7PMG: Guidelines for process modeling. Dr.ir. Hajo Reijers

Transcription

1 7PMG: Guidelines for process modeling Dr.ir. Hajo Reijers

2 Focus: process model comprehension Got it! create Got it! read modify understands represents 2

3

4

5 / name of department PAGE 5

6

7 Method Inspected various quality frameworks (SEQUAL, Guidelines of Modeling) Looked into cognitive literature Collected insights from empirical studies (experiments, process model collection analysis) Understanding Errors Distilled guidelines alidated with experienced modelers in the Netherlands and Germany Followed up on prioritizing PAGE 7

8 7PMG G1: Use as few elements in the model as possible. Complaint at appropriate place Analyze Complaint Analyze Complaint Complaint must be archived Archive Complaint Archive Complaint PAGE 8

9 7PMG G2: Minimize the routing paths per element. Call registration Complaint to be written down with form AZ2 Register receipt date of complaint letter Call registration Complaint to be written down with form AZ2 Register receipt date of complaint letter Internal referral External referral Complaint at appropriate place Internal referral External referral Complaint at appropriate place PAGE 9

10 7PMG G3: Use one start and one end event. Complaint hass arrived Incoming phone call Customer at desk Complaint letter Incoming phone call Complaint letter Customer at desk PAGE 10

11 7PMG G4: Model as structured as possible. Put complaint on incident agenda Archive complaint Confirm complaint to external party Archive internal complaint Put complaint on incident agenda Confirm complaint to external party Archive external complaint PAGE 11

12 7PMG G5: Avoid OR routing elements. Archive file Contact Client Archive file Contact client Plan Follow-up Plan Follow-up PAGE 12

13 7PMG G6: Use verb-object activity labels. Complaint to be written down Write down complaint Complaint analysis Analyze complaint PAGE 13

14 Archive internal complaint Archive internal complaint Refer customer internally Put complaint on incident agenda Refer customer internally Put complaint on incident agenda Customer has complaint Register call Write down complaint Register letter receipt date Refer customer Inform complainant Refer customer externally Confirm complaint to external party Archive external complaint Analyze complaint Archive complaint Register call Write down complaint Register letter receipt date Refer customer Inform complainant Refer customer externally Confirm complaint to external party Archive external complaint Analyze complaint Archive complaint Register call Write down complaint Register letter receipt date Contact client Contact client Follow up contact Follow up contact Archive internal complaint Refer customer internally Put complaint on incident agenda Customer has complaint Register call Write down complaint Register letter receipt date Analyze complaint Register call Write down complaint Register letter receipt date Refer customer Inform complainant Refer customer externally Confirm complaint to external party Archive external complaint Analyze complaint Archive complaint Register call Write down complaint Register letter receipt date Contact client Follow up contact 7PMG G7: Decompose the model if more than 50 elements. PAGE 14

15 Priorities? PAGE 15

16 Further insights Abstract process modeling knowledge is pivotal Tool support may be of major importance: Structured modeling Correctness analysis Support for different views Domain knowledge is tricky.. The particular (flow-oriented) technique is not so important PAGE 16

17 Open issues Relative importance of factors: Interaction effects? Where to invest? Translation to tool support: Modularity? Size? Secondary notation issues: Layout? Process modeling guidelines: whereto next? PAGE 17

18 Literature: foundations SEQUAL: J. Krogstie, G. Sindre, and H.D. Jørgensen. Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(1):91 102, Cognitive dimensions framework: T. Green and M. Petre. Usability Analysis of isual Programming Environments: A `Cognitive Dimensions' Framework. Journal of isual Languages and Computing 7(2): , Learning: A. Gemino and Y. Wand. Evaluating Modeling techniques based on Models of Learning. Communications of the ACM 46(10), 79-84, PAGE 18

19 Literature: process model comprehension General modeling guidelines: J. Mendling, H.A. Reijers, and W.M.P. van der Aalst. Seven Process Modeling Guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology, 2009 (accepted). Framework: H.A. Reijers, J. Mendling, and J. Recker. A Quality Framework for Business Process Models. In: M. Rosemann and J. om Brocke, editors, Handbook on Business Process Management, Springer-erlag, 2009(forthcoming). PAGE 19

20 Literature: process model comprehension (cont d) Metrics: J. Mendling: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of erification, Error Prediction and Guidelines for Correctness. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 6, I. anderfeesten, H.A. Reijers, J. Mendling, W.M.P. van der Aalst, and J. Cardoso. On a Quest for Good Process Models: The Cross-Connectivity Metric. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5074, , J. Mendling, H.A. Reijers, and Jorge Cardoso. What Makes Process Models Understandable? Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4714, 48-63, 2007.

21 Literature: process model comprehension (cont d) Comparison of techniques: D. Fahland, D. Lübke, J. Mendling, H.A. Reijers, B. Weber, M. Weidlich, and S. Zugal. Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Understandability. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 29, , J. Recker and A. Dreiling. Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, , K. Sarshar and P. Loos. Comparing the Control-flow of EPC and Petri net from the End-user Perspective. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3649, 434, 2005.

22 Literature: process model comprehension (cont d) Role of labeling and icons: J. Mendling, H.A. Reijers, and J. Recker. Activity Labeling in Process Modeling: Empirical Insights and Recommendations. Information Systems, 2009 (accepted) J. Mendling, J. Recker, H.A. Reijers: On The Usage of Labels and Icons in Business Process Modeling. International Journal of Information System Modeling, 2009 (accepted) Role of modularity: H.A. Reijers and J. Mendling. Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5240, 20-35, 2008

23 Literature: process model comprehension (cont d) Role of domain knowledge: J. Mendling, M. Strembeck: Influence Factors of Understanding Business Process Models. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 7, , On measurement: J. Melcher, J. Mendling, H.A. Reijers, and D. Seese. On Measuring the Understandability of Process Models. In Proceedings of the BPM Workshops 2009 (ER-BPM 2009), Ulm, September 7, 2009 (accepted). Cognitive Load and isualization: Weidong Huang, Peter Eades and Seok-Hee Hong: Measuring effectiveness of graph visualizations: A cognitive load perspective. Information isualization. olume 8, Issue 3, 2009