↓ Skip to main content

How do humans inspect BPMN models: an exploratory study

Overview of attention for article published in Software and Systems Modeling, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How do humans inspect BPMN models: an exploratory study
Published in
Software and Systems Modeling, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10270-016-0563-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cornelia Haisjackl, Pnina Soffer, Shao Yi Lim, Barbara Weber

Abstract

Even though considerable progress regarding the technical perspective on modeling and supporting business processes has been achieved, it appears that the human perspective is still often left aside. In particular, we do not have an in-depth understanding of how process models are inspected by humans, what strategies are taken, what challenges arise, and what cognitive processes are involved. This paper contributes toward such an understanding and reports an exploratory study investigating how humans identify and classify quality issues in BPMN process models. Providing preliminary answers to initial research questions, we also indicate other research questions that can be investigated using this approach. Our qualitative analysis shows that humans adapt different strategies on how to identify quality issues. In addition, we observed several challenges appearing when humans inspect process models. Finally, we present different manners in which classification of quality issues was addressed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 28 41%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 13%
Engineering 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 15 22%