Abstract
The increasing adoption of Process-Aware Information Systems, together with the reuse of process knowledge, has led to the emergence of process model repositories with large process families, i.e., collections of related process model variants. For managing such related model collections two types of approaches exist. While behavioral approaches take supersets of variants and derive a process variant by hiding and blocking process elements, structural approaches take a base process model as input and derive a process variant by applying a set of change operations to it. However, at the current stage no framework for assessing these approaches exists and it is not yet clear which approach should be better used and under which circumstances. Therefore, to give first insights about this issue, this work compares both approaches in terms of understandability of the produced process model artifacts, which is fundamental for the management of process families and the reuse of their contained process fragments. In addition, the comparison can serve as theoretical basis for conducting experiments as well as for fostering the development of tools managing business process variability.
This work has been developed with the support of MICINN under the project EVERYWARE TIN2010-18011.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Capturing variability in business process models: the Provop approach. J. Soft. Maintenance 22(6-7), 519–546 (2010)
Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A configurable reference modeling language. Inf. Systems 32(1), 1–23 (2007)
Kumar, A., Wen, Y.: Design and management of exible process variants using templates and rules. Int. J. Comput. Ind. 63(2), 112–130 (2012)
Figl, K., Laue, R.: Cognitive Complexity in Business Process Modeling. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 452–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Melcher, J., Detlef, S.: Towards Validating Prediction Systems for Process Understandability: Measuring Process Understandability. In: Proc. SYNASC 2008, pp. 564–571 (2008)
La Rosa, M., Lux, J., Seidel, S., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Questionnaire-driven Configuration of Reference Process Models. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 424–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11(1), 65–100 (1987)
Tracz, W.J.: Computer programming and the human thought process. Software: Practice and Experience 9(2), 127–137 (1979)
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Van Gerven, P.W.M.: Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist 38(1), 63–71 (2003)
Miller, G.: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. The Psychological Review 63(2), 81–97 (1956)
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)
Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12(2), 257–285 (1988)
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)
Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 45(2), 185–213 (1996)
Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B.: Assessing the Impact of Hierarchy on Model Understandability-A Cognitive Perspective. In: EESSMod 2011, pp. 123–133 (2011)
Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and Understandability Considerations of Hierarchy in Declarative Business Process Models. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) EMMSAD 2012 and BPMDS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Sweller, J., Chandler, P.: Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition and Instruction 12(3), 185–233 (1994)
Feldmann Barrett, L., Tugade, M.M., Engle, R.W.: Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Dual-Process Theories of the Mind. Psychol. Bull. 130(4), 553–573 (2004)
Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)
Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: On Measuring Process Model Similarity Based on High-Level Change Operations. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 248–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Lönn, C.-M., Uppström, E., Wohed, P., Juell-Skielse, G.: Configurable Process Models for the Swedish Public Sector. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 190–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Gottschalk, F., Wagemakers, T.A.C., Jansen-Vullers, M.H., van der Aalst, W.M.P., La Rosa, M.: Configurable Process Models: Experiences from a Municipality Case Study. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 486–500. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
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)
Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Evaluating workflow process designs using cohesion and coupling metrics. Int. J. Comput. Ind. 59(5), 420–437 (2008)
Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A Study into the Factors that Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. SMCA 41(3), 449–462 (2011)
Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Assessing Process Models with Cognitive Psychology. In: Proc. EMISA 2011, pp. 177–182 (2011)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Torres, V., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Reichert, M., Ayora, C., Pelechano, V. (2013). A Qualitative Comparison of Approaches Supporting Business Process Variability. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds) Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2012. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 132. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36285-9_57
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36285-9_57
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-36284-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-36285-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)