Storyboard Augmentation of Process Model Grammars

for Stakeholder Communication

Nardella Kathleen

, Brown Ross

and Simone Kriglstein

2,3

Information Systems School, Science and Engineering Faculty, QUT, Brisbane, Australia

SBA Research, Vienna, Austria

University of Vienna, Faculty of Computer Science, Vienna, Austria

Keywords:

3D Virtual Worlds, Process Visualization, Storyboards.

Abstract:

Process models are often used to visualize and communicate workﬂows to involved stakeholders. Unfor-

tunately, process modeling notations can be complex and need speciﬁc knowledge to be understood. Sto-

ryboards, as a visual language to illustrate workﬂows as sequences of images, provide natural visualization

features that allow for better communication, to provide insight to people from non-process modeling expert

domains. This paper proposes a visualization approach using a 3D virtual world environment to visualize

storyboards for business process models. A prototype was built to present its applicability via generating

output with examples of ﬁve major process model patterns and two non-trivial use cases. Illustrative results

for the approach show the promise of using a 3D virtual world to visualize complex process models in an

unambiguous and intuitive manner.

1 INTRODUCTION

Business Process Management (BPM) encompasses

the analysis and improvement of business practices

and is a valuable and much-applied area in existing

companies. Communication, in many ways, is criti-

cal to BPM success (e.g., to avoid misunderstandings

between the different stakeholders) (Bandara et al.,

2007). For this reason, the communication of busi-

ness process models is a key area of BPM, and an im-

portant topic of research (Recker et al., 2009a). Pro-

cess model communication has impact on a number of

key areas in business process management, in particu-

lar, model validation processes requires high levels of

stakeholder engagement to ensure a quality modeling

outcome (Bandara et al., 2005).

A number of visualization methods for business

process models have been investigated, in terms of

their abilities to facilitate communication (Moody,

2009). The research work shows that there are prob-

lems with the effectiveness of existing visualization

methods for business processes (Bandara et al., 2007).

Most process models are represented using abstract

graphical modeling notations that consist of basic 2D

geometric shapes with some formal syntax to give

them meaning (Recker et al., 2009b). To stakehold-

ers with little to no formal modeling experience, these

diagrams can be difﬁcult to understand. This is detri-

mental to the modeling effort, when business analysts

need to work and communicate with enterprise stake-

holders for maximum success (Trkman, 2010).

Storyboarding is a powerful descriptive method

which can be used to present events and actions in or-

der to support communication between stakeholders,

independently from their expertise with the modeling

language (cf. (Weitlaner et al., 2013)). The sequences

of images providing by storyboards in combination

with the background information and external knowl-

edge of stakeholders help to identify problems and to

support discussions on improvements.

In this paper we describe our ongoing research

that aims to provide an approach to visually show-

ing business process models, so that the problem of

stakeholder communication can be alleviated by pre-

senting intuitive 3D visualizations of operational as-

pects of a process model. The storyboards are shot-

by-shot visualizations. The shots are automatically

generated by using an extension of the 3D virtual

world for business processes developed by (Brown

and Rasmussen, 2010). Existing research has shown

that domain experts and business representatives ben-

eﬁt from a hands-on, operational view of the business

process being designed (Clancey et al., 1998). Virtual

worlds can provide such an operational view by ﬁll-

114

Kathleen N., Ross B. and Kriglstein S..

Storyboard Augmentation of Process Model Grammars for Stakeholder Communication.

DOI: 10.5220/0004668101140121

In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications (IVAPP-2014), pages 114-121

ISBN: 978-989-758-005-5

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

ing a 3D simulated world with objects, resources and

animations that map to the real domain being mod-

eled. An intended outcome of our research is an in-

tuitive tool for business analysts to easily create rich

3D visualizations of process model diagrams, improv-

ing the uptake of such approaches and the related 3D

technology for the BPM domain.

