Gamification of Declarative Process Models for Learning and Model Verification

  • Johannes De SmedtEmail author
  • Jochen De Weerdt
  • Estefanía Serral
  • Jan Vanthienen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 256)


Recently, a surge in the use of declarative process models has been witnessed. These constraint-driven models excel at representing and enacting flexible and adaptable decision processes in application areas such as scheduling and workflow management. This work examines the intricacies of the most widespread declarative process language, Declare, which are commonly referred to as hidden dependencies. These dependencies typically increase the steepness of the learning curve of Declare models and making them explicit can lower the threshold for modelers to use Declare in a sense-making and intuitive way. This work proposes a way to gamify Declare models for novice users by annotating such models with extra constraint and dependency information, and feedback. Hence, it offers the ability of discovering Declare and its intricacies in a game-like fashion which lowers the threshold for learning these cognitively demanding models, as well as to use them for assessing modeling efforts by verifying that the desired behavior is present.


Declarative process modeling Declare Gamification Hidden dependencies 


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J., Caron, F.: Declarative business process modelling: principles and modelling languages. Enterprise IS 9(2), 161–185 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maggi, F.M., Montali, M., Westergaard, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Monitoring business constraints with linear temporal logic: an approach based on colored automata. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sadiq, S.K., Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Pockets of flexibility in workflow specification. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 513–526. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Worklets: a service-oriented implementation of dynamic flexibility in workflows. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 291–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hull, R., et al.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles (invited talk). In: Bravetti, M. (ed.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.: Declare: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2007, pp. 287–287. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: Decserflow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: The Role of Business Processes in Service Oriented Architectures, 16.07.2006–21.07.2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Somenzi, F., Bloem, R.: Efficient Büchi automata from LTL formulae. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 248–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Westergaard, M., Maggi, F.M.: Declare: a tool suite for declarative workflow modeling and enactment. BPM (Demos) 820 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C.: Declarative modeling–an academic dream or the future for BPM? In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 307–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fahland, D., Lübke, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of understandability. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) EMMSAD 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.: From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, pp. 9–15. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H.: Does gamification work? - A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2014, pp. 3025–3034. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Selander, S.: Designs for learning and ludic engagement. Digital Creativity 19(3), 145–152 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lindley, C.A.: Ludic engagement and immersion as a generic paradigm for human-computer interaction design. In: Rauterberg, M. (ed.) ICEC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3166, pp. 3–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown, R., Rinderle-Ma, S., Kriglstein, S., Kabicher-Fuchs, S.: Augmenting and assisting model elicitation tasks with 3D virtual world context metadata. In: Meersman, R., Panetto, H., Dillon, T., Missikoff, M., Liu, L., Pastor, O., Cuzzocrea, A., Sellis, T. (eds.) OTM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8841, pp. 39–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Allweyer, T., Schweitzer, S.: A Tool for animating BPMN token flow. In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPMN 2012. LNBIP, vol. 125, pp. 98–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Westergaard, M., Lassen, K.B.: The BRITNeY suite animation tool. In: Donatelli, S., Thiagarajan, P.S. (eds.) ICATPN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4024, pp. 431–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Westergaard, M., Stahl, C., Reijers, H.A.: UnconstrainedMiner: efficient discovery of generalized declarative process models. Technical Report BPM-13-28, BPMcenter (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pastor, O., España, S., Panach, J.I., Aquino, N.: Model-driven development. Informatik-Spektrum 31(5), 394–407 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maggi, F.M., Mooij, A.J., van der Aalst, W.M.: User-guided discovery of declarative process models. In: IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining (CIDM), 2011, pp. 192–199. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Møller, A.: dk.brics.automaton - Finite-state automata and regular expressions for Java (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes De Smedt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jochen De Weerdt
    • 1
  • Estefanía Serral
    • 1
  • Jan Vanthienen
    • 1
  1. 1.KU Leuven Faculty of Economics and Business Department of Decision Sciences and Information ManagementLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations