UNDERSTANDING PROCESS MODELLING GRAMMAR ...

UNDERSTANDING PROCESS MODELLING GRAMMAR CONTINUANCE A STUDY OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF REPRESENTATIONAL CAPABILITIES

By Jan Recker (MScIS, BScIS)

Thesis submitted to the School of Information Systems at the Faculty of Information Technology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane 2008

- II -

- III -

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis entitled UNDERSTANDING PROCESS MODELLING GRAMMAR CONTINUANCE. A STUDY OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF REPRESENTATIONAL CAPABILITIES is my own original work. The work contained in this thesis has not been previously been submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. Due acknowledgement to each significant contribution to, and quotation in this thesis from the work, or works of other people has been made through the proper use of citations and references. Brisbane, 16 April 2008.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Jan Christof Recker)

- IV -

SUPERVISORY PANEL

Principal Supervisor

Professor Michael Rosemann, PhD Business Services Cluster Faculty of Information Technology Queensland University of Technology

Associate Supervisors

Associate Professor Marlon Dumas, PhD Business Services Cluster Faculty of Information Technology Queensland University of Technology

Professor Peter Green, PhD Business Information Systems Cluster UQ Business School The University of Queensland

-V-

ABSTRACT The graphical modelling of processes is of growing popularity and high relevance to organisations that seek to document, analyse and improve their business operations. This research investigates the phenomenon of continued user acceptance of the grammars that are used to build process models. It develops and tests a theory that can be used to explain and predict why users would opt to continue working with certain grammars in their process modelling efforts. This study builds on established theories, including the Technology Acceptance Model, Expectation-Confirmation Theory, Task-Technology Fit Theory and Representation Theory. These theories suggest that end users typically strive for tools that are useful and easy to use, which confirm their expectations through firsthand utility, and which match task requirements and individual abilities. Representation theory suggests that modelling grammars should be complete and clear in their capabilities to represent real-world domains. The research model has been designed by combining conceptual studies of acceptance and continuance theories with a representational analysis of the BPMN grammar, which is a recently ratified industry standard for process modelling and thereby of high practical relevance to process modelling practice. It further incorporates findings from nineteen semi-structured interviews with process modellers in Australia. The research model has been tested and validated by means of a web-based survey with 590 process modellers world-wide. This thesis contributes to the body of knowledge in a number of ways: First, it presents an empirically validated model of the factors determining a user’s intention to continue using a process modelling grammar. Second, it measures the impact that grammar characteristics as well as user and task characteristics have on user evaluations of a process modelling grammar. Third, it presents empirical evidence on the consequences that perceived representational deficiencies entail on user perceptions of a process modelling grammar.

KEYWORDS Business process modelling, post-adoption behaviour, technology acceptance, expectation-confirmation theory, task-technology-fit, representation theory

- VI -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am in the fortunate position of working – and living – with many wonderful and inspiring colleagues and friends. I am delighted to have the opportunity to thank them for their support, advice and friendship. First, my sincere gratitude towards my supervisor panel. Michael Rosemann, Peter Green and Marlon Dumas have been wonderful throughout my study. I have received stimulation, motivation, inspiration, optimism, criticism, guidance, and so many little things that have made my transition into IS research both a challenging and rewarding journey. I am more than grateful for being allowed to work with these truly great academics, and I am very proud for having received – and taken advantage of – the opportunity of working with them. My work, my thesis, my work ethics and my career aspirations would not have evolved this way without these people to whom I look up to and whose advice – and friendship – means much to me. Second, I need to thank two very special colleagues and dear friends of mine without whom I would not be writing these lines. I will never forget Alexander Dreiling dragging me as an under-graduate into his tutorial on data management. It was a key turning point in my life after which it became crystal clear to me that I wanted to become an academic. And even though I failed him in being a devoted research assistant, he still successfully initiated me into the world of IS research. Looking at where we are now, where we have met and what we have done over the years, I have to say that not all we did was bad. Also, Marta Indulska has been with me all the way in Australia. I ruined a rare research team meeting of hers back in 2003 – and I’m sorry (but not really). Ever since, she has simply become the best colleague anyone could ever dream of. For her guidance, support, stimulation, input and output I will never be able to repay her. The great thing is that I think we have become very close friends, and I hope this way I can give back a little of what she has done for me. Thanks for everything, Marta, you’re the best – except your taste of music. I’d also like to thank all those who have provided me with feedback over the years. The time and effort they devoted to helping me is very much appreciated, and experiencing the interest they displayed in my work makes me very proud. With their knowledge and wisdom, Michael zur Muehlen, Iris Vessey, Ron Weber and Wil van der Aalst helped refining and revising my work and made it better. I am also indebted to everyone in our BPM cluster at Queensland University of Technology, for providing me with a stimulating, challenging, productive and welcoming environment to which I have happily returned every day. I’d like to mention

- VII -

explicitly my colleagues Tonia de Bruin, Jan Mendling and Wasana Bandara, who helped me tremendously with their support. A warm thank you also goes to my friends in Australia, for taking my mind of work, showing to me the Australian way of life, keeping me level and overall becoming great friends over the years. A very big thank you further goes to all my friends in good old Germany. They never gave up my friendship, even though I can be a very bad correspondent at times. I love coming back to see these people over and over again, and it always makes me feel very special when I note that not even all the distance or lack of communication can change the intimacy of our friendship. Unfortunately, I cannot list everyone here (I would for sure miss some important names and I do not want to offend anyone). However, it is my desire to extend my special gratitude to some of my oldest and closest friends: Tommy, Stefan, Matze, Micky, Schopper, Tobi – my life is so much richer and better with you in it. Last, but most importantly, I need to thank those that have been with me all the way. My mother and father have always believed in me, encouraged me, critically examined my development – and instilled in me a desire to identify, exploit, use and expand my skills and abilities. I have come to understand how important education, ethics, morale and character are in growing up and becoming a better person, and I think they have displayed an outrageously good performance in raising my sisters and me. If I can raise my kids half as good as they have done, I will be a very proud father one day. Thank you for this. I would also like to thank the rest of my family, my beautiful sisters and my loving grandparents, uncles, aunts and godparents. Being separated from the rest of the ‘Recker clan’ has made me very aware of the importance of the bonds that only family circles can establish and which they sustain throughout all obstacles. I am grateful for all the encouragement, love, support and motivation I have received over the years and I hope I can give something back to everyone. Family is everything.

- VIII -

PUBLICATIONS FROM THIS RESEARCH While pursuing the research described in this thesis until end of 2007, a total of twenty-nine (not counting papers in development or under review) refereed scholarly articles closely related to this research have been published in conference proceedings, edited books and journals. The following table gives an overview of these scholarly articles, arranged according to their relationships to this thesis. Reference Research background Recker, J., Niehaves, B. (forthcoming): Epistemological Perspectives on Ontologybased Theories for Conceptual Modeling. Accepted for publication in: Applied Ontology, special issue on "Ontological Foundations for Conceptual Modeling". Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Krogstie, J. (2007): Ontology- versus Pattern-based Evaluation of Process Modeling Languages: A Comparison. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 20, Art. 48, pp. 774-799. Recker, J. (2007): A Socio-Pragmatic Constructionist Framework for Understanding Quality in Process Modelling. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, pp. 43-63. Recker, J. (2006): Process Modeling in the 21st Century. BPTrends, Vol. 3, Iss. 5, pp. 1-6.

Recker, J., Mendling, J. (2007): Lost in Business Process Model Translations: How a Structured Approach helps to Identify Conceptual Mismatch. In K. Siau (ed.): Research Issues in Systems Analysis and Design, Databases and Software Development. IGI Publishing, Hershey, Pennsylvania, pp. 227-259. Recker, J., Dreiling, A. (2007): Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: M. Toleman: Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2007. Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems, Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 356-366. Recker, J., Mendling, J. (2007): Adequacy in Process Modeling: A Review of Measures and a Proposed Research Agenda - Position Paper -. In: B. Pernici and J. A. Gutla: CAiSE 2007 Workshop Proceedings Vol. 1. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 235-244. Mendling, J., Recker, J. (2007): Extending the Discussion of Model Quality: Why Clarity and Completeness may not always be enough. In: B. Pernici and J. A. Gutla: CAiSE 2007 Workshop Proceedings Vol. 1. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 109-121. Recker, J., Mendling, J. (2006): On the Translation between BPMN and BPEL: Conceptual Mismatch between Process Modeling Languages. In: T. Latour and M. Petit: The 18th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Proceedings of Workshops and Doctoral Consortium. Namur University Press, Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, pp. 521-532. Recker, J. (2006): Towards an Understanding of Process Model Quality. Methodological Considerations. In: J. Ljungberg and M. Andersson: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems. Goeteborg, Sweden, pp. 434-445. Recker, J. (2005): Evaluation of Conceptual Modeling Languages. An Epistemological Discussion. In N. C. Romano et al. (eds.): Proceedings of the 2005 Americas Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems, Omaha, Nebraska, pp. 329-337. Recker, J. (2005): Conceptual Model Evaluation. Towards more Paradigmatic Rigor. In J. Castro and E. Teniente (eds.): Proceedings of the CAiSE'05 Workshops - Volume I.

Type Journal article Journal article Journal article Journal article (nonrefereed) Book chapter

Conference proceedings




Conference proceedings Conference proceedings


- IX -

Reference FEUP, Porto, Portugal, pp. 569-580. Representational analysis Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M., Recker, J. (2007): Using Ontology for the Representational Analysis of Process Modeling Techniques. Forthcoming in: International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management, special issue on "Vocabularies, Ontologies and Rules for The Enterprise". Recker, J., Indulska, M. (2007): An Ontology-Based Evaluation of Process Modeling with Petri Nets. Journal of Interoperability in Business Information Systems, Vol. 2, Iss. 1, pp. 45-64. zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J., Indulska, M. (2007): Sometimes Less is More: Are Process Modeling Languages Overly Complex? In: K. Taveter and D. Gasevic: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Vocabularies, Ontologies and Rules for The Enterprise. IEEE, Annapolis, Maryland, 15 October 2007. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P. (2007): Extending Representational Analysis: BPMN User and Developer Perspectives. In G. Alonso, P. Dadam and M. Rosemann (eds.): Business Process Management - BPM 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 4714. Springer, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 384-399. Indulska, M., Recker, J., Green, P., Rosemann, M. (2007): Are We There Yet? Seamless Mapping of BPMN to BPEL4WS. In: Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems. Keystone, Colorado 2007. Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Recker, J. (2006): Improving Representational Analysis: An Example from the Enterprise Systems Interoperability Domain. In: S. Spencer and A. Jenkins: Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Australasian Association for Information Systems, Adelaide, Australia. Recker, J., Wohed, P., Rosemann., M. (2006): Representation Theory versus Workflow Patterns – The Case of BPMN. In: D. W. Embley, A. Olive and S. Ram: Conceptual Modeling - ER2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 4215. Springer, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 68-83. Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P. (2006): A Study of the Evolution of the Representational Capabilities of Process Modeling Grammars. In E. Dubois and K. Pohl: Advanced Information Systems Engineering - CAiSE 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 4001. Springer, Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, pp. 447-461. Recker, J. (2005): Developing Ontological Theories for Conceptual Models using Qualitative Research. In: J. Beekhuyzen (ed.): Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Qualitative Research in IT & IT in Qualitative Research. Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Semi-structured interviews Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P. (2006): How Good is BPMN Really? Insights from Theory and Practice. In: J. Ljungberg and M. Andersson: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems. Goeteborg, Sweden, pp. 1582-1593. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P. (2005): Do Process Modelling Techniques Get Better? A Comparative Ontological Analysis of BPMN. In B. Campbell, J. Underwood, D. Bunker (eds.): Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems, Sydney, Australia. Model-building Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M. (2007): Extending the Scope of Representation Theory: A Review and Proposed Research Model. In D. Hart and S. Gregor (eds.): Information Systems Foundations: Theory, Representation and Reality. ANU E Press, Canberra, Australia, pp. 93-114. Recker, J., Rosemann, M. (2007): Integration of Models for Understanding Continuance of Process Modeling Techniques. In: Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems. Keystone, Colorado 2007.

Type

Journal article

Journal article Conference proceedings


Conference proceedings Conference proceedings






Book chapter


-X-

Reference Recker, J. (2007): A Study on the Decision to Continue Using a Modeling Grammar. In: Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems. Keystone, Colorado 2007. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M. (2006): Towards a Theory of Modeling Grammar Acceptance. Proceedings of the Journal of AIS sponsored Theory Development Workshop following ICIS2006. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 14, 2006. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M. (2006): Extending the Scope of Representation Theory: A Review and a Proposed Research Model. In: D. Hart and S. Gregor: Information Systems Foundations: Theory, Representation and Reality. Proceedings of the 3rd ANU Information Systems Foundations Workshop. School of Accounting and Business Information Systems, Canberra, Australia, pp. 126-140. Survey Recker, J., Rosemann, M. (2007): Understanding the Process of Constructing Scales Inventories in the Process Modelling Domain. In: H. Österle, J. Schelp and R. Winter: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Information Systems. University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland, pp. 2014-2025. Data analysis Recker, J. (2007): Why Do We Keep Using A Process Modelling Technique? In M. Toleman: Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2007. Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems, Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 49-59.

Type Conference proceedings Conference proceedings




- XI -

TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ............................................................ III SUPERVISORY PANEL ............................................................................................IV ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. V KEYWORDS ............................................................................................................. V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................VI PUBLICATIONS FROM THIS RESEARCH ..............................................................VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................XI LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................XIV LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. XV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. XVII 1 EXPOSITION ...................................................................................................... 19 1.1 Motivation.................................................................................................. 19 1.2 Problem Statement and Purpose of Study.................................................. 22 1.3 Research Approach and Methodology....................................................... 24 1.4 Organisation of Thesis ............................................................................... 29 2 PLAN OF RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 32 2.1 Research Background ................................................................................ 32 2.1.1 Success, Acceptance and Continuance of Information Systems Phenomena ....................................................................................... 32 2.1.2 Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems................................ 38 2.1.3 Process Modelling ............................................................................ 46 2.2 Research Scope .......................................................................................... 49 2.2.1 Focus of Investigation ...................................................................... 49 2.2.2 Unit of Analysis................................................................................ 53 2.2.3 Business Process Modeling Notation Background .......................... 54 2.3 Research Design ........................................................................................ 57 3 PHASE I: REPRESENTATIONAL ANALYSIS ....................................................... 63 3.1 Theoretical Foundation .............................................................................. 63 3.2 Research Method ....................................................................................... 67 3.3 Method Application ................................................................................... 75 3.3.1 Conduct ............................................................................................ 75 3.3.2 Findings ............................................................................................ 84 3.4 Related Work ............................................................................................. 90 3.5 Synopsis ................................................................................................... 101 4 PHASE II: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS .................................................. 104 4.1 Research Method ..................................................................................... 104 4.2 Method Application ................................................................................. 111

- XII -

4.2.1 Design............................................................................................. 111 4.2.2 Conduct .......................................................................................... 119 4.2.3 Findings .......................................................................................... 123 4.3 Related Work ........................................................................................... 149 4.4 Synopsis ................................................................................................... 151 5 PHASE III: MODEL BUILDING ........................................................................ 153 5.1 Theoretical Foundations .......................................................................... 153 5.1.1 Technology Acceptance Model...................................................... 155 5.1.2 Expectation-Confirmation Theory ................................................. 161 5.1.3 Task-Technology-Fit ...................................................................... 165 5.2 Research Approach .................................................................................. 171 5.3 Research Model ....................................................................................... 174 5.3.1 Determinants of Process Modelling Grammar Continuance.......... 176 5.3.2 Antecedents of Process Modelling Grammar Continuance ........... 181 5.4 Related Work ........................................................................................... 195 5.5 Synopsis ................................................................................................... 198 6 PHASE IV: SURVEY ......................................................................................... 200 6.1 Research Method ..................................................................................... 200 6.2 Scale Development .................................................................................. 207 6.2.1 Adaptation of Scales....................................................................... 209 6.2.2 Construction of Scales.................................................................... 215 6.2.3 Operationalisation of All Other Scales........................................... 229 6.3 Instrument Development.......................................................................... 233 6.4 Instrument Testing ................................................................................... 239 6.4.1 Pre-Test .......................................................................................... 240 6.4.2 Pilot Test 1...................................................................................... 241 6.4.3 Pilot Test 2...................................................................................... 243 6.5 Survey Administration............................................................................. 246 6.6 Synopsis ................................................................................................... 252 7 PHASE V: DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 255 7.1 Research Method ..................................................................................... 255 7.2 Descriptive Statistics................................................................................ 263 7.3 Measurement Model ................................................................................ 273 7.4 Structural Model ...................................................................................... 280 7.4.1 Test of the Determinants of Process Modelling Grammar Continuance.................................................................................... 280 7.4.2 Test of the Antecedents of Process Modelling Grammar Continuance.................................................................................... 283 7.4.3 Test of Moderation Effects............................................................. 291 7.5 Discussion................................................................................................ 300 7.5.1 Explaining Process Modelling Grammar Continuance .................. 300 7.5.2 Explaining the Role of Process Modelling Grammar Characteristics ................................................................................ 303 7.5.3 Explaining the Role of User and Task Characteristics................... 310 7.6 Synopsis ................................................................................................... 316

- XIII -

8 CLOSURE ......................................................................................................... 318 8.1 Reprise ..................................................................................................... 318 8.2 Contributions ........................................................................................... 319 8.3 Conclusions.............................................................................................. 322 8.3.1 Implications for Research............................................................... 322 8.3.2 Implications for Practice ................................................................ 325 8.4 Limitations ............................................................................................... 327 8.5 Outlook .................................................................................................... 331 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 333 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................ 395 A Additional Representational Analysis Material....................................... 395 B Additional Interview Material ................................................................. 407 C Additional Survey Material ..................................................................... 424 D Additional Data Analysis Material .......................................................... 456

- XIV -

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1.1:

Types of theory in IS research. Adopted theory type highlighted bold ....... 28

Fig. 1.2:

Thesis structure ............................................................................................ 31

Fig. 2.1:

Three-stage model of adoptive behaviour.................................................... 35

Fig. 2.2:

Framework for research on conceptual modelling....................................... 43

Fig. 2.3:

Popular process modelling grammars .......................................................... 48

Fig. 2.4:

Typology of the study .................................................................................. 50

Fig. 2.5:

Selected business process management standards ....................................... 55

Fig. 2.6:

BPMN diagram of a payment process ......................................................... 57

Fig. 2.7:

Research design............................................................................................ 60

Fig. 3.1:

Main premises of representation theory ....................................................... 68

Fig. 3.2:

Mapping relationships in representational analyses..................................... 69

Fig. 4.1:

Excerpt from the interview database.......................................................... 114

Fig. 4.2:

Interview structure and response classification schemes ........................... 117

Fig. 4.3:

Excerpt from an interview, question types highlighted ............................. 122

Fig. 4.4:

Interviewee demographics: Process modelling purposes........................... 126

Fig. 4.5:

Excerpt from an interview, response parts highlighted.............................. 137

Fig. 4.6:

Interviewee demographics: Process modelling experience in general and with BPMN ................................................................................................ 139

Fig. 4.7:

Interviewee demographics: Process modelling purposes by extent of BPMN use .................................................................................................. 144

Fig. 4.8:

Identification of the contextual factor modelling tool................................ 146

Fig. 5.1:

Technology acceptance model ................................................................... 156

Fig. 5.2:

Adopted expectation-confirmation theory in the context of IS continuance ................................................................................................ 164

Fig. 5.3:

Task-technology-fit theory......................................................................... 168

Fig. 5.4:

A priori model of process modelling grammar continuance...................... 175

Fig. 6.1:

Scale development procedure..................................................................... 217

Fig. 6.2:

Excerpt from the survey instrument: Deficiency of BPMN in the use of the Pool construct ....................................................................................... 237

Fig. 7.1:

Generic SEM path diagram with constructs and measures ........................ 259

Fig. 7.2:

Participant country and continent of origin................................................ 265

Fig. 7.3:

Participant modelling experience ............................................................... 268

Fig. 7.4:

Re-specified model of the determinants of process modelling grammar continuance ................................................................................................ 282

- XV -

LIST OF TABLES Tab. 1.1:

Taxonomy of theory types in IS research .................................................... 27

Tab. 2.1:

Examples of conceptual modelling approaches ........................................... 41

Tab. 3.1:

Summary of BPMN representation mapping ............................................... 83

Tab. 3.2:

Summary of propositions ........................................................................... 102

Tab. 4.1:

Advantages and disadvantages of interviews............................................. 109

Tab. 4.2:

Summary of interview findings: Responses to propositions, by modeller category ...................................................................................................... 127

Tab. 4.3:

Interviewee classification of proposed excess constructs .......................... 135

Tab. 4.4:

Summary of interview findings: Responses to propositions, by modeller experience .................................................................................................. 140

Tab. 4.5:

Purposes of process modelling and corresponding model requirements ... 143

Tab. 4.6:

Modelling tool functionality with impact on BPMN’s perceived deficiencies................................................................................................. 147

Tab. 4.7:

Summary of interview results: Initial levels of proposition support.......... 151

Tab. 4.8:

Summary of interview results: Contextual and moderating factors identified .................................................................................................... 152

Tab. 5.1:

Observed relationships between TAM variables ....................................... 158

Tab. 5.2:

Observed relationships between ECT variables in the IS context ............. 164

Tab. 5.3:

Observed relationships between TTF variables ......................................... 169

Tab. 6.1:

Advantages and disadvantages of surveys in IS research .......................... 204

Tab. 6.2:

Adopted measurement items for theory constructs .................................... 211

Tab. 6.3:

Final coded substrata identification results ................................................ 223

Tab. 6.4:

Inter-rater reliability for index card sorting test ......................................... 226

Tab. 6.5:

Resulting top candidate items per theory construct ................................... 227

Tab. 6.6:

Advantages and disadvantages of web-based surveys in contrast to mail surveys........................................................................................................ 234

Tab. 6.7:

Results from pilot test 1: Exploratory factor analysis of dependent variables ..................................................................................................... 242

Tab. 6.8:

Results from pilot test 2: Reliability analysis of scales.............................. 244

Tab. 6.9:

Results from pilot test 2: Exploratory factor analysis of construct redundancy scales....................................................................................... 244

Tab. 6.10: Evaluation of survey design and conduct................................................... 253 Tab. 7.1:

Participant demographics ........................................................................... 264

Tab. 7.2:

Experience in process modelling and BPMN ............................................ 266

Tab. 7.3:

Tool support for BPMN process modelling ............................................... 269

Tab. 7.4:

Chi-square test of early versus late survey respondents............................. 272

Tab. 7.5:

Item loadings .............................................................................................. 274

- XVI -

Tab. 7.6:

Scale properties .......................................................................................... 275

Tab. 7.7:

Factor correlations...................................................................................... 276

Tab. 7.8:

Goodness of fit statistics ............................................................................ 281

Tab. 7.9:

Test of the influence of construct deficit on PU ........................................ 286

Tab. 7.10: Construct deficit: ANOVA results ............................................................. 287 Tab. 7.11: Test of the influence of construct redundancy, overload and excess on PEOU ......................................................................................................... 288 Tab. 7.12: Construct redundancy, overload and excess: ANOVA results .................. 290 Tab. 7.13: Changes in standardised γ coefficients due to moderating effects............. 296 Tab. 7.14: Support for hypotheses............................................................................... 316 Tab. 8.1:

Contributions of the study .......................................................................... 320

Tab. 8.2:

Limitations of the study ............................................................................. 327

- XVII -

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AGFI ANCOVA ANOVA ARIS AVE BPD BPEL BPM BPML BPMN BPSS BTP BWW CASE CD CDSD CE CELRD CFA CFI CG CO CR CS CSCW ebXML ECT EFA EP EPC ERD ERM ERP ES GFI GLS GSS IDEF IS IT ItU JSD KMO L LDFD LOOPN++ MG MibML

Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index Analysis of Covariance Analysis of Variance Architecture of Integrated Information Systems Average Variance Extracted Business Process Diagram Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Business Process Management Business Process Modeling Language Business Process Modeling Notation Business Process Specification Schema Business Transaction Protocol Bunge-Wand-Weber Computer Aided Software Engineering Construct Deficit Comparison of Demographic and Socio-economic Differences Construct Excess Comparison of Early and Late Respondent Differences Confirmatory Factor Analysis Comparative Fit Index Conceptual Graph Construct Overload Construct Redundancy Cross-Sectional Computer Supported Cooperative Work Electronic Business using eXtensible Markup Language Expectation-Confirmation Theory Exploratory Factor Analysis Explanation and Prediction Event-driven Process Chain Entity-Relationship Diagram Entity-Relationship Modelling Enterprise Resource Planning Enterprise System Goodness of Fit Index Generalised Least Squares Group Support System Integrated Definition Information System Information Technology Intention to (Continue to) Use JACKSON’s System Development Method KAISER-MYER-OLKIN Longitudinal Logical Data Flow Diagram Language for Object-Oriented Petri Nets Modelling Grammar Multiagent-based Integrative Business Modeling Language)

- XVIII -

MIS ML MMR MOC MOO NAMA NFI NNFI OLS OMG OML OPM PCA PEOU PLS PU RMR RMSEA SEM SEQUAL SOAP TAM TDM TRA TTF UML UTAUT WA WfMC Wf-XML WS WSCI WWW XML XNY XPDL XPY YAMA YAWL yEPC

Management Information System Maximum Likelihood Moderated Multiple Regression Maximal Ontological Completeness Minimal Ontological Overlap Not Another Modelling Approach Normed Fit Index Non-Normed Fit Index Ordinary Least Squares Object Management Group Open Modelling Language Object-Process Methodology Principal Component Analysis Perceived Ease Of Use Partial Least Squares Perceived Usefulness Standardised Root Mean Square Residual Root Mean Square Error of Approximation Structural Equation Modelling Semantic Quality Framework Simple Object Access Protocol Technology Acceptance Model Tailored Design Method Theory of Reasoned Action Task-Technology-Fit Unified Modelling Language Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Weighting Adjustment Workflow Management Coalition Workflow XML Web Services Web Service Choreography Interface World Wide Web Extensible Markup Language Explanatory XML Process Definition Language Exploratory Yet Another Modelling Approach Yet Another Workflow Language Yet Another Event-driven Process Chain

Chapter 1: Exposition

1

– 19 –

EXPOSITION In all science, error precedes the truth, and it is better it should go first than last. Hugh Walpole

1.1

Motivation

Nowadays, organisations require operational flexibility and rapid responsiveness to address the challenges stemming from turbulent business environments, increasing customer demands, market pressures as well as technological advances. One highly popular approach of handling this pressure relies on a thorough understanding of an organisation’s business processes and is called Business Process Management.1 The Australian Community of Practice2 defines Business Process Management (BPM) as “a structured, coherent and consistent way of understanding, documenting, modelling, analysing, simulating, executing and continuously changing end-to-end business processes and all involved resources in light of their contribution to business success.” BPM covers the overall management of organisations by looking at the lifecycle of their business processes.3 It is essentially a consolidated selection of tools and methods from earlier practices such as Total Quality Management4, Business Process Re-Engineering5, Process Innovation6, Kaizen7, Lean Management8 and Total Quality Management.9 Over recent decades, BPM has emerged as a popular management approach in Information Technology (IT) and Management practice. Both recent and earlier studies10 support this statement. BPM has over the last three years continuously been identified as a top business priority and building business process capability continues to be a major challenge for senior executives in the coming years.11 The increasing global competition and publicized cases of outsourcing and off-shoring have stimulated demand for business process management and enticed organisations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

E.g., HAMMER (1990); DAVENPORT (1993); HAMMER (1997); HAMMER (2001); SMITH and FINGAR (2003). AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE (2004). SCHEER and JOST (2002); ZUR MUEHLEN (2004); ZUR MUEHLEN and ROSEMANN (2004). E.g., HRADESKY (1994). E.g., HAMMER and CHAMPY (1993). E.g., DAVENPORT (1993). E.g., MASAAKI (1986). E.g., JACKSON and JONES (1995). E.g., POWELL (1995). E.g., ELZINGA et al. (1995); PRITCHARD and ARMISTEAD (1999). GARTNER GROUP (2005); GARTNER GROUP (2006); GARTNER GROUP (2007).


to increase their engagement in BPM initiatives. WOLF and HARMON12 conducted a study on the current state of BPM and found that 58% of their 348 respondents’ organisations spent up to US$500,000 on BPM in 2005. Roughly 15% of the surveyed organisations spent between US$500,000 and US$1,000,000 in 2005, and 19% spent between US$1,000,000 and US$5,000,000. Moreover, 53% of respondents indicated that their organisations would be increasing process management efforts in 2007. The strengthened interest in BPM has, inter alia, triggered substantial academic and commercial work aiming towards advanced business process management solutions. Yet, while organisations appear to be well aware of the need for BPM efforts, implementation remains a challenging task.13 Indeed, a recent study found that many organisations still struggle with the initial, seemingly trivial steps of discovering and documenting their business processes.14 Business process modelling (in short: process modelling) as a way of graphically articulating at least the activities, events/states, and control flow logic that constitute a business process15 is seen by many as a promising solution to the challenge of process discovery and documentation. Correspondingly, process modelling has over the years risen in attractiveness and is by now a popular conceptual modelling approach.16 Process models are created using so-called process modelling grammars, which specify the syntax and semantics of the graphical elements in a process model and the rules of how to combine the elements.17 Due to a strengthened interest in a more disciplined approach towards Business Process Management, many organisations have been motivated to make significant investments in process modelling initiatives. This, in turn, has triggered substantial related research, especially on those grammars that are used for process modelling. In fact, the ongoing and strengthened interest in modelling for Business Process Management has over time given rise to a wide range of modelling grammars, and consequently, a competitive market is providing a large selection of grammars for process modelling.18

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

WOLF and HARMON (2006). GARTNER GROUP (2005); GARTNER GROUP (2006). INDULSKA et al. (2006). CURTIS et al. (1992). DAVIES et al. (2006). For more information on the notions of process modelling method, grammar, tools etc. refer to Section 2.1.2. E.g., SINUR (2004).

– 20 –


– 21 –

Nevertheless, despite the ongoing proliferation of process modelling grammars, only a few have been widely accepted by practitioner communities. Existing research has shown that process modelling grammars differ significantly in their features and characteristics, such as, for instance, their representational capabilities19, their support for expressing workflow patterns20 or their support for formal analysis of correctness criteria such as relaxed soundness.21 Actual practice, on the other hand, informs us that certain process modelling grammars have achieved higher levels of adoption and dissemination in modelling practice22 than others. In fact, some available grammars exist as objects of interest only to academic scholars.23 The corresponding question of the success of process modelling grammars has raised surprisingly little interest amongst information systems (IS) researchers. A number of scholars have conducted studies to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of specific process modelling grammars.24 Yet, the findings from the studies so far have provided only little explanation of actual acceptance, usage or – more generally – success patterns. It would appear that the existing studies have not yet succeeded in linking their findings to the explanation of success patterns. While success studies are popular in IS research in general25, the question of grammar success has not at all been addressed in the process modelling community. Indeed, very little is known about the practical adoption and dissemination of modelling methods, tools and grammars in general.26 The phenomenon of process modelling grammar success, and the related question of why certain process modelling grammars exhibit higher levels of uptake, acceptance or continued usage than others, has remained unanswered so far. This has led to gaps of knowledge in the research discipline, especially related to the understanding of the various notions that the measures ‘success’, ‘acceptance’ or ‘continued usage’ embrace in the context of process modelling. Accordingly, this study sets out to

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26

RECKER et al. (2006b); ROSEMANN et al. VAN DER AALST et al. (2003); RUSSELL (2006a); RUSSELL et al. (2006b). VERBEEK et al. (2007).

(2006b). et al. (2005a); RUSSELL et al. (2005b); RUSSELL et al.

Popular process modelling grammars include, among others, Event-driven Process Chains developed by KELLER et al. (1992) and BPMN developed by BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b). Consider Workflow nets developed by VAN DER AALST (1998a), for example. E.g., GORLA et al. (1995); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2000a); PHALP and SHEPPERD (2000); VAN DER AALST et al. (2003); AGUILAR-SAVÉN (2004). E.g., DAVIS (1989); DAVIS et al. (1989); MATHIESON (1991); DELONE and MCLEAN (1992); DAVIS (1993); SEGARS and GROVER (1993); GOODHUE (1995); SEDDON (1997); GOODHUE et al. (2000); BHATTACHERJEE (2001b); DELONE and MCLEAN (2003); BHATTACHERJEE and PREMKUMAR (2004). WYNEKOOP and RUSSO (1997).


make a contribution to the body of knowledge in this area by studying the factors determining continued use of process modelling grammars.27

1.2

Problem Statement and Purpose of Study

The phenomenon of how process modellers form an intention to continue to use a particular grammar for process modelling is both a practically relevant and an academically stimulating challenge. Understanding the continued use – or ‘continuance’ – of a process modelling grammar has significant implications for organisations. Typically, organisations engaging in process modelling initiatives invest heavily in training business and technical analysts. They also purchase related modelling and management tools to facilitate the adoption and use of a particular modelling grammar. If individual users of the grammar are then unwilling to continue using the adopted process modelling grammar, the previous investments, both tangible and intangible, are largely wasted. Consequently, examining the continuance decision from a behavioural perspective is a subject matter worthy of scholarly investigation and one that is likely to have a positive impact on organisational process modelling initiatives. Accordingly, the first research imperative of the present study is to build and test a model for explaining and predicting28 the continued acceptance of process modelling grammars by users that have initial usage experiences with a grammar. The results in turn will be a significant move towards an empirical body of knowledge. They facilitate the derivation of a potential measure of the usage of process modelling grammars and hence contribute to an understanding of how the long-term viability and practical adoption of process modelling grammars in contemporary process modelling initiatives can be explained and predicted. Correspondingly, Research question 1. How can continued use of a process modelling grammar by process modellers in the post-adoption phase be explained and predicted? In the process of developing a theory to account for the phenomenon of the continued use of process modelling grammars, a second, equally relevant question emerges. A behavioural study of the continuance intention will answer the question if a process modeller would choose to continue working with a grammar. However, it will not answer the question why the modeller would do so. Assuming it is found that 27 28

Background on the notion of continued use is given in Section 2.1.1. EP theory according to GREGOR’s (2006) classification scheme. Refer to Section 1.3.

– 22 –


users opt to continue to use a particular process modelling grammar, the question is which antecedent factors account for this decision. Amongst these factors, an interesting question would be whether the capabilities or features of a process modelling grammar in question account for the acceptance or rejection decision? In other words, can the acceptance of process modelling grammars be traced back to the grammar’s capability to fulfil representational (i.e., modelling) needs.29 An answer to these questions would have significant implications both for organisations seeking to engage in process modelling initiatives and for organisations that engage in modelling grammar development. By referring the question of grammar continuance back to a study of the core capabilities of a modelling grammar, organisations and individuals receive guidance on how specific features of modelling grammars impact their actual popularity (as measured by user evaluations). Consequently, they obtain an informed opinion on the type of features that successful grammars should exhibit in order to warrant sustained acceptance in process modelling teams. The community of tool vendors and training providers, on the other hand, can be guided in their development and advancement of the essential features that impact the continued use of a process modelling grammar and thereby guarantee economical success of the grammar. Hence, in order to discuss process modelling grammar continuance it is required first to establish a comprehensive understanding of grammar capabilities and to investigate the consequences of these capabilities on continued use and – more generally – user evaluations. Identifying an appropriate and theoretically sound measure for the capabilities of process modelling grammars would also lead to a significant contribution towards understanding quality of conceptual modelling in general and process modelling in particular.30 Accordingly, the second research imperative of the present study is to assess the capabilities of process modelling grammars and investigate empirically whether these capabilities influence user evaluations of the grammar and – ultimately – user intentions to continue using the grammar. Correspondingly, Research question 2. Do characteristics of a process modelling grammar have an impact on process modellers’ user evaluations of the process modelling grammar? 29

30

The capability of a modelling grammar to fulfil representational requirements has previously been speculated to be one if not the most important feature of a modelling grammar. See WEBER (1997). In the past, repeated calls have been made to contribute in the area of process modelling quality. Refer, for instance, to BRITO E ABREAU et al. (2002); POELS et al. (2003); MOODY (2005b); KROGSTIE et al. (2006). This call is further indicated by a series of workshops and journal special issues addressing this issue in particular, e.g., BUHL and HEINRICH (2005); NELSON et al. (2005); POELS et al. (2006); NURCAN et al. (2007).

