《电子商务 E-business》阅读文献：Activity labeling in process modeling-Empirical insights and recommendations

Information Systems 35(2010)467-482 Contents lists available at Science Direct Informotion Information Systems ELSEVIER journalhomepagewww.elsevier.com/locate/infosys Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations J. Mendling a, * H.A. Reijers b ,].Recker b Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands Queensland University of Technology, 126 Margaret Street, QLD, 4000 Brisbane, australia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Few studies have investigated the factors contributing to the successful practice cess modeling. In particular, studies that contribute siness process modeling process models that facilitate communication and understanding are scarce. Although the value of process models is not only dependent on the choice of graphical constructs Survey but also on their annotation with textual labels, there has been hardly any work on the Systems analysis and design uality of these labels. Accordingly, the research presented in this paper examines activity labeling practices in process modeling. Based on empirical data from process modeling practice, we identify and discuss different labeling styles and their use in ocess modeling praxis. We perform a grammatical analysis of these styles and use data from an experiment with process modelers to examine a range of hypotheses about the usability of the different styles. Based on our findings, we suggest specific programs of research towards better tool support for labeling practices. Our work contributes to the emerging stream of research investigating the practice of process modeling and thereby contributes to the overall body of knowledge about conceptual modeling e 2009 Elsevier B V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction potentially other artifacts such as external stakeholders and performance metrics, see e.g.[6. Similar to other In recent years, the conceptual mapping of processes in forms of conceptual modeling, process models are first and foremost required to be intuitive and easily under reason engage in conceptual modeling [1 and is standable, especially in information systems project considered as a key instrument for the analysis and phases that are concerned with requirements documenta design of process-aware information systems [2], service- oriented architectures [3]. and web services [4] alike To Process modeling has been around for some 30 years. hat end, process models typically describe in a graphical However, only of late has research started to examine way at least the activities, events, states, and control flor quality aspects pertaining to process modeling. In fact, logic that constitute a business process 5. Additionally quality issues of conceptual modeling in general have or process models may also include information regarding recently been receiving increased attention in academia the involved data, organizational and IT resources, and [ 8]. Notwithstanding the research findings collected to date, surprisingly little is known about the actual " practice of process modeling"and the factors that Corresponding author. Tel. +49731389492. contribute to building agood"process model, for E-mail addresses: jan. mending@wiwi. hu-berlin de (. Mending) example one that aids human understanding of the ha. reijersetue nI (H.A. Reijers).j recker@qut. edu. au ( Recker). depicted business domain [9. Work has been carried 0306-4379/s-see front matter e 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations J. Mendling a,, H.A. Reijers b , J. Recker c a Humboldt-Universita¨t zu Berlin, Spandauer Straße 1, 10178 Berlin, Germany b Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands c Queensland University of Technology, 126 Margaret Street, QLD, 4000 Brisbane, Australia article info Keywords: Business process modeling Model quality Survey Systems analysis and design abstract Few studies have investigated the factors contributing to the successful practice of process modeling. In particular, studies that contribute to the act of developing process models that facilitate communication and understanding are scarce. Although the value of process models is not only dependent on the choice of graphical constructs but also on their annotation with textual labels, there has been hardly any work on the quality of these labels. Accordingly, the research presented in this paper examines activity labeling practices in process modeling. Based on empirical data from process modeling practice, we identify and discuss different labeling styles and their use in process modeling praxis. We perform a grammatical analysis of these styles and use data from an experiment with process modelers to examine a range of hypotheses about the usability of the different styles. Based on our findings, we suggest specific programs of research towards better tool support for labeling practices. Our work contributes to the emerging stream of research investigating the practice of process modeling and thereby contributes to the overall body of knowledge about conceptual modeling quality. & 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In recent years, the conceptual mapping of processes in the form of process models has emerged as a primary reason to engage in conceptual modeling [1] and is considered as a key instrument for the analysis and design of process-aware information systems [2], service￾oriented architectures [3], and web services [4] alike. To that end, process models typically describe in a graphical way at least the activities, events, states, and control flow logic that constitute a business process [5]. Additionally, process models may also include information regarding the involved data, organizational and IT resources, and potentially other artifacts such as external stakeholders and performance metrics, see e.g., [6]. Similar to other forms of conceptual modeling, process models are first and foremost required to be intuitive and easily under￾standable, especially in information systems project phases that are concerned with requirements documenta￾tion and communication [7]. Process modeling has been around for some 30 years. However, only of late has research started to examine quality aspects pertaining to process modeling. In fact, quality issues of conceptual modeling in general have only recently been receiving increased attention in academia [8]. Notwithstanding the research findings collected to date, surprisingly little is known about the actual ‘‘practice of process modeling’’ and the factors that contribute to building a ‘‘good’’ process model, for example one that aids human understanding of the depicted business domain [9]. Work has been carried Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/infosys Information Systems ARTICLE IN PRESS 0306-4379/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.is.2009.03.009 Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 7 313 89492. E-mail addresses: jan.mendling@wiwi.hu-berlin.de (J. Mendling), h.a.reijers@tue.nl (H.A. Reijers), j.recker@qut.edu.au (J. Recker). Information Systems 35 (2010) 467–482

