Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use of CMMN and DCR

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (BPMDS 2021, EMMSAD 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 421))

Abstract

Case Management has been gradually evolving to support Knowledge-intensive business process management, which resulted in developing different modeling languages, e.g., Declare, Dynamic Condition Response (DCR), and Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN). A language will die if users do not accept and use it in practice - similar to extinct human languages. Thus, it is important to evaluate how users perceive languages to determine if there is a need for improvement. Although some studies have investigated how the process designers perceived Declare and DCR, there is a lack of research on how they perceive CMMN. Therefore, this study investigates how the process designers perceive the usefulness and ease of use of CMMN and DCR based on the Technology Acceptance Model. DCR is included to enable comparing the study result with previous ones. The study is performed by educating master level students with these languages over eight weeks by giving feedback on their assignments to reduce perceptions biases. The students’ perceptions are collected through questionnaires before and after sending feedback on their final practice in the exam. Thus, the result shows the perception of participants can change slightly by receiving feedback, while the change is not significant due to being well trained. The reliability of responses is tested using Cronbach’s alpha, and the result indicates that both languages have an acceptable level for both perceived usefulness and ease of use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abbad Andaloussi, A., Buch-Lorentsen, J., López, H.A., Slaats, T., Weber, B.: Exploring the modeling of declarative processes using a hybrid approach. In: Laender, A.H.F., Pernici, B., Lim, E.-P., de Oliveira, J.P.M. (eds.) ER 2019. LNCS, vol. 11788, pp. 162–170. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33223-5_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Abbad Andaloussi, A., Davis, C.J., Burattin, A., López, H.A., Slaats, T., Weber, B.: Understanding quality in declarative process modeling through the mental models of experts. In: Fahland, D., Ghidini, C., Becker, J., Dumas, M. (eds.) BPM 2020. LNCS, vol. 12168, pp. 417–434. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58666-9_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Arachchilage, N.A.G., Love, S.: A game design framework for avoiding phishing attacks. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(3), 706–714 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chae, M., Kim, J., Kim, H., Ryu, H.: Information quality for mobile internet services: a theoretical model with empirical validation. Electron. Mark. 12(1), 38–46 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, F.D.: A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Di Ciccio, C., Marrella, A., Russo, A.: Knowledge-intensive processes: characteristics, requirements and analysis of contemporary approaches. J. Data Semantics 4(1), 29–57 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eberlein, M., Ludwig, S., Nafziger, J.: The effects of feedback on self-assessment. Bull. Econ. Res. 63(2), 177–199 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Fahland, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of maintainability. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 477–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12186-9_45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Haisjackl, C., et al.: Understanding declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(2), 325–352 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Distributed dynamic condition response structures. In: PLACES Workshop (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7141, pp. 343–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29320-7_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1110.4161 (2011)

  17. Hull, R., et al.: Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: Distributed Event-based System Conference, pp. 51–62 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hull, R., et al.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19589-1_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Jalali, A.: Weaving of aspects in business process management. Complex Syst. Inform. Model. Q. 15, 24–44 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jalali, A., Maggi, F.M., Reijers, H.A.: A hybrid approach for aspect-oriented business process modeling. J. Softw. Evol. Process 30(8), e1931 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jošt, G., Huber, J., Heričko, M., Polančič, G.: Improving cognitive effectiveness of business process diagrams with opacity-driven graphical highlights. Decis. Support Syst. 103, 58–69 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. La Rosa, M., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Wohed, P., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Van der Aalst, W.M.: Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 7(2), 255–265 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. La Rosa, M., Wohed, P., Mendling, J., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.: Managing process model complexity via abstract syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 7(4), 614–629 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Masrom, M.: Technology acceptance model and e-learning. Technology 21(24), 81 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Object Management Group (OMG®). Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN™)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Palm, J.-M., Colombet, I., Sicotte, C., Degoulet, P.: Determinants of user satisfaction with a clinical information system. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, vol. 2006, p. 614. American Medical Informatics Association (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pesic, M.: Constraint-based workflow management systems: shifting control to users (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Van der Aalst, W.M.: Declare: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: EDOC, p. 287. IEEE (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C.: Declarative modeling–an academic dream or the future for BPM? In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 307–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Sanchez-Ferreres, J., et al.: Supporting the process of learning and teaching process models. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 13(3), 552–566 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Turetken, O., Dikici, A., Vanderfeesten, I., Rompen, T., Demirors, O.: The influence of using collapsed sub-processes and groups on the understandability of business process models. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 62(2), 121–141 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00577-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11841197_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02144-2_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models. Softw. Syst. Model. 14(3), 1081–1103 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-013-0356-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We appreciate all support that is provided by Morten Marquard from dcrgraphs.net, without which it was difficult to train the students and perform this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Amin Jalali

Authors
  1. Amin Jalali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amin Jalali .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Adriano Augusto

  2. University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia

    Asif Gill

  3. University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Selmin Nurcan

  4. University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Iris Reinhartz-Berger

  5. Munich University of Applied Sciences, Munich, Germany

    Rainer Schmidt

  6. Stockholm University, Kista, Sweden

    Jelena Zdravkovic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Jalali, A. (2021). Evaluating Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use of CMMN and DCR. In: Augusto, A., Gill, A., Nurcan, S., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Schmidt, R., Zdravkovic, J. (eds) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2021 2021. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 421. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79186-5_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79186-5_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-79185-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-79186-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation