=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3645/dc2
|storemode=property
|title=Towards enhancing process model visualisation and reducing
stakeholder-designer static
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3645/dc2.pdf
|volume=Vol-3645
|authors=Iris Mulder
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifip8-1/Mulder23
}}
==Towards enhancing process model visualisation and reducing
stakeholder-designer static
==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3645/dc2.pdf
Towards enhancing process model visualisation and
reducing stakeholder misunderstanding
Iris Mulder1
1
University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Abstract
In the past thirty years, process models have been used extensively and must be intuitive and easily
understandable. However, we know surprisingly little about modelling and which factors contribute
to a ‘good’ process model in terms of human understandability. A disinterest in the technical details
of process improvement methodologies relates to the miscommunication between the process model’s
designer and the stakeholder, the intended reader. Process models are not usually designed with different
audiences and stakeholders in mind. What visual adaptations can be made to process models serving
different stakeholders and uses? More specifically, what visual adaptations can be made to reduce the
misunderstanding the stakeholder experiences when reading process model notations? This will be
the research gap we will discuss and set out to solve. Four more sub-research question (SRQ) will be
discussed, followed by the three study designs. The scientific contribution of this PhD will consist of
interdisciplinary work with a focus on the stakeholder when researching what visual adaptation can be
made to reduce the miscommunication stakeholders experience when reading process model notations.
The practical contribution of this PhD will consist of a result that will help the practical community
reduce miscommunication and improve visualisation.
Keywords
misunderstanding, process model, stakeholder, designer, visualisation, psychology
1. Proposal
In this PhD proposal, we lay out the research gap that is intended to be investigated in the next
four years and the way we intend to work towards a solution. This research investigates the
misunderstanding the stakeholder experiences when trying to read a process model and what
kind of visualisation, visual adaptation, or guideline works best when trying to understand a
process model. First, the practical and scientific motivations will be discussed. Second, we will
discuss the research goal, questions and methods. Third, the scientific and practical contributions
and educational relevance are covered. Last, the data management and ethical assessment are
explained.
Companion Proceedings of the 16th IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modeling and the 13th
Enterprise Design and Engineering Working Conference, November 28 – December 1, 2023, Vienna, Austria
$ iris.mulder@hu.nl (I. Mulder)
0000-0002-0386-4838 (I. Mulder)
© 2023 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Workshop
Proceedings
http://ceur-ws.org
ISSN 1613-0073
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
1.1. Practical motivation
On average 76% of companies use some form of business software, when looking at companies
with 100 or more employees, this number increases to 90% [1]. On the other hand, Enterprise
Architecture (EA) tools with process modelling functionality are only used by 20% to 50% of
companies [2]. However, with the transition to a more circular economy, the importance of
transparent and understandable processes is growing as illustrated by the VMRG (the industry
organisation for metal facades). The VMRG is using a process-based approach to close the
leakage flows of materials from supply chains and move towards zero carbon. Fledderman (2023)
from VMRG states, “Formulating and modelling processes ... is done from the user perspective.
This, knowing that on the one hand, we have to support processes with digitalisation, ...,
and on the other hand, that we have 1000+ companies as users, with a very diverse level of
knowledge, to include in the communication. We are already experiencing user-(director)-
designer communication issues in daily practice. How do we ensure that we do this better and
more effectively?”
In the past thirty years, process models have been used extensively and are expected to be
intuitive and easily understandable. However, we know surprisingly little about modelling
and what contributes to a ‘good’ process model regarding human understandability [3, 4]. It is
often the stakeholder, the intended reader, who has trouble understanding the process model.
To improve this misunderstanding, much research surrounding process models has focused
on creating guidelines [5, 6]. Most of these guidelines relate to the visualisation of process
models and are intended for the designer to use when modelling processes. When choosing a
guideline to use the designers have to consider multiple factors, e.g. the audience, the purpose
of the process model, and the visualisation of the process model. Unfortunately, this does not
always yield the desired effects, as modelling guidelines have not been well tied to experimental
findings [7]. As van Gils (2023) states: “[designers] need to create one process model with
multiple visualisations for multiple stakeholders at multiple levels of abstraction”. For example,
a process model as shown in figure 1 might not be understandable to all stakeholders or be
interpreted in the same manner.
