Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.


54 vues

Publié le

Slides of my presentation at COGNISE workshop at CAiSE conference, 3 June 2019, Rome, Italy

Publié dans : Business
  • Login to see the comments

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci


  1. 1. 1/17 | www.janclaes.info Jan Claes and Gilles Vandecaveye The impact of confusion on syntax errors in simple sequence flow models in BPMN
  2. 2. 2/17 | www.janclaes.info Context – introductory statements  Conceptual models are useful  Conceptual models contain errors  Syntax errors are the easiest to study objectively  Syntax errors are the least relevant to study  To study errors, study the creation process  Process-data is available for ‘process models’
  3. 3. 3/17 | www.janclaes.info Problem statement About syntax errors in simple sequence flow models  Different levels exist: clear error versus confusion  What is the relation between both?  What can we learn from this?
  4. 4. 4/17 | www.janclaes.info How many syntax errors? Send PO to factory Send PO to warehouse Update contact info Update financial info Close file Gateway combines join and split semantics ERROR Clearly not allowed by the specification IRRESOLUTION No consensus whether it is allowed/what it means CONFUSION Allowed, but not recommended
  5. 5. 5/17 | www.janclaes.info Syntax error or not? Close file If the model is finished: YES If the model in not finished: NO
  6. 6. 6/17 | www.janclaes.info Error or not? Send PO to warehouse Update contact info Update financial info Close file (wrong symbol)(missing symbol) DEFINITE ERRORUNCERTAIN ERROR
  7. 7. 7/17 | www.janclaes.info Data collection  Tool = Cheetah Experimental Platform  Task = build sequence flow model from structured textual description  Language = subset BPMN constructs  start event + end event  XOR gateway + AND gateway (split + join)  Activity + edge (including label)  Participants = 126 master students Business Engineering at Ghent University in 2015
  8. 8. 8/17 | www.janclaes.info Identified syntax issues
  9. 9. 9/17 | www.janclaes.info Measures per modeling session
  10. 10. 10/17 | www.janclaes.info Measures per modeling operation
  11. 11. 11/17 | www.janclaes.info Global results
  12. 12. 12/17 | www.janclaes.info What about timing?
  13. 13. 13/17 | www.janclaes.info Conditions for causality  Theoretical argumentation Confusion influences cognitive load Cognitive load influences effectiveness  Observed correlation Not always significant though (inaccurate measures) Poor external validity though  Temporal precedence Poor external validity though ? Control for third variables Maximum attention for equal conditions between subjects, but no guarantees
  14. 14. 14/17 | www.janclaes.info Which confusion causes which error?
  15. 15. 15/17 | www.janclaes.info Conclusions  No solid proof, but input for further research  H1. Using multiple end events causes the modeler to forget to close all paths in the model  H2. Modelers are not always aware of when using implicit gateways is allowed and when not  H3. Having multiple start and end events causes the modeler to forget adding the postponed paths for which a gateway was already created
  16. 16. 16/17 | www.janclaes.info Conclusions  No solid proof, but support for existing guidelines  Use 1 start and 1 end event (7PMG)  Use no more than 2 start and end events (10PMG)  Model as structured as possible (7PMG, 10PMG, ASP)  Use design patterns to avoid mismatch (10PMG)  Use explicit representation (CSP)  Limit the difference in the number of input/output flows between splits and joins (QI)  Use of textual annotation (CSP)  Naming guidance (CSP)
  17. 17. 17/17 | www.janclaes.info  Do you have any questions?  Do you have feedback? Thanks for you attention! Jan Claes jan.claes@ugent.be www.janclaes.info