IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v21y2019i5d10.1007_s10796-017-9823-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Review of the Connection Between Model Viewer Characteristics and the Comprehension of Conceptual Process Models

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Mendling

    (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien)

  • Jan Recker

    (University of Cologne)

  • Hajo A. Reijers

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

  • Henrik Leopold

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Abstract

Understanding conceptual models of business domains is a key skill for practitioners tasked with systems analysis and design. Research in this field predominantly uses experiments with specific user proxy cohorts to examine factors that explain how well different types of conceptual models can be comprehended by model viewers. However, the results from these studies are difficult to compare. One key difficulty rests in the unsystematic and fluctuating consideration of model viewer characteristics (MVCs) to date. In this paper, we review MVCs used in prominent prior studies on conceptual model comprehension. We then design an empirical review of the influence of MVCS through a global, cross-sectional experimental study in which over 500 student and practitioner users were asked to answer comprehension questions about a prominent type of conceptual model - BPMN process models. As an experimental treatment, we used good versus bad layout in order to increase the variance of performance. Our results show MVC to be a multi-dimensional construct. Moreover, process model comprehension is related in different ways to different traits of the MVC construct. Based on these findings, we offer guidance for experimental designs in this area of research and provide implications for the study of MVCs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Mendling & Jan Recker & Hajo A. Reijers & Henrik Leopold, 2019. "An Empirical Review of the Connection Between Model Viewer Characteristics and the Comprehension of Conceptual Process Models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 1111-1135, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:21:y:2019:i:5:d:10.1007_s10796-017-9823-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-017-9823-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-017-9823-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10796-017-9823-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. François Bodart & Arvind Patel & Marc Sim & Ron Weber, 2001. "Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 384-405, December.
    2. Lan Xiao & Li Zheng, 2012. "Business process design: Process comparison and integration," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 363-374, April.
    3. Paul L. Bowen & Robert A. O'Farrell & Fiona H. Rohde, 2009. "An Empirical Investigation of End-User Query Development: The Effects of Improved Model Expressiveness vs. Complexity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 565-584, December.
    4. Vijay Khatri & Iris Vessey & V. Ramesh & Paul Clay & Sung-Jin Park, 2006. "Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 81-99, March.
    5. Yair Wand & Ron Weber, 2002. "Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling—A Research Agenda," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 363-376, December.
    6. Christopher J. Davis & Alan R. Hevner & Barbara Weber, 2017. "Studying the Creation of Design Artifacts," Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organization, in: Fred D. Davis & René Riedl & Jan vom Brocke & Pierre-Majorique Léger & Adriane B. Randolph (ed.), Information Systems and Neuroscience, pages 115-122, Springer.
    7. Riccardo Cognini & Flavio Corradini & Stefania Gnesi & Andrea Polini & Barbara Re, 0. "Business process flexibility - a systematic literature review with a software systems perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-29.
    8. Jan Claes & Irene Vanderfeesten & Frederik Gailly & Paul Grefen & Geert Poels, 2015. "The Structured Process Modeling Theory (SPMT) a cognitive view on why and how modelers benefit from structuring the process of process modeling," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 1401-1425, December.
    9. Kathrin Figl, 2017. "Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 59(1), pages 41-67, February.
    10. Deborah Compeau & Barbara Marcolin & Helen Kelley & Chris Higgins, 2012. "Research Commentary ---Generalizability of Information Systems Research Using Student Subjects---A Reflection on Our Practices and Recommendations for Future Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1093-1109, December.
    11. Jörg Becker & Patrick Delfmann & Hanns-Alexander Dietrich & Matthias Steinhorst & Mathias Eggert, 2016. "Business process compliance checking – applying and evaluating a generic pattern matching approach for conceptual models in the financial sector," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 359-405, April.
    12. Palash Bera & Andrew Burton-Jones & Yair Wand, 2014. "Research Note ---How Semantics and Pragmatics Interact in Understanding Conceptual Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 401-419, June.