J Mending et al./ Information Systems 35(2010)467-482 out, for instance, that examined the impact of process 2. Background model structure, model user competency and proces modeling language on process model understanding. In presenting the background to our research, we refer to While the impact of structural properties is clearly a theory of multimedia learning identified [10. it is also reported that model readers cience. This theory suggests that labeling practices are systematically overestimate their ability to draw correct indeed significant factors contributing to how well or how conclusions from a model [9]. It was also found that the poorly process models can be understood by their end users. choice of languages used for process modeling(e.g, BPMN To determine what a good labeling style is, we then identify versus EPCs) has only insignificant effects on proces different styles of labeling being used in practice. We model understanding [11]. Other research has successfully describe how the exploration of a large number of real-life cal constructs and their meaning process models gives us this insight One of the styles that is alidity encountered is the usage of verb-object labels. as this style n process models, e.g,[13. or is widely promoted in the literature [18-20], we formulate such as data and resources, e.g., several hypotheses on its presumed superiority over the [415 other styles encountered in our exploration. This situation raises the question of other antecedents of process model understandability. Most of the previous 2.1. Theoretical foundation york has focused on syntactic quality aspects [16]. In contrast, semantic and pragmatic aspects of model quality Dual Coding Theory [21] suggests that indiv have mostly been neglected. In particular, little attention two separate channels-visual and auditory-that they use has been devoted to a very essential task in process when processing information. The two channels comple modeling-the labeling of the graphical constructs, in particular of the constructs representing"activities"( ment each other, such that receiving simultaneous in- formation through each channel improves understanding compared to receiving information through one channel meaning of any construct in a process model is only revealed when model users read and intuitively under- material better when it is provided through both auditory tand the labels assigned to the construct. Current (i. e, words)and visual (ie, images)channels practice indicates that the labeling of activity constructs Based on this observation, the Cognitive Theory of is a rather arbitrary task in modeling initiatives and on Multimedia Learning(CTML)[23, 24] suggests that learn- ing material intended to be received, understood and that is sometimes done without a great deal of thought retained by its recipients should be presented using both [17. This can undermine the understandability of the resulting models in cases where the meaning of the labels words and pictures. This sounds conducive to the task of is ambiguous, not readily understandable, or simply process modeling, where both visual (graphical con- structs) and audit labels and text annotations counter-intuitive to the reader material are available to add information about a business Accordingly, in our work we seek to address this gap domain in a process model. However, due to the overall nd contribute to the existing line of work towards more limited number of graphical constructs used in a process understandable process models. The objective of our model-there are typically few if not only one graphical research is to investigate the styles that are in use to annotate activities in process models construct for representing activities-most of the critical affect the understandability of such models. More domain information is contained in the textual labels the constructs, viz., in auditory channels Based on CTML it precisely. the aim of this paper is to suggest, based on can thus be expected that model understanding can be our e pirical findings, an imperative style for modelers to create more understandable process models improved if better guidance can be provided for the act of We proceed as follows. In Section 2 we discuss abeling of process model constructs. the theoretical foundation for our work and investi- he general principle that our expectation builds on is described by Mayer[24 as the"multimedia principal" And Section 3 we discuss the design of conduct of and indeed,prior research on conceptual modeling has success. findings from an experiment with process modelers. In model understanding Empirically observable differences in Section 4 we then discuss the implications of our findings model understanding based on the multimedia principal nd suggest specific programs of research towards better support for process model labeling practices. We conclude were found, for instance, in the data modeling domain in Section 5 by reviewing our contributions, and discuss- [25, 26 as well as in the process modeling domain 11 2. 2. Labeling styles in practice For business process modeling, the labeling of con- i We recognize the need to extrapolate our research to other aspects structs such as activities is often more art than science. In the data. resource and control flow rspective. We deemed the focus on"activity constructs"a suitabl starting point for our endeavor due to the centrality of the"activity" 2 Indeed, most people read by speaking out the words of the text in their mind, which even suppresses visual activation [22

