Making sense of declarative process models: Common strategies and typical pitfalls

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

Volumn 147 LNBIP, Issue , 2013, Pages 2-17

  Haisjackl, Cornelia ^a   Zugal, Stefan ^a   Soffer, Pnina ^b   Hadar, Irit ^b   Reichert, Manfred ^c   Pinggera, Jakob ^a   Weber, Barbara ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Declarative Process Models; Empirical Research; Understandability

Indexed keywords

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; DECLARATIVE PROCESS MODELS; DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EXPLORATORY STUDIES; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; UNDERSTANDABILITY; VOLATILE ENVIRONMENTS;

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

EID: 84879868745     PISSN: 18651348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38484-4_2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Mylopoulos, J.: Information modeling in the time of the revolution. Information Systems 23, 127-155 (1998)
2. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A Study into the Factors that Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. SMCA 41, 449-462 (2011)
3. Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer (2012)
4. Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R., Slaats, T.: Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Proc. FSEN 2012, pp. 343-350 (2012)
5. 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)
6. Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008)
7. Barba, I., Weber, B., Valle, C.D., Ramírez, A.J.: User Recommendations for the Optimized Execution of Business Processes. DKE (2013)
8. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Assessing process models with cognitive psychology. In: Proc. EMISA 2011, pp. 177-182 (2011)
9. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J.,Weber, B.: Toward Enhanced Life-Cycle Support for Declarative Processes. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 24, 285-302 (2012)
10. Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press (1993)
11. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1-23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
12. Parnas, D.L.: On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM 15, 1053-1058 (1972)
13. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and Understandability Considerations of Hierarchy in Declarative Business Process Models. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) BPMDS 2012 and EMMSAD 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 167-181. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
14. Bassey, M.: Case study research in educational settings. Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Open University Press (1999)
15. Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (2007)
16. Haisjackl, C.: Test Driven Modeling meets Declarative Process Modeling - A Case Study. Master's thesis, University of Innsbruck (2012)
17. Zugal, S., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Empirical Evaluation of Test Driven Modeling. Acctepted at the International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (2012) (to appear)
18. Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, P.C.V., Park, S.J.: Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge. Information Systems Research 17, 81-99 (2006)
19. Fahland, D., Lübke, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Understandability. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2009 and EMMSAD 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353-366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
20. Kahneman, D.: Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel Prize Lecture 8, 449-489 (2002)
21. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Making the Case for Measuring Mental Effort. In: Proc. EESSMod 2012, pp. 37-42 (2012)
22. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B.: Assessing the Impact of Hierarchy on Model Understandability-A Cognitive Perspective. In: Proc. EESSMod 2011, pp. 123-133 (2011)
23. Costain, G.F.: Cognitive Support During Object-oriented Software Development: The Case of UML Diagrams. PhD thesis, University of Auckland (2007)
24. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30-49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
25. Mendling, J., Verbeek, H., van Dongen, B., van der Aalst, W., Neumann, G.: Detection and prediction of errors in epcs of the sap reference model. DKE 64, 312-329 (2008)
26. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Information & Software Technology 52, 127-136 (2010)
27. Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.N.: Conceptualizing systems for understanding: An empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Information Systems Research 17, 38-60 (2006)
28. Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Systems 36, 881-897 (2011)
29. 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)
30. 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)
31. Kim, J., Hahn, J., Hahn, H.: How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? cognitive integration processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Information Systems Research 11, 284-303 (2000)
32. 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)
33. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J.,Weber, B.: Toward Enhanced Life-Cycle Support for Declarative Processes. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 24, 285-302 (2012)
34. Pinggera, J., Furtner, M., Martini, M., Sachse, P., Reiter, K., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the Process of Process Modeling with Eye Movement Analysis. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 438-450. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)