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