation, formalization, and modeling styles while emphasizing the importance of learning from modelers and improving tools and methodologies. Key findings indicate that good modelers exhibit efficient and structured modeling processes, suggesting areas for future improvement in process modeling practices.

1. Hajo Reijers
The Process
of Process Modeling

2. Jakob Pinggera
Stefan Zugal
Barbara Weber
Dirk Fahland
Hajo Reijers
Irene Vanderfeesten
Matthias Weidlich
Jan Mendling
Pnina Soffer
Jan Claes
Geert Poels PAGE 2

3. Process Models in BPM
common identify problems in
understanding the business process
discover opportunities
execute for improvement
PAGE 3

4. Quality Problems
 Error rates between 10% and 50% in industrial process
model collections
(Mendling 2009, Fahland et al. 2009, Mendling et al. 2008)
 impedes comprehensibility and maintainability
of process models
(Mendling 2008, Weber & Reichert 2008, Weber et al. 2011)
• Non intention-revealing or inconsistent naming
(Mendling et al. 2010)
• Redundant process fragments (Hallerbach et al. 2010)
• Large and unnecessarily complex process models
(Soto et al. 2008)
PAGE 4

5. Process Model Development Lifecycle
Elicitation Formalization
PAGE 5

6. Challenges
Good communication Significant process
between stakeholders modeling skills and
and effective good modeling
negotiation processes support
Elicitation Formalization
PAGE 6

7. Overall objective: Improve Formalization
1. Learn from process modelers
2. Investigate tool/notation impact on modeling
3. Support modeling:
• modeling methodology
• modeling notation
• modeling tools
Elicitation Formalization
PAGE 7

8. Analyze Formalization as a Process
Formalization
Elicitation Comprehension
Reconciliation Modeling
PAGE 8

9. Outline
 process modeling
• motivation
• elicitation + formalization
 capture as a process
• conceptual idea
• what does it look like
 insights:
• dialogue document
• modeling styles
• eye-tracking
PAGE 9

10. Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
 iterative, highly flexible process
 depends on individual modeler
 3 successive phases
Comprehension
Reconciliation Modeling
PAGE 10

11. What does the PPM look like?
 same product (process model)
PAGE 11

12. What does the PPM look like?
 same product (process model)
 record modeling steps
PAGE 12

13. Model recording
CREATE_XOR_GATEWAY
CREATE_ACTIVITY CREATE_EDGE
CREATE_START_EVENT CREATE_AND_GATEWA
MOVE_ACTIVITY
DELETE_ACTIVITY
NAME_EDGE CREATE_EDGE_BENDPOINT
RENAME_ACTIVITY
Cheetah Experimental Platform: http://bpm.q-e.at/?page_id=56 PAGE 13

14. What does the PPM look like?
 classify modeling steps
 accumulate in Modeling Phase Diagrams (PPMs)
PAGE 14

15. Experiments
PAGE 15

16. Outline
 process modeling
• motivation
• elicitation + formalization
 capture as a process
• conceptual idea
• what does it look like
 some insights
• dialogue document
• attention fixation
• modeling styles
PAGE 16

17. DIALOGUE DOCUMENT
PAGE 17

18. Dialogue document
P.J.M. Frederiks and Th.P. van der Weide: Information modeling: The process and the required
competencies of its participants. Data and Knowledge Engineering 58 (2006) 1, 4-20. PAGE 18

19. Dialogue document
 Factor of interest: Organization of dialogue
document
 Factor levels: Breadth-first, Depth-first, Random

20. Results: Correctness
 Very similar
PAGE 20

21. Results: Modeling time
 Breadth-first significantly quicker than random

22. Results: Accuracy
 Random has a significant higher distance

23. Results – Dialogue document
 Modeling is difficult
• High percentage of syntactical errors
 Organization dialogue document:
• Limited effect on syntactical correctness
• Big effect on accuracy
 Breadth first seems favorable:
• Modeling time lowest
• Modelers most closely follow dialogue document
PAGE 23

24. MODELING STYLES
PAGE 24

25. Modeling styles
PAGE 25

26. Approach
Understandable Non-understandable
models models
J. Claes, I. Vanderfeesten, H.A. Reijers, J. Pinggera, M. Weidlich, S. Zugal, B. Weber, J. Mendling, G. Poels and D. Fahland.
Tying Process Model Quality to the Modeling Process: The Impact of Structuring, Movement, and Speed. Accepted to 10th
International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2012)
PAGE 26