out, for instance, that examined the impact of process model structure, model user competency and process modeling language on process model understanding. While the impact of structural properties is clearly identified [10], it is also reported that model readers systematically overestimate their ability to draw correct conclusions from a model [9]. It was also found that the choice of languages used for process modeling (e.g., BPMN versus EPCs) has only insignificant effects on process model understanding [11]. Other research has successfully investigated the graphical constructs and their meaning in process models, e.g., [12], the expressiveness and validity of control flow aspects in process models, e.g., [13], or process-related aspects such as data and resources, e.g., [14,15]. This situation raises the question of other antecedents of process model understandability. Most of the previous work has focused on syntactic quality aspects [16]. In contrast, semantic and pragmatic aspects of model quality have mostly been neglected. In particular, little attention has been devoted to a very essential task in process modeling—the labeling of the graphical constructs, in particular of the constructs representing ‘‘activities’’ (or ‘‘tasks’’, or ‘‘work to be performed’’) in a process model. This is rather surprising given that—clearly—the true meaning of any construct in a process model is only revealed when model users read and intuitively under￾stand the labels assigned to the construct. Current practice indicates that the labeling of activity constructs is a rather arbitrary task in modeling initiatives and one that is sometimes done without a great deal of thought [17]. This can undermine the understandability of the resulting models in cases where the meaning of the labels is ambiguous, not readily understandable, or simply counter-intuitive to the reader. Accordingly, in our work we seek to address this gap and contribute to the existing line of work towards more understandable process models. The objective of our research is to investigate the styles that are in use to annotate activities in process models and how these styles affect the understandability of such models.1 More precisely, the aim of this paper is to suggest, based on our empirical findings, an imperative style for modelers to create more understandable process models. We proceed as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the theoretical foundation for our work and investi￾gate current labeling practices in process modeling. In Section 3 we discuss the design of, conduct of, and findings from an experiment with process modelers. In Section 4 we then discuss the implications of our findings and suggest specific programs of research towards better support for process model labeling practices. We conclude in Section 5 by reviewing our contributions, and discuss￾ing some conclusions. 2. Background In presenting the background to our research, we refer to a theory of multimedia learning originating from cognitive science. This theory suggests that labeling practices are indeed significant factors contributing to how well or how poorly process models can be understood by their end users. To determine what a good labeling style is, we then identify different styles of labeling being used in practice. We describe how the exploration of a large number of real-life process models gives us this insight. One of the styles that is encountered is the usage of verb–object labels. As this style is widely promoted in the literature [18–20], we formulate several hypotheses on its presumed superiority over the other styles encountered in our exploration. 2.1. Theoretical foundation Dual Coding Theory [21] suggests that individuals have two separate channels—visual and auditory—that they use when processing information. The two channels comple￾ment each other, such that receiving simultaneous in￾formation through each channel improves understanding compared to receiving information through one channel only. In other words, individuals understand informational material better when it is provided through both auditory (i.e., words) and visual (i.e., images) channels.2 Based on this observation, the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) [23,24] suggests that learn￾ing material intended to be received, understood and retained by its recipients should be presented using both words and pictures. This sounds conducive to the task of process modeling, where both visual (graphical con￾structs) and auditory (labels and text annotations) material are available to add information about a business domain in a process model. However, due to the overall limited number of graphical constructs used in a process model—there are typically few if not only one graphical construct for representing activities—most of the critical domain information is contained in the textual labels of the constructs, viz., in auditory channels. Based on CTML it can thus be expected that model understanding can be improved if better guidance can be provided for the act of labeling of process model constructs. The general principle that our expectation builds on is described by Mayer [24] as the ‘‘multimedia principal’’. And indeed, prior research on conceptual modeling has success￾fully demonstrated that the multimedia principal informs model understanding. Empirically observable differences in model understanding based on the multimedia principal were found, for instance, in the data modeling domain [25,26] as well as in the process modeling domain [11]. 2.2. Labeling styles in practice For business process modeling, the labeling of con￾structs such as activities is often more art than science. In ARTICLE IN PRESS 1 We recognize the need to extrapolate our research to other aspects of process models, such as the data, resource and control flow perspective. We deemed the focus on ‘‘activity constructs’’ a suitable starting point for our endeavor due to the centrality of the ‘‘activity’’ concept in process modeling. 2 Indeed, most people read by speaking out the words of the text in their mind, which even suppresses visual activation [22]. 468 J. Mendling et al. / Information Systems 35 (2010) 467–482

J. Mending et aL./Information Systems 35(2010) 467-482 469 practice, a number of Table 1 typically suggest a verb- Distribution of activity label styles in the SAP reference model. I. ver 出 This convention is similar to a style that is advocated in Action-noun labels guidelines that support the creation of understandable 11830 1201 19.838 use case descriptions, a widely accepted requirements tool 60% in object-oriented software engineering [27, 28 We will refer to this labeling style of activities as the verb-object style. But as much promotion it receives in the process reference model overall, this situation does not imply that modeling domain, both anecdotal evidence and causal the verb-object style is strictly enforced within this inspection of real process models indicate that this subset. Rather, it is applied to only about two-third of labeling style is neither universally nor consistently the"action-oriented (60% of all activity labels ). The applied. Even the practical guide for process modeling n-oriented"labels (34% of with ARIS 29, pp 66-70 shows models with both actions all activity labels) labels where the action is as verbs and as nouns. Also, one may think that the more grammatically captured as a noun. This noun can be information contained in the labels. the clearer the either a gerund of the verb or a noun that is derived from a ning will be to the reader. Recent research, howeve verb, like order processing or invoice verification. We will uncovered that shorter activity labels improve model refer to this style of labeling as the action-noun