IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i9p1376-d1386851.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

High-Level Process Modeling—An Experimental Investigation of the Cognitive Effectiveness of Process Landscape Diagrams

Author

Listed:
  • Gregor Polančič

    (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Koroška cesta 46, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia)

  • Katja Kous

    (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Koroška cesta 46, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia)

Abstract

Unlike business process diagrams, where ISO/IEC 19510 (BPMN 2.0) prevails, high-level process landscape diagrams are being designed using a variety of standard- or semi-standard-based notations. Consequently, landscape diagrams differ among organizations, domains, and modeling tools. As (process landscape) diagrams need to be understandable in order to communicate effectively and thus form the basis for valid business decisions, this study aims to empirically validate the cognitive effectiveness of common landscape designs, including those BPMN-L-based, which represent a standardized extension of BPMN 2.0 specifically aimed at landscape modeling. Empirical research with 298 participants was conducted in which cognitive effectiveness was investigated by observing the speed, ease, accuracy, and efficiency of answering questions related to semantically equivalent process landscape diagrams modeled in three different notations: value chains, ArchiMate, and BPMN-L. The results demonstrate that BPMN-L-based diagrams performed better than value chain- and ArchiMate-based diagrams concerning speed, accuracy, and efficiency; however, subjects perceived BPMN-L-based diagrams as being less easy to use when compared to their counterparts. The results indicate that differences in cognitive effectiveness measures may result from the design principles of the underlying notations, specifically the complexity of the visual vocabulary and semiotic clarity, which states that modeling concepts should have unique visualizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregor Polančič & Katja Kous, 2024. "High-Level Process Modeling—An Experimental Investigation of the Cognitive Effectiveness of Process Landscape Diagrams," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:9:p:1376-:d:1386851
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/9/1376/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/9/1376/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:9:p:1376-:d:1386851. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.