27. Structured modeling
 Creating blocks ‘as a whole’ (before moving on to
the creation of the rest of the model)
ACT
ACT X X
ACT
PAGE 27

28. Movement
PAGE 28

29. Speed
PAGE 29

30. Test
 Structured modeling
maxSimulBlock understandability  0.028*
percNumBlockAsAWhole understandability  0.030*
 Moves
avgMoveOnMovedElements understandability  0.049*
percNumElementsWithMoves understandability  0.648
 Speed
totTime understandability  0.031*
totCreateTime understandability  0.014*
PAGE 30

31. EYE-TRACKING
PAGE 31

32. Eye-tracking
PAGE 32

33. Modeler
33

34. Summary
 creating a formal model is a process in itself
 we record and measure this process of modeling
 modeling is difficult
 structure dialogue document has an impact
 modeling styles differ – relation with model quality
 in search of what makes modeling difficult
PAGE 34

35. Take away
 good modelers model quickly
 good modelers model structuredly

36. The future
 questions:
• can we improve the process of process modeling?
• can we develop effective modeling instructions?
• can we provide effective tool support?
X X
PAGE 36

37. Questions?
 S.N. Cant, D.R. Jeffery and B Henderson-Sellers: A conceptual model of cognitive complexity of
elements of the programming process. Information and Software Technology 37 (1995) 7, pp.
351-362.
 J. Claes, I. Vanderfeesten, H.A. Reijers, J. Pinggera, M. Weidlich, S. Zugal, B. Weber, J.
Mendling, G. Poels and D. Fahland. Tying Process Model Quality to the Modeling Process: The
Impact of Structuring, Movement, and Speed. Accepted to 10th International Conference on
Business Process Management (BPM 2012)
 P.J.M. Frederiks and Th.P. van der Weide: Information modeling: The process and the required
competencies of its participants. Data and Knowledge Engineering 58 (2006) 1, 4-20.
 A. Hallerbach, T. Bauer and M. Reichert: Capturing Variability in Business Process Models: The
Provop Approach. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 22
(2010) 6–7, pp. 519–546.
 J. Mendling: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction
and Guidelines for Correctness, Springer, 2008.
 J. Mendling: Empirical Studies in Process Model Verification. Transactions on Petri Nets and
Other Models of Concurrency II, Springer, 2009, pp. 208–224.
 G. Miller: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for
Processing Information. Psychological Review 63 (1956), pp. 81-87.
 J. Mendling, H.A. Reijers and J. Recker, Activity Labeling in Process Modeling: Empirical Insights
and Recommendations, Information Systems 35 (2010) 4, pp. 467-482.
 J. Mendling, H.M.W. Verbeek, B.F. van Dongen, W.M.P. van der Aalst and G. Neumann:
Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPCs of the SAP Reference Model, Data & Knowledge
Engineering 64 (2008) 1, pp. 312-329.
 J. Pinggera, P. Soffer, S. Zugal, B. Weber, M. Weidlich, D. Fahland, H.A. Reijers and J. Mendling:
Modeling Styles in Business Process Modeling. In: Proc. BPMDS ’12 (accepted), 2012.
Hajo Reijers
 P. Rittgen, Quality and perceived usefulness of process models, In: Proc. SAC’10, 2010, pp. 65-
h.a.reijers@tue.nl 72.
 A.-W. Scheer, ARIS - Business Process Modeling, 3rd ed., Springer 2000.
 M. Soto, A. Ocampo and J. Munch: The Secret Life of a Process Description: A Look into the
http://www.reijers.com Evolution of a Large Process Model, In: Proc. ICSP'08, 2008, pp. 257-268.
Twitter: @MultumNonMulta  B. Weber and M. Reichert: Refactoring Process Models in Large Process Repositories In: Proc.
CAiSE'08 (2008), pp. 124-139.
 B. Weber, M. Reichert, J. Mendling and H.A. Reijers: Refactoring Large Process Model
Repositories.. Computers and Industry 62(2011) 5, pp. 467-486.
PAGE 37