Figure 1:
Example of a BPMN process model
As shown there are currently several drawbacks and challenges concerning process models
when presented to stakeholders. Researchers are taking steps to map and improve these
drawbacks and challenges that occur in practice. Mulder [8] highlights this by showing five
cases that lack communicability with different stakeholders using the same process model, based
on the Design and Engineering Methodology for Organisations (DEMO). Additionally, models
are often misunderstood when presented to business executives (C-level management) [8, 9].
To conclude, while most research on process models focuses on the technical side of processes,
experiences from practice show that the human element is often overlooked [10]. Process
models are not usually designed with different audiences and stakeholders (e.g. customers,
employees, management, board members, investors, media) in mind. Understanding such models
is complicated by different notation languages each with their visual elements. This proposed
PhD study aims to enhance the understanding of process models by different stakeholders in
practice.
1.2. Scientific motivation
As stated in the practical motivation, to avoid problems in practice it is important to enhance
the understanding of process models by stakeholders. To work towards solving this practical
problem, the scientific community has to become more involved. Current research into this
problem mainly consists within the modelling community, with limited studies being interdisci-
plinary. For example, Gouveia [11] have made steps in an “inspiring direction” in developing
improved process models. However, interdisciplinary research has much potential to address
some of the larger problems facing organisations [12].
A process model is a broad term, there are a lot of process models with lots of different
notations which we will now define. First, we define process models as simplified and abstract
representations of systems and their interactions that are essential for a particular purpose [13,
14, 15]. Every notation has its informational payloads which are needed for the different kinds
of decisions that stakeholders need to make. Next, we define a stakeholder as a group or
an individual that can affect or is affected by process models, inferred from Freeman [16].
Therefore, a notation serves a specific purpose and is not relevant to use in every situation. The
designer usually decides what process model notation is used. Last, we define a designer as the
person who makes a process model, e.g. architects, process analysts, and others, inferred from
Mandelburger [17]. However, these designers do not always keep the stakeholder and their
level of understanding in mind.
DEMO is an abstract method, containing a notation to model the construction of an organi-
sation [18]. This method abstracts the organisation from implementation and realisation and
gives a view of the “what” of the organisation. DEMO has a payload of e.g. responsibilities,
products, roles, functions, data, rules, and dependencies [18]. BPMN is a functional notation of
the organisation that shows the activities and decisions of the organisation [19]. This notation
focuses on the “how” of the organisation. BPMN has a payload of e.g. functions, activities, deci-
sions, and order [19]. Both notations are complementary and have different payloads serving
the various stakeholders. DEMO should be used more. BPMN is used a lot.
Different stakeholders have been found to have different visual needs that need to be met
to communicate process models effectively [20, 21]. This requires a balance between human-
oriented communication and rational engineering, which can be described as “a challenge
and often a bit of a struggle” as you cannot assume that all people are familiar with process
models [21]. What often happens is that stakeholders tend to assume they possess a sufficient
understanding of process models. This assumption can stem from multiple reasons, e.g. a
course they completed. At the same time, designers often make a similar mistake by too easily
considering a process model to be effectively communicated without thorough validation [21].
Why is visualisation so important to understand? The number of people familiar with visual-
isations is growing. However, the number of people able to read these visualisations is difficult
to estimate [22], despite the need in today’s society for individuals to become more visually
literate [23]. So far, there is no standardised terminology, typology, or classification system for
core visualisation concepts anywhere [20]; it can mean various things to people [24]. This study
defines visual literacy as the ability to effectively, efficiently, and confidently understand, use,
create, and extract information from well-established data visualisations. The more individuals
use and encounter visualisations, the more important it is to teach those individuals to construct
and interpret that visualisation properly [20]. Visual literacy is becoming as important as the
ability to read and comprehend text [25]. Dewan [26] mentions that although text itself is not in-
herently inferior when we excessively depend on it and underutilise graphics, the outcome may
become mediocre. Visualisation plays a crucial and essential role in communicating models [21].
When using process models for communication, it is essential to be aware of the different views
people involved have [21]; all meaning is relative to culture [27]. Despite the importance of
visualisation and visual literacy, Kiper [23] found that the application and development of visual
literacy have not received much attention in research. As far as we know, only a few visual
literacy scales exist (e.g. [23, 22, 25]. These scales assist researchers in making better decisions
when designing and developing visualisation applications and software [25].
