Abstract
Process modeling aims at providing an external representation of a business process in the shape of a process model. The complexity of the modeling language, the usability of the modeling tool, and the expertise of the modeler are among the key factors defining the difficulty of a modeling task. Following a qualitative analysis approach, this work explores a hybrid modeling technique enhanced with a tool (i.e., the Highlighter) to guide the transition from informal text-based process descriptions to formal declarative process models. The exploratory results suggest that this technique provides cognitive support to modelers and hint towards an enhanced quality of process models in terms of alignment, traceability of process requirements and availability of documentation. The outcome of this work shows a clear opportunity for future work and provides a framework for further empirical studies.
Work supported by the Innovation Fund Denmark project EcoKnow (7050-00034A), the Danish Council for Independent Research project Hybrid Business Process Management Technologies (DFF-6111-00337), and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement BehAPI No. 778233.
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
Notes
- 1.
Quote translated from Danish.
References
Abbad Andaloussi, A., Burattin, A., Slaats, T., Petersen, A.C.M., Hildebrandt, T.T., Weber, B.: Exploring the understandability of a hybrid process design artifact based on DCR graphs. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Zdravkovic, J., Gulden, J., Schmidt, R. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2019. LNBIP, vol. 352, pp. 69–84. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20618-5_5
Abbad Andaloussi, A., Slaats, T., Burattin, A., Hildebrandt, T.T., Weber, B.: Evaluating the understandability of hybrid process model representations using eye tracking: first insights. In: Daniel, F., Sheng, Q.Z., Motahari, H. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNBIP, vol. 342, pp. 475–481. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11641-5_37
Burattin, A., et al.: Who Is behind the model? Classifying modelers based on pragmatic model features. In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNCS, vol. 11080, pp. 322–338. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98648-7_19
Cashen, V.M., Leicht, K.L.: Role of the isolation effect in a formal educational setting. J. Educ. Psychol. 61(6p1), 484 (1970)
Chen, F., et al.: Robust Multimodal Cognitive Load Measurement, pp. 13–32. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31700-7
Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2014)
Dengler, F., Vrandečić, D.: Wiki-based maturing of process descriptions. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 313–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23059-2_24
Fahland, D., et al.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of understandability. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_29
Gulden, J.: Visually comparing process dynamics with rhythm-eye views. In: Dumas, M., Fantinato, M. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNBIP, vol. 281, pp. 474–485. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58457-7_35
Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. EPTCS 69, 59–73 (2011)
López, H.A., Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Marquard, M.: The process highlighter: from texts to declarative processes and back. In: BPM (Dissertation/Demos/Industry), volume 2196 of CEUR, pp. 66–70. CEUR-WS.org (2018)
Pinggera, J., Porcham, T., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: LiProMo-Literate process modeling. In CAiSE Forum, volume 855 of CEUR, pp. 163–170. CEUR-WS.org (2012)
Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30409-5
Slaats, T., Schunselaar, D.M.M., Maggi, F.M., Reijers, H.A.: The semantics of hybrid process models. In: Debruyne, C., et al. (eds.) OTM 2016. LNCS, vol. 10033, pp. 531–551. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48472-3_32
von Restorff, H.: Über die wirkung von bereichsbildungen im spurenfeld. Psychologische Forschung 18, 299–342 (1933)
Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: The impact of testcases on the maintainability of declarative process models. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 163–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21759-3_12
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Abbad Andaloussi, A., Buch-Lorentsen, J., López, H.A., Slaats, T., Weber, B. (2019). Exploring the Modeling of Declarative Processes Using a Hybrid Approach. In: Laender, A., Pernici, B., Lim, EP., de Oliveira, J. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11788. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33223-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33223-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33222-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33223-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)