style. The derstanding 30] overall result from classifying all 19, 838 activity labels can To get a better idea of the variety in labeling styles be seen in Table 1 being applied in practice, we turn to the SAP Reference We will now consider these data in more detail Model [31]. The development of the SAP reference model More precisely, for each of the labeling styles found, we started in 1992 and first models were presented perform a grammatical analysis using the lexical database 03 [31. p. Vll]. Since then, it was developed furthe yordNet [35 to identify potential types of interpretation ersion 4.6 of SAP R/3, which was released in 2000. ambiguity. This grammatical analysis builds on the the sap reference model includes 604 business identification of syntactic categories such as noun and process models depicted using the Event-driven Process verb. Further categories like adjective and adverb could Chains(Epc) notation, capturing information about the also be used but do not pertain to activity labeling in SAP R/ 3 functionality to support the business processes in process modeling, which is why we excluded these a wide range of organizations. With the SAP solution being categories from our analysis. For many words, the he market leading tool in the Enterprise Systems market syntactic category can be identified purely syntactically, we feel that the examination of SaP process models gives as for instance with the word grammar, which is a noun. us a good understanding of the use of process models in Some words, however, are ambiguous regarding the real-life business contexts. Amongst other application category they belong to(when analyzed in isolation). areas, the SaP reference model denotes a frequently used Consider the word design, which can be a verb (to design) tool in the implementation of SAP systems [32], and much or a noun( the design) depending on the grammatical literature has covered its development and use 31 context As these examples from natural language prod Furthermore, it is frequently referenced in research papers sing show, ambiguity can be a significant impediment to s a typical reference model and used in previous ease of understanding. In light of this observation we thus examinations of process modeling, e.g, [10, 33, 34 argue that those labeling styles should be considere together, the 604 EPC models in the SaP reference process modeling that are least susceptible to ambiguity. m include ctivity labels, which we all We illustrate our argument with examples from the SAP lly inspected and classified In 94% of these cases Reference Model: instances activity labels refer to a certain Verb-object labels: Most of the verb-object labels seem action that should be undertaken, such as check billing intuitively understandable to us. Still, there are some block or order execution. This is not so for 6% of the labels, cases that are ambiguous from a grammatical point of because they neither include a verb nor a noun that view: The English language allows for a so-called zero refers to an action, consider, for instance, status analysis derivation beyond the suffix -ize and the suffix (iy cash position. We will refer to this style as the rest derivation of verbs from nouns [36]. As a consequence, the same word can both be a noun and a verb. Consider Note that the epC models considered were designed for example, the labels measure processing, export license based on the functionality and the terminology of the SAP heck, and process cost planning. They have in common ystem which might create different biases. On the one that the first word can be a verb, but reading it as an hand, system terminology could potentially be less object describing an action is also possible. Measure models o compared to labeling in conceptual design processing could potentially refer to the processing of a n the other hand the labels could be more measure or to the measurement of a processing. The same precise than labels in conceptual modeling practice. Yet, observation holds for the other labels. Some of these neither the high frequency of verb-object styles nor the ambiguities can be resolved by considering context variety of labeling styles in use directly suggest such bias. information, such as the labels of the other activities Despite the wide proliferation of 18, 648"acti the same process model. If the verb-object style was oriented"labels of the 19, 838 activity labels in the Sap consistently used as a standard throughout a process

practice, a number of informal guidelines exist that typically suggest a verb–object convention (e.g., approve order, verify invoice) for labeling activities, e.g., [18–20]. This convention is similar to a style that is advocated in guidelines that support the creation of understandable use case descriptions, a widely accepted requirements tool in object-oriented software engineering [27,28]. We will refer to this labeling style of activities as the verb–object style. But as much promotion it receives in the process modeling domain, both anecdotal evidence and causal inspection of real process models indicate that this labeling style is neither universally nor consistently applied. Even the practical guide for process modeling with ARIS [29, pp. 66–70] shows models with both actions as verbs and as nouns. Also, one may think that the more information contained in the labels, the clearer the meaning will be to the reader. Recent research, however, uncovered that shorter activity labels improve model understanding [30]. To get a better idea of the variety in labeling styles being applied in practice, we turn to the SAP Reference Model [31]. The development of the SAP reference model started in 1992 and first models were presented at CEBIT’93 [31, p. VII]. Since then, it was developed further until version 4.6 of SAP R/3, which was released in 2000. Overall, the SAP reference model includes 604 business process models depicted using the Event-driven Process Chains (EPC) notation, capturing information about the SAP R/3 functionality to support the business processes in a wide range of organizations. With the SAP solution being the market leading tool in the Enterprise Systems market we feel that the examination of SAP process models gives us a good understanding of the use of process models in real-life business contexts. Amongst other application areas, the SAP reference model denotes a frequently used tool in the implementation of SAP systems [32], and much literature has covered its development and use [31]. Furthermore, it is frequently referenced in research papers as a typical reference model and used in previous examinations of process modeling, e.g., [10,33,34]. Altogether, the 604 EPC models in the SAP reference model include 19,838 activity labels, which we all manually inspected and classified. In 94% of these cases (18,648 instances), the activity labels refer to a certain action that should be undertaken, such as check billing block or order execution. This is not so for 6% of the labels, because they neither include a verb nor a noun that refers to an action, consider, for instance, status analysis cash position. We will refer to this style as the rest category. Note that the EPC models considered were designed based on the functionality and the terminology of the SAP system which might create different biases. On the one hand, system terminology could potentially be less intuitive compared to labeling in conceptual design models. On the other hand, the labels could be more precise than labels in conceptual modeling practice. Yet, neither the high frequency of verb–object styles nor the variety of labeling styles in use directly suggest such bias. Despite the wide proliferation of 18,648 ‘‘action￾oriented’’ labels of the 19,838 activity labels in the SAP reference model overall, this situation does not imply that the verb–object style is strictly enforced within this subset. Rather, it is applied to only about two-third of the ‘‘action-oriented’’ labels (60% of all activity labels). The remaining subset of the ‘‘action-oriented’’ labels (34% of all activity labels) denote labels where the action is grammatically captured as a noun. This noun can be either a gerund of the verb or a noun that is derived from a verb, like order processing or invoice verification. We will refer to this style of labeling as the action-noun style. The overall result from classifying all 19,838 activity labels can be seen in Table 1. We will now consider these data in more detail. More precisely, for each of the labeling styles found, we perform a grammatical analysis using the lexical database WordNet [35] to identify potential types of interpretation ambiguity. This grammatical analysis builds on the identification of syntactic categories such as noun and verb. Further categories like adjective and adverb could also be used but do not pertain to activity labeling in process modeling, which is why we excluded these categories from our analysis. For many words, the syntactic category can be identified purely syntactically, as for instance with the word grammar, which is a noun. Some words, however, are ambiguous regarding the category they belong to (when analyzed in isolation). Consider the word design, which can be a verb (to design) or a noun (the design) depending on the grammatical context. As these examples from natural language proces￾sing show, ambiguity can be a significant impediment to ease of understanding. In light of this observation we thus argue that those labeling styles should be considered in process modeling that are least susceptible to ambiguity. We illustrate our argument with examples from the SAP Reference Model: Verb–object labels: Most of the verb–object labels seem intuitively understandable to us. Still, there are some cases that are ambiguous from a grammatical point of view: The English language allows for a so-called zero derivation beyond the suffix -ize and the suffix (i)fy derivation of verbs from nouns [36]. As a consequence, the same word can both be a noun and a verb. Consider, for example, the labels measure processing, export license check, and process cost planning. They have in common that the first word can be a verb, but reading it as an object describing an action is also possible. Measure processing could potentially refer to the processing of a measure or to the measurement of a processing. The same observation holds for the other labels. Some of these ambiguities can be resolved by considering context information, such as the labels of the other activities in the same process model. If the verb–object style was consistently used as a standard throughout a process ARTICLE IN PRESS Table 1 Distribution of activity label styles in the SAP reference model. Verb–object labels Action-noun labels Rest Sum 11,830 6808 1201 19,838 60% 34% 6% 100% J. Mendling et al. / Information Systems 35 (2010) 467–482 469

470 J Mending et al./ Information Systems 35(2010)467-482 model, it would be clear to interpret the first term as a labeling styles on the pragmatic quality of process models in terms of unambiguously facilitating action [16 and Action-noun labels: With respect to action-noun labels, usage 37. We summarize our expectations as follows. some of these can be easily interpreted, but again there irst, we formulated and grounded our expectation that can be cases of grammatical ambiguity. Consider, for model understanding can be improved by guiding the act nstance, notification printing. Again, there are two poten of labeling following the theory of multimedia learning. In tial interpretations: a notification is printed, or someone is search for candidate guidelines for labeling activities, tified of a printing job. Alternatively, the verb could just anecdotal evidence the study of the sap reference model have been forgotten by the modeler. This interpretation is and our literature review suggest the verb-object labeling likely in cases where the action noun could also be an tyle to be the strongest candidate style. Our empirical object, like order, which can refer to both an action or exploration of the SaP reference model indeed confirmed bject. We call this type of ambiguity the action-object the wide application of this style in practice. Yet, we also mbiguity. In such cases, the model reader might be found that this style is not the only style being applied: a tempted to infer the action by considering the context of large fraction of activity labels follows an action-noun he activity. Syntactically, the label could be easily style, and there are also other (rest styles to be found in extended with such semantically diverse verbs as start, process models. Our grammatical analysis of the three stop, or schedule. Using a verb-object style would have modeling styles, as described in the previous section. voided the problem of action-object ambiguity and the suggested that the verb-object style appears to be the necessity of having to infer a verb to establish th least susceptible to various types of interpretation appropriate meanin ambiguity, indicating its superiority in terms of clarity of Rest labels: Some of the rest labels clearly point to specification. pecific business object, for instance status analysis cash In light of these observations, we suggest the following osition, such that a verb could potentially be inferred primary conjecture that we seek to test in our study. Based from the context. Yet there are also activity labels like on our grammatical analysis, we theorize that process DEOV and Jamsostek that are altogether difficult to under- modelers perceive the verb-object style to be superior to stand. Presumably, the first one