2 RELATED WORK

Storyboarding is a popular method from movie pro-

duction (Hart, 2007). Recently, several methods

have been developed to support video viewing/editing

which range from different representation techniques

(see, e.g., (Dony et al., 2005; Goldman et al., 2006))

to methods for realizing ﬁlms (see, e.g., (Jhala et al.,

2008; Jung et al., 2010)). In other domains, such as

game design, storyboards are also commonly used.

For example, (Pizzi et al., 2010) presented a solu-

tion to generate 2D-storyboards in order to support

level design for games. Furthermore, storyboarding,

in combination with use cases and personas, is a well-

known Human Computer Interaction (HCI) method

for the speciﬁcation of requirements (cf. (Truong

et al., 2006)). The results of the study by (Weitlaner

et al., 2013) showed that the usage of storyboards also

has potential for the description of process models.

In addition to the linear representation (e.g., shots

along a timeline), several systems provide non-linear

representations (e.g., to show different story paths)

and visualize the scene ﬂow as a graph to make the re-

lationships between the individual scenes visible (see,

e.g., (Gebhard et al., 2003; Dade-Robertson, 2007;

Sauer et al., 2006; Yeo and Yeung, 1997)). For our

approach, we apply the workﬂow language YAWL

(Yet Another Workﬂow Language) in combination

with workﬂow patterns (Van Der Aalst et al., 2003)

to deﬁne the control ﬂow of the process model as a

graph to form the backbone of our storyboard repre-

sentation.

3 BACKGROUND

Business analysts use formal graphical modeling no-

tations to express process models. Communication is

therefore difﬁcult, especially when stakeholders are

not familiar with these notations. Ironically, commu-

nication is an overarching element of BPM success

http://www.yawlfoundation.org/ accessed

01/06/2013

because business analysts frequently have to collabo-

rate with stakeholders to validate a model, to ensure

that it correctly represents the real process (Weske,

2007). Deﬁciencies have been identiﬁed in the rep-

resentational properties of modeling grammars (Ban-

dara et al., 2007), which are closely tied to a lack of

user buy-in (Rosemann, 2006). For this reason, fo-

cus in the BPM research community has now shifted

towards developing better ways of representing busi-

ness process models to improve understanding and

communication (Rosemann et al., 2009). The widely

cited Media Richness Theory (Daft and Lengel, 1986)

provides the theoretical underpinning for our story-

board approach. The theory states that equivocal tasks

will beneﬁt from richer media, e.g. media provid-

ing more communication channels and more rapid

feedback. Furthermore, Media Synchronicity theory

(Dennis and Valacich, 1999) emphasizes the task-

media ﬁt. It argues that media differ in more than one

dimension, and different media support fundamental

communication processes in different ways, best sup-

porting tasks for which their speciﬁc mix of commu-

nication processes is most useful. Recent work has

also supported, in theory, the efﬁcacy of iconic repre-

sentations when added to personalised process model

graphs (Koschmider and Dijkman, 2012). From this

basis, we propose that a media rich process model,

incorporating graph representations and augmented

with contextualised operational imagery, will assist in

communication processes by lessening the cognitive

load for understanding. In essence, providing a space

for the business analyst and stakeholders to communi-

cate, and thus correctly validate the presented process

model.

Because many people understand work in a hands-

on manner, rather than in conceptual space, a repre-

sentation of the real world provides a relatable rep-

resentation to business stakeholders (Clancey et al.,

1998). Virtual spaces can provide previously un-

seen insights, because the user experiences a visu-

ally close representation of the process, as in most

cases the domain can be completely mapped to a

virtual space. The order in which tasks are chosen

can be aided by their location and distance, so that

they can be completed in the most efﬁcient manner

(Leoni et al., 2008). In addition, by presenting the

model physically in a 3D simulation, collisions, bot-

tlenecks and other spatially-related problems can be

determined which aren’t immediately obvious in a di-

agram (Kindler and Ples, 2004). An average business

analyst would be largely unfamiliar with manipulat-

ing objects in 3D modeling tools (Sch

onhage et al.,

2000) and would simply be unable to create a virtual

world representation with the current tools on their

StoryboardAugmentationofProcessModelGrammarsforStakeholderCommunication

115

Figure 1: High level architecture for our approach.