    13. Gove Allen & Jeffrey Parsons, 2010. "Is Query Reuse Potentially Harmful? Anchoring and Adjustment in Adapting Existing Database Queries," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 56-77, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Lübke & Maike Ahrens & Kurt Schneider, 2021. "Influence of diagram layout and scrolling on understandability of BPMN processes: an eye tracking experiment with BPMN diagrams," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 99-131, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Burton-Jones & Peter N. Meso, 2006. "Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 38-60, March.
    2. Roman Lukyanenko & Wolfgang Maass & Veda C. Storey, 2022. "Trust in artificial intelligence: From a Foundational Trust Framework to emerging research opportunities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1993-2020, December.
    3. Palash Bera, 2021. "Interactions between Analysts in Developing Collaborative Conceptual Models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 561-573, June.
    4. Palash Bera & Andrew Burton-Jones & Yair Wand, 2014. "Research Note ---How Semantics and Pragmatics Interact in Understanding Conceptual Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 401-419, June.
    5. Merete Hvalshagen & Roman Lukyanenko & Binny M. Samuel, 2023. "Empowering Users with Narratives: Examining the Efficacy of Narratives for Understanding Data-Oriented Conceptual Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 890-909, September.
    6. Daniel Lübke & Maike Ahrens & Kurt Schneider, 2021. "Influence of diagram layout and scrolling on understandability of BPMN processes: an eye tracking experiment with BPMN diagrams," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 99-131, June.
    7. Guan, Jian & Levitan, Alan S. & Kuhn, John R., 2013. "How AIS can progress along with ontology research in IS," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 21-38.
    8. Jan Claes & Irene Vanderfeesten & Frederik Gailly & Paul Grefen & Geert Poels, 2015. "The Structured Process Modeling Theory (SPMT) a cognitive view on why and how modelers benefit from structuring the process of process modeling," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 1401-1425, December.
    9. Roger Clarke & Andrew Burton-Jones & Ron Weber, 2016. "On the Ontological Quality and Logical Quality of Conceptual-Modeling Grammars: The Need for a Dual Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 365-382, June.
    10. Ernestine Dickhaut & Mahei Manhai Li & Andreas Janson & Jan Marco Leimeister, 2022. "The role of design patterns in the development and legal assessment of lawful technologies," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 2311-2331, December.
    11. Oktay Turetken & Ahmet Dikici & Irene Vanderfeesten & Tessa Rompen & Onur Demirors, 2020. "The Influence of Using Collapsed Sub-processes and Groups on the Understandability of Business Process Models," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(2), pages 121-141, April.
    12. Pedro Antunes & Nguyen Hoang Thuan & David Johnstone, 2022. "Nature and purpose of visual artifacts in design science research," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 515-550, September.
    13. Lawrence Bunnell & Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson & Victoria Y. Yoon, 0. "RecSys Issues Ontology: A Knowledge Classification of Issues for Recommender Systems Researchers," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-42.
    14. Ben Roelens & Geert Poels, 2015. "The Development and Experimental Evaluation of a Focused Business Model Representation," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(1), pages 61-71, February.
    15. Gove Allen & Jeffrey Parsons, 2010. "Is Query Reuse Potentially Harmful? Anchoring and Adjustment in Adapting Existing Database Queries," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 56-77, March.
    16. A. Maes & G. Poels, 2006. "Development of a user evaluations based quality model for conceptual modeling," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/406, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    17. Paola Lara Machado & Montijn Ven & Banu Aysolmaz & Oktay Turetken & Jan Brocke, 2024. "Navigating Business Model Redesign: The Compass Method for Identifying Changes to the Operating Model," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 66(5), pages 607-638, October.
    18. Alam, Mohammad Zahedul & Hu, Wang & Kaium, Md Abdul & Hoque, Md Rakibul & Alam, Mirza Mohammad Didarul, 2020. "Understanding the determinants of mHealth apps adoption in Bangladesh: A SEM-Neural network approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    19. Roger Clarke, 2022. "Research opportunities in the regulatory aspects of electronic markets," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 179-200, March.
    20. Kim, Yeolib & Kim, Seung Hyun & Peterson, Robert A. & Choi, Jeonghye, 2023. "Privacy concern and its consequences: A meta-analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:21:y:2019:i:5:d:10.1007_s10796-017-9823-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.