Making Sense of Declarative Process Models: Common Strategies and Typical Pitfalls

  • Cornelia Haisjackl
  • Stefan Zugal
  • Pnina Soffer
  • Irit Hadar
  • Manfred Reichert
  • Jakob Pinggera
  • Barbara Weber
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 147)


Declarative approaches to process modeling are regarded as well suited for highly volatile environments as they provide a high degree of flexibility. However, problems in understanding and maintaining declarative business process models impede often their usage. In particular, how declarative models are understood has not been investigated yet. This paper takes a first step toward addressing this question and reports on an exploratory study investigating how analysts make sense of declarative process models. We have handed out real-world declarative process models to subjects and asked them to describe the illustrated process. Our qualitative analysis shows that subjects tried to describe the processes in a sequential way although the models represent circumstantial information, namely, conditions that produce an outcome, rather than a sequence of activities. Finally, we observed difficulties with single building blocks and combinations of relations between activities.


Declarative Process Models Empirical Research Understandability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Information modeling in the time of the revolution. Information Systems 23, 127–155 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A Study into the Factors that Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. SMCA 41, 449–462 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R., Slaats, T.: Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Proc. FSEN 2012, pp. 343–350 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barba, I., Weber, B., Valle, C.D., Ramírez, A.J.: User Recommendations for the Optimized Execution of Business Processes. DKE (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Assessing process models with cognitive psychology. In: Proc. EMISA 2011, pp. 177–182 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Toward Enhanced Life-Cycle Support for Declarative Processes. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 24, 285–302 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Parnas, D.L.: On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM 15, 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and Understandability Considerations of Hierarchy in Declarative Business Process Models. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) BPMDS 2012 and EMMSAD 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bassey, M.: Case study research in educational settings. Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Open University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haisjackl, C.: Test Driven Modeling meets Declarative Process Modeling – A Case Study. Master’s thesis, University of Innsbruck (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zugal, S., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Empirical Evaluation of Test Driven Modeling. Acctepted at the International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (2012) (to appear)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, P.C.V., Park, S.J.: Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge. Information Systems Research 17, 81–99 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.) BPMDS 2009 and EMMSAD 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kahneman, D.: Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel Prize Lecture 8, 449–489 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B.: Assessing the Impact of Hierarchy on Model Understandability-A Cognitive Perspective. In: Proc. EESSMod 2011, pp. 123–133 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Costain, G.F.: Cognitive Support During Object-oriented Software Development: The Case of UML Diagrams. PhD thesis, University of Auckland (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mendling, J., Verbeek, H., van Dongen, B., van der Aalst, W., Neumann, G.: Detection and prediction of errors in epcs of the sap reference model. DKE 64, 312–329 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Information & Software Technology 52, 127–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.N.: Conceptualizing systems for understanding: An empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Information Systems Research 17, 38–60 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Systems 36, 881–897 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moody, D.L.: Cognitive Load Effects on End User Understanding of Conceptual Models: An Experimental Analysis. In: Benczúr, A.A., Demetrovics, J., Gottlob, G. (eds.) ADBIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3255, pp. 129–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Using Practitioners for Assessing the Understandability of UML Statechart Diagrams with Composite States. In: Hainaut, J.-L., Rundensteiner, E.A., Kirchberg, M., Bertolotto, M., Brochhausen, M., Chen, Y.-P.P., Cherfi, S.S.-S., Doerr, M., Han, H., Hartmann, S., Parsons, J., Poels, G., Rolland, C., Trujillo, J., Yu, E., Zimányie, E. (eds.) ER Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4802, pp. 213–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim, J., Hahn, J., Hahn, H.: How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? cognitive integration processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Information Systems Research 11, 284–303 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Zugal, S., Wild, W.: The Declarative Approach to Business Process Execution: An Empirical Test. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 470–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Toward Enhanced Life-Cycle Support for Declarative Processes. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 24, 285–302 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 438–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cornelia Haisjackl
    • 1
  • Stefan Zugal
    • 1
  • Pnina Soffer
    • 2
  • Irit Hadar
    • 2
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 3
  • Jakob Pinggera
    • 1
  • Barbara Weber
    • 1
  1. 1.University of InnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.University of HaifaIsrael
  3. 3.University of UlmGermany

Personalised recommendations