– 23 –


1.3

Research Approach and Methodology

Meta-theoretical assumptions There has been significant concern about, and an extensive amount of discussion and debate on, the topic of research methodology by IS researchers.31 In fact, research methodology has almost become a research area in its own right, indicated, for instance, by the number of major conferences that have been held on this issue.32 Most of the often emotive discussion focuses on the merits of different research methods and the more or less energetic promotion of particular approaches or methodologies. Especially the ‘positivism – anti positivism’ debate has, in some instances by means of powerful cases33, at times become vitriolic. In this debate, opposing positions have sometimes even been supported with almost religious fervour.34 Proponents from each side of the debate typically claim that their approach is the ‘only’ way of conducting IS research and that the efforts of the other side are misguided at best if not dysfunctional.35 Not to be mistaken, these discussions are highly interesting. Some of the research conducted as part of, or in preparation for, this study touches upon philosophical issues in IS research.36 These discussions, however, when carried out in research disciplines other than philosophy, more often than not exhibit the flaw that the questions and concerns approached are not fully comprehended. Nevertheless, a conscious exploration of relevant aspects of the philosophy of science underlying the research program should be carried out since a good part of the answer to the question “why philosophy?” is that the alternative to philosophy is not no philosophy but bad philosophy. The ‘unphilosophical’ person has an unconscious philosophy, which they apply in their practice – whether of science or politics or daily life.37

31 32 33

34 35 36

37

E.g., BENBASAT and WEBER (1996); MOODY (2003b); WEBER (2004); KING and LYYTINEN (2006). E.g., MUMFORD et al. (1985); NISSEN et al. (1991); MINGERS and STOWELL (1997). At least in the social or human sciences, e.g., EDEN et al. (1981); MIR and WATSON (2000); COHEN et al. (2004). For instance, consider that some philosophers of science call positivism defunct, e.g., PASSMORE (1967), and POPPER (1982) actually takes credit for ‘killing’ it in 1934. WEBER (1997). WALSHAM (1995). The epistemological presuppositions of research based on the Bunge-Wand-Weber program have, for instance, been examined in detail. See RECKER and NIEHAVES (In Press). In another work, an alternative framework for quality-related research in process modelling based on a philosophy of socio-pragmatic constructionism was outlined. See RECKER (2007a). COLLIER (1994), p. 17.

– 24 –


It is not the purpose of this research to fully investigate all parts of philosophy. However, it is still acknowledged that an evaluative criticism of research work is not possible without understanding the perception of science underlying the research to be evaluated.38 This study is carried out with the viewpoint that in most if not all IS research problems there may be an objective reality and a subjective reality39, and both may be essential in their contribution to understanding a particular phenomenon. For example, a process modelling initiative may succeed or fail based on whether the models were completed on-time and on-budget (which would be a factual, objective reality). However, the different stakeholders involved in the initiative may still have their own perceptions on whether that particular initiative was a success or failure and why (which would be a subjective reality). Each of these viewpoints provides its own lens through which a phenomenon can be investigated, and both can contribute to understanding. In fact, a number of researchers have lamented that relying on just one method, theory or methodology would lead to an inconsistency between developed theory and actual practice (i.e., there is more to IS practice than IS theories can explain).40 Accordingly, this thesis attempts to incorporate both positivist and interpretive assumptions in its design and conduct. It follows the framework suggested by LEE41 for integrating interpretive approaches to science with positivist assumptions. His framework suggests three levels of understanding:42 •

Subjective understanding. This understanding consists of the meanings and sensual experiences with which human subjects under observation perceive themselves and the situational, contextual and organizational settings in which they operate.

•

Interpretive understanding. This understanding is the researcher’s interpretation of the subjective understanding observed from human subjects.

38

BECKER and NIEHAVES (2007). HABERMAS (1984) actually recognizes three different worlds: the objective world of actual and possible states of affairs, the subjective world of personal experiences and beliefs, and the social world of normatively regulated social relations. It is on the basis of this differentiation scheme that some philosophers argue differences between constructivism, which argues a solipsistic creation of knowledge, viz., the subjective world of personal experiences and beliefs, see, e.g., VON GLASERSFELD (2001), and social constructionism, which argues a socially constructed creation of knowledge, viz., the social world, see, e.g., BERGER and LUCKMANN (1966). E.g., SMITH (2006). LEE (1991). See LEE (1991).

39

40 41 42

– 25 –


•

Objective understanding. This understanding is one that the researcher created (for instance, in the form of a research model) and tests (for instance, through statistical data analysis) in order to explain the empirical reality observed.

The subjective understanding of human subjects provides the basis on which interpretive understanding is generated, for instance, through semi-structured interviews. The interpretive understanding can then provide the basis on which to develop objective understanding, for instance, by formulating theoretical propositions and subjecting them to controlled empirical testing. This perspective is deemed helpful for explaining both the process of this study and its outcomes. In general terms, it is assumed that the phenomenon of interest (e.g., continued use of a process modelling grammar) lies within a ‘real’ world (a realist ontological assumption), but also that the ‘true’ nature of the world is coloured by the individual perceptions of those in it and that all human knowledge of the world can be partial, fallible, or biased (e.g., human subjects working with a process modelling grammar may have different understandings of its characteristics). In other words, this study may well be labelled with the term relaxed positivism. It sets out to formulate a number of theoretical propositions (for instance, regarding the features and characteristics of a process modelling grammar), and tests them using rules of formal logic and hypothetico-deductive logic. However, attempts are made during the formulation of the theoretical propositions to incorporate subjective understanding as shared by process modelling practitioners (for instance, on how a process modelling grammar is used in different socio-organisational contexts and how this affects related outcomes, such as its perceived instrumentality or usability). More information about the design of the study in light of these assumptions is given in Section 2.3.

Research Target In order to be able to develop a thorough understanding of the target of the present research it is – in a broader way – first assumed that IS research usually begins with a problem that is to be solved, some question of interest or a newly emergent phenomenon that is of relevance.43 Theory that could then be developed as part of an IS research process should depend on the nature of the problem, question or phenomenon that is being addressed. Based on this understanding, four primary goals of the corresponding theory development process can be distinguished according to 43

BENBASAT and ZMUD (1999); GREGOR (2006).

– 26 –


– 27 –

GREGOR, and combinations of these goals lead to the five types of theory that can be differentiated by the attributes given in Tab. 1.1.44 •

Analysis and description. The theory provides a description of the phenomena of interest, analysis of relationships among those constructs, the degree of generalisability in constructs and relationships and the boundaries within which relationships, and observations hold.

•

Explanation. The theory provides an explanation of how, why, and when things happened, relying on varying views of causality and methods for argumentation. This explanation will usually be intended to promote greater understanding or insights by others into the phenomena of interest.

•

Prediction. The theory states what will happen in the future if certain preconditions hold. The degree of certainty in the prediction is expected to be only approximate or probabilistic in IS.

•

Prescription. A special case of prediction exists where the theory provides a description of the method or structure or both for the construction of an artefact (akin to a recipe). The provision of the recipe implies that the recipe, if acted upon, will cause an artefact of a certain type to come into being.

Tab. 1.1: Theory type Analysis

Explanation

Prediction

Explanation and prediction Design and action

Taxonomy of theory types in IS research Description Says what is. The theory does not extend beyond analysis and description. No causal relationships among phenomena are specified and no predictions are made. Says what is, how, why, when, and where. The theory provides explanations but does not aim to predict with any precision. Says what is and what will be. The theory provides predictions but does not have well-developed justificatory causal explanations. Says what is, how, why, when, where, and what will be. Provides predictions and has both testable propositions and causal explanations. Says how to do something. The theory gives explicit prescriptions (e.g., methods, grammars, principles of form and function) for constructing an artefact.

Source: Adapted from GREGOR (2006), p. 620. The relationships between the different theory types are shown in Fig. 1.1. In the present study, the targets of explanation and prediction (EP theory) are adopted. 44

GREGOR (2006), p. 619.


– 28 –

More precisely, perspectives on process modelling grammar use are sought that will improve explanations of relationships between grammar characteristics and the phenomenon of continued use. At the same time, propositions are developed and tested that will allow for the prediction of future behaviour in similar settings.45 In line with GREGOR’s understanding of this type of theory the present study seeks to develop an understanding of how and why the phenomenon of process modelling grammar continuance occurs. Is also develops a set of propositions for predicting how and why the phenomenon of process modelling grammar continuance will occur in the future.46

This figure is not available online. Please consult the hardcopy thesis available from the QUT Library

Source: GREGOR (2006), p. 630. Fig. 1.1:

45 46

Types of theory in IS research. Adopted theory type highlighted bold

It should be noted that it is not implied that these goals are superior to other research targets. Following GREGOR’s elaborations, this decision was in fact simple. She herself admits that TAM and representation theory, two fundamental cornerstones in the present study, both denote prominent examples of EP theory in IS research. She concedes that TAM aims to both explain and predict user acceptance of information systems while WEBER (1997) gives a theory of representation, which aims to model the desirable properties of information systems at a deep level and be a theory native to IS. See GREGOR (2006), p. 628.


In light of GREGOR’s classification, EP theory can constitute a contribution to knowledge by means of either theory building or theory testing.47 In the present study, first a theory is built by forming a meaningful combination of existing theories whilst taking into account findings from an empirical study. This theory is then subjected to a test by means of empirical research strategies – in the present study the survey method.48

1.4

Organisation of Thesis

Having set out methodology, target and approach of this study, this thesis describes the research in eight chapters. Following this introductory chapter, Chapter two discusses the design of this research. Therein, Section 2.1 recapitulates the background to this research. Section 2.2 delineates scope and focus of this research. The design of the study is then presented and described in Section 2.3. Chapter three concerns the establishment of the antecedent variables in the study’s research model. A theory (Section 3.1) and method (Section 3.2) is introduced and applied (Section 3.3) in order to establish measurements for the characteristics of process modelling grammars. Furthermore, a review of related work and a justification for the selection of the used theory is presented in Section 3.4. Section 3.5 reviews the contributions of the chapter. Chapter four discusses a series of semi-structured interviews conducted to obtain initial evidence for the findings of Chapter three and to further explore the organisational settings in which process modelling grammars are being put to use. Section 4.1 introduces semi-structured interviews as a research method in information systems. Section 4.2 describes in detail how this method is applied in the present research. Therein, design, conduct and findings are discussed. Section 4.3 reviews related literature and critically reflects on the findings from the present study in light of prior research. Section 4.4 reviews the contributions of the chapter. Chapter five describes the research model building exercise. It reports on the development of a theoretical model of process modelling grammar continuance. First, relevant theoretical foundations are introduced in Section 5.1. Section 5.2 discusses recommendations and guidelines for theory building and how they are 47

48

GREGOR (2006). Interestingly, in her effort to classify research articles published in MIS Quarterly between March 2003 and June 2004 she found that EP theory accounted for 66 percent of the published work. The research design and methodology selected to achieve the research target, EP theory building and validation, is described in detail in Section 2.3.

– 29 –


related to, and incorporated in, the present research. Section 5.3 then reports in detail on the theoretical model of process modelling grammar continuance, its key variables, relationships and contextual boundaries. Section 5.4 presents justification for the formed theory. It reflects on extant literature and discusses how the proposed model constructs and relationships relate to findings from earlier studies. Section 5.5 reviews the contributions of the chapter. Chapter six discusses the design and conduct of a cross-sectional survey set out to test and validate the proposed model of process modelling grammar continuance. First, an introduction to survey research in IS is presented in Section 6.1. Section 6.2 then reports on the efforts carried out to devise appropriate scales to measure the constructs of the theoretical model specified in Chapter five. Section 6.3 then details how the survey instrument was constructed and implemented. Section 6.4 reports on the pre- and pilot tests carried out to revise the survey instrument and Section 6.5 presents details about survey execution, administration and sampling procedures. Last, Section 6.6 reviews key findings from this chapter and reviews the survey design effort carried out. Chapter seven reports on the data analysis performed on the survey data collected. Section 7.1 introduces structural equation modelling as the data analysis method used in this research. Section 7.2 gives details about the descriptive statistics of the population sample that responded to the survey. Section 7.3 details the findings from the scale validation procedure and Section 7.4 reports on the model validation exercise. Section 7.5 then discusses the empirical findings before Section 7.6 reviews the contributions of the chapter. Chapter eight concludes this thesis. Therein, Section 8.1 summarises the research process and Section 8.2 briefly details the main contributions of the study research. Section 8.3 discusses implications for theory and practice. Section 8.4 reports on the limitations pertaining to the way the research was carried out and Section 8.5 gives some recommendations for future research. Fig. 1.2 shows a graphical representation of the thesis structure.

– 30 –


– 31 –

Program of Research 1

Motivation

Exposition

Problem Statement

2

Research Approach

Thesis Structure

Plan of Research

Research Background

Research Scope

Research Design

Model Development 3

Representational Analysis

Theoretical Foundation

Research Method

4

Method Application

Semi-structured Interviews

Research Method

Method Application

5 Theoretical Foundations

Findings

Model Building Research Approach

Research Model

Model Validation 6 Research Method

Survey Design

7 Research Method

Survey Survey Conduct

Data Analysis

Descriptive Statistics

Measurement Model

Structural Model

Reflection on Research 8

Contributions

Fig. 1.2:

Thesis structure

Conclusions

Closure

Limitations

Outlook

Chapter 2: Plan of Research

2

– 32 –

PLAN OF RESEARCH Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to investigate systematically and truly all that comes under thy observation in life. Marcus Aurelius

This chapter is concerned with establishing the context of the research presented in this thesis. First, the general research area is discussed.49 The study presented in this thesis relates to research on the success of phenomena and artefacts associated with information systems as well as process modelling as a domain in the area of conceptual modelling. Hence, both areas of inquiry are introduced before the scope of the study is outlined and justified.50 Last, the design of the research is explained in detail.51

2.1

Research Background

2.1.1

Success, Acceptance and Continuance of Information Systems Phenomena

Every organisation that supplies or consumes artefacts typically associated with IS (such as IS-based tools, systems, methods or grammars) faces risky investment decisions that can have major effects on its competitive position. Many examples of emerging IS innovations have been touted with multi-billion dollar market projections but remained shrouded in uncertainty as to their eventual effectiveness.52 A similar situation holds for the area of process modelling, in which, for example, the number of prospective standards have continued to proliferate without having a sound basis for evaluating their effectiveness or ‘goodness’.53 Correspondingly, one of the key challenges in IS research has traditionally been to explain and predict the success of information systems-related artefacts (such as systems, tools, methods – or even grammars) to guide organisations and individuals in their decision-making processes.54 For instance, a measure of the success of process modelling grammars 49 50 51 52 53 54

Section 2.1. Section 2.2. Section 2.3. E.g., DAVIS and VENKATESH (1996). VAN DER AALST (2003); SOFFER and WAND (2007). LEE et al. (2003).


would allow organisations to gauge the value and efficacy of process management actions and related IS investments. Success as a consequential variable of interest embraces a variety of dimensions, notions and measures.55 Measures reported in IS literature include, amongst others, the notions of accuracy56, influence57, impact58 and user satisfaction.59 It has also become clear that only when an information system artefact is actually utilised by its intended users can it release its potential to generate benefits, influence or impact.60 Accordingly, one of the more frequently reported measures of information systems has traditionally been usage.61 This measure rests on the observation that when IS artefacts are used more and more, the impact they can have becomes greater and greater.62 While this observation sounds obvious, SEDDON63 as well as others64 levelled criticism at the appropriateness of the usage construct as a way of approximating success. Not only is usage difficult to measure, there are also doubts concerning the significance of usage measures.65 Consider the case of process modelling grammars. Any measure of the frequency, duration or intensity of process modelling grammar usage would provide only little knowledge as to how the grammar helped process modelling initiative let alone process improvement projects, how users are satisfied with their process modelling or how organisations successfully leverage process modelling outcomes. In contrast, it has been argued that it is more fruitful to develop deeper insights into what determines the usage of a process modelling grammar – or, more generally, ISrelated artefacts.66 And, indeed, IS research has found that it is foremost the question of the acceptance of an IS artefact that determines the realisation of its benefits.67 Potential performance gains that may stem from the prolonged use of an IS artefact are often obstructed by users’ unwillingness to accept and use it.68 In fact, people are 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

DELONE and MCLEAN (1992). E.g., SHANNON (2001). E.g., MASON (1978). E.g., JACKSON et al. (2004). E.g., GROVER et al. (1996). SEDDON (1997). E.g., EIN-DOR and SEGEV (1978); IVES et al. (1980); HAMILTON and CHERVANY (1981); DELONE and MCLEAN (1992); SEDDON (1997); DOLL and TORKZADEH (1998); AGARWAL and KARAHANNA (2000); DELONE and MCLEAN (2003). TRICE and TREACY (1988); MATHIESON (1991). STRAUB et al. (1995); DOLL and TORKZADEH (1998); DELONE and MCLEAN (2003). E.g., STRAUB et al. (1995); DOLL and TORKZADEH (1998); DELONE and MCLEAN (2003); BENBASAT and BARKI (2007). STRAUB et al. (1995); BURTON-JONES and STRAUB (2006). E.g., DAVIS (1989); GOODHUE (1995); VENKATESH et al. (2003). YOUNG (1984). ROBEY (1979); SWANSON (1987).

– 33 –


sometimes unwilling to use an IS even if the IS could increase their job performance.69 Hence, lack of user acceptance is a significant impediment to the usage of artefacts nominally ascribed to IS.70 As organisations continue to increase their investment in IS they become aware of the role of users’ acceptance as a key prerequisite for productivity gains derived from IS use. As such, understanding users’ decision-making processes in IT adoption and usage has generated much interest in both industry and academia. Because of the persistence and importance of this phenomenon, user acceptance has traditionally been a key issue (and key measure) in IS usage research.71 User acceptance is broadly defined as the demonstrable willingness of a user to employ an information systems artefact for the task it is designed to support.72 There are at least two different facets to this definition, viz., adoptive and post-adoptive behaviour.73 Adoptive behaviour is defined as a user’s willingness or intention to adopt and use an artefact in a period of initial exposure. Post-adoptive behaviour, on the other hand, is defined as the myriad of feature adoption decisions, feature use behaviours, and feature extension behaviours made by an individual user after an IS artefact has been implemented, made accessible to the user, and applied by the user in accomplishing his/her work activities (see Fig. 2.1).74 Following the three-stage model of JASPERSON et al.75, stage one reflects an organisation’s decision to adopt an IS artefact (such as, for instance, a particular process modelling grammar). This decision might be voluntary or mandatory, with a mandatory decision reflecting situations where regulators, competitors, and/or partners induce the organisation to both adopt the artefact and force organisation members to apply it.76 After the organisation has adopted and installed the IS artefact, stage two occurs when users, either intended or unintended, make individual decisions to adopt the artefact.77 For example, members of the process modelling initiative of an organisation make individually the decision to start using a particular process modelling grammar for their process modelling work. This secondary adoption decision reflects an explicit acceptance by an individual to use the 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

ALAVI and HENDERSON (1981); SWANSON (1988). NICKERSON (1981); GOULD et al. (1983). E.g., BHATTACHERJEE and PREMKUMAR (2004); PREMKUMAR and BHATTACHERJEE (2008). DILLON and MORRIS (1996). E.g., KWON and ZMUD (1987); COOPER and ZMUD (1990); JASPERSON et al. (2005). JASPERSON et al. (2005). JASPERSON et al. (2005). HARTWICK and BARKI (1994). LEONARD-BARTON and DESCHAMPS (1988).

– 34 –


– 35 –

technology, tool, method or grammar to carry out assigned work tasks. This decision may also be voluntary or mandatory.78 Stage one Organizational IS adoption decision (voluntary or mandatory)

Stage two Individual IS adoption decision (voluntary or mandatory)

Stage three Individual feature adoption decision (voluntary or mandatory) Individual feature extension (voluntary)

Individual feature use (voluntary or mandatory) Individual IS post-adoptive behaviour (voluntary or mandatory)

Source: Based on JASPERSON et al. (2005), p. 532. Fig. 2.1:

Three-stage model of adoptive behaviour

After an individual commits to using an IS artefact (such as a process modelling grammar), stage three occurs. In stage three, the individual actively chooses to explore, adopt, use, and possibly extend one or more of the artefact’s features. For instance, a user of a particular process modelling grammar may start using only a subset of the constructs contained in the grammar but over time, may choose to explore – and use – the other grammar constructs and use them for process modelling. These tertiary feature-level decisions may occur voluntarily or, particularly with initial use experiences, as an organisational mandate. For instance, an organisational modelling convention may specify the set of grammar constructs to be used for process modelling work. It may also occur that, after some individuals have gained experience in using a specific set of features (such as a set of grammar constructs), they may discover ways to apply the feature set in a way that goes beyond the uses delineated by the artefact’s designers or implementers, thereby 78

MOORE and BENBASAT (1991).


engaging in so-called feature extension behaviour.79 For instance, users of a process modelling grammar may choose to use a set of grammar constructs in a way that deviates from the originally specified semantics. Prior studies examining the behaviour associated with adoption and use of IS have given more attention to examining factors that drive users to ‘initially adopt new IS’ (i.e., stages one and two in Fig. 2.1), rather than the factors that influence users to ‘continue to use IS’ after they have adopted the technology, method or tool (i.e., the factors associated with stage three in Fig. 2.1).80 This situation has prompted a number of researchers81 to call for more research towards a collective understanding of post-adoptive behaviour in IS adoption and use, i.e., to develop an understanding of the notion of continued acceptance (or continuance). The importance of the continuance phenomenon rests on the observation that initial perceptions towards an IS artefact – perceptions that have been formed in initial adoption phases – may change with time as users gain first-hand experience with IS usage. The changing perceptions may, in turn, change subsequent usage behaviour. In other words, post-adoptive usage behaviour may not only intensify but also diminish over time.82 Thus, the eventual sustained success of an IS artefact is often dependent on users’ continued usage. Infrequent, inappropriate, and ineffective long-term use of IS artefacts after the initial adoption may in fact incur undesirable costs. It often even contributes to corporate failures due to the critical role of IS-related artefacts in today’s business processes.83 For example, in online travel agencies, online banks, and online newspapers, the continued usage (i.e., user retention) of subscription-based IS is critical to such service firms’ survival in the marketplace.84 One reason for the importance of the continued usage of such services is that retaining existing subscribers affects the profitability of such service firms both during the early years of business operations85 79

80 81 82

83 84 85

On feature extension behaviour refer, for instance, to KWON and ZMUD (1987); COOPER and ZMUD (1990); SAGA and ZMUD (1994); GOODHUE and THOMPSON (1995); MORRISON et al. (2000). PARTHASARATHY and BHATTACHERJEE (1998); KARAHANNA et al. (1999); BHATTACHERJEE (2001b); JASPERSON et al. (2005). E.g., KARAHANNA et al. (1999); BHATTACHERJEE (2001b); JASPERSON et al. (2005). For instance, various features of an IS artefact in use could be resisted, treated with indifference, used in a limited fashion, routinized within ongoing work activities, championed, or even extended. See HILTZ and TUROFF (1981); THOMPSON et al. (1991); HARTWICK and BARKI (1994); THOMPSON et al. (1994); KAY and THOMAS (1995). LYYTINEN and HIRSCHHEIM (1987). PARTHASARATHY and BHATTACHERJEE (1998); BHATTACHERJEE (2001b); BHATTACHERJEE (2001a). REICHHELD and SCHEFTER (2000).

– 36 –


and in the long run.86 Previous studies have shown, for instance, that increasing customer retention rate by 5% can result in a decrease of operating costs by 18%87 and contribute to an increase in profits by 25% to 95%.88 Research has also indicated that acquiring new customers may cost as much as five times more than retaining existing ones. The increased expenses arise from additional costs of searching for new customers, setting up new accounts, and initiating new customers to the IS.89 This example highlights that continued acceptance behaviour is an important aspect to study. Given the empirical support for the impact of continued acceptance on the usage of IS, finding the salient factors that affect users’ post-adoption behaviour, which is either to continue or to discontinue usage of IS, becomes critical. Continuance is not an alien concept in IS research and has been examined in various settings. In the IS implementation literature, for instance, continuance has been studied, implicitly or explicitly, under the notions of implementation90, incorporation91 and routinization.92 These studies acknowledge the existence of a post-acceptance stage in which IS use transcends conscious behaviour and becomes part of normal routine activity. Likewise, innovation diffusion theory93, with its fivestage adoption decision process (viz., knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation), suggests that adopters often re-evaluate their earlier acceptance decision during a final ‘confirmation’ stage and then decide whether to continue or discontinue using an innovation. However, these studies have often viewed continuance as an extension of acceptance behaviour. Typically, such studies use the same set of variables to explain both acceptance and continuance behaviour, and also assume that continuance co-varies with acceptance.94 The limitation of these studies is that they fail to explain why people sometimes choose to discontinue their use of an IS after they initially chose to accept it. This phenomenon is called the acceptance-discontinuance anomaly.95 In order to countervail the limitation of not being able to account for this anomaly, over the last couple of years, more and more studies have emerged that concentrate on the phenomenon of

86

PARTHASARATHY and BHATTACHERJEE (1998). CREGO and SCHIFFRIN (1995). 88 REICHHELD and SASSER JR. (1990). 89 CREGO and SCHIFFRIN (1995); PARTHASARATHY and BHATTACHERJEE (1998). 90 ZMUD (1982). 91 , KWON and ZMUD (1987). 92 COOPER and ZMUD (1990). 93 ROGERS (2003). 94 E.g., DAVIS et al. (1989); KARAHANNA et al. (1999). 95 E.g., BHATTACHERJEE (2001b); BHATTACHERJEE (2001a). 87

– 37 –


continued use rather than on initial acceptance.96 The present study, too, seeks to contribute to this emerging body of knowledge. Its goal is to study continued acceptance of conceptual modelling grammars, in particular process modelling grammars. Accordingly, the next section provides an introduction to the domain of interest, viz., conceptual modelling.

2.1.2

Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems

Role and History Significant attention has been paid to the role conceptual modelling plays in the process of information systems development.97 Most of the attention has been directed at the domain of information systems analysis and design (ISAD), which is concerned with the development and engineering of IS artefacts based on the identification, elicitation and documentation of certain domain requirements. Both the exercise of ‘conceptual modelling’, i.e., the building of a representation of selected phenomena in a problem domain for the purpose of understanding and communication among stakeholders98, and its outcome, ‘conceptual models’, i.e., the products of a conceptual modelling exercise (in other words, the graphical representations developed), fulfil multiple purposes throughout information system analysis and design processes.99 Four major purposes have been identified:100 1. supporting communication between stakeholders, in particular developers and users, 2. helping analysts understand a real-world domain, 3. providing input for system design processes, and 4. documenting original requirements for future reference. The recognition of the importance of conceptual modelling, and the corresponding efforts towards the development and advancement of conceptual modelling, can be 96

97 98 99 100

E.g., PARTHASARATHY and BHATTACHERJEE (1998); BHATTACHERJEE (2001b); BHATTACHERJEE and PREMKUMAR (2004); KIM and MALHOTRA (2005); SEJOON et al. (2006); THONG et al. (2006); PREMKUMAR and BHATTACHERJEE (2008). KOTTEMANN and KONSYNSKI (1984); KARIMI (1988); WAND and WEBER (2002); GARDA et al. (2004); KHATRI et al. (2006). KUNG and SØLVBERG (1986); MYLOPOULOS (1992); SIAU (2004). E.g., KUNG and SØLVBERG (1986); KARIMI (1988); ASHENHURST (1996). KUNG and SØLVBERG (1986); MYLOPOULOS (1998b); WAND and WEBER (2002); SIAU (2004).

– 38 –


traced back to a number of computing-related domains.101 Information systems analysts and designers recognized that faulty requirements analysis was a major reason for project failure and that benefits could potentially accrue from using a more formal approach to eliciting and articulating user and domain requirements: I believe the hardest part of building software to be the specification, design, and testing of this conceptual construct, not the labour of representing it and testing the fidelity of the representation. We still make syntax errors, to be sure; but they are fuzz compared to the conceptual errors in most systems.102 It was also recognized that the cost of fixing errors grows exponentially as a function of elapsed time to discovery.103 High-quality conceptual modelling used in the early ISAD stages could thus enable early detection and correction of errors. Therefore, improving quality of conceptual models is likely to improve quality of delivered information systems.104 Conceptual modelling was originally incepted in research domains concerned with artificial intelligence and cognitive psychology.105 Research in artificial intelligence showed that the human mind stores abstract knowledge in so-called ‘concepts’ and ‘conceptual structures’.106 Research in cognitive psychology established that humans perceive and conceive visual representations by means of super-ordinate and basiclevel cognitive categories. The human mind uses these categories to identify specific real-world instances of familiar categories in visual articulations.107 Consequently, it seemed only natural that conceptual modelling, i.e., the graphical articulation of conceptual forms and structures108, would be a very conducive way for articulating knowledge about real-world domains. In terms of information systems analysis and design, the development of conceptual modelling initially stemmed from the need to represent an information processing problem independently from the implementation of an eventual (potentially

101 102 103 104

105 106 107 108

E.g., BRODIE et al. (1984); HULL and KING (1987); MYLOPOULOS (1998b). BROOKS JR. (1998), p. 182. MOODY and SHANKS (2003). CHANDRA and KROVI (1999); BROWNE and RAMESH (2002). The quality of conceptual models used in the requirements engineering phase of IS development processes has in fact been shown to have a determining impact on the acceptability and usability of the final IS artefact to be built. See LAUESEN and VINTER (2001). WYSSUSEK (2006). E.g., SCHANK (1975); SOWA (1984); COCCHIARELLA (1995). E.g., EDELMAN and DUVDEVANI-BAR (1997); EDELMAN (1998); EDELMAN (1999). The term conceptual models derives from the notion of conceptualisation, which GRUBER (1993), p. 200 describes as “an abstract, simplified view of the world that we wish to represent for some purpose.”

– 39 –


computer-based) solution.109 Since information systems are essentially built to solve user problems and to meet user expectations, a description of an information processing problem that is to be solved by the information system should be prepared in terms of the users’ conceptualisations of the relevant domain. Conceptual modelling eventually provided the means to develop models that would be abstract enough to be independent from their technical implementation, semantically rich enough to be comprehensible for involved stakeholders110, and detailed enough to sufficiently specify structure or behaviour of the resulting system.111 Summing up, conceptual modelling is – in its essence – concerned with the challenge of representing conceptual knowledge in a form that is adequate to the task at hand, comprehensible for all stakeholders involved in both development and use of these representations, and independent from any eventual technical realisation of the representation (for instance, in the form of information systems or algorithms).

Approaches to conceptual modelling Conceptual modelling can take many forms. It may, for instance, be used to define user and domain requirements at several different levels:112 •

On an application level, conceptual modelling can be used to define domain and/or user requirements for a specific information system and thus to provide a basis for developing or acquiring a system to meet those requirements.113

•

On an enterprise level, conceptual modelling can be used to define information requirements for a whole organisation and thus to provide a basis for enterprisewide management of data and/or business processes.114

•

On an industry level, conceptual modelling can be used to define, as a reference, information requirements for an entire industry and thus to provide a basis for industry-wide standardisation and development of generic software solutions.115

Regardless of the selected level of analysis, but in correspondence with the ultimate aim or purpose, conceptual modelling by definition has a clear focus. This focus is 109 110 111 112 113 114 115

E.g., YOUNG and KENT (1958). E.g., CHEN (1976); ROSS (1977); HULL and KING (1987). E.g., LOUCOPOULOS and ZICARI (1992); BOOCH (1999). MOODY (2005b). E.g., AVISON and FITZGERALD (1995). E.g., SCHEER and HARS (1992). E.g., SCHEER (1997); FETTKE and LOOS (2003a).

– 40 –


– 41 –

embodied (and should be supported) by the selected conceptual modelling approach. Traditionally, modelling for ISAD has focused on data descriptions.116 Since the 1990s, however, a renewed interest in other forms of conceptual modelling has occurred due to a number of factors, such as the emergence of the object-oriented approach to software development117, the emergence of process-oriented approaches to managing organisations and systems, for instance business process reengineering118, and the challenges arising from diffused, distributed and large user cohorts and inter-organisational system interactions.119 In accordance to the different emerging forms that conceptual modelling can take nowadays, a number of approaches has been proposed by both researchers and practitioners. Tab. 2.1 provides a list of examples of different conceptual modelling approaches. Tab. 2.1:

Examples of conceptual modelling approaches

Approach Data flow modelling Entity-relationship modelling Enterprise modelling Object-oriented modelling Process modelling

Object-process modelling

Focus Describing the flow of data structures in partitioned systems. Describing structures of databases on a conceptual level. Describing and providing a graphical overview of the structure of organisations. Describing systems in the form of encapsulated objects. Describing business operations and the dynamics and behaviour of information systems. Describing both the structural and the dynamic aspects of a system via the building blocks object and process.

Proponents E.g., GANE and SARSON (1979). E.g., CHEN (1976). E.g., AVISON and WOOD-HARPER (1986); CHECKLAND (1988); CHECKLAND and SCHOLES (1990). E.g., BOOCH (1999); FOWLER (2004). E.g., PETRI (1962); SCHEER (2000). E.g., DORI (1995); DORI (1996); DORI and GOODMAN (1996).

Terminological Foundations The use of elementary notions and terms in the sphere of conceptual modelling is somewhat inconsistent.120 WAND and WEBER121 present a useful framework to structure the way researchers may think about elements nominally ascribed to the domain of conceptual modelling and the research addressing some or all of these 116 117 118 119 120 121

E.g., CHEN (1976). E.g., EMBLEY et al. (1992); MARTIN and ODELL (1992). E.g., DAVENPORT and SHORT (1990); HAMMER (1990); DAVENPORT (1993); HAMMER and CHAMPY (1993). E.g., ROMM and SUDWEEKS (1998). E.g., HEYM (1995); CRONHOLM and AGERFALK (1999). WAND and WEBER (2002), p. 364 f.


elements in isolation or combination. Fig. 2.2 displays the framework, the four elements of which are as follows:122 •

A conceptual modelling grammar provides a set of constructs and rules that show how to combine the constructs to model real-world domains. For example, the entity-relationship modelling (ERM) grammar123 has the constructs ‘entity’ and ‘relationship’. A rule in the grammar specifies that two entities can be associated only via a relationship.

•

A conceptual modelling method provides procedures by which a grammar can be used. Usually one major aspect of a method prescribes how to map observations of a domain into a model of the domain. Ideally, methods provide procedures to identify instances of all phenomena that can be modelled via a grammar.

•

A conceptual modelling script is the product of the conceptual modelling process. For example, the scripts generated by the entity-relationship grammar are called entity-relationship diagrams (ERDs). Each script can be understood as a (predominantly graphical) statement in the language generated by the grammar.

•

The conceptual modelling context is the setting in which conceptual modelling occurs and in which the scripts are used. WAND and WEBER124 focus on three critical factors:125 First, there exist individual difference factors between stakeholders involved in modelling-related activities. Second, there exist task factors that can be used to describe different information systems-related tasks for which grammars and scripts are used.126 Third, there exist certain social agenda factors that describe the wider organisational context in which modelling occurs and which may influence the process or outcome of modelling activities.

122 123 124 125 126

WAND and WEBER (2002). CHEN (1976). WAND and WEBER (2002), p. 364 f. It should be noted that other contextual factors, which are not included in this framework, may also display pertinence to conceptual modelling. GEMINO and WAND (2005), for instance, studied consequences of different modelling approaches on the quality of domain understanding and task solving procedures. A similar test was conducted by BODART et al. (2001). PARSONS and COLE (2005) studied problem solving with the help of conceptual modelling.

– 42 –


– 43 –


Source: WAND and WEBER (2002), p. 364. Fig. 2.2:

Framework for research on conceptual modelling

Research has sometimes interchanged the terms associated with the exercise of conceptual modelling. Grammars have sometimes been labelled languages127 or techniques.128 The use of the term technique is in itself highly inconsistent in the research literature. Sometimes techniques refer to grammars and sometimes they simply refer to sets of tools.129 In this thesis, the term technique is not to be understood as a synonym for grammar and is avoided to prevent confusion. In addition to the clarification of modelling-related terms, main notions nominally associated to ISAD in general and the exercise of conceptual modelling in particular should be differentiated. The main notions are identified as those of methodology and method. A methodology refers to a systematic approach of developing or analysing information systems. It consists of several phases in which various methods can be utilised to plan, manage, control, and evaluate the process.130 Methodologies can be seen as a domain specific set of rules that specify the use of methods.131 They are thus

127 128

129 130 131

E.g., VENABLE and TRAVIS (1996); SÖDERSTRÖM et al. (2002); MILTON and KAZMIERCZAK (2004); DREILING et al. (2006); ROSEMANN and VAN DER AALST (2007). E.g., NASSI and SHNEIDERMAN (1973); AVISON and FITZGERALD (1995); MYLOPOULOS (1998a); HOMMES and VAN REIJSWOUD (2000); GEMINO and WAND (2003); BIDER (2004); GEMINO and WAND (2004); GEMINO (2005). E.g., BRANDT (1983); VESSEY et al. (1992). E.g., LYYTINEN (1987); AVISON and FITZGERALD (1995); HEVNER et al. (2004). E.g., IIVARI and MAANSAARI (1998).


referred to as the “study of methods”.132 Soft Systems Methodology133 and Unified Process134 are examples of ISAD methodologies. A method is a building block of a methodology and accounts always for a certain purpose within a particular phase of an ISAD methodology.135 A modelling method, specifically, prescribes the procedures by which a modelling grammar is used to fulfil a certain purpose within a certain phase of an ISAD methodology.136 It is important to distinguish between using a methodology, using a modelling method and using a modelling grammar. For instance, the continued use of a particular modelling method does not necessarily imply the continued use of a particular analysis and design methodology, and vice versa. A modelling grammar, likewise, can be made part of different methods. A modelling method that uses UML for systems analysis is different from a method that employs UML for systems design. Similarly, some modelling grammars are associated with a particular set of IS analysis and design methodologies. For example, Rich Picture137 is mainly used in Soft Systems Methodology138 and Multiview.139 Other grammars, such as ERM or DFD, are by contrast extensively adopted in many different methodologies.

