Understanding Declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results

Software and Systems Modeling

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 325-352

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Declarative process models; Empirical research; Understandability

Indexed keywords

SEMANTICS; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING; TEACHING;

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

PROCESS ENGINEERING;

EID: 84907486954     PISSN: 16191366     EISSN: 16191374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10270-014-0435-z     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Aalst, W., Pesic, M.: Decserflow: towards a truly declarative service flow language. In Proceedings of WS-FM’06, pp. 1–23 (2006)
2. Aranda, J., Ernst, N., Horkoff, J., Easterbrook, S.: A framework for empirical evaluation of model comprehensibility. In: Proceedings of MISE’07, pp. 7–12 (2007)
3. Armstrong, D.J., Hardgrave, B.C.: Understanding mindshift learning: the transition to object-oriented development. MIS Q. 31(3), 453–474 (2007)
4. Baddeley, A.: Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63(1), 1–29 (2012)
5. Barba, I., Weber, B., Valle, C.D., Ramírez, A.J.: User recommendations for the optimized execution of business processes. Data Knowl. Eng. 86, 61–84 (2013)
6. Bassey, M.: Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Doing Qualitative Research in Educational Settings. Open University Press, New York (1999)
7. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: Business Process Management, Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, pp. 30–49, London, UK. Springer (2000)
8. Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., Weber, R.: Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inf. Syst. Res. 12(4), 384–405 (2001)
9. Burkhardt, J.-M., Détienne, F., Wiedenbeck, S.: Object-oriented program comprehension: effect of expertise, task and phase. Empir. Softw. Eng. 7(2), 115–156 (2002)
10. Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.N.: Conceptualizing systems for understanding: an empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(1), 38–60 (2006)
11. Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Poels, G.: Visualizing the process of process modeling with PPMCharts. In: Proceedings of TAProViz ’12, pp. 744–755 (2013)
12. Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H., Pinggera, J., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Fahland, D., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Poels, G.: Tying process model quality to the modeling process: the impact of structuring, movement, and speed. In: Proceedings of BPM’12, pp. 33–48 (2012)
13. Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, London (2007)
14. Costain, G.F.: Cognitive support during object-oriented software development: the case of UML diagrams. Ph.D. thesis, University of Auckland (2007)
15. Cowan, N.: The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behav. Brain Sci. 24(1), 87–185 (2001)
16. Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)
17. Fahland, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of understandability. In: Proceedings of EMMSAD’09, pp. 353–366 (2009)
18. Ferreira, H., Ferreira, D.: An integrated life cycle for workflow management based on learning and planning. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 15(4), 485–505 (2006)
19. Goldberg, J.H., Stimson, M.J., Lewenstein, M., Scott, N., Wichansky, A.M.: Eye Tracking in web search tasks: design implications. In: Proceedings of ETRA’02, pp. 51–58 (2002)
20. Green, T.R., Petre, M.: Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 7(2), 131–174 (1996)
21. Haisjackl, C.: Test driven modeling meets declarative process modeling: a case study. Master’s thesis, University of Innsbruck, Aug 2012
22. 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: Proceedings of BPMDS’13, pp. 2–17 (2013)
23. Heitz, R.P., Schrock, J.C., Payne, T.W., Engle, R.W.: Effects of incentive on working memory capacity: behavioral and pupillometric data. Psychophysiology 45(1), 119–129 (2008)
24. Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R., Slaats T.: Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Proceedings of FSEN’11, pp. 343–350 (2012)
25. Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Designing a cross-organizational case management system using dynamic condition response graphs. In: Proceedings of EDOC’11, pp. 161–170 (2011)
26. Hungerford, B.C., Hevner, A.R., Collins, R.W.: Reviewing software diagrams: a cognitive study. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30(2), 82–96 (2004)
27. Jiménez-Ramírez, A., Barba, I., Del Valle, C., Weber, B.: Generating multi-objective optimized business process enactment plans. In: Proceedings of CAiSE’13, pp. 99–115 (2013)
28. Kahneman, D.: Maps of bounded rationality: a perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel Prize Lect. 8, 449–489 (2002)
29. Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, P.C.V., Park, S.-J.: Understanding conceptual schemas: exploring the role of application and IS domain knowledge. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(1), 81–99 (2006)
30. Kim, J., Hahn, J., Hahn, H.: How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? Cognitive integration processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Inf. Syst. Res. 11(3), 284–303 (2000)