own. As a solution, the 3D modeling process may

be automated through techniques, such as procedural

and declarative modeling (Tutenel et al., 2008). The

core of declarative modeling approaches is the con-

straint solver. This is because low-level constraints

restrict the solution space and can be programmati-

cally solved for one or more solutions (Le Roux et al.,

2004). In declarative modeling, the designer needs

to ﬁrst describe the scene in some way. Description

involves deﬁning the properties, relationships and ap-

pearance of the scene (Gaildrat, 2007) often using nat-

ural language sentences (Coyne and Sproat, 2001), as

we have done. Explicit and implicit constraints and

semantics are frequently used in the 3D modeling pro-

cess. These are described as an ontology (Tutenel

et al., 2008), and are stored in a semantic database

(Bidarra et al., 2010). Generated scenes do not usu-

ally incorporate narrative, or ﬂow structures, which

exist in process modeling. Our contribution is to ap-

ply these declarative modeling approaches to create a

meaningful scene in the context of business process

modeling. To the best of our knowledge, automati-

cally creating 3D virtual environment representations

from business processes has not been attempted.

4 APPROACH

This section gives a high level overview of the ar-

chitecture and main components of our approach (cf.

Figure 1) which was implemented as proof of con-

cept in Java. Conceptually, in our approach, the op-

erational view of the business is being melded with

the process model in a virtual world. The virtual

world scene is created using inputs such as content,

positions and semantic information about the virtual

world. The actual setup and image capture of the vir-

tual world can either be done during the application’s

processing, or completed afterwards. We have imple-

mented the approach as a post-processing system, be-

cause it allows for less coupling between the system

and virtual world application. The ﬁnal speciﬁcation

can be loaded into a virtual world at any time to pro-

duce the visualization images. While the storyboards

are automatically generated, the images are hand in-

tegrated into a YAWL diagram to illustrate the ﬁnal

result intended.

4.1 Shot Selection

A business process model encompasses many tasks,

actions, events and state-changes. These are actions

that must be performed during model execution, so it

is desirable that these tasks be shown in the visualiza-

tion. Task descriptions are commonly written in a nat-

ural, yet structured language (Mendling et al., 2010).

In order for them to be used, they need to be parsed

and formed into a consistent, meaningful language

structure that encompasses the range of perspectives.

Speciﬁcally for visualization, task labels give the pro-

gram information about what needs to be shown in

that image. By interpreting the plain text label using

language processing, the program can determine the

objects, actors and actions of that task. In our case, we

implemented a method for reading a business process

model speciﬁed in the YAWL modeling language and

then converting it to a generic task-based workﬂow

data structure. For the interpretation of the task de-

scriptions, natural language processing is used, aided

by the Stanford Parser

and WordNet

http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/

lex-parser.shtml accessed 01/06/2013

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ accessed

01/06/2013

IVAPP2014-InternationalConferenceonInformationVisualizationTheoryandApplications

116

The parsing process provides the basic founda-

tion for extra information gathering about the busi-

ness function the task represents. In order to provide a

full speciﬁcation to load into the virtual world, infor-

mation about each task, including actions, roles and

locations, are added to the task speciﬁcation by query-

ing the enterprise knowledge base to provide a seman-

tic annotation (Born et al., 2007) from the modeling

grammar (in our case YAWL ). The YAWL model

thus provides the basic logic and temporal ordering

structure for the storyboard that is generated. Based

on this information, the process model structure is

split into a number of shots. The tasks that contained

a control ﬂow element are split into separate shots,

the task itself and the control ﬂow pattern. The ﬁnal

output of the Shot Selection module is a collection of

shots speciﬁed in a data deﬁnition language.