Gaps of knowledge Some of the most prevalent challenges in the area of conceptual modelling relate to (a) the lack of related empirical research and (b) the lack of comprehensive knowledge on conceptual model quality.140 A recent review of research in one research area within conceptual modelling (that of conceptual model quality) showed the percentage of empirical papers to be around 20%.141 Indeed, it has been lamented that the majority of conceptual modelling research, so far, has been following a model of analytical advocacy.142 In this model, researchers propose new artefacts, make claims on benefits and performance, and advocate adoption in practice based on an illustrative example. This model has repeatedly been criticized as being unscientific. It misses empirical evidence on whether the advocated claims are 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142

BLUM (1994). E.g., CHECKLAND (1988); CHECKLAND and SCHOLES (1990). E.g., SCOTT (2001). E.g., SONG (1995); HEVNER et al. (2004). WAND and WEBER (2002). CHECKLAND and SCHOLES (1990). E.g., CHECKLAND (1988); CHECKLAND and SCHOLES (1990). AVISON and WOOD-HARPER (1986); AVISON and WOOD-HARPER (1990). POELS et al. (2003); MOODY (2005b); MOODY (2005a); NELSON et al. (2005). MOODY (2005b). MOODY (2005a).

– 44 –


justified or spurious.143 Referring to the example of design science144 that advocates an iterative generate/test cycle145 as an essential approach to devising new artefacts, the value of empirical evaluation research is clearly observable. Empirically tested shortcomings and/or capabilities of modelling artefacts, e.g., process modelling grammars, potentially form an important input for further revisions and improvements of existing grammars. Without establishing (and communicating) empirical insights into the value and use of a process modelling grammar, there is little chance of the validated issues ever being considered and incorporated by grammar developers. Thus, there is little chance of following the overall research guideline of generating outcomes that go on to improve existing practices.146 On the contrary, it is observable generally that research assessment usually stops when weaknesses in the theory or the developed artefact have been identified rather than incorporated in revisions.147 In order to address this challenge, WAND and WEBER148 suggest that future theoretical and empirical research on grammars should investigate their effectiveness or efficiency, a topic that has so far attracted only little attention in conceptual modelling research. Based on their own work, using representation theory to identify deficiencies within conceptual modelling grammars, they suggest: Empirical work could now be done to determine the impacts, if any, that these deficiencies have on users of these grammars. […] The existence of these types of deficiencies potentially undermines a grammar’s usefulness [and ease of use].149 The present study contributes to the body of knowledge by explicitly addressing some of these noted challenges in conceptual modelling. First, it reports on the design and conduct of a comprehensive series of empirical studies on phenomena associated with conceptual modelling (more precisely, process modelling). Second, its goal is to bring insights into the area of quality of conceptual (process) modelling by establishing theoretical and empirical measurements for the ‘goodness’ of grammars used within conceptual modelling. Third, it links conceptual modelling research to studies that attempt to measure effectiveness and/or efficiency by means of perceived usefulness and ease of use, two concepts dominant in the area of IS acceptance and continuance research. 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

E.g., GLASS (1994). E.g., SIMON (1981); HEVNER et al. (2004). SIMON (1981). BENBASAT and ZMUD (1999). E.g., COLTER (1984); FLOYD (1986); NECCO et al. (1987); HEVNER et al. (2004). WAND and WEBER (2002). WAND and WEBER (2002), p. 365. Emphasis added.

– 45 –


In order to increase the relevance of the study, a process modelling grammar has been selected as a unit of analysis. The selection was made because process modelling has become a very popular reason for doing conceptual modelling overall.150 Accordingly, the next subsection introduces process modelling as a research domain within conceptual modelling.

2.1.3

Process Modelling

Traditional forms of conceptual modelling accounted only for the organisation’s data and, if at all, that portion of its processes that interacted with data. Newer uses of information systems, however, extend deployment beyond transaction processing into communication and coordination, viz., a process-aware perspective on information systems.151 This evolution in use gave rise to the exercise of conceptual modelling of business processes. Process modelling is widely used within organisations as a method to increase awareness and knowledge of business processes, and to deconstruct organisational complexity.152 Beyond that, process modelling is used for a wide range of tasks including153 •

model-based identification of process weaknesses,

•

adapting best business practices,

•

designing and communicating new business blueprints,

•

end-user training,

•

compliance and risk management, and

•

designing and configuring software systems.

Many studies have shown the relevance of process modelling to BPM initiatives.154 Process modelling denotes a requirement for a number of ISO 9000 quality programs155 and is the basis of process-related IT system implementations, such as 150 151 152 153

154 155

DAVIES et al. (2006). DUMAS et al. (2005). BANDARA et al. (2005). E.g., HAMMER (1990); DAVENPORT (1993); HAMMER and CHAMPY (1993); KELLER and MEINHARDT (1994); TSALGATIDOU and JUNGINGER (1995); GULLA and BRASETHVIK (2000); PERISTERAS and TARABANIS (2000); SUPPLY CHAIN COUNCIL (2001); ROSEMANN (2003); DREILING et al. (2006); VAN DER AALST et al. (2007b). E.g., DAVENPORT (1993); ARMISTEAD and MACHIN (1997); BARTHOLOMEW (1999). OULD (1995).

– 46 –


Enterprise Systems156 and Workflow Management Systems.157 Literature also reports how process modelling has been employed in a range of different applications within an operating business, including activity based costing, supply chain management, customer relationship management, total quality management, workflow management, knowledge management and business simulation.158 Recent introductions of legislative frameworks, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act159, for example, further contributed to the increasing interest in business process modelling as a way of capturing and graphically documenting the processes of an organisation or information system. In simple terms, process modelling is an approach for visually describing how businesses conduct their work.160 It typically includes graphical depictions of at least the activities, events/states, and control flow logic that constitute a business process.161 Additionally, many process models also include information regarding the involved data, organisational/IT resources and potentially other artefacts such as external stakeholders, performance metrics, etc.162 Process modelling was originally incepted in the manufacturing industry as a means of analysing material flow and activities in order to improve the product quality and to reduce manufacturing cycle time.163 However, advancements in business process modelling have also been influenced by other domains. These include, for example, CSCW and groupware164, office automation165, software engineering166, requirements specification167, conceptual modelling168 and transaction management.169 Process models in general serve two main purposes.170 On the one hand, business process models are used for scoping the project, and capturing and discussing business requirements and process improvement initiatives with subject matter 156 157 158

159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170

E.g., ROBINSON and DILTS (1999); DREILING et al. (2006). E.g., VAN DER AALST (1998b); VAN DER AALST et al. (2003); DUMAS et al. (2005). E.g., CURTIS et al. (1992); GEORGAKOPOULOS et al. (1995); KIM and KIM (1997); KIEPUSZEWSKI et al. (2003); SIERHUIS et al. (2003); DEHNERT and VAN DER AALST (2004); BECKER et al. (2005). E.g., NIELSEN and MAIN (2004). DAVENPORT (2005). CURTIS et al. (1992). SCHEER (1994); TSALGATIDOU and JUNGINGER (1995). SCHEER (1992); TEUFEL and TEUFEL (1995). ELLIS (1991); ELLIS and WAINER (1994). ZISMAN (1977); ELLIS and NUTT (1980); HOLT (1988). CURTIS et al. (1992); KAMMER et al. (2000); OSTERWEIL (2003). YADAV et al. (1988); FICHMAN and KEMERER (1992); VESSEY and CONGER (1994); AGARWAL et al. (1996a). E.g., BRODIE et al. (1984). REUTER and WÄCHTER (1991). DEHNERT and VAN DER AALST (2004).

– 47 –


– 48 –

experts. A prominent example of a business process modelling grammar used for such purposes is the Event-driven Process Chain (EPC).171 On the other hand, technical process models can also be used for process automation, which requires their conversion into executable specifications. Grammars used for depicting process models for this purpose have higher requirements in terms of behavioural detail and formal rigor. Examples include Petri nets172 or the Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL4WS).173 Fig. 2.3 gives three examples of popular grammars used for the modelling of business processes, viz., it shows a goods receipt process modelled with Petri nets, Event-driven Process Chains and the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN). As Fig. 2.3 indicates, there are many ways of representing process models. Accordingly, when considering ‘how to’ model business processes, an important consideration is the selection of the grammar.174 This choice can be seen as essentially the same problem that software engineers have in carrying out analysis or design. One might choose to use structured analysis grammars, or object-oriented grammars. The same situation holds, in principle, for process modelling. Place goods into stock

Driver has registered

XO R Delivery with Purchase Order

Delivery without Purchase Order

Inspect quality

Identify delivery

Goods receipt officer

Identify delivery

Determine delivery ramp

Decide upon acceptance

Contact booking clerk


Decide upon acceptanc e

Booking clerk

XO R

Delivery is rejected

Delivery is accepted Notify goods receipt officer

XO R

Delivery rejected

Goods are placed in stock

Delivery note Identify delivery

Delivery with purchase order Determine delivery ramp Delivery without purchase order

Decide upon acceptance

Fig. 2.3:

171 172 173 174

Delivery is accepted

Inspect quality

Quality is sufficient

Place goods into stock

Delivery is rejected

Popular process modelling grammars

KELLER et al. (1992); SCHEER (2000). PETRI (1962); MURATA (1989). ANDREWS et al. (2003). PHALP (1998); RECKER (2006); ROSEMANN (2006b).

Determine delivery ramp


Inspect goods quality


XO R XO R

Goods are okay

Quality is insufficient Delivery rejected

Booking clerk

Place goods into stock

Goods receipt process finished


Goods receipt process cancelled

Notify goods receipt officer

Booking clerk


Consequently, an important point of consideration is that different grammars have different capabilities for graphically articulating real-world domains in the form of processes. Some grammars are more formal (or mathematically rigorous), whereas others are more graphical.175 Different modelling grammars tend to emphasize different aspects of processes, such as activity sequencing, resource allocation, communications, or organisational responsibilities.176 In other words, a domain modelled in Petri nets looks different from the same domain modelled using EPCs. This situation is exemplified in Fig. 2.3, in which one business process, goods receipt, is modelled in three different fashions. The observation of differences between the modelling approaches appears obvious. Yet, due to their mostly practice-driven origins, most available process modelling grammars lack a formal theoretical foundation based on which differences between the grammars could be established.177 Extant literature also indicates that there remains a need for a theoretical framework to explain why these differences exist and what the implications are.178 This need has motivated the present study, which attempts to counteract this deficit in knowledge by applying representation theory in the analysis of process modelling grammars and then links the findings from the analysis to the phenomenon of process modelling grammar continued acceptance.

2.2

Research Scope

2.2.1

Focus of Investigation

Generally speaking, an investigation of how and why a particular conceptual modelling grammar is accepted, continuously used or overall more successful could potentially be conducted on several levels of inquiry. There are four decisions to be made with respect to the scope of such inquiry. Fig. 2.4 summarises these design choices related to the present study and highlights the scope of investigation alongside the introduced dimensions. Justification for the scoping is presented in the following.

175 176 177 178

ABEYSINGHE and PHALP (1997). SOFFER and WAND (2007). VAN DER AALST (2003); SOFFER and WAND (2007). E.g., PHALP (1998).

– 49 –


– 50 –

Dimension

Level

Area

Element

Properties

Fig. 2.4:

Values

Organizational

Data modelling

Objectoriented modelling

Context

Grammar

Intrinsic

Individual

Enterprise modelling

Process modelling

Method

Objectprocess modelling

Script

Extrinsic

Typology of the study

On which level will the phenomenon of the continuance decision be investigated? Acceptance, continuance and/or success of IS-related phenomena and artefacts may be studied on an individual179 or organisational180 level. While there is mutual influence between the organisational and individual decisions to adopt and use ISrelated artefacts, such as a modelling grammar, a modelling methodology or a modelling tool181, these two types of decision cannot be equated. Organisational usage is not a simple additive composition of individual usage, or the result of a direct consensus process. Hence, an organisational decision to adopt will not automatically translate into individual acceptance without resistance.182 In the case of conceptual modelling grammars, consequently, an interesting aspect to study is the macro- (or micro-) economical effect of the use of a grammar within (or even across) a number of organisations. And, indeed, the initial adoption of a process modelling grammar is often an organisational decision183 and the related decisionmaking process a relevant phenomenon to study. While this and other related streams of research would make important and unique contributions to the body of knowledge, this study focuses the individual level, i.e., the question of how and why 179 180 181 182 183

E.g., ISHMAN (1996). E.g., LEONARD-BARTON and DESCHAMPS (1988). E.g., KHALIFA and VERNER (2000); HARDGRAVE and JOHNSON (2003). HARDGRAVE and JOHNSON (2003). ORLIKOWSKI (1993); IIVARI (1996); KHALIFA and VERNER (2000); HARDGRAVE and JOHNSON (2003).


modelling individuals accept and choose to continue to use a process modelling grammar. This level of investigation is selected because, ultimately, individual modellers are the ones who use a grammar and evaluate its acceptability.184 Prior studies in the area of conceptual modelling185 have suggested that individual modellers do in fact sometimes decide not to use a modelling approach even if there has been an organisational decision to adopt it. If it were mandatory for individuals to use a modelling grammar that they are unwilling to use, their work morale would be worsened, which in turn would negatively impact on their productivity.186 Similarly, research on modelling-related artefacts such as IS development methodologies187, CASE tools188 and modelling methods189 found different patterns in the post-adoptive behaviour of users. Therefore, it is imperative to develop a comprehensive appreciation of the continuance decision in order to be able to develop an informed opinion about the long-term viability and eventual success of a process modelling grammar.190

Which area of conceptual modelling will be investigated? Conceptual modelling as a research domain comprises a number of different areas.191 In this study, the area of process modelling has been selected as a domain of interest in the study of continuance of conceptual modelling grammars. This selection has been motivated by a study by DAVIES et al.192 who identified process modelling as one of the most popular conceptual modelling approaches overall. However, the growing practical relevance and popularity of conceptual modelling for Business Process Management has not yet balanced by a related substantial body of knowledge on process modelling. As noted before, many authors have in the past stressed the lack of research on conceptual modelling of processes and put forward a call for more research in this area.193 In particular, there is a noted lack of empirical research presenting insights into actual practices of process modelling.194 With the 184 185 186 187 188 189 190

191 192 193 194

AMBLER (2004); TAN and SIAU (2006). E.g., ORLIKOWSKI (1993); BROWN et al. (2002). FREY (1993). RIEMENSCHNEIDER et al. (2002). ORLIKOWSKI (1993). GROSSMAN et al. (2005). Also it should be noted that the largest share of IS research publications study phenomena on an organizational level. See CROWSTON and MYERS (2004). Hence, there is an opportunity to contribute to an under-represented level of analysis in IS research. See Tab. 2.1. DAVIES et al. (2006). BRITO E ABREAU et al. (2002); WAND and WEBER (2002); POELS et al. (2003); MOODY (2005b); NELSON et al. (2005); KROGSTIE et al. (2006). E.g., WAND and WEBER (2002); POELS et al. (2003); MOODY (2005b); NELSON et al. (2005); KROGSTIE et al. (2006).

– 51 –


present study, there is a noted opportunity to contribute substantially to the body of knowledge in a highly relevant and emerging research field.

Which element associated with conceptual modelling will be investigated? Process modelling, as any conceptual modelling discipline, comprises different elements that may be studied in isolation or combination.195 In this study, the process modelling grammar is investigated. The selection of the element grammar over other elements associated with conceptual modelling (viz., method, context, script) can be justified in reference to the study of BANDARA et al.196, who identified the process modelling language (i.e., grammar) as a distinct factor relevant to the overall success of process modelling initiatives. However, BANDARA et al.197 concede more insights are needed in respect to which characteristics, features or capabilities in particular contribute to the success of the process modelling grammar and, more general, the overall modelling project.

Which properties of the selected conceptual modelling element will be investigated? There are a number of different characteristics or features of process modelling grammars that are interesting to study. In general terms, intrinsic or extrinsic characteristics of an artefact may be studied.198 Intrinsic describes a characteristic or property of some artefact that is essential and specific to that artefact, and which is wholly independent of any other artefact or context. A characteristic that is not essential or inherent is extrinsic. For process modelling grammars, this distinction suggests that inherent features of a process modelling grammar (such as its capabilities to provide clear and complete descriptions of real-world domains, its capacity to express certain workflow patterns or its mathematical rigor) are intrinsic whereas a number of other factors (such as its market penetration, its price, its availability or tool support) are not solely dependent on the grammar itself but instead vary depending on the context in which the grammar is investigated. For instance, market penetration of a grammar may vary across countries, as does its price. Tool support may also vary depending on the time of its investigation (shortly after release or after a prolonged period).

195 196 197 198

See Fig. 2.2. BANDARA et al. (2005); BANDARA and ROSEMANN (2005). BANDARA et al. (2005); BANDARA and ROSEMANN (2005). LEWIS (1983).

– 52 –


In this study, intrinsic characteristics will be investigated. Due to their variability and context dependency, extrinsic characteristics can be hard to elicit. Also, the findings resulting from such a study would be limited in generalisability. By focusing on intrinsic characteristics, this study attempts to answer a fundamental question: How important are characteristics of a grammar to the long-term viability and eventual usage of the grammar? In other words, if it were the case that the features of the grammar we use for process modelling doesn’t matter to usage, why is so much effort spent on investigating exactly these characteristics?

2.2.2

Unit of Analysis

In this study, the more general phenomenon of conceptual modelling grammar continuance will be investigated using the case of the newly proposed Business Process Modeling Notation199 as the primary object of investigation. The selection of this unit of analysis can be justified as follows. A wide range of modelling grammars is available for process modelling purposes.200 However, recent moves in BPM practice have shown a trend towards industry standards201 and a reconciliation of the wide range of available approaches towards process modelling. The Business Process Modeling Notation denotes the candidate industry standard for the exercise of process modelling for BPM. It was officially released in 2004 and underwent ratification as a standard during 2006 and 2007. Over these years, a strong boost of popularity around BPMN could be witnessed.202 The attention that BPMN has been receiving, however, has not yet been fully balanced by a rigorous evaluation of its actual and perceived capabilities and shortcomings. In fact, similar to most other process design and specification standard proposals203, BPMN lacks a critical evaluation of its capacity to become a ‘faithful’ standard for process modelling. Since its official release, BPMN has not only risen in attractiveness to practitioner communities, but – with a time lag – also in academia. Existing research related to BPMN includes, inter alia, analyses and evaluations204, use in combination with 199 200 201 202 203 204

BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b). SINUR (2004); WOLF and HARMON (2006). DAVENPORT (2005). Refer, for instance, to www.bpmn.org or to some of the current BPM blogs, e.g., http://69.36.189.101/wordpress/. VAN DER AALST (2003). E.g., NYSETVOLD and KROGSTIE (2005); WAHL and SINDRE (2006); WOHED et al. (2006b); BARROS et al. (2007).

– 53 –


other grammars, especially BPEL205, applicability to specific domains such as eGovernment206, and support for workflow concepts and technologies.207 However, related factors that would explain the phenomenon of its rapid uptake by process modelling practitioners and tool vendors208 have not yet been fully explored let alone understood. Moreover, virtually all of the existing research has been of theoretical or conceptual nature. There is only little insight into the actual practice of modelling with BPMN. Correspondingly, this study aims to contribute to the body of knowledge by performing a theoretically sound empirical investigation into the actual practice of BPMN modelling in contemporary organisations. Given the overall importance of process modelling in general, and the attention that BPMN has been receiving in particular, it can be concluded that a need exists for exploring the main factors associated with individual acceptance and continuance of process modelling grammars generally, and of BPMN specifically. This in turn justifies that in this research, as a unit of analysis, BPMN as a practically relevant and scholarly stimulating conceptual modelling grammar in the context of process modelling has been selected. The next section provides more detail on BPMN as the chosen unit of analysis

2.2.3

Business Process Modeling Notation Background

BPMN is a recently proposed process modelling grammar, the development of which has been based on the revision of other grammars including UML, IDEF, ebXML, RosettaNet, LOVeM and EPCs. The development of BPMN stemmed from the general demand for more standardisation in the area of business process management209 and sought to satisfy commodization demands related to the graphical description of business processes. In fact, in an interview the head of the BPMN development team, Stephen White, commented: […] so the general idea at the time was to create a notation that all these tool vendors could agree upon and to focus this notation as to be a standard way of doing process modelling […]. So, at the time in some sense I was a little surprised that we were able to go forward with this thing. I figured most of the companies would have wanted to stick with their own proprietary notation to keep their advantage on that, but pretty much everybody there at that time kind 205 206 207 208 209

E.g., GAO (2006); RECKER and MENDLING (2006); RECKER and MENDLING (2007); OUYANG et al. (2008). E.g., BRAIN et al. (2005). E.g., RECKER et al. (2006c); WOHED et al. (2006a); WOHED et al. (2006b). BPMI.ORG (2007). E.g., DAVENPORT (2005).

– 54 –


– 55 –

of realised that having something that was standard was probably better for the industry as a whole […].So that was the basic starting point.210 In order to be able to understand the scope of BPMN and its role as a process modelling standard, it is best to look at the overall landscape of standards in the sphere of Business Process Management. The Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC) produced a glossary211 and a reference architecture212 that defines different types of standards (see Fig. 2.5). Process definition BPMN Process modelling tool

XPDL

Interface 5: Administration and Monitoring Administration and monitoring

Interface 1: Process definition import

Process enactment service BPEL

Process mining and analysis tool(s)

Other process enactment services Wf-XML

Workflow Workflow Workflow engine(s) engine(s) engine(s)

SOAP Interface 2: Client Application

Client communication

Service enactment

Client Client Client applications applications applications

Invoked Invoked Invoked applications applications applications

Workflow Workflow Workflow engine(s) engine(s) engine(s)

Interface 4: Interoperability

Interface 3: Application Invocation

Source: Adopted from HOLLINGSWORTH (1995), p. 20. Fig. 2.5:

Selected business process management standards

WfMC’s reference architecture identifies the major components and interfaces that compose the different modes of interaction between process-aware information systems and their environment. In light of this architecture, BPMN is a standard for process definition, and is complemented by a standard for process model interchange, the XML Process Definition Language (XPDL).213 BPMN process models are sought to be implementable in the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL)214 for executable business processes. BPEL processes can be executed across 210 211 212 213 214

Quote taken from a telephone interview with Dr Stephen White on March 2, 2006. The interview transcription data is stored in the PhD study database and is available upon request. WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT COALITION (1999). HOLLINGSWORTH (1995). WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT COALITION (2005). ANDREWS et al. (2003).


distributed process enactment engines via the run-time interaction protocol Wf-XML 2.0.215 Processes that are executed by means of web service technology can invoke these through the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP).216 The areas in which no thorough standardisation efforts have yet been made are those of process analytics/controlling and client interaction. BPMN was originally incepted as a graphical grammar to complement the BPEL standard. This is the primary reason the BPMN specification contains details about the mapping capabilities between BPMN and BPEL. Due to the proposed mapping capabilities of BPMN to BPEL, the grammar has a somewhat technical focus. However, it has been the intention of the BPMN designers to develop a modelling grammar that can be applied for typical business modelling activities as well. This is why the specification document differentiates the BPMN constructs into a set of core graphical elements and an extended specialized set. The motivation behind this differentiation was to provide an intuitive basic notation that could be used to depict the essence of business processes in very easy terms whilst at the same time yielding the capacity to support complex process scenarios and formal requirements: We wanted to make things simple but we also understood that business processes were very complex […], so there was always a challenge to deal with things simply, but have the power to do complex things […]. So I guess, part of that approach was to come up with a couple of core concepts like, the basic types of objects, activities, events and gateways.217 The complete BPMN specification defines thirty-eight distinct grammar constructs plus attributes, grouped into four basic categories of elements, viz., Flow Objects, Connecting Objects, Swimlanes and Artefacts. Flow Objects, such as events, activities and gateways, are the most basic elements used to create Business Process Diagrams (BPDs). Connecting Objects are used to inter-connect Flow Objects through different types of arrows. Swimlanes are used to group activities into separate categories for different functional capabilities or responsibilities (e.g., different roles or organisational departments). Artefacts may be added to a diagram where deemed appropriate in order to display further related information such as processed data or other comments. Fig. 2.6 provides an example of a BPD. It shows a simple payment process in which customers can pay an invoice by cash, cheque or credit card.

215 216 217

SWENSON et al. (2004). BOX et al. (2000). Quote taken from a telephone interview with Dr Stephen White on March 2, 2006. The interview transcription data is stored in the PhD study database and is available upon request.

– 56 –

– 57 –

Distribution


Prepare Package for Customer

Retailer

A Start Event

A Task

Accept Cash or Check

Sales

Check or Cash Identify Payment Method

Authorize Credit Card

Request Financial Institution

An Intermediate Event

A Gateway “Decision”

A Sequence Flow Credit Card

Deliver Package to Customer

Process Credit Card

Response A Message Authorize Payment An End Event

Fig. 2.6:

BPMN diagram of a payment process

After its official release in 2004, BPMN was put forward as a standard proposal to the Object Management Group and its ratification as an official standard was carried out during 2006 and 2007. Led by these standardisation efforts, BPMN has encountered significant momentum in popularity and dissemination, as indicated by the growing numbers of related tool and service providers218 as well as of organisations that have already adapted their process modelling environments to incorporate BPMN.219 For more information on BPMN refer to App. A.2. Taken together, both the role of the BPMN grammar for process-oriented management and the anecdotal evidence surrounding its inception and uptake characterise BPMN as a practically relevant and academically stimulating unit of analysis.

2.3

Research Design

Research design is a blueprint for the collection, measurement and analysis of data in a manner that aims to combine relevance to the research purpose with economy in procedure.220 It reflects complex research planning decisions requiring compromises and tradeoffs between questions of research resources, time, quality and data access.

218 219

220

BPMI.ORG (2007). A recent focus group with members of the Australian Community of Practice (www.bpmroundtable.com) showed that, at least in Australia, a large share of organizations participating in BPM initiatives is using BPMN. See RECKER (2006). PHILLIPS (1976); JUDD et al. (1991); GABLE (1994).


Researchers have noted that usually there is no series of events that commonly unfolds in a scientific process and which should therefore be common to all research designs.221 Yet, a number of common themes can be found that appear to be subject to all scientific inquiry, these being observation, induction and deduction.222 Observation concerns the discovery of things, themes and events encountered in common experience. It brings forward the aim to understand these observable things by discovering some systematic order in them.223 Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalisations and theories.224 By developing patterns and regularities, tentative hypotheses and propositions can be formulated that can be explored to develop general conclusions or theories. Deductive reasoning is then used to predict the results of the hypotheses or propositions. That is, in order to predict what measurements one might find if an inquiry is conducted, the hypothesis is treated as a premise, and from it some not currently obvious conclusions are logically derived, then tested and, if necessary, revised. These three common themes also emerge in the present study. For instance, three observations stand out in the context of the present study, these being the currently ongoing standardisation processes in the sphere of BPM225, the rapid and swift adoption of the recently introduced BPMN process modelling grammar226, and the discovery of generally increasing representational capabilities of process modelling grammars over time.227 These observations have led to the speculation of a relationship between the continued acceptance and the capabilities of process modelling grammars, viz., a tentative proposition as formulated in the two research questions addressed in this thesis. In order to follow a rigorous and adequate theory-building process228, a research blueprint is sought that includes research methods appropriate to the three stages of observation, induction and deduction. Semi-structured interviews are conducted to explore (in the sense of discovery and description) the contextual scenarios of actual process modelling grammar use as well as to facilitate inductive reasoning to build theory and formulate hypotheses. Survey as a means to conduct deductive reasoning 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228

HANDFIELD and MELNYK (1998). BERGMANN (1951); POPPER (1959); STINCHCOMBE (1968); GREER (1969). NAGEL (1961). MERTON (1957). E.g., DAVENPORT (2005); ZUR MUEHLEN et al. (2005). E.g., BPMI.ORG (2007). A comparative study by ROSEMANN et al. (2006b) uncovered that, over time, process modelling grammar have become richer in expressive power but also more complex in their usage. For guidance refer, for instance, to EISENHARDT (1989b); VAN DE VEN (1989); WEICK (1989); HANDFIELD and MELNYK (1998); STUART et al. (2002).

– 58 –


is then employed to facilitate hypothesis testing as well as theory confirmation and extension. The combination of semi-structured interviews and survey method in the present study follows the call for triangulation between quantitative and qualitative inquiry.229 They can – in a broader sense – also be seen to follow the examples of an integrated use of case study and survey method illustrated in the works of GABLE230, BANDARA et al.231, CROWSTON et al.232 and others. Exclusive reliance on statistical testing of hypotheses by means of survey methods has been criticized in the past.233 Some have even referred to its effects as “disastrous”.234 Qualitative research methods (such as semi-structured interviews) have been receiving more recognition lately as a mode of inquiry that is either alternative or complementary to survey research.235 However, also qualitative methods have been criticized in the past. For instance, typically attributed weaknesses include lack of generalisability, inability to manipulate independent variables, risk of improper interpretation and lack of power to randomize.236 While each of the methods admittedly has strengths and weaknesses, the combination of semi-structured interviews and survey is here submitted as a promising way of overcoming their individual weaknesses and combining their strengths.237 Fig. 2.7 presents a graphical depiction of the overall study design.

229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237

E.g., JICK (1979); HOWE (1988); KAPLAN and DUCHON (1988); MORSE (1991); GABLE (1994); REICHARDT and RALLIS (1994); NEWMAN and BENZ (1998); JOHNSON and CHRISTENSEN (2003). GABLE (1994); GABLE (1996). BANDARA et al. (2005); BANDARA and ROSEMANN (2005); BANDARA et al. (2006). E.g., CROWSTON and WIGAND (1999); CROWSTON et al. (2001); CROWSTON and MYERS (2004). E.g., LOCKE (1989); KAPLAN and MAXWELL (1994). KAPLAN and DUCHON (1988), p. 572. ATTEWELL and RULE (1991). E.g., BENBASAT et al. (1987); LEE (1989); KERLINGER and LEE (1999). E.g., KAPLAN and DUCHON (1988); ATTEWELL and RULE (1991); DANZIGER and KRAEMER (1991); LEE (1991); GABLE (1994). More information about nature, strengths and weaknesses of these two methods and how they are employed in the present study are discussed in Chapter four and six, respectively.

– 59 –


– 60 –

Phase

Theory

Research Method

Research Outcome

I

Representation theory

Representational analysis

Theoretical representational deficiencies

Semi-structured interviews

Empirically evaluated and contextualized representational deficiencies

Conceptual study

A-priori grammar continuance model

II

Technology acceptance model Expectation-confirmation theory Task-technology fit

III

Fig. 2.7:

IV

Survey

V

Structural equation modelling

Empirically validated model of process modelling grammar continuance

Research design

Under GABLE’s238 classification scheme for research design, the present study can be described as an explanatory field survey that is preceded by a series of exploratory, cross-sectional semi-structured interviews. The overall objective is to gather primarily causal but also descriptive findings into the use of process modelling grammars. Fig. 2.7 further depicts how the two methods of semi-structured interviews and survey are brought into an overall research context that includes conceptual study as a theory-building exercise, as well as representational analysis as a theoretical foundation for the semi-structured interview phase. In addition, structural equation modelling is performed as a data analysis strategy for the survey data in order to test, revise and validate the research model. The two shaded areas shown in Fig. 2.7 separate the overall research process into two stages, a stage of representational study and a stage of continuance study. As shown, the overall research design is divided into five distinct phases, reflected by the thesis structure (see Section 1.4). Each of these phases is briefly introduced in the following.

238

GABLE (1994).


Phase I: Representational Analysis In the first phase of this research, an analytical investigation of the BPMN process modelling grammar is performed on the basis of representation theory. Representation theory can be used to make predictions on the modelling strengths and weaknesses of a process modelling grammar. The imperative of this stage is to identify a number of propositions about the strengths and weaknesses of BPMN. The identified representational weakness then serve as a surrogate for grammar-specific characteristics that potentially influence the decision of a BPMN user to continue working with the grammar.

Phase II: Semi-structured Interviews In the second phase of this research, the analytically established propositions are subjected to an empirical investigation. The investigation is carried out in the form of a series of semi-structured interviews with actual adopters and users of BPMN. The objective of this stage is two-fold. On the one hand, it is to obtain initial empirical data to evaluate the predicted implications for the use of BPMN. On the other hand, the empirical data is used to enrich these propositions with contextual information about the settings in which they do, or do not, appear to hold. The underlying rationale is to identify and explore further contextual variables that appear to be relevant to the actual uptake and use of BPMN in process modelling practice and should thus be included in a research model of process modelling grammar continuance.

Phase III: Model Building In the third phase of this research, the findings from phase one and two are combined in the development of an a priori research model of process modelling grammar continuance. The findings from representational analysis and semi-structured interviews are integrated with existing theories and prior empirical findings on the acceptance, continued use and success of IS-related phenomena. The theory building process results in a research model that specifies antecedents, determinants as well as moderators of process modelling grammar continuance.

Phase IV: Survey In the fourth phase of this research, the a priori research model is operationalised in a web-based survey instrument set out to measure the hypothesised constructs and

– 61 –


relationships. This stage comprises construct development, scale development, survey instrument development, a series of preliminary and pilot tests as well as survey conduct and data collection. The objective of this stage is to devise a valid and reliable measurement instrument appropriate for empirically testing and validating the speculated model of process modelling grammar continuance.

Phase V: Data Analysis In the fifth and final phase of this research, the collected data from the survey phase is subjected to statistical analysis by means of structural equation modelling. The imperative of this stage is to validate the devised measurements for the constructs specified in the research model, display reliability and validity of the data collection, and statistically test and re-specify (where necessary) the relationships between the constructs. The outcome of this stage is an empirically validated model of process modelling grammar continuance.

Conclusions The research design adopted in the present study follows the tradition of multimethod research.239 The design follows an approach that integrates quantitative and qualitative research methods embodied in a relaxed positivist meta-theoretical framework. Thereby, the research design follows the suggestions of LEE240 to facilitate three levels of understanding in any given research imperative. First, by using semi-structured interviews, subjective understanding about the phenomenon of interest – the continued acceptance of process modelling grammars – is generated by investigating the subjective perceptions of process modellers about how they put a process modelling grammar to use. Second, interpretive understanding is generated by investigating the subjective, situational and organisational contexts in which the individual process modellers operate and identifying from these contexts a number of contextual variables that potentially act as moderators or antecedents in the theory model to be developed. Finally, objective understanding is generated by subjecting the theoretical model, developed following an interpretive effort, to a statistical empirical validation by means of a quantitative survey.

239

240

E.g., GABLE (1994); GABLE (1996); CROWSTON et al. (2001); CROWSTON and MYERS (2004); MYERS and CROWSTON (2004); BANDARA et al. (2005); BANDARA and ROSEMANN (2005); SAWYER et al. (2005); BANDARA et al. (2006). LEE (1991).

– 62 –

Chapter 3: Phase I: Representational Analysis

3

– 63 –

PHASE I: REPRESENTATIONAL ANALYSIS Obviously, some things are better than others – but what’s the ‘betterness’? – So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels and nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it? Robert M. Pirsig

This chapter is concerned with establishing measures for the characteristics of process modelling grammars. This is done to determine the independent variables of the study’s research model. This chapter details the background of the measures selected in this study241 and reports on the establishment of these measures in the context of the selected unit of analysis, BPMN.242 Also, the use of these measures in the context of process modelling is discussed and a justification for the selection of these measures is presented.243 The chapter ends with a synopsis of its main findings.244

3.1

Theoretical Foundation

As grammars for conceptual modelling, enterprise modelling and process modelling have proliferated over the years245, researchers and practitioners have attempted to determine objective bases on which to compare, evaluate, and determine when to use these different grammars.246 Over the last decades however, it has become increasingly apparent to many researchers that a theoretical foundation for conceptual modelling was needed. Without a theoretical foundation on which to base the specification for these various modelling grammars, incomplete evaluative frameworks of factors, features, and facets would continue to proliferate.247

241 242 243 244 245

246 247

Section 3.1 and Section 3.2. Section 3.3. Section 3.4. Section 3.5. E.g., OLLE et al. (1991); OEI et al. (1992); PUNTER and LEMMEN (1996); GALLIERS and SWAN (2000). This situation has often cynically been reflected, for instance in the acronyms NAMA (Not Another Modelling Approach), e.g., SIAU (2002), or YAMA (Yet Another Modelling Approach), e.g., OEI et al. (1992), the latter of which ironically has also been used to name new modelling grammars such as YAWL (Yet Another Workflow Language), developed by VAN DER AALST and TER HOFSTEDE (2005), or yEPC (Yet Another Event-driven Process Chain), developed by MENDLING et al. (2005). KARAM and CASSELMAN (1993); GORLA et al. (1995); GREEN et al. (2005). BANSLER and BODKER (1993); LYYTINEN (2006); GREEN et al. (2007).


Furthermore, without a theoretical foundation, one framework of factors, features, or facets is as justifiable as another for use.248 The deficit of theoretical structures on which to base the development of conceptual models249 has motivated research for a theoretical foundation for conceptual modelling. Numerous attempts have been crafted to theorise conceptual modelling and associated phenomena and to provide theoretical guidance to modelling and related activities. Amongst others, the fundamental principles underlying conceptual modelling have been discussed from the perspectives of meta modelling250, action theory251, semiotics252 and cognitive theory.253 Yet, the results have often been more or less systematic lists of quality criteria or generally desirable properties of conceptual modelling.254 Conformities between the different proposals exist only partially. Not surprisingly, these proposals for a theoretical foundation of conceptual modelling have achieved only lacklustre adoption in IS research, let alone in practice. However, one theory is available with a focus on the representational capabilities of conceptual modelling grammars. The development of the BUNGE-WAND-WEBER (BWW) theory of representation was based on the observation that, in their essence, computerized Information Systems are representations of real-world systems.255 Real world systems, in turn, can be explained and described using ontology – the study of the nature of the world and attempt to organise and describe what exists in reality, in terms of the properties of, the structure of, and the interactions between real-world things.256 Ontology is a well-established domain within philosophy that, in its essence, studies “the a priori nature of reality”257 and that can be traced back to the accomplishments of ARISTOTLE and his seminal work on metaphysics.258 In its essence, the philosophical discipline of ontology deals with models of reality; more precisely, with the vision259 or nature of the real world.260 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260

BANSLER and BODKER (1993); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2004). BUBENKO (1986); FLOYD (1986); IIVARI (1986); DAVIS (1992); BANSLER and BODKER (1993); DENNIS et al. (1999); BURTON-JONES and MESO (2006). E.g., HESSE (2006); KÜHNE (2006b); KÜHNE (2006a). E.g., AGERFALK and ERIKSSON (2004); AGERFALK (2006). E.g., LINDLAND et al. (1994); KROGSTIE et al. (1995a); KROGSTIE et al. (1995b); KROGSTIE (2001); KROGSTIE and JØRGENSEN (2003); KROGSTIE et al. (2006). E.g., SIAU et al. (1996); SIAU (2002); ROCKWELL and BAJAJ (2004); EVERMANN (2005); SIAU and TAN (2005); SIAU and WANG (2007). LINDLAND et al. (1994); WYSSUSEK et al. (2006). WAND and WEBER (1990b); WAND and WEBER (1995). BUNGE (1977), pp. 3-6; SHANKS et al. (2003), p. 85. GUARINO (1995), p. 626. ARISTOTLE (1991). GUARINO (1998). MYLOPOULOS (1998a).

– 64 –


Because ontology is concerned with the structure of the real world, it is conducive to application to information systems, and the phenomena nominally ascribed to information systems, on at least two counts. First, since information systems are themselves models of real-world systems, ontology may help in identifying the concepts in the real world that information systems ought to be able to model.261 Second, since information systems are also concepts that exist in the real world, ontology may help in providing a basis for modelling information systems themselves.262 WAND and WEBER263 suggest that ontology can be used to help define and build information systems that contain the necessary representations of real-world constructs, including their properties and interactions. They developed and refined a set of models based on an ontology defined by BUNGE264 in a theory of representation that can be used for the evaluation of modelling grammars and the scripts prepared using such grammars. WAND and WEBER265 define three theoretical models that comprise their theory of representation: 1. The representation model. An information systems analysis and design methodology should enable users to depict their view of the real world (existing or imaginary) with constructs provided within the chosen methodology.266 In other words, a user is generally free to choose any real-world phenomenon and to demand its representation in a model of an information system.267 The representational model seeks to articulate a set of generic constructs sufficient and necessary to faithfully articulate structure and behaviour of any real-world phenomena a user may wish to have represented in an ISAD model. 2. The state-tracking model. An information system should be able to trace the events and dynamics that are relevant to the real-world system it is intended to represent. Correspondingly, it should track behavioural and structural changes in the real-world system that should be matched by the behaviour of the information system. The state-tracking model depicts four conditions that define when an information system constitutes a faithful state-tracking mechanism.268

261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268

WAND and WEBER (1989c). BORGIDA et al. (1985); BROOKS JR. (1987). WAND and WEBER (1990a); WAND and WEBER (1990c). BUNGE (1977); BUNGE (1979). WAND and WEBER (1993); WAND and WEBER (1995); WEBER (1997). WAND and WEBER (1993). WEBER (1997), p. 85. WAND and WEBER (1995); WEBER (1997).

– 65 –


3. The good decomposition model. Following the argumentation that the principle of decomposition is fundamental to comprehending real-world phenomena269, ‘good’ models of information systems should have a well-decomposed structure that reflects static and dynamic properties of the represented real-world system.270 The good decomposition model specifies five criteria for defining a good decomposition in terms of structural and dynamical requirements271 that an information system must fulfil in order to represent reality ‘well’.272 The present research makes use of the BWW representation model, which is often referred to as simply ‘the BWW model’.273 The BWW model specifies a number of constructs that are deemed necessary and sufficient to provide faithful representations of information systems by means of conceptual models. Its main premise is that conceptual modelling grammars should provide representations for the BWW model constructs so that the users of the conceptual modelling grammar are able to articulate all real-world phenomena they wish to have represented in their model of an IS domain. The key constructs of the BWW model can be represented in a meta model274 that shows several clusters of BWW constructs: things including properties and types of things; states assumed by things; events and transformations occurring on things; and systems structured around things. App. A.1 lists all the constructs contained in the BWW representation model, arranged in clusters.275 In order to exemplify the most fundamental notions of the BWW model, consider the example of a human. A human is a thing in this world, independent from his or her actual physical existence (consider Bob the Builder, for instance). A human is endowed with properties that can be described and perceived through attributes (e.g., the hair colour of Bob the Builder). Another example is the attribute ‘intelligence quotient’ that could potentially serve as a representation of the human property ’intellect’ (although we should know that ‘intelligence quotient’ is a rather obscure 269 270

271 272 273 274 275

SIMON (1981); LAKOFF (1990). LIEBERMANN (2003) notes that the importance of the decomposition principle is indeed wellknown in system analysis domains. Similarly, LARMAN (2001), p. 128 suggests that the “quintessential object-oriented step in analysis […] is the decomposition of a domain of interest into individual conceptual classes.” Note that WAND and WEBER (1993), p. 219 admit that their proposed requirements are necessary but not sufficient. WAND and WEBER (1995); WEBER (1997). GREEN and ROSEMANN (2004). ROSEMANN and GREEN (2002). For more information on the BWW set of models refer, for example, to WEBER (1997), pp. 89131.

– 66 –


measure of intellect). Properties can be classified into different types. For instance, some of the properties that are described via attributes are properties in general, which can be ascribed to all humans (e.g., weight) and some are in particular, which can be ascribed to a specific human (e.g., Bob the Builder’s weight). Things can be grouped in classes (e.g., humans that are fictional characters) and which are characterized by mutual properties (all fictional characters have the property of not being physically existent). Things assume certain states during their lifecycle. A state is the collection of attribute values at a given point in time (the height and weight of Bob the Builder on a Sunday afternoon). A thing may assume different states and there are certain state laws that govern the traversal between states (e.g., a human may traverse from the state ’alive’ to the state ’dead’ but not vice versa). The collection of states that are lawful to a thing (i.e., which a thing may assume at some stage) is called the lawful state space of the thing. The traversal of a thing from one state to another is called a transformation (e.g., Bob the Builder dyes his hair from yellow to green). Events that may occur require things to change their state via a transformation. These events may be external or internal to the thing (e.g., the occurrence of lightning that changes Bob the Builder’s hair colour to a smoking dark black would be an external event). Finally, things can be arranged in a system of things. Bob the Builder, for instance, is coupled to his mother and father by sharing the binding mutual property “is part of Bob’s family”, hence together forming a family system. Systems can be decomposed into subsystems (Bob’s children (if any) would, for instance, form a system that in turn would be a subsystem of Bob’s overall family) or composed to a super system (the family including relatives). Systems are also differentiated from their environment (e.g., Bob the Builder’s family has some neighbour families in its environment).

3.2

Research Method

The process of using the BWW representation model as a reference benchmark for the evaluation of the representational capabilities of a modelling grammar forms the core of the research method of representational analysis. WEBER276 suggests that representational analysis can be used to make predictions on the modelling strengths and weaknesses of a grammar under investigation. The phenomenon of interest in

276

WEBER (1997).

– 67 –


– 68 –

such studies is a grammar’s representation fidelity277, viz., its capabilities to provide complete and clear descriptions of the domain being modelled. WEBER278 clarifies two main evaluation criteria in representational analysis that may be studied: ontological completeness and ontological clarity. Ontological Completeness is indicated by the degree of construct deficit, i.e., the extent to which a modelling grammar is able to represent completely the constructs proposed in the BWW representation model. Ontological Clarity is indicated by the degrees of construct overload, where one grammar construct provides representational capacity for several BWW constructs, construct redundancy, where one BWW construct maps to several grammar constructs, and construct excess, where grammar constructs exist that do not map to any BWW construct. Fig. 3.1 shows the premises and fundamental concepts.


Source: WEBER and ZHANG (1996), p. 153. Fig. 3.1:

Main premises of representation theory

A representational analysis is, in principle, the evaluation of a selected modelling grammar from the viewpoint of the BWW representation model. Generally, the focus of such representational analyses is on the bi-directional comparison of constructs specified in the underlying representation model with the grammar constructs of the modelling grammar. In this process, the constructs of the BWW representation model (e.g., thing, event, transformation) are compared with the grammar constructs of the modelling grammar (e.g., event, activity, actor) in a bi-directional mapping. The basic assumption is that any deviation from a 1-1 relationship between the corresponding constructs in the representation model and the modelling grammar leads to representational deficiency and/or ambiguity in the use of the grammar, expressed by the aforementioned situations of ontological completeness and clarity. 277 278

See PARSONS and COLE (2005). WEBER (1997).


– 69 –

The mappings between grammar constructs in a modelling grammar and constructs in the BWW representation model can be further categorised into the following four types, as shown in Fig. 3.2: •

construct deficit describes the case in which at least one construct in the representation model does not map to any construct in the modelling grammar (1:0 relationship),

•

construct overload describes a case in which a construct in the modelling grammar maps to two or more representation model constructs (m:1 relationship),

•

construct redundancy is the opposite case, i.e., one construct in the representation model is mapped to by two or more constructs in the modelling grammar (1:m relationship), and

•

construct excess is the case in which at least one construct in the process modelling grammar does not map to any construct in the representation model (0:1 relationship).

MG

BWW

1:m

MG

1:0

m:1

BWW

0:1

Key Set of constructs described in the BWW model Set of constructs comprising the Modelling Grammar Construct described in the BWW model Modelling grammar construct

Source: Adopted from WEBER (1997), p. 95. Fig. 3.2:

Mapping relationships in representational analyses

Based on these four types of mappings, representational analysis advocates the principle that a ‘good’ modelling grammar should be ontologically complete, i.e., it should not exhibit construct deficit. Ontological completeness implies that grammar users can describe all real-world phenomena that they seek to have represented by the information system they model. A ‘good’ modelling grammar should furthermore be ontologically clear, i.e., it should not exhibit construct overload, redundancy or excess. Ontological clarity implies that users can unambiguously describe the real-


world phenomena that they seek to have represented without causing confusion to the end users. In summation, representational analysis offers four measures that can be used as surrogates for the characteristics of process modelling grammars. Technically, the principles of ontological completeness and clarity of a grammar can be used to tease out potential weaknesses of a grammar, i.e., negative characteristics of a grammar. Clearly, process modelling grammars also may have different strengths (such as user-friendliness, available tool support, related documentation, formality or others). They may also exhibit representational strengths (indicated by high degrees of ontological clarity and completeness). While it would indeed be interesting to study such ‘positive characteristics’ of a process modelling grammar, in this study it was decided to investigate the effects of ‘negative characteristics’, using the four representational measures as surrogates. This was done because these ‘negative’ measures have been based on a theoretically sound theoretical framework widely used in the domain of conceptual modelling research. Also, the present study provided an opportunity to extend and explore this theory in a new domain, that of process modelling. Though the exercise of representational analysis is widely established279, it still is susceptible to a range of shortcomings and potential criticisms.280 These shortcomings can be categorised into the three main phases of a representational analysis, viz., preparation of the input data, the process of conducting the analysis, and the evaluation and interpretation of the results:281 The first two identified shortcomings refer to the quality of the input data. •

279 280 281 282

Lack of Understandability. Usually, one would suggest that the reference representation model to be currently used for analysis of modelling grammars should be specified in a formal language.282 While such a formalisation is beneficial for a complete and precise specification of the model, it is not an intuitive specification. A representation model that is not clear and intuitive can lead to misinterpretations in the process of conducting a representational analysis, See Section 3.4 and the summarized overview in App. A.3. E.g., WEBER (2003a). The following elaborations are taken from ROSEMANN et al. (2004a); ROSEMANN et al. (2004b); ROSEMANN et al. (2005); GREEN et al. (2006). The set of BWW constructs is well defined in various languages. WAND and WEBER (1990b); WAND and WEBER (1995); WEBER (1997), for instance, use set theory to formalize the set of constructs, and ROSEMANN and GREEN (2002) developed a semi-formal description of the set of BWW constructs by means of a meta-model using CHEN’s (1976) Extended Entity-Relationship (EER) modelling notation.

– 70 –


as the involved stakeholders may have difficulty interpreting the specification. Furthermore, it forms a hurdle for the application of the representation model as it requires a deep understanding of the formal language in which it is specified. These situations can negatively affect the way in which researchers map constructs in the target modelling grammar to the constructs in the representation model. •

Lack of Comparability. The specification of the representation model requires a formal syntax that allows the precise specification of its elements and relationships. Such specifications are necessary but not imperatively intuitive. Consequently, textual descriptions of the representation model in ‘plain English’ (such as the one given in App. A.1) often extend the formal specification. However, even if the representation model is specified in an intuitive and understandable language, the actual comparison with the language to be analysed remains a problem. Unless the representation model and the language are specified in the same notation and/or language, it will be up to the coder to ‘mentally convert’ the two specifications into each other, which adds a subjective element to the analysis. Clearly, the coding of two specifications into each other may result in the loss of relevant specification information and thus may diminish the quality of the input data.

The further three shortcomings identified below are related to the actual process of the representational analysis and refer to what should be analysed, how it should be analysed as well as who should conduct the analysis. •

Lack of Completeness. The first decision that has to be made in the process of a representational analysis is the scope and depth of the analysis. Even if the BWW representation model has been discussed for many years, it still undergoes modifications and extensions.283 It is up to the researcher to clearly specify the selected version of the underlying representation model and the scope and level of detail of the analysis. The difficulty in clearly specifying the boundaries of the analysis as well as the limited consideration of relationships between the representation model constructs may lead to a lack of completeness.

283

WEBER (1997), for instance, further specialized the initial set of properties into a more extensive classification of property types. Along similar lines, ROSEMANN et al. (2006b) suggest that it may be worthwhile investigating whether the BWW model might be over-engineered in that it contains some constructs that have repeatedly been found to lack a representation in a variety of modelling grammars.

– 71 –


•

Lack of Guidance. After the scope and the level of detail of the analysis have been specified, it is typically up to the coder to decide on the procedure of the analysis. In other words, in what sequence will the representation model constructs and relationships be analysed? Currently, there are few recommendations on where to start the analysis. This lack of procedural clarity underlies most analyses and has two consequences. First, a novice analyst lacks guidance in the process of conducting the representational mapping and deriving meaningful propositions. Second, the procedure of the analysis can potentially have an impact on the results of the analysis. Thus, it is possible that two analyses that follow a different process may lead to different outcomes.284

•

Lack of Objectivity. A representational analysis of a grammar requires not only detailed knowledge of the selected representation model and target grammar but also a good understanding of the notations in which they are specified. This requirement explains why most analyses are carried out by single researchers as opposed to research teams. Consequently, these analyses are based on the individual interpretations of the involved researcher, which adds significant subjectivity to the results. This concern is conceded also by WEBER who contends that “one person’s perception of a mapping between an ontological construct and a grammatical construct might not be the same as another person’s perception.”285 This problem is further compounded by the fact that, unlike other qualitative research projects, representational analyses typically do not include attempts to further validate results or coding procedures.

Three further shortcomings refer to the outcomes of the analysis, viz., lack of adequate result representation, lack of result classification and lack of relevance. •

284

285

Lack of Adequate Result Representation. The results of a complete representational analysis, i.e., representation mapping and interpretation mapping, are typically summarised in two tables. These tables list all representation model constructs (first table) and all grammar constructs (second table) and the corresponding constructs of the other target grammar. Such tables can become lengthy and are typically not sorted in any particular order. They do

The lack of procedural guidance has in fact on at least two counts led to inconclusive and mixed analysis results. WAND and WEBER (1989c), for instance performed a representational analysis of logical data flow diagrams (LDFD), which was later replicated by KEEN and LAKOS (1996). Both analyses differ considerably in terms of proposed construct mappings and resulting implications. Similarly, GREEN and ROSEMANN’s (2000a) representational analysis of EPCs was later replicated (with different mappings and results) by FETTKE and LOOS (2003c). WEBER (1997), p. 94.

– 72 –


not provide any insights into the importance of identified deficiencies and they also do not cluster the findings. •

Lack of Result Classification. It is common practice to derive representational deficiencies based on a comparison of the constructs in the representation model and the grammar. The construct mappings are the typical starting point for the derivation of propositions and then hypotheses. In general, the representational analysis does not make any statements regarding the relative importance of these findings in comparison with each other. Though this seems to be the established practice, it lacks more detailed insights into the significance of various analytical results.

•

Lack of Relevance. Finally, the results of a representational analysis should be perceived as relevant by the related stakeholders. Each modelling domain potentially has different requirements regarding the expressive power of modelling grammars, and therefore differing levels of importance for representation of various situations. If a representational analysis leads, for example, to the outcome that Entity Relationship models do not support the description of behaviour, then it is not surprising that the IS community develops a rather critical opinion of representational analysis outcomes. It seems that a representational analysis has to consider the purpose of the grammar as well as the background of the modeller who is applying this grammar. The application of a high-level and generic representation model does not consider this individual context and there is a danger that the outcomes can be perceived as trivial.

These potential shortcomings pertaining to representational analyses have motivated the development of an enhanced procedural model. The main purpose of the procedural model is to increase the rigour, the overall objectivity and the level of detail of the analysis. It was proposed by ROSEMANN, GREEN and INDULSKA286 and consists of the following main steps.287 1. Using the specification of the candidate standard, at least two researchers should separately read the specification of the candidate modelling grammar to then 286 287

E.g., ROSEMANN et al. (2004a); ROSEMANN et al. (2004b); GREEN et al. (2005); ROSEMANN et al. (2005); GREEN et al. (2006); GREEN et al. (2007). At this stage it should be noted that, in addition to procedural guidelines pertaining to the process of the representation mapping, the procedural model by ROSEMANN, GREEN and INDULSKA incorporates further recommendations. They include guidelines, amongst others, for preparing the process of representation mapping via the use of meta models or for enhancing the communicability of results through weighting schemes. These recommendations bear only little relevance to the elaborations in this thesis and are omitted for the sake of brevity.

– 73 –


interpret, select, and map the BWW representation model constructs to candidate grammar constructs. The purpose of this step to create individual first drafts of the representation mapping. 2. These researchers should then meet to discuss and defend their interpretations of the representation mapping. This meeting should lead to an agreed second draft version of the analysis that incorporates elements of all researchers’ first draft analyses. In order to assess the degree to which the researchers’ first draft analyses agreed, two measures are suggested. First, a ratio of the total number of agreed construct mappings to the total number of identified constructs from the specification (by all researchers) expressed as a raw mapping agreement percentage should be recorded.288 However, the use of percentage agreement only is often regarded as insufficient because it does not account for agreement expected by chance (e.g., if one or both observers were just guessing and/or the agreement happened by chance).289 Consequently, additionally, COHEN’s290 Kappa should also be used to measure the level of agreement with explicit control for chance agreement.291 3. The second draft version of the representation mapping for the grammar under investigation should then be used as a basis for defence and discussion in a meeting between the initially involved researchers and the remaining research team, which should include researchers with an extensive background in representation theory and representational analysis. The outcomes of this meeting should be a final, consensually agreed mapping result for the grammar. At this stage of the process, from the final mapping table instances of construct deficit, construct redundancy, construct overload and construct excess can be identified in a modelling grammar. The next step is then to convert the identification of these four types of situations into propositions about the implications of these situations for the use of the modelling grammar. More precisely, the aim is to theorise how the identified instances of representational deficiency impact the

288 289 290 291

The raw agreement percentage measure has, for instance, been recommended and used by MOORE and BENBASAT (1991) in their essay on scale development procedures. E.g., COHEN (1960); GOODWIN (2001); HSU and FIELD (2003). COHEN (1960); COHEN (1968). COHEN’s Kappa is generally agreed to be the most adequate tool to measure inter-coder reliability. See, for instance, LANDIS and KOCH (1977); GOODWIN (2001); JAKOBSSON and WESTERGREN (2005); ROBERTS and MCNAMEE (2005). Typically, Kappa values between .4 and .6 are considered moderate or fair, those between .6 and .8 are considered substantial or good and those beyond .8 are almost perfect or excellent. See LANDIS and KOCH (1977); FLEISS (1981); SEIGEL et al. (1992).

– 74 –


instrumentality of the grammar under investigation for articulating real-world phenomena in a model.292 The need for converting the identified instances of representational deficiency in a grammar to a set of propositions about the implications for the use of the grammar for modelling aspects of real-world domains stems from the observation that the representation model underlying this mode of analysis denotes a form of an upper ontology.293 It provides wide applicability across all conceptual modelling domains, which in turn affords a lack of domain focus due to high levels of conceptual abstraction. WAND and WEBER294 themselves concede “that a substantial amount of work [is] required to translate the concepts from theory to practice.” Consequently, a potential lack of (or ambiguity in the) support for some of the – rather abstract – BWW representation categories must hence be interpreted before the background of the respective modelling domain. In other words, a lacking or ambiguous representation for any of the BWW constructs bears different implications for whether one is concerned with data modelling, process modelling, business modelling or other domains of conceptual modelling. In conclusion, each identified representational deficiency must carefully be investigated in respect to the consequences it imposes for modelling real-world phenomena relevant in the given domain.

3.3

Method Application

3.3.1

Conduct

Procedure In order to follow a rigorous approach towards the bi-directional mapping of BPMN constructs to BWW constructs, the established methodology295 outlined in the previous section was followed. More precisely, the analysis was conducted in the three mentioned steps as follows. First, two researchers296 separately read the BPMN specification and mapped the BPMN constructs against BWW constructs in order to

292 293 294 295 296

WEBER (1997), p. 104. GUARINO (1995). WAND and WEBER (1990a), p. 147. ROSEMANN et al. (2004a); ROSEMANN et al. (2004b); ROSEMANN et al. (2005). The PhD candidate was in this process joined by a researcher that has an extensive track record in using representation theory and performing representational analyses.

– 75 –


create individual first analysis drafts.297 Second, the researchers met to discuss and defend their mapping results. The researchers then created revised individual mapping drafts and met again to discuss and develop a consensual joint draft. Third, the jointly agreed draft was discussed and refined in several meetings with the entire research team.298 By reaching a consensus over the final mapping result a maximum of possible objectivity and rigor in this type of research was achieved. In order to further increase rigour of and familiarity with the procedure, first a ‘pilot’ representation mapping was performed. The representation mapping of the Petri net grammar299 and the related proposition building exercise was conducted in order to increase familiarity with this type of research and to build confidence in the mapping process.300 In order to display inter-coder reliability in the mapping process, two types of agreement statistics were derived. Both the raw percentage agreement301 and Cohen’s Kappa302 were used to measure the agreement between the mapping researchers. Raw percentage agreement for the representation mapping of BPMN was calculated to be 68.8 % in the first round and 87.2 % in the second round. Cohen’s Kappa was calculated to be .616 in the first round and .832 in the second round, both of which exceed generally recommended Kappa levels of .6.303 Indeed, these values can be classified as good and substantial in the first round and excellent if not almost perfect in the second round.304 In the third round, the mapping was discussed and refined until a 100 % agreement across the complete research team was reached.305

297

298

299 300 301 302 303 304 305

Note that while the original procedural model described in ROSEMANN et al. (2004a); ROSEMANN et al. (2004b); ROSEMANN et al. (2005) suggests the use of a meta model-based representation mapping, this was not applicable in the case of BPMN as this grammar has not yet been equipped with a meta model-based specification of constructs. Efforts towards a meta model-based specification of BPMN in UML are currently underway. See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006a). The complete research team included, besides the PhD candidate and the aforementioned research partner, two PhD supervisors, both of which have an established track record in representational analysis research. E.g., PETRI (1962); PETERSON (1977); MURATA (1989). More information about conduct and findings from the pilot can be obtained from RECKER and INDULSKA (2007). MOORE and BENBASAT (1991). COHEN (1960). E.g., VESSEY (1985); JARVENPAA (1989); MOORE and BENBASAT (1991); TODD and BENBASAT (1991). LANDIS and KOCH (1977); FLEISS (1981); SEIGEL et al. (1992). Drafts of the representation mapping from each of the involved researches are maintained in the PhD research database and can be requested from the author.

– 76 –


Representation Mapping The complete BPMN specification defines thirty-eight distinct grammar constructs plus attributes (see App. A.2). The BWW representation model provides a set of thirty-nine constructs (see App. A.1). In this section, the mapping of BWW constructs to BPMN constructs is presented as is the rationale for the respective mapping. There are a number of BWW representation model constructs that have been found not to have a mapping to BPMN constructs at all (the implications will be discussed later306). In the following, first the reasoning behind the actual identified construct mappings is presented and defended, and then the reasoning behind the identification of BPMN constructs that have been found not to have a mapping to BWW representation model constructs.307 A thing is the elementary notion in the BWW model.308 According to BUNGE309, the notion of a thing includes a wide range of physical and imaginary matters, including, for instance, atoms, fields, persons, artefacts or social systems. The BPMN constructs Pool and Lane can represent specific participants (such as organisational units or persons) in a BPD. Hence, these two constructs both have a capacity to represent certain types of things in a real-world domain.310 Things are equipped with, and perceived via, properties.311 Both the Pool and the Lane construct in BPMN are equipped with Attributes312 that capture the properties in general of the thing they represent. An example of this is the Name of a Lane (which can, for instance, be instantiated with the name of a stakeholder involved in a business process), the parent organisational structure in which the stakeholder works (parentPool) or the name of the super-ordinate organisational entity (Participant). The Attributes concept provided in BPMN, however, must be specified, and instantiated, for every Pool and Lane in a BPD. This, in turn, makes the general

306 307 308 309 310

311 312

See Section 3.3.2. For visualization purposes, BWW constructs are highlighted italic and BPMN constructs are underlined. WEBER (1997). BUNGE (1977). Note that this does not imply that BPMN is able to capture all types of things in a process model. Instead it is agreed that the nature of a 1:1 relationship is not necessarily a ‘corresponds with’ relationship but maybe more a ‘is-a’ relationship, which supports only one specialization of the construct. This limitation is duly acknowledged and the interested reader is pointed to the discussion by ROSEMANN et al. (forthcoming) for more discussion. WEBER (1997). See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 262 ff.

– 77 –


Attributes concept a property that all Pools and Lanes possess.313 This justifies the mapping of Attributes to property in general. Classes of things are characterized by their possession of a set of compound properties.314 In BPMN, a Data Object represents a document that is used as input or created as output during the course of a process. This can be an invoice, for example. However, the Data Object does not represent a specific object or thing but rather a type of document that would be instantiated in a specific instance of a process (e.g., invoice no. 4711). The object type Data Object in BPMN is furthermore annotated with a set of attributes315 that are common to all Data Objects in a BPD, which justifies its mapping to class. Likewise, the BPMN construct Lane can be nested, in which case Lanes share a common property (i.e., parentLane). When used in this manner, a Lane can be used to represent a group (i.e., class) of things such as departments or people (e.g., managers). Furthermore, a Lane can, but does not have to, be nested within another Lane that, per its definition, belongs to a Pool. Such a Lane would then have two properties common to other Lanes (i.e., parentLane and parentPool), which in turn affords it the capacity to represent a kind of a thing, i.e., a specific sub-type of the concept Lane. An event is a change of state of a thing, which is effected via a transformation.316 The BPMN constructs Start Event, Intermediate Event and End Event all belong to a class of event. All three constructs allow for the modelling of certain triggers for a certain action to follow in a BPD. A Message can either be a start or an end message, both of which denote a concept that evokes a transition between states of a thing. For instance, an arriving message could cause a process to cancel. Similarly, a message detailing a change request would lead to a change in an invoice document. A Timer is an event that, at a given point of time, triggers a certain action (such as, for instance, sending a follow-up note to a customer or cancelling an order due to missing payment). Likewise, an Error is an event that may arise and that requires a particular action to be taken (namely, to cancel a process and to perform a rollback of related transactions if necessary). Cancel, Compensation and Terminate are all considered events that can arise in a thing given a particular action of a thing (here, a cancel request, a termination request, or a compensation request for a particular process scenario). 313 314 315 316

The actual value of the attribute Name, for instance, would be a property in particular for a specific Pool or Lane. WAND and WEBER (1995). See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 264. WEBER and ZHANG (1996).

– 78 –


Events may be external or internal to a thing, meaning that there is either an environmental or internal input that leads to a change of state of a thing.317 In BPMN, all of the three Event subtypes (Start, Intermediate, End) can be external or internal, depending on the context of their use. A Message, for instance, may be an environmental component when sent by a customer outside the considered system (i.e., the process) or internal when sent from another process participant contained in the process description.318 Along similar lines, an Error, Cancel or Compensation event may arise due action external to the considered process or internal to the process (e.g., a compensation or cancel request from the customer on the one hand and from an internal department or process stakeholder within the organisation on the other hand). A Timer is an external event as it denotes a concept to visualize how a change of state is incurred due to virtue of time (which, per definition, is a concept external to all systems). A Terminate event, on the other hand, is a form of internal event. It denotes a visualization concept to demarcate how a process can be stopped (without consideration of consequences) by virtue of action of internal stakeholders (e.g., process owners or process managers) but not by environmental components or stakeholders.319 Events can further be differentiated in respect to the predictability of the subsequent state.320 In BPMN, the Compensation construct (in connection with a Compensation Association) is used to indicate that a compensation is necessary. It triggers a defined Sub-Process with a specified transformation leading to a certain defined state (i.e., it specifies exactly how transactions that occurred during the course of a process have to be roll-backed in order to arrive at the state of the process prior to enactment of the transaction that have been requested to be compensated).321 Similarly, an End Event is an indication of the completion of a process. As such, it marks a point where the state of a thing is changed to its final state. Hence, the state of any thing after the occurrence of this event can always be predicted (simply because it remains unchanged within this particular process). These two constructs in BPMN hence correspond to well-defined events. Opposed to these two types of constructs, all other Event constructs in BPMN are poorly-defined. A (part of a) process that relies on a 317 318

319 320 321

WEBER (1997). The concept of the Message event in BPMN is further supported by the Message Flow concept, which specifies the interaction between Pools in a BPD. Yet, since Pools can be both internal and cross-organizational entities, the Message event type in BPMN affords the representation of both internal and external event. See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), pp. 28, 37, 87. A customer or external stakeholder would not be allowed to terminate internal business processes. WAND and WEBER (1995). The BPMN specification specifies exactly which attributes need to be maintained for the Compensation construct to work faithfully. See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 46 ff.

– 79 –


Message to arrive cannot be predicted in its behaviour due to the uncertainty of the actual content of the message. For instance, it is impossible to predict whether a customer note details a request to cancel a purchase order or to add another item to the order. The same holds in principle for the uncertainty of occurrence of an Error, Cancel or Terminate. In all of those cases the definition of the subsequent state is indeterminate as it is impossible to uniquely ascertain the occurrence of these types of event. Start Event and Intermediate Event are in their essence event subtypes that may resemble any specific event. Thereby, they are per definition poorly-defined as subsequent transformations and states cannot be predicted due to lack of information. A transformation specifies the mapping from one state of a thing to another.322 In BPMN, each of Activity, Task, Transaction, Collapsed Sub-Process, Expanded SubProcess, Nested Sub-Process are constructs that allow for the representation of a mapping of a thing from one state to another. For instance a refund sub-process323 will take a thing (e.g., a person) from one state to another (e.g., from a state of being poor to a state of being wealthy). An Activity is the same as a Task, both are concepts used to express how to perform certain action that lead to state changes (e.g., the task ‘approve credit card application’ leads to changes in the status of the application, such as, for instance, from ‘in progress’ to ‘rejected’.) A Transaction324 is simply a special type of activity as it specifies those actions that are controlled through a transaction protocol (such as BTP325 or WS-transaction326). A lawful transformation defines which events in a thing are lawful.327 In other words, events are governed by transformation laws that define the allowed changes of state.328 The BPMN constructs Default Flow, Uncontrolled Flow and Exception Flow are directed arcs that show the order of activities that will be performed in a process.329 As such, they explicitly dictate what task is allowed after a certain action has occurred. They specify the legal order of tasks that can be performed at any 322 323

324 325 326 327 328 329

WAND and WEBER (1995). Collapsed Sub-Process, Expanded Sub-Process, Nested Sub-Process are merely different visualizations for one and the same sub-process and can be used with respect to how much level of detail is required in a BPD. A sub-process is hence denoted by graphical objects that can be ‘drilled down’ to show another process (either embedded or independent). See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 53. In a tool environment (e.g., in ARIS 7.02), it can already be observed that these three BPMN constructs are implemented in only one notation element that is annotated with special behaviour (such as opening up another BPD on double-click). See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 59 ff. OASIS (2004). COX et al. (2002). WAND and WEBER (1995). PARSONS and WAND (1997). BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 20.

– 80 –


given point and, in turn, the events that are lawful to occur subsequent to a given action in a process. The BPMN constructs Rule and Conditional Flow both embody the specification of a transformation by means of a condition expression that is to be evaluated. A Rule330 is basically an expression that evaluates some process data at runtime to determine whether a Sequence Flow is being activated or not. A Conditional Flow331 is basically a Sequence Flow with an extra condition expression that is evaluated at runtime to determine whether or not the flow will be used. In both cases, the BPMN constructs contain a condition that explicitly specifies subsequent allowable states of a thing. In turn, this affords these two constructs the representation capacity corresponding to stability condition under a transformation law. The Exception Task in BPMN is a task that is linked to the Exception Flow mechanism332 and specifies what to do when the Exception Flow is triggered. Both this Exception Task and the Compensation Activity construct in BPMN represent types of lawful transformation and express behaviour linked to a certain execution condition. Thereby they specify the corrective action of transformations that lead to a set of acceptable states of a thing. The notion of coupling encompasses direct and indirect effects between two things.333 A thing acts on another if it affects the state (or history of states) of the other thing. If the relation between the things is expressed via a binding mutual property, both things are also said to be coupled. The Message Flow construct in BPMN depicts the interactions between participants of a process and indicates the direction of the interaction (e.g., from a supplier to a vendor), which affords it the representation of acts on. The Message Flow construct in BPMN further contains association attributes334 connecting source and target object in a relationship. Thereby, it affords the representation of coupling. Turning to the concept of a system and its related notions335, the BPMN construct Pool describes different participants and their internal processes within a BPD.336 As such, it follows the notion of a system in that it specifies a set of process participants that are coupled as they are all related to the depicted overall process.337 Furthermore, 330 331 332

333 334 335 336 337

See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 45. See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 21. The Exception Flow mechanism is in its essence a compound object composed of a task associated with an Error event, to which another task is connected that specifies the exception handling procedures. See App. A.2 for its graphical representation and refer to BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 21 for further information. WEBER (1997). BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 267. WEBER (1997), pp. 44-46. BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 87. Hence, they share a binding mutual property such as, for instance, „participate in process XYZ“.

