The process of process modeling by Hajo Reijers
Description
dr. Hajo Reijers, Associate Professor Business Process Management at Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, "process modeling"
Transcript
Hajo Reijers The Processof Process Modeling Jakob Pinggera Stefan Zugal Barbara Weber Dirk Fahland Hajo ReijersIrene Vanderfeesten Matthias Weidlich Jan Mendling Pnina Soffer Jan Claes Geert Poels PAGE 2 Process Models in BPM common identify problems in understanding the business process discover opportunities execute for improvement PAGE 3 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 Process Model Development Lifecycle Elicitation Formalization PAGE 5 Challenges Good communication Significant process between stakeholders modeling skills and and effective good modeling negotiation processes support Elicitation Formalization PAGE 6 Overall objective: Improve Formalization1. Learn from process modelers2. Investigate tool/notation impact on modeling3. Support modeling: • modeling methodology • modeling notation • modeling tools Elicitation Formalization PAGE 7 Analyze Formalization as a Process Formalization Elicitation Comprehension Reconciliation Modeling PAGE 8 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 Process of Process Modeling (PPM) iterative, highly flexible process depends on individual modeler 3 successive phases Comprehension Reconciliation Modeling PAGE 10 What does the PPM look like? same product (process model) PAGE 11 What does the PPM look like? same product (process model) record modeling steps PAGE 12 Model recording CREATE_XOR_GATEWAY CREATE_ACTIVITY CREATE_EDGECREATE_START_EVENT CREATE_AND_GATEWA MOVE_ACTIVITYDELETE_ACTIVITY NAME_EDGE CREATE_EDGE_BENDPOINT RENAME_ACTIVITYCheetah Experimental Platform: http://bpm.q-e.at/?page_id=56 PAGE 13 What does the PPM look like? classify modeling steps accumulate in Modeling Phase Diagrams (PPMs) PAGE 14 Experiments PAGE 15 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 DIALOGUE DOCUMENT PAGE 17 Dialogue documentP.J.M. Frederiks and Th.P. van der Weide: Information modeling: The process and the requiredcompetencies of its participants. Data and Knowledge Engineering 58 (2006) 1, 4-20. PAGE 18 Dialogue document Factor of interest: Organization of dialogue document Factor levels: Breadth-first, Depth-first, Random Results: Correctness Very similar PAGE 20 Results: Modeling time Breadth-first significantly quicker than random Results: Accuracy Random has a significant higher distance 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 MODELING STYLES PAGE 24 Modeling styles PAGE 25 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 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 Movement PAGE 28 Speed PAGE 29 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 EYE-TRACKING PAGE 31 Eye-tracking PAGE 32 Modeler 33 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 Take away good modelers model quickly good modelers model structuredly 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 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. ICSP08, 2008, pp. 257-268. Twitter: @MultumNonMulta B. Weber and M. Reichert: Refactoring Process Models in Large Process Repositories In: Proc. CAiSE08 (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
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