31. Kim, Y.-G., March, S.T.: Comparing data modeling formalisms. Commun. ACM 38(6), 103–115 (1995)
32. Lamma, E., Mello, P., Montali, M., Riguzzi, F., Storari, S.: Inducing declarative logic-based models from labeled traces. In: Proceedings of BPM’07, pp. 344–359 (2007)
33. Mayer, R., Chandler, P.: When learning is just a click away: does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages. J. Educ. Psychol. 93(2), 390–397 (2001)
34. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)
35. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: Factors of process model comprehension—findings from a series of experiments. Decis. Support Syst. 53(1), 195–206 (2012)
36. 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. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 312–329 (2008)
37. Miller, G.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63(2), 81–97 (1956)
38. Montali, M.: Specification and verification of declarative open interaction models: a logic-based approach. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Electronics, Computer Science and Telecommunications Engineering, University of Bologna (2009)
39. Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative specification and verification of service choreographies. ACM Trans. Web 4(1), 1–62 (2010)
40. Moody, D.L.: Cognitive load effects on end user understanding of conceptual models: an experimental analysis. In: Proceedings of ADBIS’04, pp. 129–143 (2004)
41. Mukkamala, R.R.: A formal model for declarative workflows-dynamic condition response graphs. Ph.D. thesis, IT University of Copenhagen (2012)
42. Mylopoulos, J.: Information modeling in the time of the revolution. Inf. Syst. 23(3/4), 127–155 (1998)
43. Nielsen, J.: Estimating the number of subjects needed for a thinking aloud test. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Stud. 41(3), 385–397 (1994)
44. Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educ. Psychol. 38(1), 1–4 (2003)
45. Palash, B., Burton-Jones, A., Wand, Y.: Guidelines for designing visual ontologies to support knowledge identification. MIS Q. 35(4), 883–908 (2011)
46. Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun. ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)
47. Pesic, M.: Constraint-based workflow management systems: shifting control to users. Ph.D. thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008)
48. 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: Proceedings of ER-BPM’12, pp. 438–450 (2013)
49. Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model. Softw. Syst. Model. (2013). doi:10.1007/s10270-013-0349-1
50. Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weidlich, M., Fahland, D., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: Tracing the process of process modeling with modeling phase diagrams. In: Proceedings of ER-BPM’11, pp. 370–382 (2012)
51. Recker, J.C., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: Proceedings of ACIS’07, pp. 356–366 (2007)
52. Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, Berlin (2012)
53. Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36(5), 881–897 (2011)
54. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A 41(3), 449–462 (2011)
55. Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C.: Declarative modeling—an academic dream or the future for BPM? In: Proceedings of BPM’13, pp. 307–322 (2013)
56. Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Stud. 45(2), 185–213 (1996)
57. Schonenberg, H., Weber, B., van Dongen, B., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Supporting flexible processes through recommendations based on history. In: Proceedings of BPM’08, pp. 51–66 (2008)
58. Shehnaaz, Y., Kagdi, H., Maletic, J.: Assessing the comprehension of UML class diagrams via eye tracking. In: Proceedings of ICPC’07, pp. 113–122 (2007)
59. Strauss, A., Corbin, J.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, London (1998)
60. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12(2), 257–285 (1988)
61. Unsworth, N., Engle, R.W.: The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychol. Rev. 114(1), 104–132 (2007)
62. van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Beer, H.T., van Dongen, B.: Process mining and verification of properties: an approach based on temporal logic. In: Proceedings of OTM’05, pp. 130–147 (2005)
63. Zugal, S., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Empirical evaluation of test driven modeling. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 4(2), 23–43 (2013)
64. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B.: Assessing the impact of hierarchy on model understandability—a cognitive perspective. In: Proceedings of EESSMod’11, pp. 123–133 (2011)
65. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Making the case for measuring mental effort. In: Proceedings of EESSMod’12, pp. 37–42 (2012)
66. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber B.: Assessing process models with cognitive psychology. In: Proceedings of EMISA’11, pp. 177–182 (2011)
67. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Toward enhanced life-cycle support for declarative processes. J. Softw. Evol. Process 24(3), 285–302 (2012)
68. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models. Softw. Syst. Model. (2013). doi:10.1007/10270-013-0356-2