– 81 –


a Lane may be nested or defined in a matrix.338 In these cases, the Lane construct represent a set of things between which couplings exist. For instance, a Lane may depict a business unit or department consisting of several people, all of which are depicted via a Lane in the super-ordinate Lane and which are coupled by sharing a binding mutual property such as, for instance, ‘works for the Marketing department’. Therefore, it affords the representation of a system as well. Both the Lane and the Pool construct in BPMN further afford the representation of system composition. A Pool is composed of Lanes that define all participants within a Pool, which corresponds to defining all things within a system. As a Lane may be nested it may further have things in its own composition. It may, for instance, be used to graphically articulate a department consisting of several people involved in the same process. Along similar lines, a Pool in a multi-pool BPD defines a system within an (inter-organisational) system, thereby graphically articulating the decomposition of the system. The same holds, by definition, for Lanes used in Pools. Both the Lane and the Pool construct in BPMN also afford the representation of system environment. Within a BPD, it is possible to make use of several Pools (e.g., to model business-to-business interactions).339 Within such a BPD, a Pool outside of another Pool would depict the things not in the system of the other Pool. Along similar lines, different nested Lanes within a Pool or Lane can represent different sets of process participants (e.g., different departments), so one Lane would mark the environment of the other Lane or of another Pool. Given that multiple Pools and Lanes are allowed in a BPD, each Pool that represents a process partner or participant (e.g., one of several organisations participating in an inter-organisational process scenario) in a multi-pool BPD is in its essence a subsystem of the super-ordinate system represented by the BPD. A Lane is by definition a subset of a parent Pool, thereby representing a subset of the composition of the system of things expressed in the Pool. Finally, both Pool and Lane can be used to articulate a hierarchical order, thereby affording the representation of Level Structure. Different Pools in a BPD define the sub-structure of an inter-organisational process and allow for differentiation between the hierarchy of these participants (for instance, by using a black box versus a white

338 339

BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 91. BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), pp. 87-90.

– 82 –


box approach340). Lanes can be nested, which in turn allows for the explicit graphical specification of the hierarchical structure of the systems expressed by the Lanes. A number of BPMN constructs were found not to have a mapping to any BWW representation model construct, hence resulting in construct excess. The Link and Off-Page Connector constructs in BPMN are graphical mechanisms for connecting processes that cross the boundaries of one or several documents. They do not bear any representational meaning.341 Similarly, the constructs Association Flow, Text Annotation and Group are mechanisms to further annotate any object in a BPD with additional information. Activity Looping and Multiple Instances are graphical representations that depict a composed series of transformations but not a transformation as such.342 The BPMN Gateway sub types are merely graphical elements. All required conditions as to the branching and merging of processes have to be specified in the following Sequence Flows but not in the Gateway itself.343 Normal Flow, Event (super type), and Gateway (super type) are classes of constructs that are in the specification subdivided into different modelling constructs with specific semantics and therefore do not have specific significance in a process model. Tab. 3.1 summarises the outcomes of the final agreed mappings of BWW constructs to BPMN constructs. Stemming from this analysis, the discussion of the proposed representational deficiencies of BPMN and their theorised implications is presented in the following section. Tab. 3.1:

Summary of BPMN representation mapping

BWW construct THING PROPERTY in general in particular hereditary emergent intrinsic non-binding mutual 340 341

342

343

BPMN construct Pool, Lane Attributes of Pools, Attributes of Lanes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), pp. 87-90. A Link is a mechanism for connecting the end of one process to the start of another. An Off-Page Connector is generally used for printing. It shows where the Sequence Flow leaves one page and then restarts on another. See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), pp. 26, 41. One could argue at this stage that Activity Looping and Multiple Instances afford the representation of a composition of BWW representation model constructs. Yet, as this inquiry is restricted to the scope of 1:1 construct mappings, no corresponding BWW representation model could be identified to which these constructs could be mapped. Each Gateway must have an associated Sequence Flow, which must have its Condition attribute set to Expression and must have a valid ConditionExpression. See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b), p. 74.

– 83 –


BWW construct binding mutual attributes CLASS KIND STATE CONCEIVABLE STATE SPACE LAWFUL STATE SPACE STATE LAW STABLE STATE UNSTABLE STATE HISTORY EVENT CONCEIVABLE EVENT SPACE LAWFUL EVENT SPACE EXTERNAL EVENT INTERNAL EVENT WELL-DEFINED EVENT POORLY-DEFINED EVENT TRANSFORMATION LAWFUL TRANSFORMATION stability condition corrective action ACTS ON COUPLING SYSTEM SYSTEM ENVIRONMENT SYSTEM COMPOSITION SYSTEM DECOMPOSITION SYSTEM STRUCTURE SUBSYSTEM LEVEL STRUCTURE EXCESS

3.3.2

BPMN construct N/A N/A Lane, Data Object Lane N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Start Event, Intermediate Event, End Event, Message, Timer, Error, Cancel, Compensation, Terminate N/A N/A Start Event, Intermediate Event, End Event, Message, Timer, Error, Cancel, Compensation Start Event, Intermediate Event, End Event, Message, Error, Cancel, Compensation, Terminate Compensation, End Event Message, Timer, Error, Cancel, Terminate, Start Event, Intermediate Event Activity, Task, Collapsed Sub-Process, Expanded Sub-Process, Nested Sub-Process, Transaction Default Flow, Uncontrolled Flow, Exception Flow Rule, Conditional Flow Exception Task, Compensation Activity Message Flow Message Flow Pool, Lane Pool, Lane Pool, Lane N/A Pool, Lane Pool, Lane Pool, Lane Link, Off-Page Connector, Gateway Types, Association Flow, Text Annotation, Group, Activity Looping, Multiple Instances, Normal Flow, Event (super type), Gateway (super type)

Findings

A theoretical analysis of a phenomenon (such as a process modelling grammar) can lead to predictions about the real world. Predictions about the world are made using

– 84 –


propositions, which are, essentially, conclusions about the world deducted logically from the theory or theoretical analysis.344 Theory should be used to generate propositions, which then may or may not be operationalised in hypotheses. Representation theory advocates that grammars should be ontologically complete and clear. A representational analysis can be carried out to analyse, from the viewpoint of the theory, whether a grammar under observation complies to these postulates. In this case, based on the representation mapping of BPMN, nine propositions were derived in order to investigate the implications of the lack of ontological completeness and clarity for the use of the grammar. Again, a procedure similar to the representational analysis was followed in order to display rigor, validity and reliability of the proposition-building process. Two researchers first derived individual drafts of the propositions, then jointly created a second draft that was then revised and agreed upon in several meetings with the complete research team.345 In the following, each of the propositions derived in the present study is presented and discussed in detail.

Construct deficit The first three propositions stem from the notion of construct deficit in BPMN. WEBER346 theorised that the lack of a mapping of a BWW construct to a grammar construct indicates a lack of means for users to describe particular real-world phenomena. Hence, it is theorised that such deficiency drives users to modify existing constructs, employ new constructs, or adopt constructs from other modelling grammars in order to compensate for the deficit. Proposition 1. BPMN users will lack means for the depiction of business rules in process models. Because there is no representation for state, stable state, unstable state, conceivable state space, state law, lawful state space, conceivable event space, and lawful event space, state modelling will lack definability and focus. More specifically, a sufficient focus to identify all important state and transformation laws may not be present during modelling. Yet, these laws are the basis of what are known in information

344 345 346

SHANKS (2002). Drafts from the proposition building exercise from each of the involved researches are maintained in the PhD research database and can be requested from the author. WEBER (1997).

– 85 –


systems analysis and design as business rules.347 Accordingly, it is expected that BPMN users will encounter problems in capturing all the potentially important business rules of a situation because they lack the means for the graphical representation of business rules that rely on concepts associated with state and transformation laws.348 Proposition 2. BPMN users will lack means for the specification of a log of state changes in process models. Because there is no representation for history, the need for a log of state changes in important entities will not be met. Such a situation can cause significant problems related to recovery and reliability of interacting entities, such as inter-organisational systems. It can also, for example, be used to track the messages that have been exchanged in an inter-organisational process. Accordingly, it is expected that BPMN users will encounter difficulties in meeting the potential need for explicit graphical representation of logs of state changes because they lack the means for the graphical representation of the notion of history. Proposition 3. BPMN users will lack means for the specification of the process structure and decomposition in process models. Process models can be systematically structured into constituent parts at different levels of abstraction. Graphically representing the process structure and decomposition in a process model can be used to demarcate entities in interorganisational business scenarios. Also, symbols that allow representation of the structure of a process can help to clarify the scope and boundaries of the modelled process.349 Because there is no representation for system structure, there is no thorough demarcation of the system and the things within the system. This deficiency can lead to difficulties in the use of BPMN for modelling inter-organisational business processes. Also, in large modelling projects, problems can arise regarding how to structure process models into constituent models. Due to the inability to 347 348

349

Refer to VON HALLE (1993); VON HALLE (2001); HALPIN (2004), for instance, for more information on the concept of business rules. GREEN (1997) found a similar situation when he examined structured CASE (Computer Aided Software Engineering) tools. He showed that the absence of representations for BWW constructs that allow all important business rules to be captured, integrated, and cross-referenced into the models led users to employ other tools. These tools, such as word-processing packages for example, were used to overcome the shortcoming and to have some (potentially complex and/or inefficient) way of capturing business rules they sought necessary to have documented. Event-driven Process Chains, for instance, provide graphical mechanisms (process interfaces and assignments) to indicate where a process model is decomposed into a process model on a different level of hierarchical and conceptual abstraction.

– 86 –


coherently articulate the break-down of the modelled system (or process), the understandability of models captured with BPMN can be undermined. Accordingly, it is expected that BPMN users will encounter problems in meeting the potential need for explicit graphical representation of the process structure and decomposition because they lack the means for the graphical representation of the notion of system structure.

Construct redundancy From the perspective of construct redundancy, examples of BWW constructs are identified to which more than one BPMN construct is mapped. Such cases are undesirable as they lead to confusion over which real-world concept can best be represented by a particular construct in a modelling grammar. The perspective of construct redundancy hence suggests areas in which the grammar specification adds (unnecessarily) to the complexity of the modelling situation by giving the modeller several options for expressing one particular aspect of real-world domains. In such cases, it is theorised that users will deliberately reduce the set of constructs to be used for modelling or alter the semantics of constructs to allow for better differentiation of nature, meaning and purpose. Proposition 4. BPMN users will have difficulty understanding which BPMN construct to use for the graphical articulation of real-world objects in process models. Because a thing can be represented by either a Pool or a Lane, users will have difficulty understanding which of the available constructs to use for modelling realworld objects. Users of the specification will hence be confused by the redundancy and overlap of some of the BPMN constructs as they try to come to terms with, and understand, the differences between the constructs. Accordingly, it is expected that BPMN users will have problems understanding which construct to use when modelling real-world objects or entities. Proposition 5. BPMN users will have difficulty understanding which BPMN construct to use for the graphical articulation of transformations in process models. Because a transformation can be represented by the BPMN constructs Activity, Task, Collapsed Sub-Process, Expanded Sub-Process, Nested Sub-Process and Transaction, users are expected to be confused as to which construct to use when representing a transformation. The concept of a transformation can be expressed with

– 87 –


any of the above noted constructs, which accordingly appear to differ only in terms of visualization but not in their essential capacity to represent real-world phenomena. Accordingly, it is expected that users will afford them only little significant semantic differentiation in terms of their use. It is further expected that they will thus tend to avoid the multiplicity of constructs and instead opt for a reduction of the set of constructs to be used for modelling transformations. Proposition 6. BPMN users will have difficulty understanding which BPMN construct to use for the graphical articulation of events in process models. Because an event can be represented by the BPMN constructs Start Event, Intermediate Event, End Event, Message, Timer, Error, Cancel, Compensation and Terminate, users are expected to be confused as to which construct to use when representing an event. The concept of an event can be expressed with any of the constructs, which accordingly appear to differ only in terms of visualization but not in their essential capacity to represent real-world phenomena. Accordingly, it is expected that users will encounter confusion regarding the differentiation of these constructs when seeking to represent an event. Instead it can be expected that users only make use of a reduced set of BPMN constructs when modelling events.

Construct overload From the perspective of construct overload, examples of BPMN constructs can be identified to which more than one BWW construct has been mapped. Such cases are theorised to require the user to bring to bear extra-model knowledge in order to understand the capacity in which a given construct is used in a particular scenario. In such cases it is theorised that users either employ additional means to clarify the exact semantics of an overloaded construct in a process model and to reduce the ambiguity of the construct semantics. Proposition 7. BPMN users will have difficulty specifying exactly which real-world phenomenon is being graphically articulated by the Lane construct in a process model. Because the BPMN construct Lane was found to map to the BWW constructs thing, class, kind, system, subsystem, system composition, system environment, system decomposition, and level structure, it is expected that users will be required to bring to bear extra model knowledge in order to understand which real-world concept exactly is being modelled by the Lane construct. Consider, for example, a question

– 88 –


whether a Lane in a BPMN model represents a specific organisational entity, an application system, or a set of entities such as a group of actors. It is hence expected that BPMN users often use the Lane construct to model a variety of real-world phenomena, thereby potentially increasing the ambiguity of the resulting process model. Accordingly, it is expected that users will encounter difficulties in understanding the exact context in which the Lane construct should be used in a process model in order to not to result in an ambiguous process specification. Proposition 8. BPMN users will have difficulty specifying exactly which real-world phenomenon is being graphically articulated by the Pool construct in a process model. Because the BPMN construct Pool was found to map to the BWW constructs thing, system, subsystem, system composition, system environment, system decomposition and level structure, it is expected that users will be required to bring to bear extra model knowledge in order to understand which real-world concept exactly is being modelled by the Pool construct. Specifically, it is unclear whether a Pool stands for a single organisational entity, whether it is part of a super-ordinate entity, or whether it might be external to a modelled system (for instance, another organisation participating in a business-to-business transaction). It is hence expected that BPMN users often use the Pool construct to model a variety of real-world phenomena, thereby potentially increasing the ambiguity of the resulting process model. Accordingly, it is expected that users will encounter difficulties in understanding the exact context in which the Pool construct should be used in a process model in order to not to result in an ambiguous process specification.

Construct excess From the perspective of construct excess, BPMN constructs are identified that appear to have no real-world meaning because they were found not to have any mapping to the set of BWW constructs. It is theorised that in such cases users will get confused as to their nature and purpose when using these constructs and, hence, will need mechanisms for further clarification. Proposition 9. BPMN users will have difficulty specifying exactly the meaning and purpose of the constructs Link, Off-Page-Connector, Association Flow, Text Annotation, Group, Activity Looping, Multiple Instances, Normal Flow, Event (super type) and the Gateway construct types in a process model.

– 89 –


Because the BPMN constructs Link, Off-Page-Connector, Association Flow, Text Annotation, Group, Activity Looping, Multiple Instances, Normal Flow, Event (super type), and Gateway (including all Gateway Types) appear to have no real-world meaning, their use will cause understandability problems. It is expected that users will have to bring to bear extra model knowledge to make sense of these constructs and to understand their nature and purpose. Specifically, BPMN provides certain constructs (such as Event, Gateway, Normal Flow) that are further specialized in the notation and thus appear to be unnecessary from the perspective of the BWW representation model. Accordingly, it is expected that users cannot articulate precisely the meaning of these constructs and have the impression that these constructs do not represent any relevant aspect of real-world phenomena.

3.4

Related Work

Justification for the selection of representation theory as a theoretical framework Little guidance is available for researchers seeking to establish differences and features of process modelling grammars. Generally, the paucity of theoretical foundation for modelling grammar specification has repeatedly been lamented by IS researchers.350 In the words of MOODY: […] the practice of evaluating quality of conceptual models has more of the characteristics of an art than an engineering discipline.351 In fact, the large selection of currently available process modelling grammars stands in sharp contrast to the paucity of theoretically founded evaluation frameworks that can be used for the task of evaluating and comparing those modelling grammars. This situation is complicated by the fact that a complete analysis of all facets of a process modelling grammar is a significant task and could include many factors.352 There is unfortunately not one single framework that facilitates such a comprehensive analysis. In fact, there is only little amount of reasonably mature research that scholars and practitioners can turn to when seeking to ascertain

350 351 352

E.g., WEBER (1997). MOODY (2005b), p. 245. For example, its expressive power, the consistency and correctness of its meta model, the perceived intuitiveness of its notation, the available tool support, the existing reference models expressed in this grammar (e.g., ITIL or SCOR), and its facilitation and support of process modelling-related exercises such as domain comprehension, task solving and the like, to name just a few.

– 90 –


measures of the differences in terms of capabilities, strengths and weaknesses, features or expressive power of process modelling grammars. Having said that there is a paucity of theoretically founded evaluation frameworks does not mean that no research at all has been carried out. A number of researchers have either developed or adopted theories for quality in process modelling. Most of the existing frameworks have been developed either inductively from observable practice or deductively from available theories. As an example for deductively derived frameworks for modelling quality, LINDLAND et al.353 developed a general and generic understanding of quality in conceptual modelling. Their semantic quality framework (SEQUAL) has, aside from other areas354, also been used in discussions on process model quality.355 The framework is based on linguistic356 and semiotic concepts357 (such as syntax, semantics and pragmatics) that enable the assertion of quality at different levels. LINDLAND et al.’s framework for quality in conceptual modelling uses these levels to distinguish three aspects of model quality:358 •

Syntax relates the model to the modelling grammar by describing relations among grammar constructs without considering their meaning.

•

Semantics relates the model to the domain by considering not only syntax, but also relations among statements and their meaning.

•

Pragmatics relates the model to audience participation by considering not only syntax and semantics, but also how the audience (anyone involved in modelling) will interpret them.

This framework has recently been extended to be more conducive and applicable to process modelling. KROGSTIE et al.359 discuss the original framework in relation to process models and suggests a revised framework based on this. The extensions in particular extend the framework’s definition of pragmatic quality to incorporate ‘pragmatics of action’ in addition to ‘pragmatics of understanding’. 353 354 355

356 357 358 359

E.g., LINDLAND et al. (1994); KROGSTIE et al. (1995a). Such as, for instance, information quality, see PRICE and SHANKS (2005). E.g., KROGSTIE and JØRGENSEN (2003); KROGSTIE and JØRGENSEN (2004); KROGSTIE et al. (2006). The original framework has also been applied to the BPMN grammar. Refer to the studies by WAHL and SINDRE (2006) and NYSETVOLD and KROGSTIE (2006). E.g., OGDEN and RICHARDS (1923). E.g., MORRIS (1971). LINDLAND et al. (1994), p. 44. KROGSTIE et al. (2006).

– 91 –


One of the limitations of SEQUAL is that it devises quality aspects on a very abstract and not sufficiently operationalised manner. This is evident, for instance, in earlier work on SEQUAL360, in which the authors admit that using an ontology-based evaluation approach (such as the BWW representation model and the related method of representational analysis) would be one way of devising more concrete criteria for certain quality aspects such as domain appropriateness.361 A prominent example of inductive research in the area of process modelling is the so-called workflow patterns framework. It was developed by VAN DER AALST et al.362 and builds upon the use of patterns as they have been used in architecture363 or software engineering.364 The development of the workflow patterns framework was triggered by a bottom-up analysis and comparison of existing workflow management software. Provided during 2000 and 2001, this analysis included the evaluation of 15 available workflow management systems, with focus being given to their underlying modelling and specification grammars. The goal was to gain insights into the expressive power of the underlying grammars and hence outline similarities and differences between the analysed systems. During the initial work, 20 control-flow patterns365 were inductively derived. These patterns in the control-flow context denote atomic chunks of behaviour that capture some specific process control requirements. The identified patterns span from simple to complex control-flow scenarios and provide a taxonomy for the control-flow perspective of processes. While the control-flow perspective focuses extensively on the ordering of the activities within a process, the data perspective focuses on the data representation and handling. The resource perspective further complements the approach by describing the various ways in which work is distributed amongst and managed by the resources associated with a business process. In 2005, a set of 43 resource patterns366 and a set of 40 data patterns367 were added to the framework. During the same year also the area of workflow exception handling was investigated, which resulted in the identification of a set of exception handling patterns368 in workflow management systems, which 360 361 362

363 364 365 366 367 368

E.g., KROGSTIE and SØLVBERG (2003); WAHL and SINDRE (2006). Also see RECKER et al. (2007b). E.g., VAN DER AALST and TER HOFSTEDE (2002); VAN DER AALST et al. (2003); RUSSELL et al. (2005a); RUSSELL et al. (2005b); RUSSELL et al. (2006a); RUSSELL et al. (2006b). E.g, ALEXANDER (1964); ALEXANDER et al. (1977). E.g., GAMMA et al. (1995). VAN DER AALST and TER HOFSTEDE (2002); VAN DER AALST et al. (2003). RUSSELL et al. (2005b). RUSSELL et al. (2005a). RUSSELL et al. (2006b).

– 92 –


systematizes the various mechanisms for dealing with exceptions occurring in the control-flow, the data or the resource perspectives. The workflow pattern-based evaluation of various process modelling grammars is based on the assumption that a more complete coverage of these patterns leads to grammars and systems with advanced expressive power. This type of evaluation has been applied to a number of different grammars, including regular process modelling grammars such as UML Activity Diagrams369, web-service composition grammars such as BPEL370 and BPML371 and grammars for enterprise application integration such as BML.372 It has also been used to evaluate BPMN.373 While the Workflow Patterns initiative certainly resulted in both a popular and insightful framework for evaluation, in this study the BWW representation model was selected. The BWW representation model has deductively been derived from overarching existing theory instead of being inductively derived from observable (not necessarily ‘good’) practice. Also, the Workflow Patterns initiative has not yet provided convincing empirical evidence that the proposed set of patterns in fact leads to ‘better’ process modelling. By contrast, as discussed below, the BWW representation model has in several instances been shown to lead to fruitful results in the space of conceptual modelling. Also, the BWW representation model allows the present study to be replicated to other conceptual modelling domains whereas a use of the Workflow Patterns framework, by definition, would restrict the scope of the study to process modelling domains only. However, the use of the BWW representation model is not without criticism. While criticism related to the application of the representation model in research studies was discussed above374, other criticism lies in the selection of BUNGE’s ontology on which the representation model was based.375 This and related criticisms focus two major aspects:

369 370 371 372 373 374 375

WOHED et al. (2005). WOHED et al. (2003b). VAN DER AALST et al. (2002). WOHED et al. (2003a). WOHED et al. (2006b). A comprehensive annotated overview all evaluations carried out as part of the Workflow Patterns initiative is given in RUSSELL et al. (2006a). Refer to Section 3.2. E.g., HIRSCHHEIM et al. (1996); WYSSUSEK (2006).

– 93 –


1. BUNGE’s ontology assumes an objectivist, realist view of the world376. Hence, users of the resultant representation model and representation theory must be imposing a similar view and set of assumptions on their work. 2. The adaptation of BUNGE’s ontology by WAND and WEBER was deliberate, reductionistic and dysfunctional. Hence, it bears little merit if any at all for functioning as a theory in the IS, or any research discipline. In the present study, it is neither required nor fruitful to engage in this debate to which, in fact, a complete issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems was dedicated.377 However, it is important to justify and motivate the selection of this theory in light of, and in spite of, criticisms such as the ones described above.378 Accordingly, the deployment of the BWW representation theory as a theoretical foundation in this study for the identification of a measure for the intrinsic characteristics of process modelling grammars has been motivated by the following observations. 1. As stated in Section 1.3, this study adopts a relaxed positivist view. In other words, it builds on the premise that the real world is known through perceptions. These perceptions are coloured by beliefs, knowledge, and expectations. Yet, neither individual philosophical assumptions nor those underlying the development of representation model determine the way representation theory is used in research practice. The representation model is not imposed on a situation being modelled. Rather, representation theory is used to analyse and evaluate grammars and models constructed using those grammars by other people. In WAND and WEBER’s words: Ontological beliefs exist in every human communication, independent of whether they are created by language exchange, are based on observations, or just reflect inter-subjective reality agreed via some social discourse. In this light, every conceptual modelling grammar must be related, explicitly or implicitly, to an underlying ontology. Otherwise, it carries no meaning.379 The BWW representation model is put to use to analyse grammars and models that have been constructed by other people who have used their perceptions of the world. What is not being evaluated are the perceptions themselves. WEBER states: 376 377 378 379

BURRELL and MORGAN (1979). See KAUTZ et al. (2006). Please refer also to the epistemological discussion in RECKER and NIEHAVES (In Press). WAND and WEBER (2006), p. 134.

– 94 –


While the goodness of the perception is clearly an important issue to address when building information systems, it is not Wand’s and my focus because we believe it lies outside the core of the information systems discipline. Our concern is with the goodness of representation of the perception.380 2. GEMINO381 puts forward the argument that a theory that is used by researchers to analyse and help their understanding of modelling in its various domains should not be tested on the basis of its underlying assumptions (e.g., realist versus subjectivist) but rather on whether its application leads to useful empirical results. He goes on to explain that “useful can be defined as results confirming both the differences (between modelling grammars) identified and their significant impact on participants’ performance.”382 For this view, he refers to the work of ALCHIAN383 in economics and cites FRIEDMAN: The entirely valid use of “assumptions” in specifying the circumstances for which a theory holds is frequently, and erroneously, interpreted to mean the assumptions can be used to determine the circumstances for which a theory holds, and has, in this way, been an important source of the belief that a theory can be tested by its assumptions.384 It should be the extent to which a theory facilitates the generation of insightful empirical results that should be the measure when evaluating the appropriateness of a theory for its application in a particular context. That is why the debates on underlying assumptions of the theories are not fruitful. The debate of the relative merits of, for instance, alternative ontologies to be used for research on conceptual modelling at a philosophical level could prosper, of course. However, it would be much more productive if focus instead was placed on how well such research helps developing an understanding of conceptual modelling practice.385 Again, in WEBER’s words: “Who wants to debate recipes without first having tasted the cooking?”386 3. Closing in on criticism concerning the adaptation of the BWW representation model from a theory of ontology, unlike many other foundational conceptual modelling theories based on ontology387, the BWW model has been derived with

380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387

WEBER (1997), p. 175. GEMINO (2005). GEMINO (2005), p. 318. ALCHIAN (1950). FRIEDMAN (1953), p. 19. WEBER (2003a). WEBER (1997), p. 24. E.g., COCCHIARELLA (1995); GUIZZARDI et al. (2002); MILTON and KAZMIERCZAK (2004); GUIZZARDI (2005).

– 95 –


the Information Systems discipline in mind.388 In particular, WAND and WEBER closely examined BUNGE’s model and found it robust under the extensions they incorporated into the original formalism in order to be able to account for phenomena specific to IS domains that were not included in the original model.389 Instead of reciting or merely presenting BUNGE’s model and formalism they selectively drew parts of his model with a view to providing a skeleton foundation on which to base their models of the deep structure of information systems.390 In doing so, they ascribed to the components that were originally part of BUNGE’s theory of ontology a new meaning, namely one that pertains to the information systems discipline and associated phenomena.391 Hence, the constructs comprising the BWW representation model in fact only have a meaning in the realm and context of this theory, which, again, pertains by definition to phenomena nominally ascribed to information systems.392 4. While the BWW model does not denote a unique case of IS theory adopted from ontology (refer, for instance, to the works of GUIZZARDI393 or MILTON and KAZMIERCZAK394), the adoption of BUNGE’s work appears to be more conducive than others for application to information systems phenomena and concepts. First, BUNGE’s ontology is better developed than other available ontological models.395 In particular, its extent of formal specification allows for better extension, employment or adaptation than textually described ontological models.396 Second, BUNGE in his ontology describes the real world as a world of systems.397 This conception is intuitively applicable to information systems and associated notions.398 Third, there is an established track record and demonstrated usefulness of representational analyses of modelling grammars using the BWW representation model.399 As such, there is ample support for the claim that ontology as a theory is not only applicable to information systems but moreover 388 389 390 391

392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399

WAND and WEBER (1990a), p. 124. WAND (1988); WAND and WEBER (1988); WAND and WEBER (1989b); WAND and WEBER (1989a); WAND and WEBER (1990c). WEBER (1997), p. 33. BUNGE (1974), p. 56 elaborates on this point: “A construct may change its meaning (i.e., it may become a different construct) if transplanted to a different theory, and […] a theoretical construct exists only in a theory.” WAND and WEBER (2006), p. 133. GUIZZARDI et al. (2002); GUIZZARDI et al. (2004); GUIZZARDI (2005); GUIZZARDI et al. (2005); GUIZZARDI et al. (2006). For instance, MILTON and KAZMIERCZAK (2000); MILTON et al. (2000); MILTON et al. (2002); MILTON and KAZMIERCZAK (2004). AGASSI (1990). WAND and WEBER (1993). BUNGE (1977); BUNGE (1979). BOCHENSKI (1990); WAND and WEBER (1995). See the overviews given by GREEN and ROSEMANN (2004); WAND and WEBER (2006).

– 96 –


yields potential to generate insightful, stimulating and useful outcomes for IS research in general.400 Fourth, the final arbiters of theory are the ones that choose to use it. While, by all means, an established, continuing and increasing track record in scholarly studies based on the BWW model can not be regarded as a comprehensive measure or proof of theory validity, it nevertheless shows that, to date, a considerable number of generations of IS scholars deemed this theoretical model fruitful for contributing to their own understandings of the worlds with which they have chosen to engage.401 5. The BWW representation model officiates as an ‘upper-level’ (or upper) ontology402 for the modelling of information systems, and its foundational character and comprehensive scope allows for wide applicability. As an indication for the scope of applicability, the BWW model has, amongst others, been applied to the domains of data modelling403, object-oriented modelling404 and process modelling.405 In terms of application areas outside that of conceptual modelling, the model WAND and WEBER described has further been extended and applied by a large number of IS researchers.406 6. Research based on the BWW set of models can refer to an extensive series of empirical studies building on, and testing, predictions stemming from the use of this model.407 These studies have clearly succeeded in providing empirical evidence to support the ‘validity’ or ‘usefulness’ of the theory. GEMINO and WAND408, for instance, showed how the non-conformance to certain principles of ontological clarity negatively affected the development of domain comprehension of users by means of a conceptual model. Along similar lines, SHANKS et al.409 found that ontologically sound UML models increased problem solving performance. Similarly, BODART et al.410 showed that ontological clarity 400 401 402

403 404 405 406

407 408 409 410

WAND and WEBER (2006). WAND and WEBER (2006). MILTON (2007). An upper-level ontology concerns concepts on a high level of abstraction and generality rather than domain specific concepts. For more information refer, for instance, to GUARINO (1992); GUARINO (1995). WAND and WEBER (1993). E.g., OPDAHL and HENDERSON-SELLERS (2001); OPDAHL and HENDERSON-SELLERS (2002). E.g., GREEN and ROSEMANN (2000a); RECKER and INDULSKA (2007). In this thesis, a more comprehensive and detailed discussion of these works is omitted in the interest of brevity. The interested reader may refer, for instance, to TAKAGAKI and WAND (1991); PAULSON and WAND (1992); CHIDAMBER and KEMERER (1994); HEALES (1995); LEE and SIEGEL (1996); PARSONS (1996); WEBER (1996); SOFFER et al. (2001). E.g., BODART and WEBER (1996); BODART et al. (2001); BURTON-JONES and MESO (2002); PARSONS and COLE (2004); GEMINO and WAND (2005); BURTON-JONES and MESO (2006). GEMINO and WAND (2005). BODART et al. (2001). SHANKS et al. (2002).

– 97 –


was a significant factor in model understanding and problem solving. GREEN411 found that ontological incompleteness (i.e., construct deficit) was a significant factor in the decision of analysts and systems designers to use a combination of grammars for modelling. In a related domain, that of database querying, BOWEN et al.412 found that ontologically clearer models increased database query performance. In summation, it would appear that – especially in light of the considerable number of analytical and empirical studies that have been published within the last couple of years – there is ample support for the usefulness and validity of representation theory, which in turn should put the ongoing unproductive debate to an end and serves as justification for the selection of this theory in the present study.

Related work based on the BWW representation model App. A.3 presents a summarised review of the main works concerning representation theory and its use in various modelling domains such as traditional, structured, dataoriented, object-oriented, process modelling, enterprise systems interoperability, use case specification and reference models. It also shows how representation theory has been applied in other domains such as ERP systems, activity-based costing, data quality and others.413 Most of the work reported in App. A.3 has involved analysis of grammars on basis of the BWW representation model. Much of the work has been analytical in nature, with few of the studies validating their results through qualitative and/or quantitative empirical tests. In fact, of the seventy-four works presented in App. A.3 (not counting the present study), only 12.2 percent involved empirical studies of some kind. In the following, prior studies of process modelling grammars on the basis of the BWW representation model are discussed in more detail to provide further evidence on the applicability of this theory to the study of phenomena associated with process modelling.

411 412 413

GREEN (1997); GREEN et al. (1997). BOWEN et al. (2006). There are also a number of scholarly publications that provide in-depth reviews of the related literature. Refer, for instance, to GREEN and ROSEMANN (2004); GREEN et al. (2005); ROSEMANN et al. (2006b); ROSEMANN et al. (forthcoming).

– 98 –


KEEN and LAKOS414 determined essential features for a process modelling grammar by using the BWW representation model to evaluate six process modelling grammars. Among them were: ANSI flowcharts415, Data Flow Diagrams416, the IDEF Method 3 Process Description Capture Method417 and their own Language for Object-Oriented Petri nets.418 The evaluation was restricted to the assessment of the ontological completeness of each grammar. From their analysis, KEEN and LAKOS concluded that, in general, the BWW representation model facilitates the interpretation and comparison of process modelling grammars. They propose the BWW constructs of system, system composition, system structure, system environment, transformation, and coupling to be essential process modelling grammar requirements. As a more recent analysis showed, however, these findings are not entirely reflected in the leading process modelling grammars.419 GREEN and ROSEMANN420 used the BWW representation model to analyse the Eventdriven Process Chain grammar421, assessing both ontological completeness and clarity. Empirically confirmed shortcomings were found in the EPC notation with regard to the representation of real-world objects and business rules, and in the thorough demarcation of the analysed process.422 GREEN et al.423 examined the Electronic Business using eXtensible Markup Language Business Process Specification Schema (ebXML BPSS) v1.01424 in terms of ontological completeness and clarity. While the empirical validation of results has not yet been performed, the analysis indicates a relatively high degree of ontological completeness of ebXML. GREEN et al.425 also compared different modelling grammars for enterprise system interoperability, including BPEL426, the Business Process Modeling Language v1.0 (BPML)427, the Web Service Choreography Interface v1.0 (WSCI)428, and ebXML BPSS v1.01. These four grammars, which proclaim to allow for specification of 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428

KEEN and LAKOS (1996). AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (1970). GANE and SARSON (1979). MAYER et al. (1995). KEEN and LAKOS (1994). ROSEMANN et al. (2006b). GREEN and ROSEMANN (1999); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2000a). KELLER et al. (1992); SCHEER (2000). GREEN and ROSEMANN (2000b); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2001); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2002). GREEN et al. (2005). OASIS (2001). GREEN et al. (2007). ANDREWS et al. (2003). ARKIN (2002). ARKIN et al. (2002).

– 99 –


– 100 –

intra- and inter-organisational business processes, have been analysed in terms of their ontological completeness and clarity. The study found that ebXML provides a wider range of grammar constructs for specification requirements than other grammars, indicated through its comparatively high degree of ontological completeness. In preparation for the present study429, a representational analysis (from the viewpoint of both ontological completeness and clarity) of Petri nets430 was conducted. A number of shortcomings, related to ontological completeness and clarity, in light of the BWW representation model were identified. For instance, Petri nets lack support for the modelling of systems structured around things.431

Other work on process modelling quality Aside from the aforementioned prominent approaches towards process modelling quality, a wide range of authors have in the past proposed more or less systematic lists of desirable quality criteria for process models. Most notably in the area of process modelling for workflow specification, a number of criteria have emerged that process models should fulfil. The two most important criteria are briefly discussed in the following. Both criteria refer to the correctness of process models. Soundness was first introduced by VAN DER AALST.432 The original soundness property is defined for a Workflow net433, a Petri net with one source and one sink, and requires that 1. for every state reachable from the source, there exists a firing sequence to the sink (option to complete); 2. the state with a token in the sink is the only state reachable from the initial state with at least one token in it (proper completion); and 3. there are no dead transitions. Furthermore, VAN DER AALST434 showed that soundness of a Workflow net is equivalent to liveness and boundedness of the corresponding short-circuited Petri net. 429 430 431 432 433 434

As indicated in Section 3.3, the representation mapping of Petri Nets was conducted as a pilot test for the representation mapping of BPMN. PETRI (1962); PETERSON (1977); MURATA (1989). RECKER and INDULSKA (2007). VAN DER AALST (1997). E.g., VAN DER AALST (1998a). VAN DER AALST (1997).


