Abstract
Declarative approaches have been proposed to counter the limited flexibility of the traditional imperative modeling paradigm, but little empirical insights are available into their actual strengths and usage. In particular, it is unclear whether end-users are really capable of adjusting a particular plan to execute a business process when using a declarative approach. Our paper addresses this knowledge gap by describing the design, execution, and results of a controlled experiment in which varying levels of constraints are imposed on the way a group of subjects can execute a process. The results suggest that our subjects can effectively deal with increased levels of constraints when relying on a declarative approach. This outcome supports the viability of this approach, justifying its further development and application.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Poppendieck, M., Poppendieck, T.: Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2006)
Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Methods, Technology. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Lenz, R., Reichert, M.: IT Support for Healthcare Processes - Premises, Challenges, Perspectives. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 39–58 (2007)
Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPT flex – Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control. JIIS 10, 93–129 (1998)
Van der Aalst, W., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: A new paradigm for business process support. Data and Knowledge Engineering 53, 129–162 (2005)
Pesic, M., Schonenberg, M., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.: Constraint-Based Workflow Models: Change Made Easy. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 77–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Sadiq, S., Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.: A Framework for Constraint Specification and Validation in Flexible Workflows. Information Systems 30, 349–378 (2005)
Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change patterns and change support features -enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data and Knoweldge Engineering, 438–466 (2008)
Wainer, J., Bezerra, F., Barthelmess, P.: Tucupi: a flexible workflow system based on overridable constraints. In: Handschuh, H., Hasan, M.A. (eds.) SAC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3357, pp. 498–502. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Hull, R., et al.: Declarative workflows that support easy modification and dynamic browsing. Software Engineering Notes 24, 69–78 (1999)
Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Mulyar, N., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W., Peleg, M.: Declarative and procedural approaches for modelling clinical guidelines: Addressing flexibility issues. In: BPM 2007 International Workshops, pp. 335–364 (2008)
Cohn, M.: Agile Estimating and Planning. Prentice Hall Professional, Englewood Cliffs (2006)
van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language. Technical report, BPMcenter.org (2006)
Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (2008), http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200811543.pdf
Wohlin, C., Runeson, R., Halst, M., Ohlsson, M., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: an Introduction. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)
Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M.: Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Runeson, P.: Using students as experiment subjects - an analysis on graduate and freshmen student data. In: Proc. EASE 2003, pp. 95–102 (2003)
Siegel, S.: Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York (1956)
Kammer, P., Bolcer, G., Taylor, R., Hitomi, A., Bergman, M.: Techniques for Supporting Dynamic and Adaptive Workflow. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 9(3), 269–292 (2000)
Reijers, H., Rigter, J., van der Aalst, W.: The case handling case. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 12, 365–391 (2003)
Mutschler, B., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: Workflow management versus case handling - results from a controlled software experiment. In: Proc. SAC 2008, pp. 82–89 (2008)
Kleiner, N.: Supporting usage–centered workflow design: Why and how?. In: Desel, J., Pernici, B., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3080, pp. 227–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Oba, M., Onoda, S., Komoda, N.: Evaluating the quantitative effects of workflow systems based on real case. In: Proc. HICSS 2000 (2000)
Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.: The effectiveness of workflow management systems: Predictions and lessons learned. International Journal of Information Management 25, 458–472 (2005)
Bowers, J., Button, G., Sharrock, W.: Workflow from within and without: technology and cooperative work on the print industry shopfloor. In: Proc. CSCW 1995, pp. 51–66. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1995)
Poelmans, S.: Workarounds and distributed viscosity in a workflow system: a case study. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin 20, 11–12 (1999)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Zugal, S., Wild, W. (2009). The Declarative Approach to Business Process Execution: An Empirical Test. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. CAiSE 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5565. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02144-2_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02144-2_37
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02143-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02144-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)