Abstract
Declarative approaches to business process modeling are regarded as well suited for highly volatile environments, as they enable a high degree of flexibility. However, problems in understanding declarative process models often impede their adoption. Particularly, a study revealed that aspects that are present in both imperative and declarative process modeling languages at a graphical level—while having different semantics—cause considerable troubles. In this work we investigate whether a notation that does not contain graphical lookalikes, i.e., a textual notation, can help to avoid this problem. Even though a textual representation does not suffer from lookalikes, in our empirical study it performed worse in terms of error rate, duration and mental effort, as the textual representation forces the reader to mentally merge the textual information. Likewise, subjects themselves expressed that the graphical representation is easier to understand.
This research is supported by Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P26140–N15, P23699–N23
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mylopoulos, J.: Information modeling in the time of the revolution. Information Systems 23, 127–155 (1998)
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)
Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
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)
Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008)
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)
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)
Armstrong, D.J., Hardgrave, B.C.: Understanding Mindshift Learning: The Transition to Object-Oriented Development. MIS Quarterly 31, 453–474 (2007)
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)
Baddeley, A.: Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies. Annual Review of Psychology 63, 1–29 (2012)
Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J.: Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments. Educational Psychologist 38, 1–4 (2003)
Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257–285 (1988)
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)
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)
Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal on Human-Computer Studies 45, 185–213 (1996)
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., Sweller, J.: The Expertise Reversal Effect. Educational Psychologist 38, 23–31 (2003)
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)
Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: Factors of process model comprehension—Findings from a series of experiments. Decision Support Systems 53, 195–206 (2012)
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)
Whitley, K.: Visual programming languages and the empirical evidence for and against. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 8, 109–142 (1997)
Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative Event-Based Workflow as Distributed Dynamic Condition Response Graphs. In: Proc. PLACES 2010, pp. 59–73 (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Haisjackl, C., Zugal, S. (2014). Investigating Differences between Graphical and Textual Declarative Process Models. In: Iliadis, L., Papazoglou, M., Pohl, K. (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops. CAiSE 2014. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 178. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07869-4_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07869-4_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07868-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07869-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)