4.2 Shot Composition

The Shot Composition module involves determining

what objects, resources and actions need to be shown

in the scene and how they can be shown to their best

effect. The output of the Shot Composition module

is the necessary scene speciﬁcation that can be visu-

alized and captured in a virtual world. The ﬁrst step

is to deﬁne the core representation concepts to be ap-

plied to a particular process model. At this stage that

task is to decide how the speciﬁed shots in the Shot

Selection module are shown, based on the type of ac-

tion in the shot. For our use case, which is presented

in detail in Section 5, we have a movement group that

encompasses actions like ‘move’, ‘transfer’, ‘unload’,

and ‘load’ as well as an observe group which encom-

passes actions like ‘check’ and ‘determine’ (see e.g.,

Figure 2). Furthermore, there exists a control ﬂow

group. The control ﬂow events have no inherent phys-

ical representation and are largely logical. For this

reason, a method for translating workﬂow concepts

into a physical, operational form is proposed here.

The fundamental approach to generating the visu-

alizations is based on a visualization metaphor, where

the workﬂow system is shown as a supervisory agent

in the virtual world. The other avatars in the scene

are simulated human worker agent threads within the

system. When branching occurs in the model, the su-

pervisor decides which tasks need to be completed

and assigns avatars to complete the work. Because

this metaphor is a physical manifestation of the most

basic workﬂow concepts, it can be used to visualize

different types of control ﬂow in domain speciﬁc ap-

plications. In our case, the control ﬂow group consid-

ers the ﬁve major workﬂow patterns (Van Der Aalst

et al., 2003): Exclusive Choice, Simple Merge, Paral-

lel Split, Synchronization, and Sequence.

Moreover, it is necessary that the viewer will be

placed in the scene so that important actions are not

blocked from view. To make the process automatic,

arranging objects, actors and the camera in the scene

needs to be done programmatically. A camera model

was implemented to support this shot selection pro-

cess. For the control ﬂow actions, a camera speciﬁ-

cation is determined to encompass all the actors and

icons. This was important because the number of ac-

tors and icons could change, based on the number of

subsequent or previous branches. For the actions from

the movement group and observation group, a camera

was chosen from a predeﬁned set of camera positions,

and then focused on the average position of all the rel-

evant objects in the scene.

The integration with the virtual world was not im-

plemented directly into the program. This allows for

any virtual world application to theoretically be used

with the tool. In addition, the chosen virtual world

application has several limitations in the way of read-

ing custom scene speciﬁcations. The virtual world

that was used to create the visualization was Open-

Sim

. The scene speciﬁcation for each of the shots is

passed to the virtual world through a structured plain-

text ﬁle. This ﬁle included the camera position and

focus, each geometry’s position, rotation, texture, and

state, and each avatars position, rotation, and optional

parameters. Using a custom region module in Open-

Sim, the text ﬁle is read and its information is made

available in-world. To create each scene, the user logs

into the virtual world and activates scripts housed in-

side in-world geometry.

4.3 Domain Data Model

In order to create an accurate visual representation

of a business process, information about the context

is required. Without knowledge of what actions are

possible, who completes certain tasks and which re-

sources are used, a visualization will be very limited.

The modules Shot Selection and Shot Composition

beneﬁt from information external to the system itself.

While the system is generalized in nature, the addi-

tion of speciﬁc data stores can focus the visualization

to a particular domain. Two key external data stores

were identiﬁed to be necessary. The ﬁrst is the En-

terprise Ontology, which holds domain-speciﬁc infor-

mation about the business. The second is the Seman-

tic and Physical Database, which holds 3D and 2D

content (e.g., sizes and positions in the virtual world),

http://www.opensimulator.org/ last accessed

01/06/2013

StoryboardAugmentationofProcessModelGrammarsforStakeholderCommunication

117

Figure 2: Top: The YAWL version of the Warehouse Order Acceptance model. A,B: The annotated version of the highlighted

parts from the YAWL version.

as well as semantic information about these resources

for more accurate placement.

5 USE CASE: WAREHOUSE

Figure 2 and Figure 3 present two use cases which

show typical warehouse delivery procedures. Both

use cases are illustrated as YAWL diagrams alone and

in combination with the automatically generated im-

ages. The ﬁrst use case (Figure 2) illustrates goods

being brought in, signed for, checked and unloaded.

