4.3 Review

A systematic literature review of process modeling guidelines and their empirical support

期刊

BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 1-23

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/BPMJ-10-2019-0407

关键词

Business process; BPMN; Process model quality; Process modeling guidelines

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. CoordenacAo de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]
  3. CNPq
  4. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article identifies and selects 45 process modeling guidelines through a systematic literature review, providing guidance for practitioners and scholars on which guidelines to use while modeling a process. The analysis also examines the empirical evidence and variables associated with each guideline.
Purpose Process modeling guidelines are a valuable instrument for increasing the quality of process models. Since finding and selecting suitable guidelines are challenging, this paper aims to find and select suitable guidelines because they are scattered across the many studies of the literature. Also, not all of them are supported by empirical studies. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a systematic literature review to collect and analyze process modeling guidelines present in the literature and the empirical evidence that supports them. Findings The authors investigated a total of 793 articles and identified a total of 45 process modeling guidelines in five different categories. For each of these guidelines, the authors report empirical evidence together with corresponding measures, such as comprehension accuracy and error probability. Originality/value Compared to the prior literature reviews on process model quality and process modeling guidelines, this article extends current knowledge by analyzing the empirical evidence and variables associated with each guideline. This analysis provides guidance for practitioners and scholars on which guidelines to use while modeling a process and perform further research on.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据