– 101 –

Therefore, several liveness and boundedness analysis techniques are directly applicable for the verification of soundness. Also, variants have been developed for the principle of soundness, such as, for instance, relaxed soundness435 or lazy soundness.436 Beyond the soundness property, structuredness (or well-structuredness) is also discussed as a correctness criterion. In essence, a structured process can be constructed by nesting simple building blocks like split and join of the same connector type. Structuredness of a process model guarantees soundness if the model is live.437 Structuredness as a correctness criterion has been criticized for being too strict438 since some sound process models would have to be discarded right from the start. Furthermore, nesting of structured blocks does neither meet the way people comprehend processes nor does every process fit easily into this scheme. Therefore, structuredness should rather be regarded as a general guideline from which deviations are recommendable if necessary. Aside from these workflow-related quality criteria, in IS literature a considerable number of more or less arbitrary approaches can be identified. For the sake of brevity these approaches are not investigated in more detail here and instead the reader is referred to related literature.439

3.5

Synopsis

This chapter was concerned with identifying a measure for the intrinsic characteristics of process modelling grammars. In this chapter, representation theory, more specifically the representation model developed by WAND and WEBER, was used to tease out theoretical deficiencies of the process modelling grammar under observation, BPMN. The underlying assumption of this stage of the present study is that identified deficiencies within a grammar, if identified and perceived as such by a 435 436 437

438 439

E.g., DEHNERT and RITTGEN (2001); VERBEEK et al. (2007). E.g., PUHLMANN and WESKE (2006). See, for instance, DEHNERT and ZIMMERMANN (2005). Some process modelling grammars (like BPEL) enforce the definition of a structured model by means of syntactical restrictions in order to provide correctness by design. E.g., DEHNERT and ZIMMERMANN (2005). Refer, for instance, to the works of GORLA et al. (1995); PHALP (1998); BAJAJ and RAM (1999); HOMMES and VAN REIJSWOUD (1999); VAN DER AALST (1999); VON UTHMANN and BECKER (1999); BECKER et al. (2000); HOMMES and VAN REIJSWOUD (2000); PHALP and SHEPPERD (2000); ROSEMANN et al. (2001b); VERBEEK et al. (2001); MOODY et al. (2002); SÖDERSTRÖM et al. (2002); MENDLING and NÜTTGENS (2003); BIDER (2004); ANDERSSON et al. (2005); SOFFER and WAND (2005); VERBEEK and VAN DER AALST (2005); ROSEMANN (2006a); ROSEMANN (2006b).


– 102 –

grammar user, would restrict its perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. A diminished first-hand experience with a grammar could consequently negatively affect the formation of the intention to continue to use it. This chapter argued that representation theory is a fruitful avenue to explore potential deficiencies within a grammar. These deficiencies can be used as a surrogate for the intrinsic characteristics of a grammar. It was described how nine propositions were derived how representational deficiencies in BPMN could potentially lead to issues in the use of the grammar. Tab. 3.2 summarises these propositions. Tab. 3.2:

Summary of propositions

Number Proposition Construct deficit Users will encounter problems in graphically capturing business rules in process P1 models. Users will encounter problems in graphically capturing logs of state changes in process P2 models. Users will encounter problems in graphically capturing the process structure and P3 decomposition in process models. Construct redundancy BPMN users will have difficulty understanding which BPMN construct (especially P4 Pool and Lane) to use for the graphical articulation of real-world objects in process models.. BPMN users will have difficulty understanding which BPMN construct (especially Activity, Task, Collapsed Sub-Process, Expanded Sub-Process, Nested Sub-Process P5 and Transaction) to use for the graphical articulation of transformations in process models. BPMN users will have difficulty understanding which BPMN construct (especially Start Event, Intermediate Event, End Event, Message, Timer, Error, Cancel, P6 Compensation and Terminate) to use for the graphical articulation of events in process models. Construct overload BPMN users will be required to bring to bear extra model knowledge in order to P7 specify exactly which real-world concept is being modelled by the Lane construct. BPMN users will be required to bring to bear extra model knowledge in order to P8 specify exactly which real-world concept is being modelled by the Pool construct. Construct excess BPMN users will have to bring to bear extra model knowledge to make sense of the constructs Link, Off-Page-Connector, Association Flow, Text Annotation, Group, P9 Activity Looping, Multiple Instances, Normal Flow, Event (super type), and Gateway (including all Gateway Types).

At this stage of the research progress, the identified representational issues are of theoretical nature. More explicitly, these theoretical findings pose potential implications for the use of the process modelling grammar. In essence, the implications of a lack of ontological completeness and ontological clarity of modelling grammars constitute theorised hypotheses about their instrumentality as a


– 103 –

means of modelling real-world phenomena.440 These potential implications, however, require further empirical testing. Accordingly, the propositions P1 to P9 that were theorised based on the identified representational capacities of BPMN (as per representation mapping) will be evaluated by means of well-directed empirical research strategies. The next chapter describes the design, execution and findings of the empirical research conducted to gain insights in the nature, appropriateness and adequacy of the propositions.

440

FLOYD (1986); BANSLER and BODKER (1993); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2000a).

Chapter 4: Phase II: Semi-structured Interviews

4

– 104 –

PHASE II: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS Whenever anyone says, ‘theoretically’, they really mean, ‘not really’. Dave Parnas

This chapter is concerned with describing how the propositions on the use of the chosen unit of analysis, BPMN, were subjected to initial empirical evaluation by means of semi-structured interviews. This was done in order to gain insights on the adequacy and nature of the theoretically developed measures of intrinsic characteristics of a process modelling grammar. Also, this chapter details how the wider organisational setting in which BPMN has been put to use in process modelling initiatives was explored so as to identify contextual variables that could potentially display a contingency effect on the study of continuance and which should hence be included in the research model. First, this chapter presents information on the use of semi-structured interviews as a way of conducting qualitative research in IS441, then reports in detail on the design442 and conduct443 of the interviews before the findings from the interviews are presented and discussed.444 This chapter concludes with a review of interviews and case studies in process modelling research445 as well as a summary of its main findings.446

4.1

Research Method

Background and nature Semi-structured interviews are one of the most important data gathering tools in qualitative research.447 They are used in action research, in grounded theory studies and in ethnographies, but most notably it is used in case study research.448 However, semi-structured interviews have arguably remained an unexamined craft in IS research, and only little guidance exists for those seeking to employ it as a research method.449 To understand the ways of conducting semi-structured interviews, and the 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449

Section 4.1. Section 4.2.1. Section 4.2.2. Section 4.2.3. Section 4.3. Section 4.4. E.g., MYERS and NEWMAN (2007). MYERS (1997); YIN (2003); MYERS and NEWMAN (2007). MYERS and NEWMAN (2007).


– 105 –

rationale for selecting this data gathering technique in the present study, it was hence decided to refer to a well-established context in which semi-structured interviews are typically employed, i.e., to case study research. This, in turn, allows for referring – and utilizing – some of the well-establishing methodological guidelines in the present study so as to increase the rigor of this type of inquiry. Generally speaking, the case study method is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context. It is helpful especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.450 Although case study research in its essence is not necessarily qualitative in nature451 it denotes the most widely used qualitative method in IS research.452 The case study method originates from social science research and has, in many situations, been used to investigate individual, organisational, social and/or political phenomena. The desire to use the case study method arose from the need to establish an informed comprehensive opinion about the nature and complexity of a natural phenomenon. In the information systems discipline, case studies – and especially semi-structured interviews – are considered to be of particular appropriateness in areas in which research and theory are in their early formative stages.453 This is because this type of research allows the researcher to study an IS phenomenon as perceived by IS users, learn about the state of practice and generate theories from it, understand the nature and complexity of real-life processes and decisions taking place (and thus to contribute to answering ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions), and appropriately carry out research in areas in which few previous studies exist. This situation applies to the present study for a number of reasons. First, process modelling is a field of research with an observable paucity of empirical studies.454 Second, this field is highly fluid, vivid and has a constantly changing nature. Hence, a promising starting point for establishing a body of knowledge is to approach practitioners in order to elicit, and learn from, their experiences. Third, due to a lack of knowledge in this area there is still a need to build (rather than apply) good theories for explaining and predicting real-life practice. Semi-structured interviews are an acknowledged way of uncovering notions and concepts relevant to actual practitioners. Fourth, the application of grammars for process modelling happens 450 451 452 453 454

E.g., BENBASAT et al. (1987), p. 370; YIN (2003), p. 13. DENZIN and LINCOLN (2005). E.g., BENBASAT et al. (1987); LEE (1989); ALAVI and CARLSON (1992); WALSHAM (1995); WALSHAM (2006). BENBASAT et al. (1987). E.g., MOODY (2005b); MOODY (2005a).


– 106 –

before the broader background of an organisational, social and most notably individual context, which interferes with, determines and/or restricts how, why, where and when a grammar is being put to use. It is hence imperative to develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors that display pertinence to an individual’s question of how a grammar is being used for process modelling and why a modeller would arrive at the intention to continue to use a grammar. Accordingly, semi-structured interviews have been deemed an appropriate means of carrying out research at this stage of the study. This research combines a study of process modelling grammar capabilities and a study of the continued acceptance of process modelling grammars in practice. Hence, the different opinions, attitudes and perceptions of those that actually perform process modelling tasks should be taken into account. This in turn is a task for which semi-structured interviews appear to be very conducive – especially when carried out methodically and rigorously. In particular, the characteristics of semi-structured interviews as a qualitative research strategy, viz., individual responses as source of data, the researcher as key instrument of data collection, data collected predominantly as text or words, and focus on stakeholder perspectives and perceptions,455 would appear appropriate to the task of building a theoretical model of the salient beliefs that can be used to explain and predict the formation of the intention to continue using a process modelling grammar.

Design of semi-structured interview research There is great variety in the design and conduct of semi-structured interviews.456 In a broader sense, they can be descriptive, exploratory or explanatory.457 Descriptive interviews can be used to provide a rich description of a phenomenon as perceived by individuals.458 This way, subjective understanding can be generated. Focus is typically given on the development and exploitation of multiple individual perspectives towards the phenomenon to arrive at a comprehensive, multi-facetted description or conceptualisation, viz., to generate interpretive understanding.459 Exploratory interviews are typically employed to define questions, propose new theory constructs and/or build new theories.460 Usually, propositions or hypotheses are generated based on the observed relationships (i.e., on the interpretive 455 456 457 458 459 460

E.g., DUBÉ and PARÉ (2003). E.g., FONTANA and FREY (2000). GABLE (1994); YIN (2003). YIN (2003). CAVAYE (1996). EISENHARDT (1989b).


– 107 –

understanding generated).461 Explanatory interview research, on the other hand, is being performed in the sense of causal studies, i.e., to determine whether presumed and/or postulated relationships and causal links between concepts or constructs in fact occur and are perceived as such in real-life settings.462 In the present study, the semi-structured interviews method is used in both an explanatory and an exploratory manner. In an explanatory manner, it is used to gain preliminary insights to evaluate the derived propositions on the representational capabilities of the BPMN grammar, i.e., to explain the theory predictions. The objective here is to obtain response data that supports the propositions – if possible – or, if not, to obtain insights as to why the presumed propositions do not appear to hold. In an exploratory manner, the semi-structured interviews method is used to contextualise and enrich the theoretically generated propositions about the use of the BPMN process modelling grammar with information from practitioners about the implementation and deployment of this grammar in contemporary process modelling settings. More specifically, it is sought to obtain extended reasoning from process modellers working with BPMN with regards to practical implications, work-arounds etc., related to the propositions generated from the representational analysis. Semi-structured interview research can further be classified on the basis of the positivism-interpretivism debate463, i.e., the question of the underlying epistemology. Interpretivism and positivism rely on relatively contrary sets of beliefs about nature and construction of knowledge.464 Interviews, due to their versatility, can be employed in both traditions.465 In an interpretive manner, semi-structured interviews can be used to understand the complex nature of a phenomenon and to elicit knowledge about seemingly irrational processes and settings in social contexts. In a positivist manner, semi-structured interviews can be used to measure individual’s perceptions and attitudes towards pre-defined variables and to seek evidence for construed concepts and relationships between them. The semi-structured interview phase of the present study predominantly applies and follows guidelines of leading positivist researchers.466 Hence, one could argue that the present study falls under the banner of positivism. However, interpretive approaches and guidelines are also considered where appropriate. This is especially 461 462 463 464 465 466

BENBASAT et al. (1988). YIN (2003). On the debate, refer, for instance, to HIRSCHHEIM and KLEIN (1989); FARHOOMAND and DRURY (1999); CHEN and HIRSCHHEIM (2004); WEBER (2004); BECKER and NIEHAVES (2007). CAVAYE (1996). LEE (1989); GALLIERS (1992); DOOLIN (1996). Predominantly BENBASAT et al. (1987); LEE (1989); SHANKS (2002); YIN (2003).


– 108 –

the case when considering the exploratory manner in which the semi-structured interview method is deployed in this study (most notably in the identification and exploration of contextual factors that display pertinence to the use of process modelling grammars in contemporary modelling initiatives). This approach follows the suggestions by SHANKS467 who – in the context of case study research in general – advocates the embracement of post-positivist traditions to relax some of the positivist assumptions. This approach is considered fruitful especially in cases where contextual circumstances are strongly prevalent and interfere with theorised causal links that in the interviews do not appear to be as strong as predicted. This is clearly the case in the present research. The resulting uncertainty about whether or not the theorised propositions are in fact incorrect or merely masked or mitigated by contextual factors can best be explored if the researcher considers some amendments to the traditional dimensions of positivist research.468 Taking this position thus allows for extended reasoning as well as feedback to be gathered and analysed. This in turn provides the opportunity to contextualise the propositions and to identify circumstantial factors that, beyond the theoretical predicted ones, may also be of importance to the research questions. Correspondingly, in the present study, while gathering, preparing and analysing the interview data, attention is being paid to looking beyond the theory and related propositions so as to be able to identify and explore further contextual factors that may or may not be of importance to the overall research objective. Overall, this approach affords the present study a positivist nature with relaxed assumptions. Apart from deciding on the aforementioned factors in the use of the semi-structured interview research method, an important design consideration is the question of the types of stakeholders being interviewed. In process modelling projects a number of different stakeholders are involved (e.g., process modeller, system analyst, business analyst, modelling coach, process owner, project manager), each of which has his/her own perspective towards the use of certain grammars for process modelling. Given that the scope of inquiry in the present study is on the individual level469, a so-called embedded approach is followed that considers multiple stakeholders within a single organisation. This, in turn, allows for extended reasoning and to shed lights into multiple possible root causes for modelling problems with multiple types of stakeholders.

467 468 469

SHANKS (2002). GUBA and LINCOLN (1994). See Section 2.2.


– 109 –

Challenges of semi-structured interviews Interviews boast the advantage of being targeted (focus is directly on the selected topic) and insightful (they can provide causal inferences as perceived by interviewees).470 There are, however, also weaknesses and challenges associated with interviewing. Among these, the challenges of reflexivity (the interviewee responds with what the interviewer would like to hear), inaccuracy (poor recall of answers), artificiality (the researcher is typically a stranger to the interviewee), and response and system bias due to poorly constructed questions stand out.471 However, as is shown in Section 4.2, guidelines and means exist for overcoming the weaknesses commonly associated with interviews. Tab. 4.1 summarises advantages and disadvantages of interviews.472 Tab. 4.1:

Advantages and disadvantages of interviews

Advantages Can be used for thematic and issues analysis. Useful for small samples (i.e., initial fact finding). Allows subjects to speak for themselves. Allows teasing out of underlying issues. Enables gathering of rich and deep knowledge. Can serve as foundation for extending the study, e.g., to formally test the emergent patterns and relationships.

Disadvantages Time-consuming in terms of actual interview and corresponding analysis. Training of interviewers (sensitivity, interpersonal skills) is preferable. Usually a need for transcripts. Potential lack of precision. Need for rigorous thematic analysis e.g., by means of computer-based tool support. Potential lack of trust and time.

Source: Adopted from ROBSON (2002), pp. 269-290. While interviews can take many forms (e.g., open-ended, focused, structured, survey-like)473, most commonly, interviews are of a semi-structured nature.474 In these, respondents are being asked about the topics of the study following a predefined interview structure. The interview progresses flexibly as new questions can be brought up during the interview as a result of what the interviewee says. Hence, the interview follows a conversational manner that allows for follow-up questions and bidirectional discussions about the topic (or other topics and links that emerge during the interview). Semi-structured interviews usually start with more general 470 471 472 473

474

YIN (2003), p. 86. KVALE (1996); YIN (2003); RUBIN and RUBIN (2004); MYERS and NEWMAN (2007). Further challenges related to interview research in IS can be found in MYERS and NEWMAN (2007). PATTON (1990) distinguishes three types of interviews, these being informal, guided, and standardised. MYERS and NEWMAN (2007) distinguish the types structured, semi-structured or unstructured, and group interviews. MYERS and NEWMAN (2007).


– 110 –

questions or topics. These questions are typically formulated ahead of the interview. Yet, the possible relationships between the questions, potentially related topics and issues become the basis for more specific questions (which are typically not preformulated). This approach allows both the interviewer and the person being interviewed the flexibility to probe for details or discuss issues if necessary or beneficial. Semi-structured interviewing is thus guided only in the sense that some form of interview protocol provides a framework for the interview. To that end, semi-structured interviews exhibit a number of benefits over other interviewing approaches: •

They are less intrusive to those being interviewed because semi-structured interviews encourage two-way communication. For instance, those being interviewed can ask questions of the interviewer.

•

They can be used to confirm what is already known whilst at the same time providing the opportunity for learning. Often the information obtained from semi-structured interviews will provide not just answers but also the reasons for the answers.

•

When individuals are interviewed personally and in a conversational rather than structured manner they may more easily discuss sensitive issues.

In summation, while a variety of sources of evidence could be used in the present study to obtain empirical insights on the theoretically identified representational issues with the BPMN grammar, it would appear that semi-structured interviews are a very promising means of data gathering. In fact, prior literature on representational studies475 indicates that in most representation model-based studies, empirical data were accessed by means of interviews. These were typically conducted with business analysts or experienced students as proxies when access to practitioners proved too difficult to organise. Survey as a way of collecting related data is certainly another option; however, in reality researchers often struggle to identify the required number of participants for such a study. In summation, predominantly semi-structured interviews have been used as an empirical research method in the process of representational analysis.476 Overall, the present study uses a combination of semistructured interviews and the survey method to allow for qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis, more specifically, to use qualitative data in the preparation of the quantitative study. 475 476

Refer to Section 3.4. E.g., GREEN and ROSEMANN (2000b); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2001); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2002); DAVIES et al. (2004).


4.2

Method Application

4.2.1

Design

– 111 –

Good interviews are very difficult to do and the skills for doing interviews have not always been well defined.477 While methodological guidelines for conducting case studies (in the context of which semi-structured interviews are predominantly used) have somewhat proliferated over the years478, still, few means exist for establishing and screening a researcher’s ability to prepare and carry out the actual interview preparation, data gathering and analysis. In general terms, empirical research designs need to ensure that the data to be acquired is valid and reliable so that, in turn, the insights and knowledge to be generated are valid and reliable. According to LEEDY and ORMROD479, validity is concerned with whether the data collected really measures what the researcher set out to measure whereas reliability is concerned with the consistency of the research model applied. In order to ensure these two measures of good research design, typically four tests are performed.480 1. Construct validity. Establishing correct operational measures for the phenomena being studied. 2. Internal validity. Establishing a causal relationship, whereby certain conditions are shown to lead to other conditions, as distinguished from spurious relationships that may appear on chance. 3. External validity. Establishing the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalised. 4. Reliability. Demonstrating that the operations of a data collection method – such as interviews – can be repeated with the same results.

Construct validity To meet the test of construct validity, basically three tactics from case study research are available for interviewers. The first is to interview multiple stakeholders, the 477 478 479 480

E.g., FONTANA and FREY (2000); MYERS and NEWMAN (2007). E.g., BENBASAT et al. (1987); LEE (1989); SHANKS (2002); YIN (2003); MYERS and NEWMAN (2007). LEEDY and ORMROD (2001). HOYLE et al. (2001). Also refer to YIN (2003), pp. 33-39.


– 112 –

second is to establish a chain of evidence and the third is to have the findings reviewed by key informants.481 To build construct validity into the present study, particular attention is being paid to identifying and defining the right propositions, factors and constructs from the selected theoretical framework, viz., the representational analysis conducted. Furthermore, multiple sources of evidence are considered in that a wide range of modellers with different backgrounds, roles and positions within the organisations are interviewed. To ensure validity of the evaluation findings, established methodologies for analysis will be followed that pay attention to overcoming subjective bias in evaluation.482 Specifically, the use of a research team and multiple iterations of the semi-structured interviews will strengthen the validity of the insights gained on the propositions.

Internal validity The next test is to establish a causal relationship, whereby certain conditions are shown to lead to other conditions. This is only applicable to the explanatory purpose of the semi-structured interviews as internal validity is not a threat to exploratory studies.483 Typically, the tactics of pattern-matching, explanation building, addressing rival explanations and using logical models are suggested for passing this test, all of which relate to the data analysis phase of semi-structured interview research. Yet, to prepare for appropriate data collection and analysis, the research design as described below has been carefully crafted to be able to anticipate questions such as: Are the inferences correct? Have rival explanations and possibilities been considered? Is the gathered evidence cohesive and convergent?

External validity The third test deals with the problem of knowing if the findings are generalisable beyond the research domain. To ensure external validity, it is typically recommended to include theory development as part of the design phase of semi-structured interview research.484 Furthermore, as studies using semi-structured interviews rely

481 482 483 484

YIN (2003). ROSEMANN et al. (2004a); ROSEMANN et al. (2004b). YIN (2003), p. 36. GABLE (1994); SHANKS (2002); YIN (2003).


– 113 –

on analytical generalisation485, multiple interviewees from multiple organisations are recommended to overcome single case bias. In the present study, representation theory is being used as a foundation from which to derive the interview protocol. More specifically, the results from the representational analysis of BPMN by means of representation theory are used as input to the design. Furthermore, multiple respondents working for different organisations are considered, which allows for greater generalisability and also for replication logic in the data analysis.

Reliability The test of reliability seeks to demonstrate that the research model, i.e., the operations of a study, can be repeated in equal settings with the same results.486 In the present study, reliability of data will be ensured by means of the following. First, a semi-structured interview protocol is developed to strengthen the reliability of data gathered. The design of this protocol is detailed below. Subsequent and consistent use of the interview protocol across all organisations and respondents assists in providing consistency to the structure and conduct of data collection, thereby increasing the reliability of the interview data. Second, reliability of interview data is strengthened by maximising the control exerted over the data collection process by maintaining consistency of the involved researchers. As generally recommended487, interviews are in the present study always conducted by a two-person research team with clearly defined roles (interview moderator and note taker). Third, all interviews are recorded and transcribed. All data gathered from the interviews is stored in an interview database.488 For illustration purposes, Fig. 4.1 shows an excerpt from the interview database used in the present study.

485 486 487 488

As opposed to survey research that uses statistical generalization. YIN (2003). E.g., EISENHARDT (1989b); DUBÉ and PARÉ (2003). The complete interview database is available upon request.


Fig. 4.1:

– 114 –

Excerpt from the interview database

General design considerations The unit of analysis in this study is a process modelling individual (a process modeller). Hence, individuals that have used the process modelling grammar under observation, BPMN, to create process models for whatever purpose are sought as candidate interviewees. In terms of interviewee selection, EISENHARDT489 describes how the researcher should control for extraneous variation by defining specific characteristics that must exist within candidate organisations. She states that the researchers should strive for theoretical sampling in order to be able to identify interview partners across organisations that are likely to contribute to replicating or extending the emergent theory. Similarly, BENBASAT et al.490 suggest that site selection should be based on carefully selected organisational characteristics. Furthermore, interview cases should be selected to maximise what can be learnt in the period of time available for the study. EISENHARDT491 suggests between four and ten sites to hold for reasonably good replication logic whilst admitting that there is no general rule on the ideal number of 489 490 491

EISENHARDT (1989b). BENBASAT et al. (1987). EISENHARDT (1989b).


– 115 –

cases. Researchers should take resource constraints, opportunities and feasibility issues into consideration when determining the number of organisations to visit. Specifically, additional organisations or individuals should not be considered when theoretical saturation is reached, which is the case when incremental learning about the phenomenon of interest is minimal because the researcher is only witnessing previously seen phenomena and relationships.492 This study’s interview design consisted of six organisations and overall nineteen interview partners, which is considered sufficient for effectively reaching theoretical saturation. Characteristics for the organisations and individuals are discussed in Section 4.2.3.

Design of the interview protocol Taking the above considerations into account, a protocol was designed to guide the researcher in carrying out the semi-structured interviews. In the case of interviews that form part of a representational analysis, previous research has established preliminary guidelines for carrying out the data analysis. GREEN493 developed and validated an instrument for gathering data on representation model-based hypotheses involving the use of ISAD grammars in combination by analysts/designers when using structured upper CASE tools. This validated instrument was then used by GREEN and ROSEMANN494 as an initial basis for the formulation of a questionnaire instrument for testing the representational propositions regarding the use of Eventdriven Process Chains as implemented in the ARIS toolset with post-graduate students. In their second round of interviews they refined and extended this instrument.495 The major difference was that an opportunity was provided for the participants to expand on the reasoning for their answers to each question and/or for them to explain any ambiguity they found in the wording of the questions. Later, DAVIES et al.496 built upon this work with a semi-structured interview protocol to explore representational issues within ARIS with modelling practitioners. In particular, the questions contained in the original instrument were scaled down to a set of core questions and a set of probing questions. The core questions were based on the theoretical analysis while the probing questions were for follow-up investigations, should the need for these arise. From their study, they concluded that more guidance in the conduct of interviews is needed. Especially, it would be profitable to establish directions on how to test and explore representational 492 493 494 495 496

GLASER and STRAUSS (1967); EISENHARDT (1989b). GREEN (1996). GREEN and ROSEMANN (2000b); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2001). GREEN and ROSEMANN (2002). DAVIES et al. (2004).


– 116 –

propositions with modelling practitioners. They suggest devising a questionnaire structured in a top-down fashion beginning with questions aimed at determining the modeller’s awareness of a process modelling concept; followed by determining whether they use the modelling grammar under observation to model that concept and why or why not they would so; followed by whether they experience problems modelling that concept given that the functionality to do so exists; followed by how critical any problems are in relation to their purpose for modelling. They further go on to suggest that the logic of such an approach could be used to guide the development of a set of questions for each representational issue proposed. This approach would be useful to apply in semi-structured interviews and/or, if the desire is to test for generalisability, in a survey when a large number of respondents is required.497 The semi-structured interview protocol by DAVIES et al.498 was used in the present study as a basis to derive a similar instrument for the investigation of BPMN. More specifically, in devising the instrument, the recommendations were followed to use a structured-logical approach in designing the set of core questions to guide the semistructured interviews. The rationale for using this approach was, similar to the manner in which the approach was employed by DAVIES et al.499, to allow for exploration in addition to explanation. More precisely, it was sought not to restrict the empirical investigating to purely evaluating the theorised implications for the use of BPMN but to also be able to explore the context in which certain representational deficiencies may or may not occur and why that would be the case. To that end, based on the earlier work, four NASSI-SHNEIDERMAN diagrams (NSD)500 were developed – one for each type of representational deficiency – to graphically describe the design of the interview protocol. NSD follow a top-down design, in which the problem or concept at hand is reduced into recursively smaller subproblems until only simple statements and/or concepts remain. NSD reflect this topdown decomposition in a straight-forward way by using nested boxes to represent sub-problems or –concepts. The advantages of NSD are its ease of reading, especially for laymen.501

497 498 499 500 501

DAVIES et al. (2004). DAVIES et al. (2004). DAVIES et al. (2004). NASSI and SHNEIDERMAN (1973). E.g., WEISS (1990).


– 117 –

In designing the interview structure and core questions, the NSD concepts conditional statements and selection boxes were employed. Fig. 4.2 shows the four schemes, each of which is described below. Construct deficit

Construct redundancy

Do you need this concept?

Do you need this concept? no

yes

Can you model this concept with only one construct?

Can you directly model this concept? no

yes

no

Do you perceive this as a problem? yes

no

no

V

IV

yes

Do you perceive this as a problem? yes

Is it a critical problem? yes

no

Is it a critical problem?

III

II

I

yes

no

V

IV

Construct overload

III

Do you understand its meaning?

yes

yes

Do you perceive this as a problem? no

no

V

IV

Fig. 4.2:

no

Do you use this construct? yes

Is it a critical problem? yes

no

yes

Do you use it for a single purpose or meaning? no

I

Are you aware of this construct? no

yes

II

Construct excess

Are you aware of this construct?

yes

no

yes

no

Do you find it essential?

III

II

I

yes

no

V

IV

III

II

I

Interview structure and response classification schemes

Under the construct deficit classification scheme, the first question asked of the participant is that of need for a particular modelling concept, e.g., “have you ever had the need to graphically represent business rules?” If the response is negative, it is classified as a type I response. If the answer is positive, a further question regarding the ability to model directly the concept is asked, e.g., “can you explicitly graphically represent business rules using BPMN constructs?” This response can be classified as a type II response if the participant can directly model the concept in question. Otherwise, they are asked to indicate if they perceive this inability to be a problem. If not, then a type III response is recorded, otherwise a type IV or V response is recorded, depending on the perceived criticality of the problem. Type V responses can be seen as the strongest form of support for a proposition. In this manner, all responses can easily be classified. Under the construct redundancy classification scheme, the questions are different. After establishing whether there is a need to graphically represent a certain concept, e.g., the need to graphically describe real-world objects in a process model, a follow-


– 118 –

up question would inquire whether or not the respondent uses one or several BPMN constructs for modelling this concept (e.g., whether (s)he uses a variety of BPMN constructs to model certain types of real-world objects). The response can be classified as a type II response if the respondent uses only one BPMN construct to do so. If not, they are asked to indicate if they perceive this redundancy in available modelling means to be a problem. If not, then a type III response is recorded, otherwise, similar to construct deficit, a type IV or V response is recorded. Under the construct overload classification scheme, the first question is that of awareness of a certain grammar construct. As the principles of overload and excess both suggest implications on a grammar construct level, it is deemed necessary to establish first whether the respondent makes use of these constructs at all (type I). If so, a second question would ask whether the BPMN construct under observation is being used with a single purpose and/or meaning (type II) or whether the respondent uses it in different ways. If so, they are asked whether that constitutes a problem (type III) and how critically this problem manifests itself (type IV and V, respectively). The construct excess classification scheme is different from the others. Construct excess proposes that these additional constructs have no real-world meaning and are not required for modelling. Accordingly, the response classification scheme seeks to capture whether modellers are aware of such a construct (type I); if so, whether they understand its meaning (type II); if so, whether they use this construct for process modelling (type III); and if so, then whether they perceive it as an essential part of their process modelling activities (types IV and V, respectively). The complete interview protocol is designed on the basis of these four schemes. They form the basis of one of three sections in the protocol – a section that collects demographic information (Section A), a section composed of questions related to the propositions (Section B) on basis of the above classification schemes and a section with open-ended questions relating to the general adoption, uptake and application of BPMN in the organisation and by the participant (Section C). Appendix B.a presents the final interview protocol used in the interviews. As can be seen, aside from the questions, it furthermore contains the procedures and general rules for following the protocol and conducting the interview.502

502

As suggested by YIN (2003).


– 119 –

Aside from the design of the interview protocol, there are further considerations to be taken into account with respect to the basic ethical issues of research.503 Four main issues are required to be addressed prior to interview commencement. First, it is necessary to ensure confidentiality of the interviewees and of the data they provide. Second, it is required to obtain the informed consent of the interviewees that his or her responses will be used as data input to a research project. Third, it is important to assess and disclose to the interviewees all potential risks involved. Fourth, it should be discussed whether and how promises of benefits to the interviewees in return for sharing their time and insights are being kept. Addressing the abovementioned issues, ethical clearance was sought and granted prior to conduct of the interviews.504 Written stated consent was obtained from each interviewee on the conduct of the interview as well as on audio-recording and use of the responses. Appendix B.b presents the information and consent package, which includes and addresses each of the four issues discussed.

4.2.2

Conduct

The ability of the interviewer can significantly influence the quality of data gathered through an interview.505 In general terms, the interviewer should frame questions clearly and unambiguously, put the interviewee at ease, be alert and sensitive to new insights that may arise during the interview, probe when required, take a different angle, and overall should have a sound global view of the topic and sufficient composure to be prepared to assess the benefit of deviating, at least temporarily, from the prepared direction of the interview.506 To that end, the design of the semi-structured interview protocol that includes the pre-defined guiding questions for the interviews was also used to specify a number of guidelines for the overall conduct of the interviews. More precisely, under the heading ‘Commencing Interviews’, the interview protocol, as shown in appendix B.a, specifies guidelines for the interview conduct, including the following:

503 504 505 506

PATTON (1990). QUT Ref No 3987H. KVALE (1996); SMYTH (2001). SMYTH (2001).


– 120 –

5 years 5. >10 years

How long have you used the Business Process Modelling Notation for? 1. < 1 month 2. < 3 months 3. < 6 months 4. < 1 year

A6

4. 5-15 years 5. > 15 years

Over your working life how many years have you been involved in process modelling? 1. < 1 year

A5

2. < 2 years

Over your working life how many years have you been working in systems analysis and design? 1. not at all

A4

3. 5-15 years 4. > 15 years

Over your working life how many years have you been working in IT-related business? 1. not at all

A3

2. 2-5 years

5. < 2 years

The training you have received in BPMN includes: (specify level/ duration /other details) (When undertook) 1. Formal BPMN training course

Appendix

– 409 –

2. Internal BPMN training course 3. University course 4. On the job / mentor 5. Learnt the technique myself (how?) Other Tools and Techniques you have used for business process modelling, before BPMN,

A7 are: Tool

A8

Technique

Years Experience / training?

Generally, the primary purpose of your process modelling is to document/design: 1. organisational processes

2. IT processes

3. other: A8.1 Generally, the organisational level of your modelling is: examples> 1. high level (enterprise modelling) A9

50 ≤100

3. >100 ≤1000

4. >1000 ≤5000

5. >5000

Appendix

– 410 –

Evaluation of the Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN) v1.0 a study conducted by Business Process Management Research Group Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and UQ Business School University of Queensland (UQ)

Part B: Your use of the Business Process Modelling Notation (v1.0) B1 For what purpose do you use BPMN? E.g. documenting business processes, improving business processes, systems analysis and design, etc. ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________ B2 Roughly how many different BPMN symbols do you use: 1. 0-10

B3

2. 11-20

3. >20

When modelling business processes with BPMN, do you sometimes want to directly model realworld objects or things? 1 Yes ) Proceed to B4 and continue. 0

No

) Proceed to B5 and continue.

B4

How do you directly model real-world objects or things using BPMN?

1.

I cannot directly model real-world objects or things using the symbols provided by BPMN

2.

I use existing symbols provided by BPMN. I use the following BPMN constructs to represent objects or things: ___________________________________________________ ) Proceed to B5 and continue I use free form text

3. 4.

I use an existing symbol provided by BPMN only and change its meaning. I changed the meaning of the following BPMN symbols: ______________________________________

5.

I create a new symbol

6.

Other, please specify, ________________________________________________

7.


8.


B4.1 If you cannot model real-world objects with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem? 1

Yes

) How critical do you perceive this problem to be?

1. Minor problem

Appendix

– 411 –

2. Major problem 0

No


B5 Do you sometimes have difficulty determining the right symbol to use when modelling business processes with BPMN? 1

Yes

0

No


If so, which symbol types do you have most difficulty with, and why? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________

B6 From your experience, does this lead to misinterpretations of processes or confusion between project team members? 1. Very Often 5. Never

2. Often

3. Sometimes

4. Very Occasionally

Why? or Why not?_________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

B7 When modelling business processes with BPMN, do you experience any limitations in incorporating all the different business rules of the situation being modelled? 1

Yes


0

No


B8

How do you directly model all the different types of business rules of a situation using BPMN?

1.

I cannot model directly business rules using the symbols provided by BPMN

2.

I use existing symbols provided by BPMN. I use the following BPMN constructs to represent business rules:____ ___________________________________________________ ) Proceed to B9 and continue. I use free form text

3. 4.

I use existing symbol(s) provided by BPMN only and change their meaning. I have changed the meaning of the following BPMN symbols:_____________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

5.

I create a new symbol(s)

6.

Other, please specify, _________________________________________________________

Appendix

– 412 –

B8.1 If you cannot model business rules with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem? 1

Yes


1. Minor problem 2. Major problem ) Proceed to B9 and continue.

0

No

B9

When modelling business processes with BPMN, do you want to directly represent the scope and boundary of the overall system? 1

Yes


0

No


B10 How do you directly model the scope and boundary of the overall system using BPMN? 1.

I cannot model directly the scope and boundary of the overall system using the symbols provided by BPMN

2.

I use existing symbols provided by BPMN. I use the following BPMN constructs to represent the scope of the system I am modelling : __________________________________________ ) Proceed to B11 and continue. I use free form text

3. 4.

I use existing symbol(s) provided by BPMN only and change their meaning. I have changed the meaning of the following BPMN symbols:____________________________________

5.


6.


B10.1 If you cannot model the scope/boundary of a system with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem? 1

Yes


1. Minor problem 2. Major problem 0

No


B11 When modelling business processes with BPMN, do you want to decompose (break-up) your model into constituent, more detailed, component models? 1

Yes


0

No


Appendix

– 413 –

B12 Consider the situation where you decompose (break-up) your model into constituent, more detailed, component models. Looking at one of the decomposed models, do you have problems identifying the parent model from which it was derived? 1. 2.

I do not decompose (break-up) my model into constituent, more detailed, component models. ) Proceed to B13 and continue. I do not have any problems identifying the parent model from which the decomposed model was derived. ) Proceed to B13 and continue.

3.

I use free form text to indicate from which parent model the decomposed model was derived.

4.

I use an existing symbol and change its meaning to indicate from which parent model the decomposed model was derived. I have changed the meaning of the following BPMN symbol:____________________________________________________________________

5.