The second business process model (Figure 3) shows

a procedure for rejecting goods that are found to be

defective. For each model, the interpretation of the

workﬂow, using natural language processing, aided

by a world knowledge base, was successfully per-

formed. The tool read the process model, and deter-

mined the action, location and actors for each task.

After the interpretation had occurred, the task infor-

mation, along with 3D content was used to logically

arrange the scene. This produced a text output ﬁle

deﬁning the avatars, geometry, camera and descrip-

tion for each scene. The visualization methods for

the various control ﬂow methods correctly took into

account branching as well as the roles of the agents

in the control ﬂow scenes. Our implementation for

automatically creating 3D visualizations of business

process models was evaluated by running the imple-

mentation against the ﬁve major workﬂow patterns:

Sequence. With sequence, an activity is only en-

abled after the previous task is completed. The impor-

tant aspects of representing sequence are arrangement

and consistency. Firstly, the images will show the ac-

tivity being carried out. In order to maintain chrono-

logical order, the images should be arranged one after

the other, in a temporal sequence (see e.g., part B in

Figure 2). The resources being used in each of the

tasks must be consistent across sequential tasks.

Parallel Split. A parallel (AND) split is ‘where a

single thread of control splits in to multiple threads

of control which can be executed in parallel’ (Van

Der Aalst et al., 2003). We choose to visualize this

pattern using a task list metaphor. The manager, as a

metaphor for the workﬂow system, holds a list show-

ing all the following tasks with checkboxes next to

them, implying that all of them need to be completed

(see Figure 4). This metaphor is generalizable, as a

checklist could feasably be used in any process appli-

cation domain.

Synchronization. Synchronization is where multi-

ple activities converge into one single thread of con-

trol. In order for this join to be enabled, all preceding

sub processes must be completed. Most AND joins

correspond to an AND split. The synchronization vi-

sualization method should therefore be similar to the

visualization method of the split. We propose that

completing all sub processes can be thought of tick-

ing off all tasks on a list (see Figure 4). In the image,

the manager, as a metaphor of the workﬂow system,

would be shown holding a list of tasks (similar to that

in the AND split) with all the tasks marked as com-

pleted. This method is again general, and can easily

be adapted to different domains. Synchronization is

performed when all workers (or ‘workﬂow threads’)

IVAPP2014-InternationalConferenceonInformationVisualizationTheoryandApplications

118

Figure 3: Left: The basic YAWL version of the Goods Rejection model. Right: The annotated model.

Figure 4: Unchecked check boxes (left image) imply tasks

that have been split in parallel, to be completed. A Syn-

chronization pattern example (right image) shows all check

boxes checked, implying completion of multiple activities.

Original YAWL grammar icons are shown below.

Figure 5: An example of an exclusive choice (left image),

where the manager is making a decision between possible

options, followed by a simple merge (right image), where

one of the tasks has been completed, and the other is ig-

nored. Original YAWL grammar icons are shown below.

complete their tasks. The image may show the man-

ager surveying the workers who were performing the

parallel tasks. The workers will be marked in some

way to denote their completion.

Exclusive Choice. Exclusive choice (XOR) is when

one and only one of the following branches is exe-

cuted, either by a decision or by some system con-

dition. In other words, the workﬂow manager must

make a decision as to which avenue to take. Because

choice involves cognition, the visualization of such

a non-physical action requires the use of images and

icons. In addition, there are two forms of choice, that

executed by a workﬂow system, and that executed by

the workﬂow consumer, a human agent. We illus-

trate the latter in our examples, to contrast with the

automated parallelisation performed by the workﬂow

management system. Human cognition is shown us-

ing thought bubbles, and choice is shown via a ques-

tion marker between thoughts of the available options

(see Figure 5). To this end, one option would be to

show the person in a thinking pose. Above his head

are thought bubbles containing icons or diagrams of

the possible choices with a question mark between

them.

