The adaptation, specially by means of a simplification process, of modeling languages is a common practice due to the overwhelming complexity of most standard languages (like UML or BPMN), not needed for typical usage scenarios while at the same time companies don't want to go to the extremes of defining a brand new domain specific language. Unfortunately, there is a lack of examples of such simplification experiences that can be used as a reference for future projects. In this paper we report on a field study aimed at the simplification of a business process modeling language (namely, BPMN) for making it suitable to end users. Our simplification process relies on a set of steps that encompass the selection of the language elements to simplify, generation of a set of language variants for them, measurement of effectiveness of the variants through user modeling sessions and extraction of quantitative and qualitative data for guiding the selection of the best language refinement. We describe the experimental setting, the output of the various steps of the analysis, and the results we obtained from users. Finally, we conclude with an outlook towards the generalization of the approach and consolidation of a language simplification method. Presentation at SLE2015 & SPLASH2015 Pittsburg, PA. Authors: Eric Umuhoza Politecnico di Milano, Italy Marco Brambilla Politecnico di Milano and Fluxedo, Italy Davide Ripamonti Politecnico di Milano and Fluxedo, Italy Jordi Cabot ICREA, Spain

1. An Empirical Study on Simplification of
Business Process Modeling Languages
Marco Brambilla, Eric Umuhoza, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Jordi Cabot, ICREA & UOC, Spain
Davide Ripamonti, Fluxedo, Italy

2. Agenda
• Motivation
• Problem setting
• Process
• Experience reporting
• Success story (?)

3. Context and Motivation
• Adaptation of modeling languages
 Standard languages are complex
 No perfect match of the domain to be modeled
• Other approaches towards simplification
 New DSLs
 Extending an existing base language
• Our approach
 Simplify existing language according to the user needs

4. Empirical experiment: BPM scenario
Michael zur Muehlen and Jan Recker "How much language is enough? "

5. How much is enough?

6. Objective: Personal Processes
From BPM to PPM
Study “how much is enough” for
• End users
• Collaborative planning and execution
• Social network based interactions

7. Meanwhile on the TODOlist planet…

8. Commercial Question
Any Space for intermediate solutions?

9. Our Study

10. Our ProcessEnd-userLanguagedesigner
User
Questionnaire
Language
Evaluation
Definition of
Language
Variants
Modeling of
Use Cases
Simplified
Language
Selection of
Reducible
Language Elements
General
Language

11. Beyond classical approaches of language quality
(e.g., Moody’s physics)
1. Semiotic Clarity
2. Perceptual Discriminability
3. Semantic Transparency
4. Complexity Management
5. Cognitive Integration
6. Visual Expressiveness
7. Dual Coding
8. Graphic Economy
9. Cognitive Fit

12. Not just about the Syntax
Before going to syntax, you need to address semantics!
• Identify possible reduction points
• Select variations of those points
• Cluster them (too many combinations!)

13. Selection of reducible elements

14. Syntax Variants
Elements to evaluate Syntax 1 Syntax 2 Syntax 3 Syntax 4
Start x x x x
End x x x x
Task x x x x
Params: global x x
Params: single local x
Params: multiple local x
Events x x x
Sequence x x x x
Parallel x x x
Condition x x x
Cycle x

15. Implementation details
Online model editor (PHP, HTML5, CSS3, JS JQuery)
• Maximum usability
• Configurable for syntax variants
• Tracking user activity
• Minimal model checking realitme

16. Validation
Experiment setup
• 3 application scenarios
• 4 syntax variants
• 24 users
• Multiple tests per user

17. Variants
Assigment
4 syntaxes
3 scenarios
Graeco-latin square:
• 2 cases per user
• No replication of sytax nor
scenario
}= 12 cases

18. Variants
Assigment
4 syntaxes
3 scenarios
Graeco-latin square:
• The real one

19. Procedure with users
1. Intro
2. Learning
3. Experiment
1. Learn syntax
2. Read scenario
3. Model scenario with syntax
4. Questionnaire
1. Demographics
2. Evaluation of experience

20. Results Analysis
• Average modeling time • Average # of used
concepts
~16 min
~21 min
~19 min
Language VariantsLanguage Variants
Duration(s)
#Elements

21. Modeling operations – average count

22. Results Analysis
Wait Until Parallel Condition Cycle Activity Sequence
#Elements

23. Common modeling errors

24. Results analysis
Explicit feedback on language variant complexity
Language Variants
#opinions
Easy Med Hard

25. Rule of “thumb” on Language Variants
Variant 1
Simpler, faster, less errors, limited power (no conditions)
Variant 2
Strong thanks to looping, a lot of errors
Variant 3
Good compromise. Limited by single local parameter
Variant 4
Harder, slower, more errors. Multiple local parameters not
appraciated

26. Rule of “thumb” on Single Elements
• Event Until
• Parallel
• Condition
• Cycle
• Global params
• Event Wait
• Local params single
• Local params multiple

27. Conclusions
• Simplification in mind
• Definition of a formalized selection process of
language constructs and variants
• Actual selection of a variant for our case study
Future Work
• Modeling through multiple expertise levels
– From expert to the crowd

28. END OF THE STORY

29. NOT THE
END OF THE STORY

30. A company has born
www.fluxedo.com

31. Key: reduce complexity. FROM THIS…

32. TO THIS…

33. Integrating people…

34. Integrazione servizi online.. and Online Services

35. Take home message
• Being a modeler is hard
• Modeling simplification seems really to lead to
extreme solutions, i.e. completely hide modeling
The challenge is not to show off modeling, is to hide it

36. An Empirical Study on Simplification of
Business Process Modeling Languages
marco.brambilla@polimi.it
@marcobrambi
@fluxedo_app
Thanks