Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

Volumn 113 LNBIP, Issue , 2012, Pages 167-181

  Zugal, Stefan ^a   Soffer, Pnina ^b   Pinggera, Jakob ^a   Weber, Barbara ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

Author keywords

Cognitive Psychology; Declarative Business Process Models; Hierarchy; Understandability

Indexed keywords

SEMANTICS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY; CONCEPTUAL MODEL; HIERARCHY; MODELING LANGUAGES; PROCESS MODEL; TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION; UNDERSTANDABILITY;

MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

EID: 84864268846     PISSN: 18651348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-31072-0_12     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Parnas, D.L.: On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM 15, 1053-1058 (1972)
2. Goguen, J.A., Varela, F.J.: Systems and Distinctions; Duality and Complementarity. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 5, 31-43 (1979)
3. Damij, N.: Business process modelling using diagrammatic and tabular techniques. Business Process Management Journal 13, 70-90 (2007)
4. Sharp, A., McDermott, P.: Workow Modeling: Tools for Process Improvement and Application Development. Artech House (2011)
5. Kock, N.F.: Product flow, breadth and complexity of business processes: An empirical study of 15 business processes in three organizations. Business Process Reengineering & Management Journal 2, 8-22 (1996)
6. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Information & Software Technology 52, 127-136 (2010)
7. Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.: Constraint-Based Workflow Models: Change Made Easy. In: Proc. CoopIS 2007, pp. 77-94 (2007)
8. Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Systems 36, 881-897 (2011)
9. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: Using Controlled Experiments for Validating UML Statechart Diagrams Measures. In: Cuadrado-Gallego, J.J., Braungarten, R., Dumke, R.R., Abran, A. (eds.) IWSM-Mensura 2007. LNCS, vol. 4895, pp. 129-138. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
10. Cruz-Lemus, J., Genero, M., Piattini, M., Toval, A.: Investigating the nesting level of composite states in uml statechart diagrams. In: Proc. QAOOSE 2005, pp. 97-108 (2005)
11. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J.,Weber, B.: Toward Enhanced Life-Cycle Support for Declarative Processes. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 24, 285-302 (2012)
12. Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008)
13. Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.: DECLARE: Full Support for Loosely-Structured Processes. In: Proc. EDOC 2007, pp. 287-298 (2007)
14. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Refactoring large process model repositories. Computers in Industry 62, 467-486 (2011)
15. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle, S.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features - Enhancing Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. DKE 66, 438-466 (2008)
16. Soffer, P., Rolland, C.: Combining Intention-Oriented and State-Based Process Modeling. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 47-62. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
17. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Assessing the Impact of Hierarchy on Model Understandability-A Cognitive Perspective. In: Proc. EESSMod 2011, pp. 18-27 (2011)
18. Moody, D.L.: Cognitive Load Effects on End User Understanding of Conceptual Models: An Experimental Analysis. In: Benczúr, A.A., Demetrovics, J., Gottlob, G. (eds.) ADBIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3255, pp. 129-143. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
19. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Assessing process models with cognitive psychology. In: Proc. EMISA 2011, pp. 177-182 (2011)
20. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257-285 (1988)
21. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11, 65-100 (1987)
22. Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int.J. Human-Computer Studies 45, 185-213 (1996)
23. Sweller, J., Chandler, P.: Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition and Instruction 12, 185-233 (1994)
24. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states-A family of empirical studies. Empir. Software Eng. 25, 685-719 (2009)
25. Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Zugal, S., Wild, W.: The Declarative Approach to Business Process Execution: An Empirical Test. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 470-485. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
26. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Gerven, P.W.M.V.: Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist 38, 63-71 (2003)
27. Shoval, P., Danoch, R., Balabam, M.: Hierarchical entity-relationship diagrams: the model, method of creation and experimental evaluation. Requirements Engineering 9, 217-228 (2004)
28. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Using Practitioners for Assessing the Understandability of UML Statechart Diagrams with Composite States. In: Hainaut, J.-L., Rundensteiner, E.A., Kirchberg, M., Bertolotto, M., Brochhausen, M., Chen, Y.-P.P., Cherfi, S.S.-S., Doerr, M., Han, H., Hartmann, S., Parsons, J., Poels, G., Rolland, C., Trujillo, J., Yu, E., Zimányie, E. (eds.) ER Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4802, pp. 213-222. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
29. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: The Impact of Testcases on the Maintainability of Declarative Process Models. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 163-177. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
30. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Creating Declarative Process Models Using Test Driven Modeling Suite. In: Nurcan, S. (ed.) CAiSE Forum 2011. LNBIP, vol. 107, pp. 16-32. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
31. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A Study into the Factors that Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. SMCA 41, 449-462 (2011)