Simple Merge. A simple merge, also called an XOR

join, involves combining one or more alternative

branches back into one without synchronization. It

is assumed that only one of the previous branches is

executed before enacting this join. It is usually as-

sociated with a corresponding exclusive choice con-

struct. The workﬂow manager waits until one of the

branches is completed. At this point, any other incom-

ing branches are discarded and the workﬂow moves

on. If we again imagine the workﬂow as a human

manager, the join may be visualized using a sequence

of images (see Figure 5). The ﬁrst shows the manager

waiting with a checklist with boxes representing each

potential choice. In the second image, when a worker

returns, one of the tasks is marked as completed and

the other is crossed out, implying that it does not need

to be done.

The ﬁve main workﬂow patterns are represented at

least once in each of the two use cases generated by

the system. The ﬁrst use case (cf. Figure 2) contains

examples of the Exclusive Choice, Simple Merge and

Sequence workﬂow patterns and the second use case

(cf. Figure 3) contains an example of both Parallel

Split and Synchronization. Once transferred to the vir-

tual world, the process model scenes were visualized

and then used to manually augment a YAWL process

model diagram

In future versions of the software we expect this to

be readily automated using the Scalable Vector Graphics

(SVG) standard - www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG

StoryboardAugmentationofProcessModelGrammarsforStakeholderCommunication

119

6 LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this approach to visualising process

models is the focus on spatial and manual activities.

A large proportion of business processes are informa-

tion ﬂow focussed, having little physical interaction

between human or non-human resources. We conjec-

ture that the visualisation techniques described in this

paper should therefore only be applied to spatially and

manually dependent process models.

OpenSim was also problematic for some of the

tasks necessary in the automated set-up of a virtual

scene. A key issue was that the OpenSim function-

ality could not guarantee that the avatar would move

into the exact position, or be at the correct angle, due

to threading issues and bugs in the server code. All

these abilities can be achieved with the user’s own

manually-controlled avatar, but cannot be done auto-

matically with avatar bots. For the implementation,

a setup phase at the start of the session is required

to attach objects to avatars. Regardless, the process

to create the scene speciﬁcation included these poses

and held items, and could output them correctly.

In many shots the camera model worked perfectly

and the creation of the images was quick and unprob-

lematic. However, the camera implementation was

imperfect in a number of cases due to the position of

the objects (which were being used to calculate the

focus point) not corresponding to the object center, or

best focus point. However, this problem is amelio-

rated in the latest versions of OpenSim, with the ad-

vent of mesh objects, removing the need to use linked

geometries with ambiguous centres of mass for most

process resources in an activity.

7 CONCLUSIONS

This work can be seen as a ﬁrst step at creating a 3D

multimedia representation for process models, and

shows promise as a stakeholder communication tool

for process model validation tasks. The implemen-

tation has been tested with the ﬁve basic workﬂow

patterns, with consistent visual results. The approach

has been implemented as a preliminary prototype and

needs to be extended to incorporate other workﬂow

control patterns, and more reﬁned multimedia fea-

tures. At present, the implementation creates a set

of still images at key points in the process model. An

interactive, movie like representation could be more

amenable to user engagement, due to higher levels of

insight via direct interaction. Ambiguities in the vi-

sualizations of the workﬂow patterns, however, need

to be improved. An example of this issue is the repre-

sentation difﬁculties that occur when two or more of

the XOR branches are completed by the same worker

representation. In addition, these visualization need

to be subjectively evaluated by stakeholders, to ob-

tain a measure of their effectiveness, e.g., to compare

if users understand the process more easily with the

storyboard-style presentation than with the commonly

used approaches.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research was funded by COMET K1, FFG - Aus-

trian Research Promotion Agency.

REFERENCES

Bandara, W., Gable, G. G., and Rosemann, M. (2005).

Factors and measures of business process modelling:

Model building through a multiple case study. Eur. J.

Inf. Syst., 14(4):347–360.

