Abstract
Streams of research are emerging that emphasize the advantages of using declarative process modeling languages over more traditional, imperative approaches. In particular, the declarative modeling approach is known for its ability to cope with the limited flexibility of the imperative approach. However, there is still not much empirical insight into the actual strengths and the applicability of each modeling paradigm. In this paper, we investigate in an experimental setting if either the imperative or the declarative process modeling approach is superior with respect to process model understanding. Even when task types are considered that should better match one or the other, our study finds that imperative process modeling languages appear to be connected with better understanding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.): APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: Does It Matter Which Process Modeling Language We Teach or Use? An Experimental Study on Understanding Process Modelling Languages without Formal Education. In: Proc. ACIS 2007, pp. 356–366 (2007)
Nigam, A., Caswell, N.: Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Systems Journal 42(3), 428–445 (2003)
Owen, M., Raj, J.: BPMN and Business Process Management: Introduction to the New Business Process Modeling Standard. Popkin, Technical report (2003), http://whitepaper.talentum.com/whitepaper/view.do?id=7050
Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Business Process Management: The Third Wave. Meghan-Kiffer Press (2003)
Gilmore, D.J., Green, T.R.: Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. IJMMS 21, 31–48 (1984)
Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008)
Korhonen, J.: Evolution of agile enterprise architecture (April 2006), http://blog.jannekorhonen.fi/?p=11 (retrieved May 10, 2011)
Roy, P.V., Haridi, S.: Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming. The MIT Press (2004)
Green, T.R.: Cognitive dimensions of notations. In: Proc. BCSHCI 1989, pp. 443–460 (1989)
Fahland, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., 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)
Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. EJIS 15, 91–102 (2006)
Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mulyar, N.: Workflow Control-Flow Patterns. A Revised View. BPM Center Report, 6–22 (2006)
van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Tennenholtz, M. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Melcher, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Seese, D.: On Measuring the Understandability of Process Models. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 465–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Fahland, D., Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: The Impact of Sequential and Circumstantial Changes on Process Models. In: Proc. ER-POIS 2010, pp. 43–54 (2010)
Dytham, C.: Choosing and Using Statistics. A Biologist’s Guide. John Wiley & Sons (2003)
Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M.: Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2001)
Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Proc. BIS 2008, pp. 142–153 (2008)
Purchase, H.: Which Aesthetic has the Greatest Effect on Human Understanding? In: DiBattista, G. (ed.) GD 1997. LNCS, vol. 1353, pp. 248–261. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What Makes Process Models Understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
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)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A. (2012). Imperative versus Declarative Process Modeling Languages: An Empirical Investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds) Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2011. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 99. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_37
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-28107-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-28108-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)