Abstract
Business Process Diagrams serve several purposes, including process analysis, process-related communication, and process automation. Considering communication, modelers must ensure that all participants understand a process diagram and the corresponding notation in the same way. With globalization, this might get challenging, since different cultural environments may imply implicitly different meanings to specified symbols, whereas the same concepts may be associated with different representations. Thus, our efforts are directed towards investigating the intuitiveness of common Business Process Concepts’ representations. In this manner, we performed empirical research on a sample of novice modelers in two cultural environments, who were instructed to design graphical representations for the defined concepts. Our findings show which Business Process Concepts’ representations are intuitive to novice modelers and how the cultural background impacts it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. 11(1), 65–100 (1987)
Siau, K.: Informational and computational equivalence in comparing information modeling methods. JDM 15(1), 73–86 (2004)
Zhang, J., Norman, D.: Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cogn. Sci. 18, 87–122 (1994)
OMG: Business Process Model and Notation version 2.0, 03 January 2011. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/. Accessed 15 Mar 2011
Fowler, H.W.: A Dictionary of Modern English Usage: The Classic First Edition. Oxford University Press (2010)
Caire, P., Genon, N., Heymans, P., Moody, D.L.: Visual notation design 2.0: towards user comprehensible requirements engineering notations. In: 2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 115–124 (2013)
Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38(6), 33–44 (1995)
Britton, C., Jones, S.: The untrained eye: how languages for software specification support understanding in untrained users. Hum. Comput. Interact. 14(1–2), 191–244 (1999)
Britton, C., Jones, S., Kutar, M., Loomes, M., Robinson, B.: Evaluating the intelligibility of diagrammatic languages used in the specification of software. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds.) Diagrams 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1889, pp. 376–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_32
Hruby, P.: Structuring Specification of Business Systems with UML (with an Emphasis on Workflow Management Systems). In: Patel, D., Sutherland, J., Miller, J. (eds.) Business Object Design and Implementation II, pp. 77–89. Springer, London (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-1286-0_9
Neiger, D., Churilov, L., Flitman, A.: Business process modelling with EPCs. In: Value-Focused Business Process Engineering : a Systems Approach, vol. 19, pp. 1–31, Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09521-9_5
Eppler, M.J., Ge, J.: Communicating with diagrams: how intuitive and cross-cultural are business graphics?, Università della Svizzera italiana (2007)
Kummer, T.-F., Recker, J., Mendling, J.: Enhancing understandability of process models through cultural-dependent color adjustments. Decis. Support Syst. 87, 1–12 (2016)
Schadewitz, N.: Design patterns for cross-cultural collaboration. Int. J. Des. 3(3), 37–53 (2009). http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/276/273. Accessed 30 May 2019
Goodman, N.: Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1968)
Genon, N., Heymans, P., Amyot, D.: Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 377–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19440-5_25
vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.): Handbook on Business Process Management 1. IHIS. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3
Masri, K., Parker, D., Gemino, A.: Using iconic graphics in entity-relationship diagrams: the impact on understanding. J. Database Manag. (JDM) 19(3), 22–41 (2008)
Irani, P., Tingley, M., Ware, C.: Using perceptual syntax to enhance semantic content in diagrams. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 21(5), 76–85 (2001)
Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R.: Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation. Requirements Eng. 15(2), 141–175 (2010)
Peña, E.D.: Lost in translation: methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Dev. 78(4), 1255–1264 (2007)
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency (Research Core Funding No. P2-0057).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Polančič, G., Brin, P., Kuhar, S., Jošt, G., Huber, J. (2019). An Empirical Investigation of the Cultural Impacts on the Business Process Concepts’ Representations. In: Di Ciccio, C., et al. Business Process Management: Blockchain and Central and Eastern Europe Forum. BPM 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 361. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30429-4_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30429-4_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30428-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30429-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)