Bandara, W., Indulska, M., Chong, S., and Sadiq, S. (2007).

Major issues in business process management: An

expert perspective. In Proc. of the 15th European

Conf. on Information Systems (ECIS), pages 1240–

1251. University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Bidarra, R., de Kraker, K., Smelik, R., and Tutenel, T.

(2010). Integrating semantics and procedural gener-

ation: key enabling factors for declarative modeling

of virtual worlds. In Proc. of the FOCUS K3D Conf.

on Semantic 3D Media and Content, pages 51–55.

Born, M., D

orr, F., and Weber, I. (2007). User-friendly se-

mantic annotation in business process modeling. In

Proc. of the 2007 Int’l Conf. on Web Information Sys-

tems Engineering, pages 260–271. Springer.

Brown, R. A. and Rasmussen, R. K. (2010). Virtual en-

vironment visualisation of executable business pro-

cess models. In Rao, R., editor, Virtual Technologies

for Business and Industrial Applications : Innovative

and Synergistic Approaches, pages 68–88. IGI Global

Press.

Clancey, W. J., Sachs, P., Sierhuis, M., and van Hoof, R.

(1998). Brahms: Simulating practice for work sys-

tems design. International Journal of Human Com-

puter Studies, 49(6):831–865.

Coyne, B. and Sproat, R. (2001). WordsEye: an automatic

text-to-scene conversion system. In Proc. of the 28th

Annual Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive

Techniques, pages 487–496. ACM.

Dade-Robertson, M. (2007). Visual scenario representation

in the context of a tool for interactive storytelling. In

Cavazza, M. and Donikian, S., editors, Virtual Story-

telling. Using Virtual Reality Technologies for Story-

telling, LNCS, pages 3–12. Springer.

Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational in-

formation requirements, media richness and structural

design. Manage. Sci., 32(5):554–571.

IVAPP2014-InternationalConferenceonInformationVisualizationTheoryandApplications

120

Dennis, A. R. and Valacich, J. S. (1999). Rethinking media

richness: Towards a theory of media synchronicity. In

Proc. of the 32nd Annual Hawaii Int’l Conf. on System

Sciences-Volume 1. IEEE Computer Society.

Dony, R., Mateer, J., and Robinson, J. (2005). Techniques

for automated reverse storyboarding. IEE Proc. - Vi-

sion, Image and Signal Processing, 152(4):425–436.

Gaildrat, V. (2007). Declarative modelling of virtual en-

vironments: Overview of issues and applications. In

Proc. of the Int’l Conf. on Computer Graphics and Ar-

tiﬁcial Intelligence, pages 5–15.

Gebhard, P., Kipp, M., Klesen, M., and Rist, T. (2003).

Authoring scenes for adaptive, interactive perfor-

mances. In Proc. of the 2nd Int’l Joint Conf. on Au-

tonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 725–

732. ACM.

Goldman, D. B., Curless, B., Salesin, D., and Seitz, S. M.

(2006). Schematic storyboarding for video visualiza-

tion and editing. ACM Trans. Graph., 25(3):862–871.

Hart, J. (2007). The Art of the Storyboard: A ﬁlmmaker’s

introduction. Focal Press, 2nd edition.

Jhala, A., Rawls, C., Munilla, S., and Young, R. M. (2008).

Longboard: A sketch based intelligent storyboarding

tool for creating machinima. In Wilson, D. and Lane,

H. C., editors, Proc. of the 21st Int’l Florida Artiﬁcial

Intelligence Research Society Conf., pages 386–390.

AAAI Press.

Jung, Y., Wagner, S., Jung, C., Behr, J., and Fellner,

D. (2010). Storyboarding and pre-visualization with

X3D. In Proc. of the 15th Int’l Conf. on Web 3D Tech-

nology, pages 73–82. ACM.

Kindler, E. and Ples, C. (2004). 3D-visualization of petri

net models: Concept and realization. In Cortadella,

J. and Reisig, W., editors, Applications and Theory of

Petri Nets 2004, LNCS, pages 464–473. Springer.

