Expressiveness and Understandability Considerations of Hierarchy in Declarative Business Process Models

  • Stefan Zugal
  • Pnina Soffer
  • Jakob Pinggera
  • Barbara Weber
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 113)


Hierarchy has widely been recognized as a viable approach to deal with the complexity of conceptual models. For instance, in declarative business process models, hierarchy is realized by sub-processes. While technical implementations of declarative sub-processes exist, their application, semantics, and the resulting impact on understandability are less understood yet—this research gap is addressed in this work. In particular, we discuss the semantics and the application of hierarchy and show how sub-processes enhance the expressiveness of declarative modeling languages. Then, we turn to the impact on the understandability of hierarchy on a declarative process model. To systematically assess this impact, we present a cognitive-psychology based framework that allows to assess the possible impact of hierarchy on the understandability of the process model.


Declarative Business Process Models Hierarchy Understandability Cognitive Psychology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Parnas, D.L.: On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM 15, 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goguen, J.A., Varela, F.J.: Systems and Distinctions; Duality and Complementarity. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 5, 31–43 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damij, N.: Business process modelling using diagrammatic and tabular techniques. Business Process Management Journal 13, 70–90 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharp, A., McDermott, P.: Workow Modeling: Tools for Process Improvement and Application Development. Artech House (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kock, N.F.: Product flow, breadth and complexity of business processes: An empirical study of 15 business processes in three organizations. Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal 2, 8–22 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.: Constraint-Based Workflow Models: Change Made Easy. In: Proc. CoopIS 2007, pp. 77–94 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: Using Controlled Experiments for Validating UML Statechart Diagrams Measures. In: Cuadrado-Gallego, J.J., Braungarten, R., Dumke, R.R., Abran, A. (eds.) IWSM-Mensura 2007. LNCS, vol. 4895, pp. 129–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cruz-Lemus, J., Genero, M., Piattini, M., Toval, A.: Investigating the nesting level of composite states in uml statechart diagrams. In: Proc. QAOOSE 2005, pp. 97–108 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.: DECLARE: Full Support for Loosely-Structured Processes. In: Proc. EDOC 2007, pp. 287–298 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Refactoring large process model repositories. Computers in Industry 62, 467–486 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle, S.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features - Enhancing Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. DKE 66, 438–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Soffer, P., Rolland, C.: Combining Intention-Oriented and State-Based Process Modeling. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 47–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Assessing the Impact of Hierarchy on Model Understandability—A Cognitive Perspective. In: Proc. EESSMod 2011, pp. 18–27 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Assessing process models with cognitive psychology. In: Proc. EMISA 2011, pp. 177–182 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257–285 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11, 65–100 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int.J. Human-Computer Studies 45, 185–213 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sweller, J., Chandler, P.: Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition and Instruction 12, 185–233 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states—A family of empirical studies. Empir. Software Eng. 25, 685–719 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Gerven, P.W.M.V.: Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist 38, 63–71 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shoval, P., Danoch, R., Balabam, M.: Hierarchical entity-relationship diagrams: the model, method of creation and experimental evaluation. Requirements Engineering 9, 217–228 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Creating Declarative Process Models Using Test Driven Modeling Suite. In: Nurcan, S. (ed.) CAiSE Forum 2011. LNBIP, vol. 107, pp. 16–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Zugal
    • 1
  • Pnina Soffer
    • 2
  • Jakob Pinggera
    • 1
  • Barbara Weber
    • 1
  1. 1.University of InnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.University of HaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations