The document discusses a study of syntax errors in business process models. It collected process modeling data from 126 students tasked with building sequence flow models from textual descriptions using BPMN notation. The study analyzed how syntax errors emerge and evolve during the modeling process. It found that most errors can be detected early and many uncertain errors become resolved, but some definite errors remain in final models. Future work is suggested to better understand the origins and evolution of different types of syntax errors.

1. 1/18 | www.janclaes.info
Joshua De Bock and Jan Claes
The origin and evolution of syntax errors
in simple sequence flow models in BPMN

2. 2/18 | www.janclaes.info
Context – introductory statements
 Conceptual models are useful
 Conceptual models contain errors
 Syntax errors are the easiest to study objectively
 Syntax errors are the least relevant to study
 To study errors, study the creation process
 Process-data is available for ‘process models’

3. 3/18 | www.janclaes.info
Problem statement
About syntax errors
in simple sequence flow models
 How do these errors emerge?
 What is the earliest moment
that potential errors can be detected?
 Which evolution do errors go through
during modeling?

4. 4/18 | www.janclaes.info
How many syntax errors?
Send PO to
factory
Send PO to
warehouse
Update
contact info
Update
financial info
Close
file
Gateway combines
join and split
semantics
ERRORIRRESOLUTIONCONFUSION

5. 5/18 | www.janclaes.info
Syntax error or not?
Close
file
If the model is
finished: YES
If the model in not
finished: NO

6. 6/18 | www.janclaes.info
Syntax error or not?
Send PO to
warehouse
Update
contact info
Update
financial info
Close
file
(wrong symbol)(missing symbol)
DEFINITE ERRORUNCERTAIN ERROR

7. 7/18 | www.janclaes.info
Transitions

8. 8/18 | www.janclaes.info
Data collection
 Tool = Cheetah Experimental Platform
 Task = build sequence flow model
from structured textual description
 Language = subset BPMN constructs
 start event + end event
 XOR gateway + AND gateway (split + join)
 Activity + edge (including label)
 Participants = 126 master students
Business Engineering
at Ghent University in 2015

9. 9/18 | www.janclaes.info
Syntax issues
12%
6%
23%
17%
12%
30%
Syntax issues during modeling
UE UI UC DE DI DC
8%
34%
58%
Syntax issues after modeling
DE DI DC
No uncertain
issues remain in
the final model

10. 10/18 | www.janclaes.info
Origin of syntax issues
48%
0%
0%0%
0%
51%
Origin of DE
UE DI DC UI UC /
37%
10%
1%2%0%
49%
Origin of DI
UI DE DC UE UC /
61%
7%
0%
1%
0%
31%
Origin of DC
UC DE DI UE UI /

11. 11/18 | www.janclaes.info
Evolution of uncertain syntax issues
30%
65%
2% 2%
Evolution of UE
/ DE DI DC
17%
83%
0% 1%
Evolution of UI
/ DI DE DC
20%
80%
0% 0%
Evolution of UC
/ DC DE DI

12. 12/18 | www.janclaes.info
Evolution of definite syntax issues
64%7%
13%
17%
Evolution of DE
/ DI DC DE
5% 0%
0%
94%
Evolution of DI
/ DE DC DI
33%
0%
1%
66%
Evolution of DC
/ DE DI DC

13. 13/18 | www.janclaes.info
Conclusion
…from this limited dataset and modeling language
…with this artificial case and participants
Issues are often
detectable at an
early stage

14. 14/18 | www.janclaes.info
Future work – Origin of syntax issues
99%
1%
Origin of U1e
/ Ulx
94%
3%3%
Origin of UJx
/ UDS U1e
92%
8%
Origin of ULx
/ U1e
86%
8%
6%
Origin of P
/ 1e Sa
83%
17%
Origin of UBs
/ U1e
78%
22%
Origin of UN
/ U1e
78%
22%
Origin of W
/ UW
71%
13%
1%
13% 2%
Origin of C
/ UC U1e 1e Jx
67%
33%
Origin of Be
/ Ube
57%
43%
Origin of Ja
/ Uja
54%31%
7%
8%
Origin of T
/ UT 1e W
51%
49%
Origin of Sx
/ Usx
51%41%
1%
0% 7%
Origin of Jx
/ Ujx DS U1e 1e
49%
51%
0% 0%
Origin of 1e
/ U1e C Sx
40%
60%
Origin of Bs
/ Ubs
19%
70%
1%
0%
0% 10%
Origin of LX
/ ULx U1e Sx W 1e
18%
73%
9%
Origin of N
/ UN Sx
15%
85%
Origin of DS
/ UDS

15. 15/18 | www.janclaes.info
Future work – Evolution of syntax issues
70%
6%
5%
9%
9% 0%1%
Evolution of 1e
/ 1e Jx C Lx T P
67%
33%
Evolution of Lx
/ Lx
60%
40%
Evolution of 0se
/ Ose
56%35%
9%
Evolution of UDS
/ DS UJx
52%
48%
Evolution of U0se
/ 0se
34%
59%
3%
2% 2%
Evolution of Sx
/ Sx Lx 1e N
30%
70%
Evolution of USa
/ Sa
30%
70%
Evolution of N
/ N
29%
70%
1%
Evolution of ULx
/ Lx U1e
25%
75%
Evolution of UJa
/ Ja
22%
78%
Evolution of USx
/ Sx
21%
71%
4% 4%
Evolution of W
/ W T Lx
18%
67%
9%
2%
1%2% 0% 1%0%
Evolution of U1e
/ 1e ULx Lx Jx
UJx Bs UN C
17%
83%
Evolution of UC
/ C
17%
83%
Evolution of UW
/ W
17%
83%
Evolution of UBs
/ Bs
15%
85%
Evolution of UJx
/ Jx
14%
86%
Evolution of Ja
/ Ja
12%
63%
25%
Evolution of Sa
/ Sa P
11%
89%
Evolution of UN
/ N
10%
90%
Evolution of E
/ E
7%
93%
0%
Evolution of C
/ C 1e
7%
92%
1%
Evolution of Jx
/ Jx C
1%
99%
Evolution of UE
/ E

16. 16/18 | www.janclaes.info
Future work – Transition paths
Transition path of C Transition path of Jx

17. 17/18 | www.janclaes.info
Future work – Transition paths
Transition path of C Transition path of Jx

18. 18/18 | www.janclaes.info
 Do you have any questions?
 Do you have feedback?
Thanks for you attention!
Jan Claes
jan.claes@ugent.be
www.janclaes.info