On the Importance of Flow Direction in Business Process Models

Kathrin Figl, Mark Strembeck


In today’s modeling practice we can observe a convention to model business processes from left-to-right or from top-to-bottom. Even though the choice of flow direction changes the visual appearance of a process model significantly, this convention is barely discussed by standard documents and modeling guidelines. In addition, most recommendations related to the flow direction are neither based on scientific claims nor on empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness in terms of readability. In this position paper, we discuss the importance of process model flow direction from a scientific viewpoint. In particular, we give a comprehensive overview of theoretical perspectives which offer explanations why a left-to-right flow direction for process models should be superior to other directions.


  1. De Soto, C. B., London, M., Handel, S., 1965. Social reasoning and spatial paralogic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 513-521.
  2. Dumas, M., Van Der Aalst, W. M. P., Ter Hofstede, A. H. M. (eds.), 2005. Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  3. Effinger, P., Jogsch, N., Seiz, S., 2011. On a Study of Layout Aesthetics for Business Process Models Using BPMN. In: MENDLING, J., WEIDLICH, M. & WESKE, M. (eds.) Business Process Modeling Notation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  4. Eichelberger, H., Schmid, K., 2009. Guidelines on the aesthetic quality of UML class diagrams. Information and Software Technology, 51, 1686-1698.
  5. Figl, K., Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., 2013a. The Influence of Notational Deficiencies on Process Model Comprehension. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14.
  6. Figl, K., Recker, J., Mendling, J., 2013b. A study on the effects of routing symbol design on process model comprehension. Decision Support Systems, 54, 1104- 1118.
  7. Gillespie, C. S., 1993. Reading Graphic Displays: What Teachers Should Know. Journal of Reading, 36, 350- 54.
  8. Handel, S., Desoto, C. B., London, M., 1968. Reasoning and spatial representations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 351-357.
  9. Harsel, Y., Wales, R., 1987. Directional preference in problem solving. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 195-206.
  10. Hufschmidt, H.-J., 1985. Zeichnungsrichtung, Schreibrichtung und Blickfelddominanz. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 235, 76-81.
  11. Krohn, G. S., 1983. Flowcharts Used for Procedural Instructions. Human Factors, 25, 573-581.
  12. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J., 2012. Factors of Process Model Comprehension - Findings from a Series of Experiments. Decision Support Systems, 53, 195-206.
  13. Nordbotten, J. C. & Crosby, M. E., 1999. The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation. Information Systems Journal, 9, 139-155.
  14. Object Management Group, 2013a. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0.2.
  15. Object Management Group, 2013b. OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML). In: GROUP, T. O. M. (ed.).
  16. Petre, M. 1995. Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM, 38, 33-44.
  17. Petre, M., 2006. Cognitive dimensions 'beyond the notation'. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 17, 292-301.
  18. Reijers, H. A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R. M., 2011. Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Information Systems, 36, 881-897.
  19. Sala, S. D., Darling, S., Logie, R. H., 2010. Items on the left are better remembered. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 848 - 855.
  20. Schrepfer, M., Wolf, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., 2009. The Impact of Secondary Notation on Process Model Understanding. In: The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, 2nd IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference (PoEM 2009) Stockholm, Sweden.
  21. Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., Winter, A., 1991. Crosscultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 515-557.
  22. Weske, M., 2007. Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, Springer-Verlag.
  23. Winn, W., 1982. The role of diagrammatic representation in learning sequences, identification and classification as a function of verbal and spatial ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 79-89.
  24. Winn, W., 1983. Perceptual strategies used with flow diagrams having normal and unanticipated formats. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 751-762.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Figl K. and Strembeck M. (2014). On the Importance of Flow Direction in Business Process Models . In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications - Volume 1: ICSOFT-EA, (ICSOFT 2014) ISBN 978-989-758-036-9, pages 132-136. DOI: 10.5220/0005090401320136

in Bibtex Style

author={Kathrin Figl and Mark Strembeck},
title={On the Importance of Flow Direction in Business Process Models},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications - Volume 1: ICSOFT-EA, (ICSOFT 2014)},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications - Volume 1: ICSOFT-EA, (ICSOFT 2014)
TI - On the Importance of Flow Direction in Business Process Models
SN - 978-989-758-036-9
AU - Figl K.
AU - Strembeck M.
PY - 2014
SP - 132
EP - 136
DO - 10.5220/0005090401320136