I create a new symbol(s) to indicate from which parent model the decomposed model was derived.

6.


B12.1 If you cannot model the decomposition of a system with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem? 1

Yes



No


B13 When modelling business processes with BPMN, do you experience any limitations in modelling events or triggers? 1

Yes


0

No


B14 How do you directly model events or triggers using BPMN? 1.

I cannot model directly events or triggers using the symbols provided by BPMN

2.

I use existing symbols provided by BPMN. I use the following BPMN constructs to represent events I am modelling : _______________________________________________________ ) Proceed to B15 and continue. I use free form text

3. 4.


5.


B14.1 If you cannot model events or triggers with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem?

Appendix 1

Yes

– 414 – ) How critical do you perceive this problem to be?


No


B15 When modelling business processes with BPMN, do you experience any limitations in modelling transformations or activities? 1

Yes


0

No


B16 How do you directly model transformations or activities using BPMN? 1.

I cannot model directly transformations or activities using the symbols provided by BPMN

2.

I use existing symbols provided by BPMN. I use the following BPMN constructs to represent transformations/ activities I am modelling : ______________________________ ) Proceed to B17 and continue. I use free form text

3. 4.


5.


6.


B16.1 If you cannot model transformations or activities with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem? 1

Yes



No


B17 When modelling business processes with BPMN, do you have a need to model all possible events that can occur or all allowable events that can occur? 1

Yes


0

No


B18 How do you model all possible/allowable events using BPMN? 1.1

I cannot model directly the set of all allowable events using the symbols provided by BPMN

1.2

I cannot model directly the set of all possible events using the symbols provided by BPMN

Appendix

– 415 –

2.1

I use existing symbols provided by BPMN. I use the following BPMN constructs to represent all allowable events I am modelling : __________________________________ ) Proceed to B19 and continue.

2.2

I use existing symbols provided by BPMN. I use the following BPMN constructs to represent all possible events I am modelling : _____________________________________________ ) Proceed to B19 and continue. I use free form text

3. 4.


5.


6.


B18.1 If you cannot model the set of all allowable events with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem? 1

Yes



No

) Proceed to B18.2 and continue.

B18.2 If you cannot model the set of all possible events with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem? 1

Yes



No


B19 When modelling business processes with BPMN, do you have a need to model all possible states of a thing (e.g. states of a business transaction participant) or all allowable states that can occur in the thing/object being modelled? 1

Yes


0

No


B20 How do you model all possible/allowable states of a thing using BPMN? 1.1 I cannot model directly the set of all allowable states using the symbols provided by BPMN 1.2 I cannot model directly the set of all possible states using the symbols provided by BPMN 2.1 I use existing symbols provided by BPMN. I use the following BPMN constructs to represent all allowable states I am modelling : _____________________________________________ ) Proceed to B21 and continue. 2.2 I use existing symbols provided by BPMN. I use the following BPMN constructs to represent all possible states I am modelling : _______________________________________________ ) Proceed to B21 and continue.

Appendix

– 416 –

3.

I use free form text

4.


5.


6.


B20.1 If you cannot model the set of all allowable states of a thing/object with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem? 1

Yes



No

) Proceed to B20.2 and continue.

B20.2 If you cannot model the set of all possible states of a thing/object with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem? 1

Yes



No


B21 When modelling business processes with BPMN, do you have a need to model the full history of state changes of a thing or object? 1

Yes


0

No


B22 How do you model the history of state changes of a thing/object in BPMN? 1.

I cannot model directly the history of state changes using the symbols provided by BPMN

2.

I use existing symbols provided by BPMN. I use the following BPMN constructs: ___________________________________________________________________________ ) Proceed to B23 and continue.

3.

I use free form text

4. I use existing symbol(s) provided by BPMN only and change their meaning. I have changed the meaning of the following BPMN symbols:____________________________________ 5.


6.


B22.1 If you cannot model the history of state changes of a thing/object with existing BPMN symbols that were designed for that purpose, then do you perceive this to be a problem?

Appendix

1

Yes

– 417 –



No


B23 For what purpose do you use the Lane BPMN construct? E.g. to model things, classes of things, scope of system, set of all things in the situation being modelled, structure of the system being modelled, division between the different things being modelled. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ B24 For what purpose do you use the Pool BPMN construct? E.g. to model things, classes of things, scope of system, set of all things in the situation being modelled, structure of the system being modelled, division between the different things being modelled. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ B25 When modelling business processes with BPMN, do you use any of the following BPMN constructs: Data Object, Link, Off-Page connector, Association Flow, Text Annotation, Group, Activity Looping, Multiple Instances, Normal Flow, Event, Gateway and Gateway types? 1

Yes


0

No

) End of interview.

B26 Please fill out the table below:

Construct

Data

Find essential for process modelling

Use but do not find it essential

Understand its purpose but do not use

Aware of it but do not understand its purpose

Not aware of this BPMN symbol

Appendix Object Link Off-Page connector Association Flow Text Annotation Group Activity Looping Multiple Instances Normal Flow Event (supertype) Gateway Gateway types

– 418 –

Appendix

– 419 –


Part C: The uptake of the Business Process Modelling Notation (v1.0) C1

Please comment on the suitability of BPMN for your modelling purposes. Do you find BPMN easy to use for your purposes? How did/do/will you improve its usability (e.g. do you use any other techniques or packages to supplement BPMN models?)? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

C2

Please comment on the BPMN training you received. Was it easy to pick up on the modelling concepts? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

C3

Based on your process modelling experience, can you comment on the developer’s intention to propose BPMN as a single process modelling standard? What do you like or dislike about BPMN? What are the problems in terms of process modelling with BPMN, what are advantages? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

C4

Please comment on some reasons why your organisation/team selected BPMN as a process modelling technique. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix

C5

– 420 –

BPMN is supposedly directly translatable into executable BPEL4WS specifications. Are you aware of this? Was this a considered factor for the selection of a process modelling technique in your organisation? Do you plan to translate BPMN to BPEL for execution purposes? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

C6

How do you ensure that you develop “high quality” process models with BPMN? How is a “good” process model in BPMN defined in your organisation? Do you have quality evaluation mechanisms in place? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

End of Interview

B.b

Final Interview Information Sheet


Process Modelling using BPMN

Information Sheet Investigators

Appendix

– 421 –

Dr Marta Indulska

Mr Jan Recker

Dr Michael Rosemann

Dr Peter Green

(Chief Investigator / Lecturer) UQ Business School University of Queensland Ipswich Campus 11 Salisbury Road Ipswich QLD 4305, Australia

(Chief Investigator / PhD Student) Business Process Management Group Faculty of Information Technology QUT 126 Margaret St Brisbane 4000, Australia

(Professor) Business Process Management Group Faculty of Information Technology QUT 126 Margaret St Brisbane 4000, Australia

(Professor) UQ Business School University of Queensland Ipswich Campus 11 Salisbury Rd Ipswich 4305, Australia

Tel: (07) 3381 1413 Fax: (07) 3381 1227 Email: m.indulska@busines s.uq.edu.au

Tel: (07) 3864 9478 Fax: (07) 3864 9390 Email: [email protected]

Tel: (07) 3864 9473 Fax: (07) 3864 9390 Email: [email protected]

Tel: (07) 3381 1029 Fax: (07) 3381 1227 Email: [email protected] .edu.au

Project Description Process modelling techniques, such as BPMN (Business Process Modelling Notation), are used in many management and IT (Information Technology) projects to conceptually define the business processes of an organisation. Several IS (Information Systems) development tools contain these techniques, however, anecdotal evidence indicates many shortcomings. The objective of this program of research and investigation is, therefore, to facilitate the improvement and development of process modelling grammars by performing an ontologically-based evaluation and comparison of process modelling techniques and provide suggestions for improvements. In order to achieve this objective, the study involves developing a meta-model mapping methodology to facilitate the comparison of modelling technique constructs to ontological constructs; and empirically testing the findings of the ontological evaluations. This study is being conducted as part of research work at the Business Process Management Group at QUT, in conjunction with UQ. Initial ‘theoretical’ analysis of the BPMN technique has been conducted. As a next step we are now hoping to gain further empirical insights from the actual ‘experiences’ of modellers using the tool. About this phase of the study: The main goal of this phase is identifying how various systems modellers use the BPMN modelling technique. As modellers of processes and systems, we use this technique in our work to help us clarify our understandings of existing dynamics of systems, and to help us design and communicate suggested improvements to those systems. By understanding more fully what concepts like BPMN do well (and poorly) in modelling, we can help to improve modelling processes in general and to improve support methods like BPMN in particular. The aim of this investigation is to study how and why process modellers use certain language constructs and concepts provided within the BPMN method, by conducting semi-structured interviews with modellers. Your organisation has identified you as a suitable prospective participant due to your experience using the BPMN technique. The chief investigator has derived a set of core questions, based on the theoretical analysis of BPMN, to guide the semi-structured interview. While guided by these core questions, the interviews will also allow for you to express your own views and concerns regarding the limitations and use of BPMN. It is expected that each interview will not take more of your time than approx. 20-30 mins. Expected Benefits and Risks While there is no ‘direct’ benefit to you, your participation in this study is expected to lead to improvements in the BPMN technique, which will potentially impact on the ease with which you are able to complete your modelling tasks. Furthermore, you will receive first hand results of the study, made available through electronic means once this phase is complete. There are no foreseen risks associated with your involvement in this study. Audio Recording of Interviews With your permission, the research team would like to audio record the interviews for better data capture. You may wish not to grant permission to have the interview recorded and still be able to participate in the project. Once transcribed, all audio files will be destroyed.

Appendix

– 422 –

Confidentiality All recordings and transcripts from interviews will be kept strictly confidential. Transcripts will be assigned a sequential number and no names will be entered to the study database. Furthermore, no one outside the research team will have access to the information you provide. In general, aggregated results will be reported. While, some individual responses may be reported, no individual will be identified with any of these responses. Voluntary Participation Participation in this study is purely voluntary. You may wish to withdraw your participation at any time, without penalty or judgement. Questions / further information If you would like to obtain additional information or have any queries you would like addressed, please feel free to contact the research team members above. Concerns / complaints If you have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you could contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3864 2340 or [email protected]. Feedback Feedback will be in the form of results of the study. Thank you for your interest. We sincerely hope that you will participate in this interesting and important study.

Appendix

– 423 –


Process Modelling using BPMN

Informed Consent Form Chief Investigators: Mr Jan Recker (Researcher, QUT) Email: [email protected] Telephone: 3864 9478

Dr Marta Indulska (Lecturer, UQ) Email: [email protected] Telephone: 3381 1413

Statement of consent By signing below, you are indicating that you:

have read and understood the information sheet about this project;

have had any questions answered to your satisfaction;

understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team;

understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty;

understand that you can contact the research team if you have any questions about the project, or the Research Ethics Officer on 3864 2340 or [email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project; and

(Please tick as appropriate) agree to participate in the project. And grant permission to audio record interviews But do not grant permission to audio record any interviews

Name

Signature

Date

/

/

Appendix

– 424 –

C

Additional Survey Material

C.a

Scale Development Material

App. C.1:

Model constructs with existing pre-validated measurement arrays

Theoretical construct

Original definition

Intention to Continue to Use Perceived Usefulness

The extent to which a person intends to continue to use a particular artefact. The extent to which a person believes that a particular artefact will be effective in achieving his or her intended task objectives. The extent to which a person believes that using a particular artefact would be free of effort. The extent to which a person believes that the actual usage experience of an artefact contravenes pre-usage expectations. The extent to which a person feels satisfied about his or her overall experience with the use of an artefact.

Perceived Ease of Use Confirmation

Satisfaction

Voluntariness

App. C.2:

The extent to which a person perceives the adoption decision to be nonmandatory.

Defined, operationalised and validated in E.g., MATHIESON (1991); BHATTACHERJEE (2001b). E.g., DAVIS (1989); MOODY (2001).

E.g., DAVIS (1989); PREMKUMAR and BHATTACHERJEE (2008). E.g., BHATTACHERJEE and PREMKUMAR (2004); PREMKUMAR and BHATTACHERJEE (2008). E.g., SPRENG et al. (1996); BHATTACHERJEE (2001b); PREMKUMAR and BHATTACHERJEE (2008) E.g., MOORE and BENBASAT (1991); VENKATESH et al. (2003).

Initial candidate items for construct deficit, redundancy, overload and excess

No Item Construct deficit CD1 BPMN lacks capacities for representing certain real-world phenomena in process models. CD2 BPMN’s support for the representation of certain real-world phenomena in process models is deficient. CD3 BPMN users lack capacities to represent certain real-world phenomena in process models. CD4 BPMN does not provide a sufficient number of constructs for representing certain realworld phenomena in process models. CD5 BPMN users cannot sufficiently represent certain real-world phenomena in process models using the constructs provided. CD6 The constructs needed to represent certain real-world phenomena in process models are not fully provided by BPMN. CD7 BPMN does not contain all constructs needed to represent certain real-world phenomena in process models. CD8 The extent to which BPMN provides constructs that are needed for representing certain realworld phenomena in process models is not sufficient. CD9 There are not enough constructs in BPMN to represent certain real-world phenomena in process models.

Appendix

No Item CD10 Certain real-world phenomena cannot be represented in process models using BPMN. Construct redundancy CR1 BPMN’s support for the representation of real-world things in process models is ambiguous. CR2 BPMN users are confused about which construct to use for representing real-world things in process models. CR3 BPMN provides a multitude of constructs that can be used to represent real-world things in process models. CR4 The extent to which BPMN provides constructs that are sufficient for representing realworld things in process models is more than needed. CR5 BPMN provides at least two constructs that share the same capacity to represent real-world things in process models. CR6 BPMN users have to bring to bear in-depth knowledge of the grammar to understand which construct to use for representing a specific type of a real-world thing in process models. CR7 BPMN provides several constructs to represent real-world things in process models. CR8 In process models, real-world things can be represented in BPMN by a multitude of constructs. CR9 BPMN provides several constructs that stand for real-world things in process models. CR10 There are various constructs in BPMN that may be used to represent real-world things in process models. Construct overload CO1 The “Pool” construct in BPMN allows for the representation of more than one distinct realworld phenomena in a process model. CO2 BPMN users are confused for which meaning the “Pool” construct is used in a process model. CO3 The “Pool” construct in BPMN does not have a clear meaning in a process model. CO4 The “Pool” construct in BPMN does not have a distinct meaning in a process model. CO5 BPMN users need additional explanation in order to be able to understand the meaning of the “Pool” construct in a process model. CO6 The “Pool” construct in BPMN has several real-world meanings in a process model. CO7 The “Pool” construct in BPMN can be used to represent several real-world phenomena in a process model. CO8 BPMN users have to bring to bear knowledge external to the model in order to understand the real-world phenomenon that is being represented by the “Pool” construct in a process model. CO9 In the absence of additional information BPMN users cannot tell what is being represented by the “Pool” construct in a process model. CO10 BPMN users have to use knowledge outside of the grammar in order to determine which real-world phenomenon is being represented by the “Pool” construct in a process model. Construct excess CE1 The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not provide any meaning relevant to representing real-world phenomena in a process model. CE2 The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not provide any capacity relevant to representing real-world phenomena in a process model. CE3 The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not provide any purpose relevant to representing real-world phenomena in a process model. CE4 The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not have any real-world meaning in a process model. CE5 The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not represent any relevant real-world phenomena in a process model in a process model. CE6 The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not have any purpose in a process model. CE7 BPMN users are confused about the nature of the “Off-page connector” construct in a process model. CE8 BPMN users are confused about the purpose of the “Off-page connector” construct in a process model. CE9 BPMN users are confused about the real-world meaning of the “Off-page connector” construct in a process model.

– 425 –

Appendix

No CE10

– 426 –

Item BPMN users are unable to articulate precisely the real-world meaning of the “Off-page connector” construct in a process model.

App. C.3:

Substrata identification results per item

Item Rater1 Construct deficit CD1

-

CD2

deficit

CD3 CD4 CD5 CD6

deficit specialisations number of constructs specialisations

CD7 CD8 CD9

completeness deficit deficit

CD10 completeness Construct redundancy

Rater2 number/ suitability of constructs number/ suitability of constructs user capacity number of constructs number/ suitability of constructs number of constructs number/ suitability of constructs suitability of constructs number of constructs lack of capability

Rater3

Rater4

lack of support

Missing constructs Lacking capacities for users Lacking capacities for users Missing constructs Lacking capacities for users Missing constructs

lack of support lack of capacities provided to user lack of constructs lack of capacities provided to user lack of constructs lack of constructs lack of constructs lack of constructs lack of support

CR1

ambiguity

CR2

ambiguity

extra knowledge required extra knowledge required

CR3

redundancy

too many constructs

CR4

ambiguity

too many constructs

CR5 CR6

redundancy redundancy, ambiguity

too many constructs extra knowledge required

CR7

redundancy

too many constructs

CR8

redundancy

too many constructs

CR9

redundancy

too many constructs

CR10 redundancy Construct overload

too many constructs

lack of support lack of capacities provided to user redundant constructs redundant constructs redundant constructs lack of capacities provided to user redundant constructs redundant constructs redundant constructs redundant constructs

CO1

overload

CO2

overload

unclear requires extra knowledge

overloaded constructs lack of expertise provided to users

CO3

overload

unclear

problem with use

CO4 CO5

overload extra-model

unclear requires extra

problem with use lack of expertise

Missing constructs Missing constructs Missing constructs Lacking capacities for users Extensive construct provision Too many options Extensive construct provision Too many options Extensive construct provision Too many options Extensive construct provision Too many options Extensive construct provision Extensive construct provision Meaning of construct Impact on user Meaning of construct Meaning of construct Impact on user

Appendix

– 427 –

Item

Rater1 knowledge

Rater2 knowledge

CO6

overload

unclear

CO7

overload extra-model CO8 knowledge extra-model CO9 knowledge extra-model CO10 knowledge Construct excess

unclear requires extra knowledge requires extra knowledge requires extra knowledge

CE1

excess

lack of meaning

CE2

excess

ability to represent

CE3

usage

lack of meaning

CE4

excess

lack of meaning

CE5

excess

lack of meaning

CE6 CE7 CE8 CE9 CE10

usage ambiguity usage ambiguity excess, ambiguity

lack of meaning user capabilities user capabilities user capabilities user capabilities

Rater3 provided to users overloaded constructs overloaded constructs lack of expertise provided to users lack of expertise provided to users lack of expertise provided to users excessive construct(s) excessive construct(s) excessive construct(s) excessive construct(s) excessive construct(s) excessive construct(s) problems with use problems with use problems with use problems with use

Rater4 Meaning of construct Impact on user Impact on user Impact on user Impact on user Construct meaning Construct meaning Construct meaning Construct meaning Construct meaning Construct meaning User confusion User confusion User confusion User confusion

Appendix

App. C.4:

– 428 –

Expert panel results for item identification

Item Ranking Standard no average deviation Construct deficit CD1 6.077 0.954 CD2 5.077 1.382 3.923 1.847 CD3 5.154 1.819 CD4 CD5 5.000 1.291 5.692 1.601 CD6 CD7 5.154 2.340 CD8 4.462 1.854 CD9 4.923 1.891 CD10 4.385 1.609 Construct redundancy CR1 3.923 1.801 CR2 3.769 1.481 CR3 4.846 1.951 CR4 3.615 1.805 CR5 5.692 1.377 CR6 3.923 1.656 CR7

Rank Cluster

Placement Decision / New item wording ratio

1 5 10

Impact

75 %

3

Deficiency

75 %

6 2

Deficiency

75 %

3 8 7 9

Deficiency Deficiency Deficiency Impact

100 % 75 % 100 % 75 %

7 9 6 10 2 7

Impact Impact Deficiency Deficiency Impact

75 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 75 %

5.769

1.363

1

Deficiency

100 %

CR8 5.308 CR9 5.000 CR10 5.615

1.437 1.780 1.387

4 5 3

Deficiency Deficiency Deficiency

75 % 100 % 100 %

3 10 6

Deficiency Impact Deficiency

100 % 75 % 75 %

Construct overload CO1 5.462 1.127 CO2 4.231 1.301 CO3 4.462 1.664

Dropped Dropped Retained: BPMN does not provide me with sufficient capacities for representing business rules in process models. Retained: BPMN does not provide types of constructs to represent business rules in process models. Dropped Retained: BPMN could be improved by adding new constructs for representing business rules in process models. Dropped Dropped Dropped Retained: I often cannot use BPMN to adequately represent business rules in process models. Merged: It is often unclear to me which BPMN construct to use to represent a specific realworld thing in a process model. Dropped Dropped Merged with CR10: (see below) Retained: To understand which construct to use to represent a specific type of a real-world thing in a process model, I need in-depth knowledge of BPMN. Retained: BPMN often provides two or more constructs that can be used to represent a single real-world thing in a process model. Dropped Dropped Merged with CR5: The same real-world thing can often be represented in a process model using more than one single BPMN construct. Dropped Dropped Dropped

Appendix

– 429 –

Item no CO4 CO5

Ranking average 4.538 4.462

Standard deviation 1.713 1.664

Rank Cluster

Placement Decision / New item wording ratio 75 % Dropped 100 % Retained: I often need additional information to understand the meaning of the BPMN “Pool” construct as it has been used in a process model. 100 % Retained: The “Pool” construct in BPMN can have more than one real-world meaning in a process model. 75 % Retained: The “Pool” construct in BPMN can be used to represent more than one real-world phenomena in a process model. 100 % Dropped 100 % Dropped 100 % Retained: I often cannot determine precisely which real-world phenomenon is represented by the BPMN “Pool” construct in a process model.

5 6

Deficiency Impact

CO6

5.692

1.182

1

Deficiency

CO7

5.692

1.032

1

Deficiency

CO8 4.308 CO9 4.385 CO10 4.692

1.316 1.609 1.653

9 8 4

Impact Impact Impact

Construct excess CE1 5.615 CE2 4.231 CE3 4.846 CE4 5.615

1.193 1.166 1.725 1.710

2 6 4 2

Deficiency Deficiency Deficiency Deficiency

100 % 75 % 75 % 100 %

CE5

5.769

1.691

1

Deficiency

100 %

CE6 CE7

3.769 3.615

2.166 1.387

8 9

Deficiency Impact

75 % 100 %

CE8 CE9

3.462 4.385

1.713 1.502

10 5

Impact Impact

100 % 100 %

CE10

3.846

1.068

7

Impact

75 %

Merged with CE4: (see below) Dropped Dropped Merged with CE1: The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not have any real-world meaning in a process model. Retained: The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not represent any relevant realworld phenomena in a process model. Dropped Retained: To me, the nature and purpose of the BPMN “Off-page connector” construct is often unclear in a process model. Dropped Retained: It is often very hard for me to precisely determine the meaning of the BPMN “Offpage connector” construct in a process model. Dropped

Appendix

App. C.5:

– 430 –

Scales per proposition on the representational deficiencies of BPMN

Proposition Construct deficit

Item no

Business rules

CD1_1 CD1_2 CD1_3

Logs of state changes

CD2_1 CD2_2 CD2_3

Structure of the modelled process

CD3_1 CD3_2 CD3_3

Construct redundancy Real-world objects

CR1_1 CR1_2 CR1_3

Transformations

CR2_1 CR2_2 CR2_3

Events

CR3_1 CR3_2 CR3_3

Definition BPMN does not provide adequate symbols to represent business rules in process models. BPMN could be made more complete by adding new symbols for representing business rules in process models. I cannot use BPMN to sufficiently represent business rules in process models. BPMN does not provide adequate symbols to represent logs of state changes in process models. BPMN could be made more complete by adding new symbols for representing logs of state changes in process models. I cannot use BPMN to sufficiently represent logs of state changes in process models. BPMN does not provide adequate symbols to represent the process structure and decomposition in process models. BPMN could be made more complete by adding new symbols for representing the process structure and decomposition in process models. I cannot use BPMN to sufficiently represent the process structure and decomposition in process models. I often have to choose between a number of BPMN symbols to represent one kind of a real-world object in a process model. BPMN often provides two or more symbols that can be used to represent the same kind of real-world object in a process model. In a process model, one kind of a real-world object can often be represented by different BPMN symbols. I often have to choose between a number of BPMN symbols to represent one kind of a transformation in a process model. BPMN often provides two or more symbols that can be used to represent the same kind of transformation in a process model. In a process model, one kind of a transformation can often be represented by different BPMN symbols. I often have to choose between a number of BPMN symbols to represent one kind of an event in a process model. BPMN often provides two or more symbols that can be used to represent the same kind of event in a process model. In a process model, one kind of an event can often be represented by different BPMN symbols.

Construct overload Pool

CO1_1 CO1_2 CO1_3

Lane

CO2_1 CO2_2 CO2_3

I often have to provide additional information to clarify the context in which I want to use the Pool symbol in a process model. The Pool symbol can have more than one meaning in a process model. I often use the Pool symbol to represent more than one type of realworld phenomena in a process model. I often have to provide additional information to clarify the context in which I want to use the Lane symbol in a process model. The Lane symbol can have more than one meaning in a process model. I often use the Lane symbol to represent more than one type of realworld phenomena in a process model.

Appendix

– 431 –

Proposition Construct excess

Item no

Basic event

CE1_1 CE1_2 CE1_3

Text annotation

CE2_1 CE2_2 CE2_3

Off-page connector

CE3_1 CE3_2 CE3_3

Multiple Instances

CE4_1 CE4_2 CE4_3

Definition The basic Event symbol does not have a real-world meaning in a process model. I often cannot precisely ascribe a real-world meaning to the basic Event symbol in a process model. The basic Event symbol does not represent any relevant real-world phenomenon in a process model. The Text Annotation symbol does not have a real-world meaning in a process model. I often cannot precisely ascribe a real-world meaning to the Text Annotation symbol in a process model. The Text Annotation symbol does not represent any relevant realworld phenomenon in a process model. The Off-page Connector symbol does not have a real-world meaning in a process model. I often cannot precisely ascribe a real-world meaning to the Offpage Connector symbol in a process model. The Off-page Connector symbol does not represent any relevant real-world phenomenon in a process model. The Multiple Instances symbol does not have a real-world meaning in a process model. I often cannot precisely ascribe a real-world meaning to the Multiple Instances symbol in a process model. The Multiple Instances symbol does not represent any relevant realworld phenomenon in a process model.

Appendix

App. C.6: Construct Modelling experience

– 432 –

Remaining survey scales Adopted construct definition No The extent to which a person has Exp1 a reasonable degree of proficiency in using a particular process modelling grammar for Exp2 process modelling tasks. Exp3

Grammar familiarity

Type of training

Modeller role

The extent to which a person believes to be familiar in the usage of a particular process modelling grammar for process modelling tasks. The type of training a person has received in process modelling with a particular process modelling grammar.

Fam1 Fam2 Fam3 Training1

The degree of background Role1 expertise in process modelling Role2 brought to bear by a person. Role3

Modelling purpose

The type of requirements Purpose1 towards the process modelling Purpose2 task carried out by a person.

Item Over your working life, roughly, how many years experience do you have in process modelling overall? For how long have you been using BPMN for process modelling?

Value Number of years

Adopted from HITCHMAN (1995); SHANKS (1997).

Number of months

Over your working life, roughly, how many process models do you think you have created with BPMN? I feel very familiar with BPMN. I feel very competent in using BPMN for process modelling. I feel very confident in using BPMN for process modelling. What type of training have you received in BPMN?

Number of models created

GEMINO and WAND (2004); GEMINO and WAND (2005). HITCHMAN (1995); SHANKS (1997).

In process modelling initiatives my role is mostly… In process modelling initiatives I consider myself having expertise that is mostly… I consider myself having a process modelling background that is mostly… The process models I create with BPMN are generally intended for… The process models I create with BPMN are generally required to be…

1-7 1-7

GEMINO and WAND (2004); GEMINO and WAND (2005)

1-7 Formal/certified course Informal/in-house course University course On the job training Learnt the technique myself Read the specification Other (self-report field) 1-7

Self-developed.

Self-developed.

1-7 1-7 1-7 1-7

Self-developed on the basis of DEHNERT and VAN DER AALST (2004).

Appendix

– 433 –

Purpose3 Purpose4 Modelling guidelines

Modelling tool

The existence of a set of organisation-specific documentation that forces a person to comply to the guidelines specified in the document in carrying out process modelling tasks.

Guideline1

The existence of certain tool functionality that is frequently used in process modelling tasks carried out by a person using a particular process modelling grammar.

Tool1

Guideline2

The process models I create with BPMN are generally used as … It is generally more important that the process models I create with BPMN are… Are you following organisationspecific modelling standards, guidelines, conventions, handbooks or some other organisationalspecific documentation that guide your use of BPMN? How many BPMN symbols are you using to create process models?

Which of the following tool functionality are you using when creating process models with BPMN (please select as many answers as required)

1-7 1-7 Existence of guidelines

Self-developed on the basis of BANDARA (2007).

The BPMN core set. The BPMN full set. An extended but not full BPMN set.

Adopted from the BPMN specification. See BPMI.ORG and OMG (2006b) and App. A.2. Self-developed on the basis of the findings from the semi-structured interviews and GREEN and ROSEMANN (2000b); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2001); GREEN and ROSEMANN (2002); DAVIES et al. (2004).

Integrated repository for all process models Navigation between process models on different levels Additional attribute fields for symbols Access to other notations and modelling techniques Access to new symbols in addition to BPMN symbols Access or hyperlinks to other documentation from within the process models Method filter for restricting and specifying the set of symbols to be used

Appendix

– 434 –

Representational Capabilities of Process Modelling Grammars

Dear Participant, This research project seeks to develop an understanding of what the representational capabilities are of a process modelling grammar (such as BPMN, EPCs, YAWL, Petri Nets, UML Activity Diagrams etc.), in particular an understanding for the perceived criticality of construct deficit, redundancy, overload, and excess of a grammar. In order to enhance the process of representational analysis (aka ontological evaluation) of a grammar more rigorous empirical research strategies are being developed, dedicated to testing theoretically identified representational deficiencies as to their perceived criticality. Adopting the work of Moore and Benbasat, who reported on the development of an instrument to measure the various perceptions that an individual may have towards an IT artefact, we seek to develop a measurement instrument to study the perceptions that an individual may have towards the representational capabilities of conceptual modelling grammars. In the following, your feedback is sought on a number of related concepts, namely definitions and measurement items. The following explanations use the analysis case of the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), and the identified situations of representational deficiencies of this modelling grammar specifically, for wording and illustration purposes. It is expected that the completion of this document does not take more of your time than 20 minutes. Upon completion please return the completed document to me via email, [email protected]. If you do not wish to be identified, feel free to return the completed document via mail, Jan Recker, Business Process Management Group, 126 Margaret Street, Brisbane QLD 4000, or via fax, +61 (0)7 3864 9390. Furthermore, if you encounter any difficulties in completing this document, or have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me via email, [email protected].

Thank you very much; your support in this study is highly appreciated.

Appendix

– 435 –

Instructions In the following, you will be given four definitions (of construct deficit, redundancy, overload, and excess) and for each definition a number of items contained in a table. It is asked of you to assess these items, independently from each other, as to how well they fit the content of the given definition, in the sense how appropriate they are for being used as a measurement item (using a Likert-scale) for the given definition. The assessment should be done using a scale from 1 (fits extremely poorly) to 7 (fits extremely well). Consider the following example: it was found that with respect to the definition of perceived usefulness (“the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance”), the item “Using the system increases my work productivity” fits the definition in the sense that it is appropriate for measuring an individual’s perception of the usefulness of a system using a 7-point scale with the endpoints “I strongly disagree” and “I strongly agree”. The same principle applies to this test. To better understand this test, consider the following example that is based on the works of Davis (1986, 1989) and considers various aspects of the usefulness of an IT system. Note here that the rankings are given for illustration purposes only and do not necessarily reflect an appropriate judgement. Definition: Perceived usefulness of an IT system is the degree to which a person believes that using the system would enhance his or her job performance. Items: Item Description

Rank

Using an IT system improves my job performance

6

An IT system supports critical aspects of my job

5

Using an IT system saves me time

4

Using an IT system enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly

7

Using an IT system improves the quality of the work I do

3

Appendix

Construct Deficit Definition: Construct deficit occurs in a modelling grammar if at least one construct in the BungeWand-Weber representation model does not map to any construct in the modelling grammar (1:0 relationship). Instances of construct deficit in a modelling grammar induce situations in which the modelling grammar users do not have sufficient modelling capacities to describe all realworld phenomena that they seek to have represented. Feel free to provide any comments, remarks or feedback on this definition in the field below.

Items: Please read the following items carefully and then assess them, independently from each other, as to how well you find the item to fit the proposed definition of construct deficit of a process modelling grammar from 1 (fits extremely poorly) to 7 (fits extremely well). Note here that, for wording and illustration purposes only, the following items are based on an exemplary scenario in which previously identified instances of construct deficit in BPMN were found to result in a lack of means for representing business rules in process models. The items given below, however, should be assessed in terms how well they fit the definition in general rather than in the specific case of BPMN.

– 436 –

Appendix

– 437 –

Item Description

Assessment

BPMN lacks capacities for representing business rules in process models. BPMN’s support for the representation of business rules in process models is deficient. BPMN users lack capacities to represent business rules in process models. BPMN does not provide a sufficient number of constructs for representing business rules in process models. BPMN users cannot sufficiently represent business rules in process models using the constructs provided. The constructs needed to represent business rules in process models are not fully provided by BPMN. BPMN does not contain all constructs needed to represent business rules in process models. The extent to which BPMN provides constructs that are needed for representing business rules in process models is not sufficient. There are not enough constructs in BPMN to represent business rules in process models. Business rules cannot be represented in process models using BPMN. Feel free to provide your own suggestions, or any comments you may want to share, in the field below. In particular, if you can identify further potential items, feel free to share them in the field below.

Construct Redundancy Definition: Construct redundancy occurs in a modelling grammar if at least one construct in the BungeWand-Weber representation model maps to two or more constructs in the modelling grammar (1:m relationship). Instances of construct redundancy in a modelling grammar induce situations in which the modelling grammar users do not understand which modelling grammar construct to use in order to describe the real-world phenomenon that they seek to have represented.

Appendix

– 438 –

Feel free to provide any comments, remarks or feedback on this definition in the field below.

Items: Please read the following items carefully and then assess them, independently from each other, as to how well you find the item to fit the proposed definition of construct redundancy of a process modelling grammar from 1 (fits extremely poorly) to 7 (fits extremely well). Note here that, for wording and illustration purposes only, the following items are based on an exemplary scenario in which previously identified instances of construct redundancy in BPMN were found to result in confusion for users when they sought to represent real-world things in process models. The items given below, however, should be assessed in terms how well they fit the definition in general rather than in the specific case of BPMN. Item Description BPMN’s support for the representation of real-world things in process models is ambiguous. BPMN users are confused about which construct to use for representing real-world things in process models. BPMN provides a multitude of constructs that can be used to represent real-world things in process models. The extent to which BPMN provides constructs that are sufficient for representing real-world things in process models is more than needed. BPMN provides at least two constructs that share the same capacity to represent real-world things in process models. BPMN users have to bring to bear in-depth knowledge of the grammar to understand which construct to use for representing a specific type of a real-world thing in process models. BPMN provides several constructs to represent real-world things in process models. In process models, real-world things can be represented in BPMN by a multitude of constructs. BPMN provides several constructs that stand for real-world things in process models. There are various constructs in BPMN that may be used to represent real-world things in process models.

Assessment

Appendix

Feel free to provide your own suggestions, or any comments you may want to share, in the field below. In particular, if you can identify further potential items, feel free to share them in the field below.

Construct Overload Definition: Construct overload occurs in a modelling grammar if two or more constructs in the BungeWand-Weber representation model map to one and the same construct in the modelling grammar (m:1 relationship). Instances of construct overload in a modelling grammar induce situations in which the modelling grammar users have to bring to bear knowledge external to the model in order to understand the real-world phenomenon that is being represented by the modelling grammar construct. Feel free to provide any comments, remarks or feedback on this definition in the field below.

Items: Please read the following items carefully and then assess them, independently from each other, as to how well you find the item to fit the proposed definition of construct overload of a process modelling grammar from 1 (fits extremely poorly) to 7 (fits extremely well). Note here that, for wording and illustration purposes only, the following items are based on an exemplary scenario in which previously identified instances of construct overload in BPMN were found to result in result in confusion of the users about the real-world meaning of the “Pool” construct in a process model. The items given below, however, should be assessed in terms how well they fit the definition in general rather than in the specific case of BPMN.

– 439 –

Appendix

– 440 –

Item Description

Assessment

The “Pool” construct in BPMN allows for the representation of more than one distinct real-world phenomena in a process model. BPMN users are confused for which meaning the “Pool” construct is used in a process model. The “Pool” construct in BPMN does not have a clear meaning in a process model. The “Pool” construct in BPMN does not have a distinct meaning in a process model. BPMN users need additional explanation in order to be able to understand the meaning of the “Pool” construct in a process model. The “Pool” construct in BPMN has several real-world meanings in a process model. The “Pool” construct in BPMN can be used to represent several real-world phenomena in a process model. BPMN users have to bring to bear knowledge external to the model in order to understand the real-world phenomenon that is being represented by the “Pool” construct in a process model. In the absence of additional information BPMN users cannot tell what is being represented by the “Pool” construct in a process model. BPMN users have to use knowledge outside of the grammar in order to determine which real-world phenomenon is being represented by the “Pool” construct in a process model. Feel free to provide your own suggestions, or any comments you may want to share, in the field below. In particular, if you can identify further potential items, feel free to share them in the field below.

