Empirical Evaluation of Test Driven Modeling

Zugal, Stefan; Haisjackl, Cornelia; Pinggera, Jakob; Weber, Barbara

doi:10.4018/jismd.2013040102

Cited by 12 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As subjects tend to talk about declarative models in a sequential manner, it appears as if they prefer this kind of information. Interestingly, similar observations could be made in a case study on declarative process modeling [63]. Therein, sequential information, such as "A before B" or "then C," was preferred for communication.…”

Section: Reading Declarative Process Modelssupporting

confidence: 67%

“…No written answers were required, only free talking. Audio-and video recording was used as it has proven being useful for resolving unclear situations in think-aloud protocols [63].…”

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Problem statement Existing research has addressed technical issues of declarative process models, such as formalization of semantics [24], maintainability [63], verification [47], and execution [5]. Understandability concerns of declarative models (i.e., the ability to correctly explain the model, and solve problems related to the model), on the contrary, have only been considered to a limited extent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding Declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Declarative approaches to business process modeling are regarded as well suited for highly volatile environments, as they enable a high degree of flexibility. However, problems in understanding and maintaining declarative process models often impede their adoption. Likewise, little research has been conducted into the understanding of declarative process models. This paper takes a first step toward addressing this fundamental question and reports on an empirical investigation consisting of an exploratory study and a follow-up study focusing on the system analysts' sense-making of declarative process models that are specified in Declare. For this purpose, we distributed real-world Declare models to the participating subjects and asked them to describe the illustrated process and to perform a series of sense-making tasks. The results of our studies indicate that two main strategies for reading Declare models exist: either considering the execution order of the activities in the process model, or orienting by the layout of the process model. In addition, the results indicate that single constraints can be handled well by most subjects, while combinations of constraints pose significant challenges. Moreover, the study revealed that aspects that are similar in both imperative and declarative process modeling languages at a graphical level, while having different semantics, cause considerable troubles. This research not only helps guiding the future development of tools for supporting system analysts, but also gives advice on the design of declarative process modeling notations and points out typical pitfalls to teachers and educators of future systems analysts.

show abstract

Section: Reading Declarative Process Modelssupporting

confidence: 67%

“…No written answers were required, only free talking. Audio-and video recording was used as it has proven being useful for resolving unclear situations in think-aloud protocols [63].…”

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding Declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both studies stress the importance of appropriate language semantics that serve the purpose supporting communication among stakeholders. Zugal et al (2013) show that communication between domain experts and process analysts can be fostered during modeling by specifying test cases, which are appear to be easier to understand than fully elaborated process models due to their sequential nature. Kabicher and RinderleMa (2011) propose to collect knowledge about work processes with representations resembling ToDo-lists to capture and document the actually performed work.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…-F1: Individual understanding is codified in separate models by each actor and consolidated in a separate step (Türetken and Demirörs 2011;Rittgen 2009b;Engelmann and Hesse 2010;Dean et al 2000; Groeben and Scheele 2000) -F2: Divergent understandings among the involved actors are identified and explicitly made visible (Herrmann et al 2004b;Rittgen 2009b;Stoyanova and Kommers 2002;Fischer et al 2002;Heiser et al 2004; Türetken and Demirörs 2011) -F3: The process of consolidation requires procedural guidance (Herrmann et al 2004b;Rittgen 2009b;Dean et al 2000;Hjalmarsson et al 2015;Gassen et al 2015;Hoppenbrouwers and Rouwette 2012;Stoyanova and Kommers 2002;Recker et al 2013;Front et al 2015) -F4: The used modeling language must be adequate for the intended target group and appropriate for the aim of modeling (Herrmann et al 2004b;Pino et al 2008;Fahland and Weidlich 2010;Kabicher and Rinderle-Ma 2011;Zarwin et al 2014;Malavolta et al 2013;Groeben and Scheele 2000;Fischer et al 2002;Davies et al 2006;Zugal et al 2013;Front et al 2015) When reviewing the four approaches pursuing similar objectives described above in the light of these properties, their different foci become clearly visible (cf. Table 1).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting the Collaborative Construction of a Shared Understanding About Work with a Guided Conceptual Modeling Technique

Oppl

2016

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of a shared understanding about a collaborative work process among all involved actors is one prerequisite for its successful implementation. The development of a shared understanding is facilitated when the actors make explicit their individual views and create externalizations that can be used as subjects of discourse. Instruments supporting externalization and discourse about collaborative work need to provide adequate forms of representation and guide actors in implementing these reflection and alignment processes. Appropriate guidance can facilitate the construction of a shared understanding for actors not accustomed to such processes. This paper introduces a methodology that offers structural and procedural guidance by adopting diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. This methodology has been evaluated extensively in a multiple case study. A combination of interaction analysis of the modeling process and ex-post assessment of the actors' perceptions has been used to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed methodology with respect to the pursued objectives. The results confirm that the modeling methodology and the proposed guidance measures appropriately support the process of constructing a shared understanding about collaborative work processes.Keywords Multi-perspective articulation of work · Diagrammatical conceptual modeling of communication and work processes · Domain-expert-driven modeling · Bottom-up organizational development

show abstract

Exploring the Understandability of a Hybrid Process Design Artifact Based on DCR Graphs

Andaloussi

Burattin

Slaats

et al. 2019

Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Process design artifacts (e.g., process models, textual process descriptions and simulations) are increasingly used to provide input for requirements elicitation and to facilitate the design of business processes. To support the understandability of process models and make them accessible for end-users with different backgrounds, several hybrid representations combining different design artifacts have been proposed in the literature. This paper investigates the understandability of DCR-HR, a new hybrid process design artifact based on DCR graphs. Using eye-tracking and think-aloud techniques, this paper explores the benefits and challenges associated with the use of different design artifacts and investigates the way end-users engage with them. The results motivate the use of DCR-HR and provide insights about the support it provides to end-users with different backgrounds.

show abstract

Empirical Evaluation of Test Driven Modeling

Cited by 12 publications

References 35 publications

Understanding Declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results

Understanding Declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results

Supporting the Collaborative Construction of a Shared Understanding About Work with a Guided Conceptual Modeling Technique

Exploring the Understandability of a Hybrid Process Design Artifact Based on DCR Graphs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About