When it comes to examining the way people look at process models, there are multiple
ways to measure them. One method that stands out is eye-tracking, which is nowadays mostly
used by cognitive psychology. Eye-tracking is an objective way to measure and consequently
quantify the outcome in such a way that we can conjecture from these results. In this PhD
project, eye-tracking will be used to quantify a baseline for understanding the current situation
and to quantify improved artefacts against this baseline. The limited interdisciplinary work on
process models has mostly been from the human-model interaction perspective, specifically
cognitive psychology. Modelling is cognitively challenging [28, 17]; however, we believe the
cognitive perspective is not the only helpful perspective when looking at this problem. By
looking from a more social-psychological perspective, we can focus more on the stakeholders
and the visual adaptations that might be useful to them. Neurologically, we are wired with an
overwhelmingly visual sensory ability to comprehend those vast amounts of data [26, 27]. The
part of the brain that processes visuals is bigger than the part that processes words [29]. This
results in visuals being more effortlessly recognised, processed and recalled than words [29, 26].
1.3. Research goal
As discussed above, the current method of creating guidelines to improve process models has
not been effective, and misunderstanding continues. This PhD aims to contribute to the practical
and scientific research gap regarding visual adaptations that can be made to process models
serving different stakeholders and uses. We need to combine the domain of process modelling
science and social-psychological aspects. Currently, there is no optimal visualisation or visual
adaptation of process models that would make them understandable to all stakeholders. Thus,
we need to involve the scientific and practical community to move towards solving this research
gap.
1.4. Research question
Based on the previous sections discussing the motivation for this research, the following main
research question is formulated:
What visual adaptations can be made to structured process models to facilitate the understanding
of stakeholders?
To answer the main research question the following sub-research question (SRQ) are formulated:
SRQ1: What is known about reducing visual misunderstanding in relation to process models?
SRQ2: What is the difference between experts and non-experts (different groups of stakeholders)
when reading process models?
SRQ3: What kind of artefact can be designed to be useful in reducing misunderstanding of
process models in relation to their visualisation?
SRQ4: What aspects related to visualisation will improve the understanding of process models
by stakeholders?
1.5. Research method
This proposed PhD project begins with a systematic literature review (study 1) to further explore
the existing research. Consequently, an eye-tracking study with an in-depth interview will be
conducted (study 2), followed by the designing and testing of an artefact with Design Science
Research (DSR) and eye-tracking (study 3). Figure 2 visually shows the studies. In the planning
section the studies will be discussed in more depth.
1.5.1. Study 1
Study one will be a systematic literature review to answer sub-research question (SRQ) one.
The study will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) approach [30]. This approach was designed by Page et al. [30] to help the researchers
transparently report why the review was done, what was done and what they found. This will
help us look at the state of knowledge in process modelling regarding visualisation. Additionally,
we can examine the role social psychology and eye-tracking have played in research so far and
the role they can play in future research. The aim is to create an overview that shows what has
been done and highlights what can be done.
1.5.2. Study 2
Study two will be a two-part study to answer SRQ two. The first part will be an eye-tracking
experiment. The aim is to find differences in how different groups of stakeholders read process
models. The advantage to eye-tracking is its ability to measure physiological responses to
visual stimuli and record these responses in real time [31]. The experiment will consist of a
Figure 2: Note. Overview of the relation between the studies.
questionnaire about the two process model notations, Design and Engineering Methodology
for Organisations (DEMO) and Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN). The participant
will have to answer multiple-choice questions, minimising additional work requirements and
the risk of data entry errors [31].
The second part will be an in-depth interview. The participants of the eye-tracking experiment
will be interviewed to remark on the way they answered the questionnaire in the first part
of the study. The aim is to get a deeper understanding of how they view their process of
answering. Additionally, through the interview, we can hear from different stakeholders about
what methods they think might be good to reduce miscommunication.
1.5.3. Study 3
Study three will be a DSR study to answer SRQ three and four. In this study, we will be developing
and evaluating artefacts. The aim is to create an artefact that will reduce miscommunication.
These artefacts will be created based on the results from study two. The insights that study
two will give will determine what the focus of the artefact might be. By executing experiments,
we aim to reduce miscommunication when a stakeholder reads a process model notation. The
different artefacts will be evaluated through an eye-tracking experiment, which will be similar
to study two’s environment. Thus, the eye-tracking will help ensure that the results can be
properly compared.