Construct Excess Definition: Construct excess occurs in a modelling grammar if at least one construct in the modelling grammar does not map to any construct in the Bunge-Wand-Weber representation model (0:1 relationship). Instances of construct excess in a modelling grammar induce situations in which the modelling grammar users do not understand the nature and purpose of a modelling grammar construct that does not have the capacity to describe any relevant real-world phenomena.

Appendix

– 441 –

Feel free to provide any comments, remarks or feedback on this definition in the field below.

Items: Please read the following items carefully and then assess them, independently from each other, as to how well you find the item to fit the proposed definition of construct excess of a process modelling grammar from 1 (fits extremely poorly) to 7 (fits extremely well). Note here that, for wording and illustration purposes only, the following items are based on an exemplary scenario in which a previously identified instance of construct excess in BPMN was found to result in user confusion about the nature and purpose of the “Off-page connector” construct in a process model. The items given below, however, should be assessed in terms how well they fit the definition in general rather than in the specific case of BPMN. Item Description The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not provide any meaning relevant to representing real-world phenomena in a process model. The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not provide any capacity relevant to representing real-world phenomena in a process model. The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not provide any purpose relevant to representing real-world phenomena in a process model. The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not have any real-world meaning in a process model. The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not represent any relevant real-world phenomena in a process model in a process model. The “Off-page connector” construct in BPMN does not have any purpose in a process model. BPMN users are confused about the nature of the “Off-page connector” construct in a process model. BPMN users are confused about the purpose of the “Off-page connector” construct in a process model. BPMN users are confused about the real-world meaning of the “Off-page connector” construct in a process model. BPMN users are unable to articulate precisely the real-world meaning of the “Off-page connector” construct in a process model.

Assessment

Appendix

– 442 –

Feel free to provide your own suggestions, or any comments you may want to share, in the field below. In particular, if you can identify further potential items, feel free to share them in the field below.

Thank you very much for your help! Your help is of great value to this research. As a token of our appreciation for your support we would like to provide you with the results of this study once the data gathering and analysis phase is complete. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the study results please enter your email address in the field below. Your email address will NOT be used to identify your responses in the questionnaire above and will not be made public to any third party. The email address given will be used for the sole purpose of providing you with an electronic copy of the study results.

App. C.7:

Expert panel study handout

Appendix

– 443 –

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

Research Team Contacts Jan Recker, PhD student

Michael Rosemann, Supervisor

Phone

Phone

3864 9478

Email [email protected]

3864 9473

[email protected]

Description

The research project ‘Acceptance of Process Modeling Grammars’ is being undertaken as part of my PhD studies on business process modeling. In this research I want to develop an understanding as to what makes a process modeling grammar (such as BPMN, EPCs, YAWL, Petri Nets, UML Activity Diagrams, etc) successful, in particular an understanding of what drives the usefulness and ease of use of a grammar. I am currently developing a measurement instrument for the empirical testing of a model that I have developed. This document contains instructions for a sorting procedure in which you will be asked to order a number of index cards containing statements into different groups. Participation

In this project, I would like to use your feedback to develop and test my proposed candidate measurement scales. Your participation in this project is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty. Your decision to participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT. Your participation will involve a test that contains some statements written on index cards, on which I would like to obtain feedback. You will be asked to sort the index cards into different groups. The explanations use the case of the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) for wording and illustration purposes. In order to participate in the test, you are not required to have background on BPMN. Instructions are given, but if the instructions are unclear, or if you have any other concerns or questions, feel free to contact me and I would be happy to clarify. The short test should be completed in 20-30 minutes.

Appendix

– 444 –

Risks

There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project. Confidentiality

All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. All responses will be stored electronically without reference to names of individual persons. You will not be identifiable from any outcomes of this study. Consent to Participate

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

9 have read and understood the information about this project; 9 have had any questions answered to your satisfaction; 9 understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact any of the researchers;

9 understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or

penalty; 9 understand that you can contact the research team if you have any questions about the project, or the Research Ethics Officer on 3864 2340 or [email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project. Name

Signature

Date

/

/

Appendix

– 445 –

Questions / further information about the project

Please contact the researcher team members named above to have any questions answered or if you require further information about the project. Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project

QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3864 2340 or [email protected]. The Researcher Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Category Sorting Test Instructions

For the sorting test, you will be given a number of index cards, each containing a single statement. The cards will be given to you in random order. You are asked to sort these cards into categories that you create using the following guidelines and rules: Guideline 1:

Each category must represent only a single underlying construct. This construct must be clearly distinct from the constructs of other categories.

Guideline 2:

Each category must be labelled with an appropriate name that reflects the underlying construct.

Guideline 3:

In each category you must place all cards where you feel the printed statement is clearly and unambiguously reflected by the underlying construct.

Rule 1:

All cards must go in a category.

Rule 2:

Each card must only be placed in a single category.

Appendix

Example

In this example, statements 1 and 3 both describe the effect that coffee has on the coffee drinker whereas statements 2 and 4 both describe ingredients in a cup of coffee. You therefore decide to create two categories labelled “Effects” and “Ingredients”. For the category “Effects” the underlying construct supported by statements 1 and 3 is ‘the effect coffee has on the human body’. For the category “Ingredients” the underlying construct supported by statements 2 and 4 is ‘the ingredients that can be found in a cup of coffee’. However, when reviewing your sorting you notice that statement 4 is somewhat ambiguous. Whilst it fits into the “Ingredients” category as caffeine is clearly an ingredient of coffee the statement could also fit into the category “Effects” due to the second part of the statement ‘caffeine releases adrenaline in your body‘. This statement therefore fails Rule 3 as it is able to be placed in more than 1 category. This example is to make you aware of potentially ambiguous statements that do not clearly belong to a single, distinct category. When you identify such statements in the test, you are asked to do the following: 1. Review your chosen categories to see if a revision of one or more categories allows you to clearly place the considered statement in one of the categories. 2. If you find that a revision of the selected categories does not solve the issue of the ambiguous statement then please mark the statement as ‘ambiguous’ and include a brief explanation. Trial Sort

As a trial sort, consider the following example about various aspects of an automobile. Please follow the instructions given and sort the nine statements that are handed out to you into as many categories as you deem appropriate and then label the categories.

– 446 –

Appendix

App. C.8:

– 447 –

Category Index card sorting test handoutSorting material

Test

Answer Sheet - Instructions

Please use thisSurvey paper to write down Screenshots the chosen categories and the labels you have C.b Web Instrument

given them. For each category, include the index card numbers. For example, a valid answer to the coffee trial sort could be: Category 1 (“Ingredients”): 1, 3 Category 2 (“Effects”):

2, (4)

Potentially ambiguous cards: 4 Answer Sheet - Results

Trial Sort (automobile)

Sort 1

App. C.9:

Web survey instrument: index.jsp

Appendix

App. C.10:

– 448 –

Web survey instrument: demographics.jsp

Appendix

App. C.11:

– 449 –

Web survey instrument: deficiencies.jsp

Appendix

App. C.12:

– 450 –

Web survey instrument: evaluation.jsp

Appendix

App. C.13:

– 451 –

Web survey instrument: finish.jsp

Appendix

C.c

– 452 –

Web Survey Administration Material

App. C.14:

Survey announcement through BPTrends

Dear Business Process Professional, In the past, you downloaded a copy of the free ILOG Business Process Management Notation (BPMN) Modeler: http://www.elabs7.com/ct.html?rtr=on&s=azqz,4s5r,6ow, aqb8,6m1c,4iro,6ns9 Hopefully, you have enjoyed the ease with which you can create and share business process information with it. One of our academic partners, the Business Process Management Research Group at Queensland University of Technology in Australia, has asked us to help them with their current worldwide survey on the use of BPMN. Would you please consider taking a few minutes of your time to complete their survey? A little background: Business Process Management Notation (BPMN) is gaining unprecedented momentum in practitioner communities. The ILOG JViews BPMN Modeler was one of the first tools that met the growing demand for support of BPMN modeling. But what exactly are the factors that drive this acceptance? How satisfied are you as an end user of BPMN with the notation? Do your experiences on BPMN match those by tool vendors and service providers? These questions and more are the center of a survey for users of BPMN. The responsible researcher is Jan Recker. We can help Jan by completing the survey available here: http://www.elabs7.com/ct.html?rtr=on&s=azqz,4s5r, 6ow,bi24,3xnd,4iro,6ns9 The data will be considered strictly confidential and incentives for participation are provided on the webpage. The survey remains open until midnight on August 15th, 2007, and the results will be announced through ILOG. If you have any further questions about

Appendix

– 453 –

this research project, please contact Jan directly ([email protected]). Many thanks for participating in this important study. The ILOG Visualization Team ILOG, Inc. 1195 West Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94087

App. C.15:

Survey announcement through iLog newsletter

App. C.16:

Survey announcement through Go Flow blog

Dear James, I hope this email finds you well and all is going well with Object Training also. You may recall we talked last year about the potential of running a BPMN survey and having this distributed to participants of Object Training’s BPMN seminars as

Appendix

well. Admittedly, the process has taken us a while what with the pilot studies, ethical clearance etc, but we are finally ready to run this survey globally. The survey will be administered online and forms a major part of Jan Recker’s (see CC) PhD project. The outcomes will help us understand the strengths, weaknesses and employed workarounds when modeling with BPMN. I would really appreciate it if you could be involved in this. We will of course forward the survey details to you so that we don’t need any of your customer details. Please let Jan and myself know whether you are still interested in participating. All the best, Dear James, It's great to hear from you! Thanks for the positive response and for your assistance in our study, it is truly appreciated. Below, we have prepared for you a short text announcing the BPMN survey. Please feel free to make any necessary amendments before sending it to your clients. BPMN Survey online – please consider participating in this important research survey BPMN (Business Process Modeling Notation) is gaining unprecedented momentum in practitioner communities. Object Training has been one of the first service providers that meet the growing demand for training and support of BPMN modelling. But what exactly are the factors that drive this acceptance? How satisfied are you as a end user of BPMN with the notation? Do your experiences on BPMN match those by tool vendors and service providers? The Business Process Management Research Group at Queensland University of Technology in Australia, an outstanding academic partner of Object Training, is undertaking a worldwide survey on the use of BPMN by process modellers to shed light into these questions. The responsible researcher is Jan Recker. You can help Jan by completing the survey available here: http://www.bpm.fit.qut.edu.au/projects/acceptance/survey/BPMN/.

Please consider spending 15 minutes of your time to complete the survey. The data will be handled strictly confidential and incentives for participation are provided on the webpage. The survey remains open until midnight June 30, 2007 and the results will be announced through Object Training. If you have any further questions about this research project, please contact Jan directly: j.recker at qut.edu.au Many thanks for participating in this study. Thank you again for your help with collecting data for this project James. All the best,

– 454 –

Appendix

– 455 –

ARE YOU A BPMN USER? Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN) is gaining unprecedented momentum in practitioner communities. Object Training is one of the first providers of BPMN courses. Are you a BPMN user? Then take part in a short online international survey being conducted by the Queensland University of Technology that looks at the factors driving the market adoption of BPMN and user satisfaction. The results will be published by Object Training. More information about the survey (http://www.objecttraining.com.au/bpmnsurvey.cfm)

App. C.17:

Multiple contact strategy: Extracts from three rounds of conversation with Object Training

App. C.18:

Forum entry and follow-up example taken from the BPM-Research forum

Appendix

– 456 –

D

Additional Data Analysis Material

D.a

Descriptive Statistics Analysis

App. D.1: Item Exp1 Exp2 Exp3 Role1 Role2 Role3 Vol1 Vol2 Vol3 Fam1 Fam2 Fam3 Purpose1 Purpose2 Purpose3 Purpose4 CD1_1 CD1_2 CD1_3 CD2_1 CD2_2 CD2_3 CD3_1 CD3_2 CD3_3 CR1_1 CR1_2 CR1_3 CR2_1 CR2_2 CR2_3 CR3_1 CR3_2 CR3_3 CO1_1 CO1_2 CO1_3 CO2_1 CO2_2 CO2_3

Descriptive statistics of measurement scales N 529 529 529 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 420 419 420 206 206 206 442 442 442 386 386 386 352 350 350 506 506 506 464 464 464 493 493 493

Mean 6.399244 8.986767 52.308129 3.630189 3.916981 3.807547 5.539623 5.113208 4.875472 5.45283 5.203774 5.418868 3.564151 2.660377 3.073585 3.70566 4.721429 4.787589 4.388095 5.07767 5.072816 4.786408 3.88009 4.180995 3.68552 4.163212 4.215026 4.196891 4.153409 4.151429 4.188571 4.081028 4.073123 4.009881 3.894397 3.857759 3.825431 3.821501 3.752535 3.782961

Min 0.2 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

Max 30 60 1800 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Std. Deviation 5.803114 11.094968 150.852193 1.667842 1.64779 1.694185 1.874951 2.02872 2.067747 1.223062 1.328752 1.322348 1.553287 1.673132 1.683979 1.673819 1.566663 1.566772 1.728423 1.289275 1.364905 1.326286 1.723944 1.62988 1.692512 1.496939 1.535005 1.51789 1.561389 1.466898 1.461595 1.63118 1.553211 1.580168 1.801023 1.882402 1.825462 1.775106 1.816707 1.75986

Kurtosis 2.905157 3.687363 70.01274 -0.17306 -0.35699 -0.63655 0.268082 -0.84014 -1.01395 0.251596 -0.0603 0.383693 -0.0389 -0.37803 -0.53342 -0.51067 -0.38575 -0.15779 -0.8718 0.201564 0.08849 -0.6827 -1.16537 -0.95846 -0.88823 -0.72777 -0.7946 -0.72472 -1.10257 -0.91116 -0.94417 -1.08134 -0.93792 -0.9798 -1.34414 -1.29089 -1.22367 -1.2615 -1.22678 -1.13734

Skewness 1.617521 1.950783 7.737297 0.225504 -0.03476 -0.01935 -1.22634 -0.73 -0.60784 -0.82994 -0.75662 -0.98092 0.124419 0.697461 0.415483 0.068878 -0.51542 -0.63821 -0.34782 -0.73896 -0.59764 -0.1582 0.063683 -0.174 0.193841 -0.34178 -0.36096 -0.38142 -0.14384 -0.25871 -0.23085 -0.17493 -0.28144 -0.21585 0.065106 0.087618 0.106078 0.127329 0.17528 0.11315

Appendix

Item CE1_1 CE1_2 CE1_3 CE2_1 CE2_2 CE2_3 CE3_1 CE3_2 CE3_3 CE4_1 CE4_2 CE4_3 PU1 PU2 PU3 Sat1 Sat2 Sat3 Con1 Con2 Con3 PEOU1 PEOU2 PEOU3 ItU1 ItU2 ItU3

– 457 –

N 458 460 458 489 488 489 322 321 321 218 217 217 588 588 588 588 588 588 588 588 588 588 588 588 588 588 588

Mean 3.310044 3.5 3.253275 3.357873 3.315574 3.349693 3.347826 3.386293 3.411215 2.614679 2.705069 2.580645 6.011905 5.89966 5.479592 5.190476 5.085034 4.782313 4.938776 4.945578 4.897959 5.141156 5.047619 5.054422 6 6.027211 5.603741

Min 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Max 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Std. Deviation 1.644548 1.642969 1.574287 1.734635 1.695144 1.710145 1.686527 1.667801 1.726376 1.458541 1.445178 1.441512 1.057879 1.05962 1.597888 1.272609 1.303741 1.458183 1.225646 1.298839 1.293331 1.315148 1.353062 1.338882 0.976731 0.926208 1.328928

Kurtosis -0.78683 -0.92379 -0.49315 -0.95286 -0.85192 -0.80122 -0.58704 -0.60247 -0.61859 0.252814 -0.02305 0.353059 6.690649 3.679129 -0.22709 0.281946 0.221068 -0.17002 -0.22591 -0.06199 -0.03303 0.374083 0.176523 0.46902 3.308251 3.540121 0.812083

Skewness 0.521179 0.358202 0.613967 0.441568 0.46046 0.470161 0.598382 0.531417 0.532403 0.989461 0.852576 1.016579 -2.13762 -1.56611 -1.00358 -0.71933 -0.67641 -0.48452 -0.32857 -0.526 -0.49211 -0.87066 -0.89404 -0.93721 -1.40889 -1.37068 -1.0503

Appendix

D.b

– 458 –

Principal Component Analysis

User and Task Characteristics KMO and Bartlett's Test Test

Result

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

.742

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

4294.971 120 .000

Approx. Chi-Square df Sig.

Rotated Component Matrix Item PMExp1 PMExp2 PMExp3 Role1 Role2 Role3 VOL1 VOL2 VOL3 FAM1 FAM2 FAM3 REQ1 REQ2 REQ3 REQ4

Component 1 .005 .151 .096 -.012 .033 .069 .074 -.045 -.102 .927 .942 .946 .017 .036 .063 .013

2 -.037 -.045 -.071 .825 .899 .873 .008 -.025 -.017 .068 .007 .021 .461 .159 .088 .087

3 -.047 -.080 .108 .210 .130 .129 -.081 -.012 .038 .030 .077 .019 .621 .869 .856 .697

4 .155 .045 -.194 -.036 .019 -.036 .834 .919 .884 .032 -.069 -.040 .084 -.028 .037 -.110

5 .715 .637 .626 -.115 -.064 -.008 -.026 .046 .018 .106 .173 .046 -.035 -.022 -.096 .085

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 5 iterations. Bold items reflect items with factor loadings λ exceeding the recommended threshold of .6. See FORNELL and LARCKER (1981). App. D.2:

Factor analysis of Experience, Role, Voluntariness, Familiarity and Purpose

Appendix

– 459 –

Grammar Characteristics: Construct deficit KMO and Bartlett's Test Test

Result


.730


1160.259 36 .000


Rotated Component Matrix Item CD1_1 CD1_2 CD1_3 CD2_1 CD2_2 CD2_3 CD3_1 CD3_2 CD3_3

Component 1 .223 .205 .170 .139 .060 .064 .939 .874 .913

2 .916 .856 .889 .035 .131 -.020 .195 .204 .211

3 .042 .173 -.051 .920 .874 .896 .095 .158 .036


Factor analysis of CD

Appendix

– 460 –

Grammar Characteristics: Construct redundancy KMO and Bartlett's Test Test

Result


.788


1825.847 36 .000


Rotated Component Matrix Item CR1_1 CR1_2 CR1_3 CR2_1 CR2_2 CR2_3 CR3_1 CR3_2 CR3_3

Component 1 .050 .114 .128 .170 .152 .142 .922 .939 .880

2 .209 .236 .262 .832 .891 .906 .072 .132 .238

3 .815 .886 .865 .300 .268 .202 .045 .112 .135


Factor analysis of CR

Appendix

– 461 –

Grammar Characteristics: Construct overload KMO and Bartlett's Test Test

Result


.808


2514.936 15 .000


Rotated Component Matrix Item CO1_1 CO1_2 CO1_3 CO2_1 CO2_2 CO2_3

Component 1 .811 .871 .842 .310 .486 .425

2 .371 .372 .409 .878 .798 .828


Factor analysis of CO

Appendix

– 462 –

Grammar Characteristics: Construct excess KMO and Bartlett's Test Test

Result


.731


1731.341 66 .000


Rotated Component Matrix Item CE1_1 CE1_2 CE1_3 CE2_1 CE2_2 CE2_3 CE3_1 CE3_2 CE3_3 CE4_1 CE4_2 CE4_3

Component 1 -.012 .009 -.027 .233 .262 .168 .927 .952 .920 .092 .066 .069

2 .242 .153 .186 .106 .139 -.007 .070 .076 .079 .943 .917 .913

3 .885 .891 .920 .095 .092 .194 .002 .023 -.057 .155 .217 .211

4 .125 .177 .063 .909 .850 .916 .213 .205 .223 .084 .046 .098


Factor analysis of CE

Appendix

– 463 –

Determinants of Process Modelling Grammar Continuance KMO and Bartlett's Test Test

Result


.900


8626.726 105 .000


Rotated Component Matrix Item PU1 PU2 PU3 SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 CON1 CON2 CON3 PEOU1 PEOU2 PEOU3 ItU1 ItU2 ItU3

Component 1 .138 .237 .272 .290 .304 .312 .837 .856 .852 .286 .092 .167 .207 .191 .213

2 .204 .167 .133 .225 .261 .229 .239 .194 .140 .740 .863 .862 .249 .187 .209

3 .797 .803 .776 .239 .229 .232 .201 .229 .218 .228 .106 .152 .316 .293 .234

4 .232 .323 .258 .219 .243 .230 .185 .180 .235 .191 .152 .210 .821 .843 .716

5 .212 .235 .181 .795 .806 .775 .273 .290 .255 .204 .186 .182 .189 .185 .286


Factor analysis of PU, Sat, Con, PEOU and ItU

Appendix

D.c

– 464 –

Moderator Analysis

App. D.8:

Descriptive statistics: Moderating variables

Moderating variable

N (low group) Process modelling experience 270 Process modeller role 231 Process modelling grammar familiarity 288 Process modelling purpose 258 Type of training 406 Use of a process modelling tool 108 Use of an integrated repository for all process 284 models Use of navigation between process models on 232 different levels Use of additional attribute fields for constructs 304 Use of access to other modelling grammars 362 Use of access to new constructs in addition to 390 BPMN constructs Use of access or hyperlinks to other 308 documentation from within the process models Use of a method filter for restricting and 418 specifying the set of constructs to be used Existence of process modelling guidelines 294 Set of BPMN constructs used 192

App. D.9:

Total N

Median

Standard deviation

529 530 530 530 516 530 530

10.667 4.000 5.667 3.250 N/A N/A N/A

51.409 1.484 1.224 1.304 N/A N/A N/A

298

530

N/A

N/A

226 168 140

530 530 530

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

222

530

N/A

N/A

112

530

N/A

N/A

236 338

530 530

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

SEM results for moderating effects1338

Variable Model χ2 df Construct deficit Æ Perceived usefulness A 739.374 116 Process modelling B 645.627 108 experience C 563.658 93 521.258 116 Process modeller A role B 462.147 108 C 351.350 93 A 744.432 116 Familiarity with the BPMN B 708.107 108 grammar C 575.694 93 Process modelling A 569.215 116 purpose B 556.679 108 C 463.579 93 583.699 116 Type of training A received B 507.242 108 C 447.275 93 1338

N (high group) 259 299 242 272 110 422 246

GFI

RMR

RMSEA

∆χ2/∆df

p

0.848 0.869 0.894 0.876 0.887 0.912 0.833 0.839 0.875 0.851 0.853 0.880 0.709 0.739 0.770

0.111 0.103 0.097 0.101 0.069 0.065 0.121 0.122 0.116 0.078 0.077 0.070 0.146 0.112 0.112

0.143 0.137 0.139 0.115 0.111 0.103 0.143 0.145 0.140 0.122 0.125 0.123 0.125 0.120 0.122

N/A 11.7184 5.4646 N/A 7.3889 7.3865 N/A 4.5406 8.8275 N/A 1.5670 6.2067 N/A 9.5571 3.9978

N/A 0.001 0.019 N/A 0.001 0.001 N/A 0.03 0.003 N/A 0.211 0.013 N/A 0.002 0.046

Variables that display a significant moderator effect are highlighted bold. Also, significant values for p (p < 0.050) are highlighted bold.

Appendix

Variable Use of a process modelling tool Use of an integrated repository for all process models Use of navigation between process models on different levels Use of additional attribute fields for constructs Use of access to other modelling grammars Use of access or hyperlinks to other documentation from within the process models Use of a method filter for restricting and specifying the set of constructs to be used Existence of guidelines

– 465 –

Model A B C A B C

χ2 645.413 637.902 545.305 792.812 770.184 582.078

df 116 108 93 116 108 93

RMSEA 0.131 0.136 0.136 0.149 0.152 0.141

∆χ2/∆df N/A 0.9339 6.1731 N/A 2.8285 12.5404

p N/A 0.333 0.013 N/A 0.093 0.000

A B C

637.897 613.832 536.082

116 0.851 0.113 108 0.854 0.102 93 0.875 0.102

0.131 0.133 0.134

N/A 3.0081 5.1833

N/A 0.083 0.023

A B C A B C A B C

666.014 635.564 534.395 579.532 529.539 436.804 649.968 611.251 505.475

116 108 93 116 108 93 116 108 93

0.106 0.082 0.081 0.124 0.093 0.087 0.097 0.071 0.067

0.134 0.136 0.134 0.123 0.122 0.118 0.132 0.133 0.130

N/A 3.8063 6.7446 N/A 6.2491 6.1823 N/A 4.8396 7.0517

N/A 0.051 0.009 N/A 0.012 0.013 N/A 0.028 0.008

A B C

875.230 737.254 555.206

116 0.557 0.201 108 0.596 0.174 93 0.726 0.189

0.157 0.149 0.137

N/A 17.2470 12.1365

N/A 0.000 0.001

0.142 0.143 0.144 0.087 0.091 0.099

N/A 3.8649 6.5945 N/A 0.1939 0.9968

N/A 0.049 0.010 N/A 0.660 0.318

GFI 0.901 0.901 0.910 0.818 0.820 0.845

0.796 0.800 0.817 0.789 0.797 0.835 0.809 0.817 0.852

A 733.731 116 0.785 B 702.812 108 0.791 C 603.895 93 0.815 Set of BPMN A 345.378 116 0.892 constructs in use B 343.827 108 0.892 C 335.011 93 0.893 Construct redundancy Æ Perceived ease of use

RMR 0.056 0.057 0.057 0.112 0.116 0.168

0.152 0.141 0.142 0.048 0.046 0.046

Appendix

– 466 –

Model A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

χ2 458.102 448.726 343.517 343.795 333.850 269.927 465.619 414.867 267.670 370.784 361.900 271.286 405.330 370.177 326.885 335.985 338.630 290.167 349.284 345.734 309.952

df 116 108 93 116 108 93 116 108 93 116 108 93 116 108 93 116 108 93 116 108 93

A B C

375.420 360.565 284.373

A B C Use of access to A other modelling B grammars C Use of access or A hyperlinks to other B documentation C from within the process models Use of a method A filter for restricting B and specifying the C set of constructs to be used

Variable Process modelling experience Process modeller role Familiarity with the BPMN grammar Process modelling purpose Type of training received Use of a process modelling tool Use of an integrated repository for all process models Use of navigation between process models on different levels Use of additional attribute fields for constructs

RMSEA 0.106 0.109 0.101 0.086 0.089 0.085 0.107 0.104 0.084 0.091 0.094 0.085 0.099 0.097 0.099 0.085 0.090 0.090 0.087 0.091 0.094

∆χ2/∆df N/A 1.1720 7.0139 N/A 1.2431 4.2615 N/A 6.3440 9.8131 N/A 1.1105 6.0409 N/A 4.3941 2.8861 N/A -0.3306 3.2309 N/A 0.4438 2.3854

p N/A 0.279 0.001 N/A 0.265 0.039 N/A 0.012 0.002 N/A 0.292 0.014 N/A 0.036 0.089 N/A 0.999 0.072 N/A 0.505 0.123

116 0.916 0.053 108 0.919 0.033 93 0.936 0.031

0.092 0.094 0.088

N/A 1.8569 5.0795

N/A 0.173 0.024

375.563 368.426 308.582 323.685 309.473 282.837 346.812 346.504 290.081

116 108 93 116 108 93 116 108 93

0.088 0.088 0.088 0.090 0.072 0.071 0.051 0.048 0.044

0.092 0.096 0.094 0.082 0.084 0.088 0.087 0.092 0.090

N/A 0.8921 3.9896 N/A 1.777 1.7757 N/A 0.0385 3.7615

N/A 0.345 0.046 N/A 0.183 0.183 N/A 0.844 0.052

377.221 366.138 268.776

116 0.769 0.090 108 0.778 0.087 93 0.848 0.087

0.092 0.095 0.085

N/A 1.3854 6.4908

N/A 0.239 0.011

GFI 0.873 0.874 0.901 0.914 0.916 0.929 0.877 0.884 0.924 0.899 0.900 0.922 0.763 0.764 0.797 0.940 0.940 0.947 0.902 0.903 0.912

0.875 0.876 0.895 0.846 0.854 0.868 0.880 0.881 0.900

RMR 0.086 0.075 0.076 0.056 0.047 0.046 0.124 0.055 0.054 0.059 0.061 0.061 0.142 0.080 0.072 0.046 0.037 0.039 0.067 0.066 0.064

Appendix Model χ2 df A 336.539 116 B 323.810 108 C 266.282 93 Set of BPMN A 225.947 116 constructs in use B 224.486 108 C 212.803 93 Construct overload Æ Perceived ease of use Process modelling A 286.005 64 experience B 274.034 58 C 169.279 49 Process modeller A 200.105 64 role B 197.715 58 C 193.660 49 Familiarity with A 284.078 64 the BPMN B 263.597 58 grammar C 188.753 49 Process modelling A 239.782 64 purpose B 226.525 58 C 179.910 49 Type of training A 265.927 64 received B 256.516 58 C 188.197 49 Use of a process A 257.475 64 modelling tool B 256.354 58 C 237.356 49 Use of an A 276.033 64 integrated B 267.842 58 repository for all C 223.171 49 process models Use of navigation A 263.940 64 between process B 250.223 58 models on C 218.986 49 different levels Use of additional A 225.278 64 attribute fields for B 215.320 58 constructs C 193.510 49 Use of access to A 248.174 64 other modelling B 229.681 58 grammars C 200.828 49 Use of access or A 275.504 64 hyperlinks to other B 259.980 58 documentation C 209.872 49 from within the process models A 331.330 64 Use of a method filter for B 292.061 58 restricting and C 217.742 49 specifying the set of constructs to be used Variable Existence of guidelines

– 467 –

GFI 0.886 0.892 0.907 0.926 0.927 0.928

RMR 0.067 0.053 0.053 0.039 0.039 0.038

RMSEA 0.085 0.087 0.084 0.060 0.064 0.070

∆χ2/∆df N/A 1.5911 3.8352 N/A 0.1826 0.7789

p N/A 0.207 0.051 N/A 0.669 0.378

0.919 0.924 0.953 0.926 0.927 0.926 0.894 0.906 0.937 0.904 0.908 0.928 0.808 0.805 0.874 0.938 0.938 0.940 0.892 0.895 0.909

0.062 0.032 0.031 0.034 0.036 0.036 0.086 0.049 0.051 0.057 0.044 0.044 0.112 0.047 0.042 0.026 0.035 0.034 0.047 0.035 0.031

0.115 0.119 0.107 0.090 0.096 0.106 0.114 0.116 0.104 0.102 0.105 0.101 0.111 0.115 0.105 0.107 0.114 0.121 0.112 0.117 0.116

N/A 1.9952 11.6394 N/A 0.3983 0.4506 N/A 3.4135 8.3160 N/A 2.2095 5.1794 N/A 1.5685 7.5910 N/A 0.1868 2.1109 N/A 1.3652 4.9634

N/A 0.158 0.001 N/A 0.528 0.502 N/A 0.065 0.004 N/A 0.137 0.023 N/A 0.210 0.006 N/A 0.666 0.146 N/A 0.243 0.026

0.923 0.044 0.927 0.066 0.932 0.069

0.109 0.112 0.115

N/A 2.2862 3.4708

N/A 0.131 0.063

0.892 0.892 0.901 0.897 0.906 0.923 0.885 0.890 0.908

0.051 0.036 0.036 0.087 0.028 0.026 0.057 0.050 0.044

0.098 0.101 0.106 0.104 0.106 0.108 0.112 0.115 0.112

N/A 1.6597 2.4233 N/A 3.0822 3.2059 N/A 2.5873 5.5676

N/A 0.198 0.120 N/A 0.079 0.073 N/A 0.108 0.018

0.785 0.110 0.801 0.210 0.863 0.213

0.126 0.124 0.114

N/A 6.5448 8.2577

N/A 0.011 0.004

Appendix Model χ2 df A 243.656 64 B 240.538 58 C 187.903 49 Set of BPMN A 162.358 64 constructs in use B 161.552 58 C 157.926 49 Construct excess Æ Perceived ease of use Process modelling A 571.437 186 experience B 561.587 176 C 474.042 156 Process modeller A 617.415 186 role B 591.256 176 C 468.523 156 647.858 186 Familiarity with A the BPMN B 605.552 176 grammar C 517.814 156 Process modelling A 651.544 186 purpose B 625.338 176 C 484.840 156 1462.802 186 Type of training A received B 1367.462 176 C 331.245 156 Use of a process A 600.393 186 modelling tool B 576.813 176 C 565.418 156 Use of an A 733.086 186 integrated B 729.697 176 repository for all C 478.290 156 process models Use of navigation A 610.050 186 between process B 586.088 176 models on C 423.314 156 different levels Use of additional A 581.108 186 attribute fields for B 544.295 176 constructs C 446.894 156 Use of access to A 731.778 186 other modelling B 718.375 176 grammars C 492.799 156 Use of access or A 637.199 186 hyperlinks to other B 619.824 176 documentation C 466.821 156 from within the process models A 778.622 186 Use of a method filter for B 739.970 176 restricting and C 446.477 156 specifying the set of constructs to be used Variable Existence of guidelines

– 468 –

GFI 0.877 0.879 0.902 0.936 0.936 0.937

RMR 0.044 0.035 0.032 0.027 0.025 0.024

RMSEA 0.103 0.109 0.104 0.076 0.082 0.092

∆χ2/∆df N/A 0.5197 5.8483 N/A 0.1343 0.4029

p N/A 0.471 0.016 N/A 0.714 0.526

0.890 0.892 0.912 0.904 0.907 0.925 0.861 0.868 0.882 0.863 0.869 0.896 0.632 0.636 0.840 0.931 0.931 0.931 0.825 0.824 0.875

0.055 0.049 0.045 0.063 0.051 0.050 0.114 0.066 0.067 0.078 0.063 0.065 0.197 0.107 0.095 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.060 0.053 0.052

0.089 0.091 0.088 0.094 0.094 0.087 0.097 0.096 0.094 0.097 0.098 0.089 0.163 0.162 0.066 0.092 0.093 0.093 0.106 0.109 0.089

N/A 0.9850 4.3773 N/A 2.6159 6.1367 N/A 4.2306 4.3869 N/A 2.6206 7.0249 N/A 9.5340 51.8109 N/A 2.3580 0.5698 N/A 0.3389 12.5704

N/A 0.321 0.036 N/A 0.106 0.013 N/A 0.040 0.036 N/A 0.106 0.008 N/A 0.002 0.000 N/A 0.125 0.450 N/A 0.561 0.000

0.893 0.067 0.896 0.071 0.919 0.071

0.093 0.094 0.081

N/A 2.3962 8.1387

N/A 0.122 0.004

0.847 0.856 0.881 0.787 0.786 0.869 0.858 0.860 0.904

0.103 0.077 0.079 0.105 0.093 0.094 0.060 0.045 0.043

0.090 0.089 0.084 0.105 0.108 0.090 0.096 0.098 0.087

N/A 3.6813 4.8701 N/A 1.3403 11.2788 N/A 1.7375 7.6502

N/A 0.055 0.027 N/A 0.247 0.001 N/A 0.187 0.006

0.689 0.125 0.701 0.112 0.794 0.106

0.110 0.110 0.084

N/A 3.8652 14.6747

N/A 0.049 0.000

Appendix

– 469 –

Variable Existence of guidelines Set of BPMN constructs in use

D.d

Model A B C A B C

χ2 711.796 693.891 447.089 301.276 297.253 291.106

df 186 176 156 186 176 156

GFI 0.805 0.811 0.867 0.920 0.920 0.920

RMR 0.104 0.087 0.092 0.036 0.033 0.034

RMSEA 0.103 0.106 0.084 0.049 0.051 0.057

∆χ2/∆df N/A 1.7905 12.3401 N/A 0.4023 0.3074

p N/A 0.181 0.000 N/A 0.526 0.579

Model comparison

App. D.10: Fit index GFI AGFI NFI NNFI CFI RMR RMSEA χ2 (df, p) χ2/ df R2 for ItU

SEM results for different models Recommended value ≥ 0.900 ≥ 0.900 ≥ 0.900 ≥ 0.900 ≥ 0.900 ≤ 0.050 ≤ 0.080 insignificant < 3:1 As high as possible

TAM 0.956 0.918 0.982 0.979 0.986 0.047 0.083 121.181 (24, 0.00) 5.049 0.32

ECT 0.950 0.920 0.986 0.986 0.990 0.043 0.070 187.307 (49, 0.00) 3.823 0.27

Research model 0.934 0.902 0.984 0.985 0.988 0.047 0.070 307.129 (81, 0.00) 3.792 0.40