Investigating differences between graphical and textual declarative process models

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

Volumn 178 LNBIP, Issue , 2014, Pages 194-206

  Haisjackl, Cornelia ^a   Zugal, Stefan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

Author keywords

Declarative Process Models; Empirical Research; Mindshift Learning Theory

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION USE; PROCESS ENGINEERING; SEMANTICS; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; DECLARATIVE PROCESS MODELS; DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS; LEARNING THEORY; TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION; VOLATILE ENVIRONMENTS;

MODELING LANGUAGES;

EID: 84904536603     PISSN: 18651348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

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. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A 41, 449-462 (2011).
3. Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).
4. 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).
5. Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008).
6. Barba, I., Weber, B., Valle, C. D., Ramírez, A. J.: User Recommendations for the Optimized Execution of Business Processes. Data & Knowledge Engineering 86, 61-84 (2013).
7. Haisjackl, C., Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Hadar, I., Reichert, M., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Making Sense of Declarative Process Models: Common Strategies and Typical Pitfalls. In: Nurcan, S., Proper, H. A., Soffer, P., Krogstie, J., Schmidt, R., Halpin, T., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2013 and EMMSAD 2013. LNBIP, vol. 147, pp. 2-17. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).
8. Armstrong, D. J., Hardgrave, B. C.: Understanding Mindshift Learning: The Transition to Object-Oriented Development. MIS Quarterly 31, 453-474 (2007).
9. 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).
10. Baddeley, A.: Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies. Annual Review of Psychology 63, 1-29 (2012).
11. Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J.: Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments. Educational Psychologist 38, 1-4 (2003).
12. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257-285 (1988).
13. 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).
14. Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the process of process modeling with cheetah experimental platform. In: Proc. ER-POIS 2010, pp. 13-18 (2010).
15. Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal on Human-Computer Studies 45, 185-213 (1996).
16. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., Sweller, J.: The Expertise Reversal Effect. Educational Psychologist 38, 23-31 (2003).
17. 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).
18. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: Factors of process model comprehension-Findings from a series of experiments. Decision Support Systems 53, 195-206 (2012).
19. Ottensooser, A., Fekete, A., Reijers, H. A., Mendling, J., Menictas, C.: Making sense of business process descriptions: An experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations. Journal of Systems and Software 85, 596-606 (2012).
20. Whitley., K.: Visual programming languages and the empirical evidence for and against. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 8, 109-142 (1997).
21. Hildebrandt, T. T., Mukkamala, R. R.: Declarative Event-Based Workflow as Distributed Dynamic Condition Response Graphs. In: Proc. PLACES 2010, pp. 59-73 (2010).