Comparing Declarative Process Modelling Languages from the Organisational Perspective

  • Stefan Schönig
  • Stefan Jablonski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 256)


The spectrum of business processes can be divided into two types: well-structured routine processes and agile processes with control flow that evolves at run time. In a similar way, two different representational paradigms can be distinguished: procedural models and declarative models which define rules that a process has to satisfy. Agile processes can often be captured more easily using a declarative approach. While in procedural languages the organisational perspective can be modelled adequatly, in declarative languages, however, an adequate representation of organisational patterns is often still not possible. Agile processes, however, need to explicitly integrate organisational coherencies due to the importance of human decision-making. This paper presents a review of declarative modeling languages, outlines missing aspects and suggests research roadmaps for the future.


Declarative process modelling Organisational perspective Process modelling languages 


  1. 1.
    Dumas, M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jablonski, S.: MOBILE: A modular workflow model and architecture. In: Working Conference on Dynamic Modelling and Information Systems (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Comput. Sci. Res. Dev. 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: An empirical investigation. Business Process Management Workshops, pp. 383–394 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vaculín, R., Hull, R., Heath, T., Cochran, C., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.: Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), no. Edoc, pp. 151–160 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jablonski, S., Bussler, C.: Workflow management: modeling concepts. architecture and implementation (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cabanillas, C., Resinas, M., del Río-Ortega, A., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Specification and automated design-time analysis of the business process human resource perspective. Inf. Syst. 52, 55–82 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H.: Yawl: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cabanillas, C., Knuplesch, D., Resinas, M., Reichert, M., Mendling, J., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: RALph: a graphical notation for resource assignments in business processes. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van der Aalst, W.M., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl. Eng. 53(2), 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zeising, M., Schönig, S., Jablonski, S.: Towards a common platform for the support of routine and agile business processes. In: Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group (OMG). Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN), Version 1.0 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Workflow resource patterns: identification, representation and tool support. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 216–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vaculin, R., Hull, R., Vukovic, M., Heath, T., Mills, N., Sun, Y.: Supporting collaborative decision processes. In: International Conference on Services Computing, pp. 651–658 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schönig, S., Cabanillas, C., Jablonski, S., Mendling, J.: Mining the organisational perspective in agile business processes. In: Gaaloul, K., Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., Guerreiro, S., Ma, Q. (eds.) BPMDS 2015 and EMMSAD 2015. LNBIP, vol. 214, pp. 37–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T., Zanitti, F.: Contracts for cross-organizational workflows as timed dynamic condition response graphs. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 82(5), 164–185 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Declarative process modeling with business vocabulary and business rules. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM-WS 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4805, pp. 603–612. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Giacomo, G., Dumas, M., Maggi, F.M., Montali, M.: Declarative process modeling in bpmn, In press (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Westergaard, M., Slaats, T.: Mixing paradigms for more comprehensible models. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 283–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hull, R., Damaggio, E., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath III, F.T., Hobson, S., Linehan, M., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P., Vaculin, R.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Bravetti, M. (ed.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bussler, C.: Organisationsverwaltung in Workflow-Management-Systemen. Dt. Univ.-Verlag (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goedertier, S.: Declarative techniques for modeling and mining business processes. Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whittle, J., Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M.: The state of practice in model-driven engineering. Softw. IEEE 31(3), 79–85 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Semmelrodt, F., Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M.: Modeling the resource perspective of business process compliance rules with the extended compliance rule graph. In: Bider, I., Gaaloul, K., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPMDS 2014 and EMMSAD 2014. LNBIP, vol. 175, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations