Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models

Software and Systems Modeling

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 1081-1103

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Business process management; Cognitive psychology; Declarative business process models; Modularization; Understandability

Indexed keywords

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA PROCESSING; ENTERPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; MODULAR CONSTRUCTION; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; SEMANTICS;

BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT; BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY; MODULARIZATIONS; UNDERSTANDABILITY;

MODELING LANGUAGES;

EID: 84940963446     PISSN: 16191366     EISSN: 16191374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10270-013-0356-2     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Bobrik, R., Reichert, M., Bauer, T.: Requirements for the visualization of system-spanning business processes. In: Proceedings of the DEXA’05, pp. 948–954 (2005)
2. Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.N.: Conceptualizing systems for understanding: an empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. ISR 17(1), 38–60 (2006)
3. Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Poels, G.: Visualizing the Process of Process Modeling with PPMCharts. In Proceedings of the TAProViz ’12, pp. 744–755 (2013)
4. 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 the BPM ’12, pp. 33–48 (2012)
5. Cruz-Lemus, J., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: Using controlled experiments for validating uml statechart diagrams measures. In: Software Process and Product Measurement of LNCS, vol. 4895, pp. 129–138. Springer/Heidelberg (2008)
6. Cruz-Lemus, J., Genero, M., Piattini, M., Toval, A.: Investigating the nesting level of composite states in uml statechart diagrams. In: Proceedings of the QAOOSE ’05, pp. 97–108 (2005)
7. 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. Softw. Eng. 25(6), 685–719 (2009)
8. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Using practitioners for assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states. In: Proceedings of the ER Workshops ’07, pp. 213–222 (2007)
9. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Piattini, M., Toval, A.: An empirical study of the nesting level of composite states within uml statechart diagrams. In: Proceedings of the ER Workshops, pp. 12–22 (2005)
10. Damij, N.: Business process modelling using diagrammatic and tabular techniques. Bus. Process Manag. J. 13(1), 70–90 (2007)
11. de Weger, M.K.: Structuring of business processes: an architectural approach to distributed systems development and its application to business processes. PhD thesis, University of Twente (1998)
12. Dumas, M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J., Mäesalu, R., Reijers, H.A., Semenenko, N.: Understanding business process models: the costs and benefits of structuredness. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE ’12, pp. 31–46 (2012)
13. Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)
14. Fahland, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of maintainability. In: Proceedings of the ER-BPM ’09, pp. 65–76 (2009)
15. 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 the EMMSAD ’09, pp. 353–366 (2009)
16. Goguen, J.A., Varela, F.J.: Systems and distinctions; duality and complementarity. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 5(1), 31–43 (1979)
17. Gopher, D., Brown, R.: On the psychophysics of workload: why bother with subjective measure? Human Fact. J. Human Fact. Ergon. Soc. 26(5), 519–532 (1984)
18. Haisjackl, C.: Test driven modeling meets declarative process modeling a case study. University of Innsbruck, August, Master’s thesis (2012)
19. Johannsen, F., Leist, S.: Wand and Weber’s Decomposition Model in the Context of Business Process Modeling. BISE 4(5), 271–286 (2012)
20. 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 (March 2006)
21. Kock, N.F.: Product flow, breadth and complexity of business processes: an empirical study of 15 business processes in three organizations. Bus. Process Re-eng. Manag. J. 2(2), 8–22 (1996)
22. Kolb, J., Kammerer, K., Reichert, M.: Updatable process views for user-centered adaption of large process models. In: Proceedings of the ICSOC’12, pp. 484–498 (2012)
23. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. 11(1), 65–100 (1987)
24. Melcher, J., Seese, D.: Towards validating prediction systems for process understandability: measuring process understandability. In: Proceedings of the SYNASC ’08, pp. 564–571 (2008)
25. Mendling, J.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models. PhD thesis, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (2007)
26. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)
27. Montali, M.: Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models. Springer, Berlin (2010)
28. Moody, D.L.: Cognitive load effects on end user understanding of conceptual models: an experimental analysis. In: Proceedings of the ADBIS ’04, pp. 129–143 (2004)
29. OMG: BPMN version 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/PDF/ (2011)
30. Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educ. Psychol. 38(1), 1–4 (2003)
31. Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun. ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)
32. Parsons, J., Cole, L.: What do the pictures mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. DKE 55(3), 327–342 (2005)
33. Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008)
34. Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.: Constraint-based workflow models: change made easy. In: Proceedings of the CoopIS ’07, pp. 77–94 (2007)
35. Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.: DECLARE: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: Proceedings of the EDOC ’07, pp. 287–298 (2007)
36. Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Proceedings of the ER-BPM ’11, pp. 383–394 (2012)
37. 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 the ER-BPM ’12, pp. 438–450 (2013)
38. Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Fahland, D., Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: Modeling styles in business process modeling. In: Proceedings of the BPMDS ’12, pp. 151–166 (2012)
39. 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 the ER-BPM ’11, pp. 370–382 (2012)
40. Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: Process model abstraction: a slider approach. In: Proceedings of the EDOC ’08, pp. 325–331 (2008)
41. Quartel, D.: Action relations. Basic design concepts for behaviour modelling and refinement. PhD thesis, University of Twente (1998)
42. Quartel, D.A., Pires, L.F., van Sinderen, M.J., Franken, H.M., Vissers, C.A.: On the role of basic design concepts in behaviour structuring. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 29(4), 413–436 (1997)
43. Reichert, M., Kolb, J., Bobrik, R., Bauer, T.: Enabling personalized visualization of large business processes through parameterizable views. In: Proceedings of the SAC’12, pp. 1653–1660 (2012)
44. Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, Berlin (2012)
45. Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36(5), 881–897 (2011)
46. Royall, R.M.: The effect of sample size on the meaning of significance tests. Am. Stat. 40(4), 313–315 (1986)
47. Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int. J. Human Comput. Stud. 45(2), 185–213 (1996)
48. Sharp, A., McDermott, P.: Workflow modeling: tools for process improvement and application development. Artech House (2011)
49. Shoval, P., Danoch, R., Balabam, M.: Hierarchical entity-relationship diagrams: the model, method of creation and experimental evaluation. Req. Eng. 9(4), 217–228 (2004)
50. Smirnov, S., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Meronymy-based aggregation of activities in business process models. In: Proceedings of the ER ’10, pp. 1–14 (2010)
51. Smirnov, S., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J.: Business process model abstraction based on behavioral profiles. In: Proceedings of the ICSOC ’10, pp. 1–16 (2010)
52. Soffer, P., Rolland, C.: Combining intention-oriented and state-based process modeling. In: Proceedings of the ER ’05, pp. 47–62 (2005)
53. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12(2), 257–285 (1988)
54. Sweller, J., Chandler, P.: Why some material is difficult to learn. Cogn. Instr. 12(3), 185–233 (1994)
55. van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (June 2005)
56. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W., Cardoso, J.: On a quest for good process models: the cross-connectivity metric. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE ’08, pp. 480–494 (2008)
57. Vogt, W.P.: Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide for the Social Sciences, 4th edn. SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills (2011)
58. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological model of an information system. IEEE TSE 16(11), 1282–1292 (1990)
59. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Refactoring large process model repositories. Comput. Indus. 62(5), 467–486 (2011)
60. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle, S.: Change patterns and change support features—enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. DKE 66(3), 438–466 (2008)
61. Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Zugal, S., Wild, W.: The declarative approach to business process execution: an empirical test. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE ’09, pp. 270–285 (2009)
62. Zugal, S., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Empirical Evaluation of Test Driven Modeling. IJISMD, to appear. Available online
63. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B.: Assessing the impact of hierarchy on model understandability–a cognitive perspective. In: Proceedings of the EESSMod ’11, pp. 123–133 (2011)
64. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Making the case for measuring mental effort. In: Proceedings of the EESSMod ’12, pp. 37–42 (2012)
65. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Assessing process models with cognitive psychology. In: Proceedings of the EMISA ’11, pp. 177–182 (2011)
66. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Creating declarative process models using test driven modeling suite. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE, Forum ’11, pp. 16–32 (2011)
67. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: The impact of testcases on the maintainability of declarative process models. In: Proceedings of the BPMDS ’11, pp. 163–177 (2011)
68. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Toward enhanced life-cycle support for declarative processes. JSEP 24(3), 285–302 (2012)
69. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models. In: Proceedings of the BPMDS ’12, pp. 167–181 (2012)