Investigating Differences between Graphical and Textual Declarative Process Models

Haisjackl, Cornelia; Zugal, Stefan

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07869-4_17

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We focus on procedural process models because they follow the same underlying representation paradigm. An increasing number of studies also investigate declarative process models (e.g., Haisjackl and Zugal 2014;Haisjackl et al 2016;Zugal et al 2015). In comparison to procedural (or imperative) process models, which specify all possible alternatives for execution, declarative process models focus on modeling the constraints that prevent undesired alternatives for execution (Fahland et al 2009).…”

Section: Selection Criteria For Type Of Process Model and Visualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models

Figl

2017

Bus Inf Syst Eng

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual process models are meant to facilitate comprehension of business processes. However, in practice, process models can be difficult to understand. The main goal of this article is to clarify the sources of cognitive effort in comprehending process models. The article undertakes a comprehensive descriptive review of empirical and theoretical work in order to categorize and summarize systematically existing findings on the factors that influence comprehension of visual process models. Methodologically, the article builds on a review of forty empirical studies that measure objective comprehension of process models, seven studies that measure subjective comprehension and user preferences, and thirty-two articles that discuss the factors that influence the comprehension of process models. The article provides information systems researchers with an overview of the empirical state of the art of process model comprehension and provides recommendations for new research questions to be addressed and methods to be used in future experiments.

show abstract

Section: Selection Criteria For Type Of Process Model and Visualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models

Figl

2017

Bus Inf Syst Eng

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Haisjackl & Zugal [33] investigated differences between textual and graphical declarative workflows using the Declare notation in an empirical study with 9 participants. The evaluation seems to be based on the same experimental data as in the work by Zugal et al [87] and Haisjackl et al [34].…”

Section: Empirical Studies On the Understandability Of Behavioral Conmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, current studies predominantly focus on technical contributions in specific application areas. Only a few studies focus on empirical evaluations of behavioral constraint representations [14,21,34,64,82,87], and even fewer of them are concerned with comparing graphical and textual behavioral constraint representations specifically [33,52]. Interestingly, the body of existing studies (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Understandable Are Pattern-based Behavioral Constraints for Novice Software Designers?

Czepa

Zdun

2019

ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports a controlled experiment with 116 participants on the understandability of representative graphical and textual pattern-based behavioral constraint representations from the viewpoint of novice software designers. Particularly, graphical and textual behavioral constraint patterns present in the declarative business process language Declare and textual behavioral constraints based on Property Specification Patterns are the subjects of this study. In addition to measuring the understandability construct, this study assesses subjective aspects such as perceived difficulties regarding learning and application of the tested approaches. An interesting finding of this study is the overall low achieved correctness in the experimental tasks which seems to indicate that pattern-based behavioral constraint representations are hard to understand for novice software designers in the absence of additional supportive measures. The results of the descriptive statistics regarding achieved correctness are slightly in favor of the textual representations, but the inference statistics do not indicate any significant differences in terms of understandability between graphical and textual behavioral constraint representations. CCS Concepts: • Software and its engineering → Formal language definitions.

show abstract

“…Montali et al [57]). Haisjackl and Zugal [35] investigated differences between textual and graphical declarative workflows in an empirical study with 9 participants. The descriptive statistics of this study indicates that the graphical representation is advantageous in terms of perceived understandability, error rate, duration and mental effort.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling compliance specifications in linear temporal logic, event processing language and property specification patterns: a controlled experiment on understandability

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mature verification and monitoring approaches, such as complex event processing and model checking, can be applied for checking compliance specifications at design time and runtime. Little is known about the understandability of the different formal and technical languages associated with these approaches. This uncertainty regarding understandability might be a major obstacle for the broad practical adoption of those techniques. This article reports a controlled experiment with 215 participants on the understandability of modeling compliance specifications in representative modeling languages, namely linear temporal logic (LTL), the complex event processing-based event processing language (EPL) and property specification patterns (PSP). The formalizations in PSP were overall more correct. That is, the pattern-based approach provides a higher level of understandability than EPL and LTL. More advanced users, however, seemingly are able to cope equally well with PSP and EPL in modeling compliance specifications. Keywords Controlled experiment • Understandability • Linear temporal logic • Property specification patterns • Complex event processing • Event processing language 1 Introduction Many domains are subject to a vast and ever-growing number of rules and constraints stemming from sources including laws, legislation, regulations, standards, guidelines, contracts and best practices. One example is compliance in the corporate and financial sector. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) [55] is a federal law that defines rules in reaction to major corporate accounting scandals in the USA (e.g.,

show abstract

Investigating Differences between Graphical and Textual Declarative Process Models

Cited by 15 publications

References 22 publications

Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models

Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models

How Understandable Are Pattern-based Behavioral Constraints for Novice Software Designers?

Modeling compliance specifications in linear temporal logic, event processing language and property specification patterns: a controlled experiment on understandability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About