refers to the german he action-noun and rest labeling style alongside two regulation for data storage and transmission (DEUV Datenerfassungs- und Ubertragungsverordnung) and the second to the Indonesian social security system. Clearly perceived ambiguity: the degree to which an individual labels of the"rest"category require crystal clear context believes that a label is am guous, an information otherwise an inference of the action to be perceived usefulness(PU): the degree to which an performed is a highly problematic task due to the individual believes that a label is useful for under occurrence of verb-inference ambiguity, i. e, the problem tanding the process modeled. of inferring from the context of the label the type of action to be performed as part of the considered proce task. This conjecture rests on the observation that the In conclusion the three different classe verb-objective style is less prone to result in misinter- ifferent types of ambiguities. For the verb-object style. d i we found instances of zero-derivation ambiguity in the grammatical analysis showed that it is least susceptible AP reference model. Altogether, we identified exactly to ambiguity. We thus advance the following two 600 labels with such ambiguity: these labels contained primary hypotheses we seek to test in this study. First, 23 different verbs including change, design, process, and we theorize that users working with process models report. For the action-noun style, this problem class is have a clear preference for labeling styles that avoid relevant, too. Furthermore, this style is susceptible to action-object ambiguity. if an action noun can also refer to an object. We counted 615 cases of such ambiguities. H1. Verb-object style labels are least frequently perceived Finally, the rest group of labels, which do not mention as being ambiguous, followed by action-noun style labels. ction at all, faces verb-inference ambiguity(1190 cases). and finally rest labels. These three ambiguity classes differ in occurrence fre- Second, we theorize that end users working with quency: while the zero-derivation ambiguity requires the models have different perceptions of the useful- unlikely combination of a verb and an action object, th ess of the labels for understanding the process modeled, action-object ambiguity is found more often since many dependent on the labeling style in which the label is documents in a business context are synonymous to articulated. More specifically n action noun(e.g, order, receipt, confirmation). The verb-inference ambiguity is the most significant one, since H2a. Verb-object style labels are perceived as more all labels of the rest group suffer from it useful for understanding the process model than action- noun 2.3. Hypothes H2b. Verb-object style labels are perceived as more On basis of the findings discussed above, our conter useful for understanding the process model than rest tion is to conjecture about the influence of choice of style label

model, it would be clear to interpret the first term as a verb. Action-noun labels: With respect to action-noun labels, some of these can be easily interpreted, but again there can be cases of grammatical ambiguity. Consider, for instance, notification printing. Again, there are two poten￾tial interpretations: a notification is printed, or someone is notified of a printing job. Alternatively, the verb could just have been forgotten by the modeler. This interpretation is likely in cases where the action noun could also be an object, like order, which can refer to both an action or an object. We call this type of ambiguity the action-object ambiguity. In such cases, the model reader might be tempted to infer the action by considering the context of the activity. Syntactically, the label could be easily extended with such semantically diverse verbs as start, stop, or schedule. Using a verb–object style would have avoided the problem of action-object ambiguity and the necessity of having to infer a verb to establish the appropriate meaning. Rest labels: Some of the rest labels clearly point to a specific business object, for instance status analysis cash position, such that a verb could potentially be inferred from the context. Yet there are also activity labels like DEU¨V and Jamsostek that are altogether difficult to under￾stand. Presumably, the first one refers to the German regulation for data storage and transmission (DEU¨ V Datenerfassungs- und U¨ bertragungsverordnung) and the second to the Indonesian social security system. Clearly labels of the ‘‘rest’’ category require crystal clear context information, otherwise an inference of the action to be performed is a highly problematic task due to the occurrence of verb-inference ambiguity, i.e., the problem of inferring from the context of the label the type of action to be performed as part of the considered process task. In conclusion, the three different classes exhibit different types of ambiguities. For the verb–object style, we found instances of zero-derivation ambiguity in the SAP reference model. Altogether, we identified exactly 600 labels with such ambiguity; these labels contained 23 different verbs including change, design, process, and report. For the action-noun style, this problem class is relevant, too. Furthermore, this style is susceptible to action-object ambiguity, if an action noun can also refer to an object. We counted 615 cases of such ambiguities. Finally, the rest group of labels, which do not mention an action at all, faces verb-inference ambiguity (1190 cases). These three ambiguity classes differ in occurrence fre￾quency: while the zero-derivation ambiguity requires the unlikely combination of a verb and an action object, the action-object ambiguity is found more often since many documents in a business context are synonymous to an action noun (e.g., order, receipt, confirmation). The verb-inference ambiguity is the most significant one, since all labels of the rest group suffer from it. 2.3. Hypotheses On basis of the findings discussed above, our conten￾tion is to conjecture about the influence of choice of labeling styles on the pragmatic quality of process models in terms of unambiguously facilitating action [16] and usage [37]. We summarize our expectations as follows. First, we formulated and grounded our expectation that model understanding can be improved by guiding the act of labeling following the theory of multimedia learning. In search for candidate guidelines for labeling activities, anecdotal evidence, the study of the SAP reference model, and our literature review suggest the verb–object labeling style to be the strongest candidate style. Our empirical exploration of the SAP reference model indeed confirmed the wide application of this style in practice. Yet, we also found that this style is not the only style being applied: a large fraction of activity labels follows an action-noun style, and there are also other (rest) styles to be found in process models. Our grammatical analysis of the three modeling styles, as described in the previous section, suggested that the verb–object style appears to be the least susceptible to various types of interpretation ambiguity, indicating its superiority in terms of clarity of specification. In light of these observations, we suggest the following primary conjecture that we seek to test in our study. Based on our grammatical analysis, we theorize that process modelers perceive the verb–object style to be superior to the action-noun and rest labeling style alongside two dimensions: perceived ambiguity: the degree to which an individual believes that a label is ambiguous, and perceived usefulness (PU): the degree to which an individual believes that a label is useful for under￾standing the process modeled. This conjecture rests on the observation that the verb–objective style is less prone to result in misinter￾pretation and confounding complexity. After all, our grammatical analysis showed that it is least susceptible to ambiguity. We thus advance the following two primary hypotheses we seek to test in this study. First, we theorize that users working with process models have a clear preference for labeling styles that avoid ambiguity: H1. Verb–object style labels are least frequently perceived as being ambiguous, followed by action-noun style labels, and finally rest labels. Second, we theorize that end users working with process models have different perceptions of the useful￾ness of the labels for understanding the process modeled, dependent on the labeling style in which the label is articulated. More specifically: H2a. Verb–object style labels are perceived as more useful for understanding the process model than action￾noun style labels. H2b. Verb–object style labels are perceived as more useful for understanding the process model than rest style labels. ARTICLE IN PRESS 470 J. Mendling et al. / Information Systems 35 (2010) 467–482

J. Mending et aL./Information Systems 35(2010) 467-482 H2C. Action-noun style labels are perceived as more 3. Research method useful for understanding the process model than rest 3.1. Research design and conduct Hypotheses H2a-H2c rest on the assumption that the To test the hypotheses advanced in the previous perceived usefulness of a label is negatively influenced by section, we developed a(self-administered )questionnaire the perceived ambiguity of the labeling style used, based to gather quantitative insights. With this questionnaire we on the contention that the grammatical style of a labeling asked participants about the perceived ambiguity of pe can lead to misinterpretation and confounding certain activity labels, as well as their perceived useful- omplexity. To gather empirical evidence for this conten- ness. Along with the questionnaire, we presented to the tion, we advance the following, additional hypothesis that participant a number of activity labels as part of a specific process model. This has been done for several reasons ss model is H3. Perceived ambiguity of a labeling style is nega- tively associated with the perceived usefulness of the interpreted in isolation. Various other labels in the model label and the control flow relationship between the activities establish a context against which a single label is In our study, we also need to consider that differences in nterpreted. Since we do not aim to gain insight int he perceptions about the ambiguity and usefulness of a labels per se but in their use in process models, we have to process model label can also stem from differences present all the labels that are discussed in the ques between the study participants. Recent experimental tionnaire in the context of a model. Second, we had to research on choose a model from practice; otherwise there would 26,38,39]. has indicated significant differences in the have been the risk that we would(unconsciously) tailor it understanding of conceptual models stemming from two to meet our hypotheses. Third, this process model had to characteristics of the conceptual model readers, these show a substantial variation in the labeling styles being being knowledge of the application domain (e.g. [381) and used so that we can limit potential bias in our research familiarity with the technique or notation used for ce ceptual modeling (eg, [ 26)). CTML [24 suggests that Following these considerations we selected a model nowledge of the domain covered in the of a complaint process from a department of a Dutch conceptual modeling lowers the cognitive load required governmental agency which is concerned with complaint to develop a mental model of the information displayed handling(see Fig. 1). The model follows the EPC nota- in the conceptual model, and hence, model under- tion, which is one of the most popular modeling standing will be easier. This is because readers can bring techniques in industry [1]. Indeed, it is the same to bear an understanding of the semantics, relevant technique as applied in the saP reference model. In an entities or procedures that make up the applie EPC, so-called functions (rectangles)correspond to the various tasks that may need to be executed (e.g, register or knowledge of the conceptual modeling artifact (i. e, receipt date of complaint letter ). Events (hexagons)de the method, technique or notation used) has been shown to increase the quality of the models produced cuted (eg,"customer at desk"). Logical connectors (e.g,[40, 41), and sometimes to increase the under (circles) define routing rules. In particular, there are standing of the models produced [38]. The noted interac three types of connectors: the logical AND for concur- tion effects of notation familiarity are speculated to rency, XOR for exclusive choices, and OR for inclusive stem from a modelers self-perception about his or her choices. Functions, events, and connectors are the modeling skills. In other words, a modeler that deems classical elements of control flow modeling. These himself or herself to be experienced, may approach routing elements are also included in other modeling modeling tasks and outcomes differently to someone that languages like BPMN, YAWL, and UML Activity Dia- believes oneself to be a novice grams, which supports generalizability and repeatability In light of these findings we thus advance the of our procedure. following, additional exploratory hypotheses that seek to The given model roughly describes the following investigate how knowledge about the application domain procedure to handle the complaints that the agency and familiarity with the process modeling notation used receives. A new case is opened if a new complaint is ct as moderating variables to the propositions outlined received--be it by means of a phone call, personal contact or letter. In some situations, the complaint must be referred to another party, either internal or external to the H4a. Knowledge about the application domain moderates agency involved. Internal referrals have to be put on a so- he strength of the relationship between labeling style and called incident agenda, while external referrals always rceived usefulness of the label require a confirmation. In both cases the referral is archived in parallel. As a final step in this procedure, the H4b. Familiarity with the process complainant is informed. If no referral is required,a tion moderates the strength of the re complaint analysis is conducted. Later, the complaint is ween labeling style and perceived u archived and the complainant is contacted, with ar label optional follow up(see Fig. 1)

H2c. Action-noun style labels are perceived as more useful for understanding the process model than rest style labels. Hypotheses H2a–H2c rest on the assumption that the perceived usefulness of a label is negatively influenced by the perceived ambiguity of the labeling style used, based on the contention that the grammatical style of a labeling type can lead to misinterpretation and confounding complexity. To gather empirical evidence for this conten￾tion, we advance the following, additional hypothesis that we will test: H3. Perceived ambiguity of a labeling style is nega￾tively associated with the perceived usefulness of the label. In our study, we also need to consider that differences in the perceptions about the ambiguity and usefulness of a process model label can also stem from differences between the study participants. Recent experimental research on conceptual modeling, most notably [26,38,39], has indicated significant differences in the understanding of conceptual models stemming from two characteristics of the conceptual model readers, these being knowledge of the application domain (e.g., [38]) and familiarity with the technique or notation used for con￾ceptual modeling (e.g., [26]). CTML [24] suggests that previous knowledge of the domain covered in the conceptual modeling lowers the cognitive load required to develop a mental model of the information displayed in the conceptual model, and hence, model under￾standing will be easier. This is because readers can bring to bear an understanding of the semantics, relevant entities or procedures that make up the applica￾tion domain depicted in a model. Similarly, expertise or knowledge of the conceptual modeling artifact (i.e., the method, technique or notation used) has been shown to increase the quality of the models produced (e.g., [40,41]), and sometimes to increase the under￾standing of the models produced [38]. The noted interac￾tion effects of notation familiarity are speculated to stem from a modeler’s self-perception about his or her modeling skills. In other words, a modeler that deems himself or herself to be experienced, may approach modeling tasks and outcomes differently to someone that believes oneself to be a novice. In light of these findings we thus advance the following, additional exploratory hypotheses that seek to investigate how knowledge about the application domain and familiarity with the process modeling notation used act as moderating variables to the propositions outlined above: H4a. Knowledge about the application domain moderates the strength of the relationship between labeling style and perceived usefulness of the label. H4b. Familiarity with the process modeling nota￾tion moderates the strength of the relationship bet￾ween labeling style and perceived usefulness of the label. 3. Research method 3.1. Research design and conduct To test the hypotheses advanced in the previous section, we developed a (self-administered) questionnaire to gather quantitative insights. With this questionnaire we asked participants about the perceived ambiguity of certain activity labels, as well as their perceived useful￾ness. Along with the questionnaire, we presented to the participant a number of activity labels as part of a specific process model. This has been done for several reasons. First, a label in a business process model is never interpreted in isolation. Various other labels in the model and the control flow relationship between the activities establish a context against which a single label is interpreted. Since we do not aim to gain insight into labels per se but in their use in process models, we have to present all the labels that are discussed in the ques￾tionnaire in the context of a model. Second, we had to choose a model from practice; otherwise there would have been the risk that we would (unconsciously) tailor it to meet our hypotheses. Third, this process model had to show a substantial variation in the labeling styles being used so that we can limit potential bias in our research design. Following these considerations we selected a model of a complaint process from a department of a Dutch governmental agency, which is concerned with complaint handling (see Fig. 1). The model follows the EPC nota￾tion, which is one of the most popular modeling techniques in industry [1]. Indeed, it is the same technique as applied in the SAP reference model. In an EPC, so-called functions (rectangles) correspond to the various tasks that may need to be executed (e.g., register receipt date of complaint letter). Events (hexagons) des￾cribe the situation before and after a function is exe￾cuted (e.g., ‘‘customer at desk’’). Logical connectors (circles) define routing rules. In particular, there are three types of connectors: the logical AND for concur￾rency, XOR for exclusive choices, and OR for inclusive choices. Functions, events, and connectors are the classical elements of control flow modeling. These routing elements are also included in other modeling languages like BPMN, YAWL, and UML Activity Dia￾grams, which supports generalizability and repeatability of our procedure. The given model roughly describes the following procedure to handle the complaints that the agency receives. A new case is opened if a new complaint is received—be it by means of a phone call, personal contact, or letter. In some situations, the complaint must be referred to another party, either internal or external to the agency involved. Internal referrals have to be put on a so￾called incident agenda, while external referrals always require a confirmation. In both cases the referral is archived in parallel. As a final step in this procedure, the complainant is informed. If no referral is required, a complaint analysis is conducted. Later, the complaint is archived and the complainant is contacted, with an optional follow up (see Fig. 1). ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Mendling et al. / Information Systems 35 (2010) 467–482 471