1.6. Scientific contribution
By combining the domains of processmanagement (modelling) and social psychology, this PhD
has the potential to address some of the significant problems facing organisations. Because
there is limited interdisciplinary work in combining these fields, this study is one of the building
blocks for more studies like these in the future and creates more direction for future research. By
focusing on the stakeholders, we can get more focus on the human element, the social side and
visualisation. We aim to explore what visual adaptations can help reduce the misunderstanding
of process models by stakeholders.
1.7. Practical contribution
While during the past decades process models have been used extensively and must be intuitive
and easily understandable, practice has shown that there are currently several drawbacks
and challenges concerning process models when presenting these to stakeholders. This study
aims to focus on the human element, to help with the understanding of process models by
different audiences. It is essential to be aware of the different kinds of stakeholders because the
interpretation of models is contextual (e.g. relative to international/organizational culture). The
practical contribution of this PhD will consist of a result that will help the practical community
reduce miscommunication and improve visualisation. . .
1.8. Educational relevance
This research explores the visualisation and subsequent understanding of process models.
This is not only an essential topic for practice but also education. Using visuals in various
learning environments is a vital learning enhancer [29], making it a valuable tool for educational
applications. Visualisation will improve how education is taught and help the students prepare
for practice. Also, the PhD results will serve as a valuable source of information for guest
lectures.
1.9. Data management
All data collected, including audio recordings, survey results, and transcripts, will be securely
stored on the HU Research Drive, a server hosted by SURF. The Research Drive meets the
’Juridisch Normenkader Cloud Services Hoger Onderwijs’ and General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) standards for data security.
The general and anonymous data suitable for sharing as open-access data will be made
available for further research. Personal data will be pseudonymised during analysis to protect
individual privacy. Documents containing personal information, such as statements, contracts,
and financial documents, will not be shared as open-access data and will be stored securely.
These documents will only be used by the researcher and their supervisors for the purpose of
this PhD-research project.
After the completion of the doctoral research, all data that is not suitable for open access will
be deleted after five years.
1.10. Ethical assessment
This research applies the Dutch Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as the guiding principle
for its integrity policy. The following five principles are leading:
• Honesty;
• Diligence;
• Transparency;
• Independence;
• Responsibility.
In addition, research will be conducted, in accordance with GDPR legislation. When appropriate,
the HU Ethical Commission Research Social Domain (ECO-SD) will be asked to advise.
More specifically, without having the pretension to be limited, the following guidelines are
applied:
• Data is only acquired after receiving upfront permission.
• Interviews will be recorded. Audio files will be deleted after making transcripts.
• All gathered data will be anonymized where possible. If data cannot be anonymized
permission will be sought before publication.
• All off- and online tools used for data gathering, interviews, meetings, etc. are approved
by the research institutes involved (Utrecht University of Applied Sciences (Hogeschool
Utrecht) (HU) and the University of Maastricht )
• This research by no means is meant to harm people and/or organisations.
References
[1] CBS, Ict-gebruik bij bedrijven; bedrijfsgrootte, 2023, https://opendata.cbs.nl/#/CBS/nl/
dataset/85734NED/table?ts=1705920872159, 2023. Accessed: 2024-1-22.
[2] S. Brand, M. Blosch, Hype cycle for enterprise architecture, 2023, https://www.gartner.
com/interactive/hc/4400299?ref=explorehc, 2023. Accessed: 2024-1-25.
[3] J. Mendling, H. A. Reijers, J. Cardoso, What makes process models understandable?, in:
International Conference on Business Process Management, Springer, 2007, pp. 48–63.
[4] H. A. Reijers, J. Mendling, A study into the factors that influence the understandability of
business process models, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A:
Systems and Humans 41 (2011) 449–462. doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2010.2087017.
[5] M. Lankhorst, Communication of Enterprise Architectures, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 69–84. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01310-2{_}4.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01310-2{\_}4.
[6] J. Mendling, H. A. Reijers, W. M. van der Aalst, Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg),
Information and Software Technology 52 (2010) 127–136.
[7] J. Mendling, Managing structural and textual quality of business process models, in:
International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis, Springer, 2012,
pp. 100–111.