Koschmider, A. Reijers, H. and Dijkman, R. (2012). Empir-

ical support for the usefulness of personalized process

model views. In Christian, M. Field, S., editor, Proc.

of the Computer Science Industry Multi Conference,

MKWI 2012.

Le Roux, O., Gaildrat, V., and Caubet, R. (2004). Con-

straint satisfaction techniques for the generation phase

in declarative modeling. In Sarfraz, M., editor, Geo-

metric Modeling: Techniques, Applications, Systems

and Tools, pages 193–215. Springer.

Leoni, M., Aalst, W., and Hofstede, A. (2008). Visual sup-

port for work assignment in process-aware informa-

tion systems. In Dumas, M., Reichert, M., and Shan,

M.-C., editors, Business Process Management, LNCS,

pages 67–83. Springer.

Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., and Recker, J. (2010). Activity

labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and

recommendations. Inf. Syst., 35(4):467–482.

Moody, D. (2009). The ”physics” of notations: Toward

a scientiﬁc basis for constructing visual notations

in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng.,

35(6):756–779.

Pizzi, D., Lugrin, J.-L., Whittaker, A., and Cavazza, M.

(2010). Automatic generation of game level solutions

as storyboards. Computational Intelligence and AI in

Games, IEEE Transactions on, 2(3):149–161.

Recker, J. C., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., and Green, P.

(2009a). Business process modeling: A comparative

analysis. Journal of the Association for Information

Systems, 10(4):333–363.

Recker, J. C., zur Muehlen, M., Siau, K., Erickson, J., and

Indulska, M. (2009b). Measuring method complexity:

Uml versus bpmn. In Proc. of the 15th Americas Conf.

on Information Systems. Association for Information

Systems.

Rosemann, M. (2006). Potential pitfalls of process model-

ing: part b. Business Process Management Journal,

12(3):377–384.

Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M., and Recker, J. C.

(2009). Using ontology for the representational anal-

ysis of process modelling techniques. International

Journal of Business Process Integration and Manage-

ment, 4(4):251–265.

Sauer, S., Osswald, K., Wielemans, X., and Stifter, M.

(2006). U-Create: Creative authoring tools for edu-

tainment applications. In G

obel, S., Malkewitz, R.,

and Iurgel, I., editors, Technologies for Interactive

Digital Storytelling and Entertainment, LNCS, pages

163–168. Springer.

Sch

onhage, B., van Ballegooij, A., and Elli

ens, A. (2000).

3D gadgets for business process visualization - a case

study. In Proc. of the 5th Symposium on Virtual Real-

ity Modeling Language, pages 131–138. ACM.

Trkman, P. (2010). The critical success factors of business

process management. International Journal of Infor-

mation Management, 30(2):125–134.

Truong, K. N., Hayes, G. R., and Abowd, G. D. (2006). Sto-

ryboarding: an empirical determination of best prac-

tices and effective guidelines. In Proc. of the 6th

Conf. on Designing Interactive Systems, pages 12–21.

ACM.

Tutenel, T., Bidarra, R., Smelik, R. M., and Kraker, K. J. D.

(2008). The role of semantics in games and simula-

tions. Comput. Entertain., 6(4):57:1–57:35.

Van Der Aalst, W. M. P., Ter Hofstede, A. H. M., Kie-

puszewski, B., and Barros, A. P. (2003). Workﬂow

patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases, 14(1):5–51.

Weitlaner, D., Guettinger, A., and Kohlbacher, M. (2013).

Intuitive comprehensibility of process models. In Fis-

cher, H. and Schneeberger, J., editors, S-BPM ONE -

Running Processes, CCIS, pages 52–71. Springer.

Weske, M. (2007). Business Process Management: Con-

cepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer.

Yeo, B.-L. and Yeung, M. M. (1997). Retrieving and visu-

alizing video. Commun. ACM, 40(12):43–52.

StoryboardAugmentationofProcessModelGrammarsforStakeholderCommunication

121