[8] M. A. T. Mulder, A design evaluation of an extension to the demo methodology, in:
Advances in Enterprise Engineering X, Advances in Enterprise Engineering XIII, Springer,
2019, pp. 55–65. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-37933-9{\_}4.
[9] C. Ziche, Clara ziche on linkedin: Day 5 of #bpm2023, 2023. URL: https://www.linkedin.
com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7108475538767253505/.
[10] C. Jans, S02e10: The bpm conference 2023, 2023. URL: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/
update/urn:li:activity:7108475538767253505/.
[11] B. Gouveia, D. Aveiro, D. Pacheco, D. Pinto, D. Gouveia, Fact model in DEMO - urban law
case and proposal of representation improvements, in: Advances in Enterprise Engineering
XIV - 10th Enterprise Engineering Working Conference, EEWC 2020, Revised Selected
Papers, volume 411, Springer, 2021, pp. 173–190. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74196-9\
_10.
[12] D. A. Waldman, Interdisciplinary research is the key, 2013.
[13] M. Geissdoerfer, D. Vladimirova, S. Evans, Sustainable business model innovation: A review,
Journal of Cleaner Production 198 (2018) 401–416. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0959652618318961. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2018.06.240.
[14] Y. Kerim, A Structured Literature Analysis on Understandability in Human-Model Interac-
tion, Ph.D. thesis, 2023.
[15] S. Smirnov, H. A. Reijers, M. Weske, T. Nugteren, Business process model abstraction:
a definition, catalog, and survey, Distributed and Parallel Databases 30 (2012) 63–99.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10619-011-7088-5.
[16] R. E. Freeman, The Stakeholder Approach Revisited, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden,
Wiesbaden, 2020, pp. 657–671. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16205-4_55. doi:10.
1007/978-3-658-16205-4_55.
[17] M. M. Mandelburger, J. Mendling, Cognitive diagram understanding and task performance
in systems analysis and design, MIS Quarterly 45 (2021) 2101–2157.
[18] J. Dietz, H. Mulder, Enterprise Ontology: A Human-Centric Approach to Understanding
the Essence of Organisation, Springer Nature, 2020.
[19] I. OMG, Object Management Group, Business process model and notation (bpmn), version
2.0.2, 2013. URL: https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/About-BPMN.
[20] K. Börner, A. Bueckle, M. Ginda, Data visualization literacy: Definitions, conceptual
frameworks, exercises, and assessments, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
116 (2019) 1857–1864. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807180116.
[21] S. Hoppenbrouwers, W. van Stokkum, M.-E. Iacob, I. Wilmont, D. van der Linden, C. Amrit,
M. Joosen, Stakeholder communication, in: Agile Service Development, Springer, 2012,
pp. 141–176.
[22] J. Boy, R. A. Rensink, E. Bertini, J.-D. Fekete, A principled way of assessing visualization
literacy, IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 20 (2014) 1963–1972.
[23] A. Kiper, S. Arslan, M. Kıyıcı, Ö. E. Akgün, Visual literacy scale: the study of validity and
reliability, The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education 2 (2012) 73–83.
[24] A. Csinger, The psychology of visualization, University of British Columbia, Department
of Computer Science, 1992.
[25] S. Lee, S.-H. Kim, B. C. Kwon, Vlat: Development of a visualization literacy assessment
test, IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 23 (2016) 551–560. doi:10.
1109/TVCG.2016.2598920.
[26] P. Dewan, Words versus pictures: Leveraging the research on visual communication,
Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 10
(2015). doi:https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v10i1.3137.
[27] C. Ware, Information visualization: perception for design, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
USA, 2004.
[28] K. Rosenthal, S. Strecker, M. Snoeck, Modeling difficulties in creating conceptual data
models: Multimodal studies on individual modeling processes, Software and Systems
Modeling (2022) 1–26.
[29] R. S. Aisami, Learning styles and visual literacy for learning and performance, Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences 176 (2015) 538–545. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2015.01.508.
[30] M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow,
L. Shamseer, J. M. Tetzlaff, E. A. Akl, S. E. Brennan, et al., The prisma 2020 statement: an
updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, International journal of surgery 88
(2021) 105906.
[31] M. Hassan, S. Białowąs, Research design in eye-tracking experiments 12 (2017) 16.