Declarative Versus Imperative Business Process Languages - A Controlled Experiment

Natália C. Silva, César A. L. de Oliveira, Fabiane A. L. A. Albino, Ricardo M. F. Lima


It has been argued that traditional workflows lack of flexibility to cope with complex and changing environments found in several business domains. The declarative approach surged with the aim of enabling more flexible business process management systems. Processes are designed in terms of activities and rules that constrain their execution. As such, declarative models are less rigid and prescriptive than workflows, since this approach focus on modeling what must be done but not how. Despite these arguments, there is no quantitative evidence that the benefits provided by current declarative approaches outperform the features of traditional workflows. In this work, we present the results of a controlled experiment conducted to empirically compare Workflow and Declarative approaches to business process modeling. Our findings suggest that there is no signficative difference from adopting one approach or the other.


  1. Coalition, W. M. (1995). WfMC standards: The workflow reference model, version 1.1.
  2. Dadam, P., Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Jurisch, M., Acker, H., Göser, K., Kreher, U., and Lauer, M. (2008). Towards truly flexible and adaptive process-aware information systems. In Kaschek, R., Kop, C., Steinberger, C., and Fliedl, G., editors, UNISCON, volume 5 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 72-83. Springer.
  3. Golden, W. and Powell, P. (2000). Towards a definition of flexibility: in search of the holy grail? Omega, 28:373-384.
  4. H. Reijers, J. R. and van der Aalst, W. (2003). The case handling case. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 12(3):365-391.
  5. Jeston, J. and Nelis, J. (2006). Business Process Management : Practical Guidelines to Successful Implementations. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam.
  6. Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1):147-167.
  7. Lu, R. and Sadiq, S. (2007). A survey of comparative business process modeling approaches. In In Proceedings 10th International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS), number 4439 in LNCS, pages 82- 94. Springer.
  8. Modeler, B. P. (2010). Bizagi: Bpmn software.
  9. Mutschler, B., Weber, B., and Reichert, M. (2008). Workflow management versus case handling: results from a controlled software experiment. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing, SAC 7808, pages 82-89, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  10. Nurcan, S. (2008). A survey on the flexibility requirements related to business processes and modeling artifacts. In HICSS 7808: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, page 378, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
  11. Pesic, M. (2008). Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
  12. Pesic, M. and van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2006). A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In Eder, J. and Dustdar, S., editors, Business Process Management Workshops, volume 4103 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 169-180. Springer.
  13. Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., and Reijers, H. A. (2011). Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: An empirical investigation. In BPM 2011 Workshops, Part I, LNBIP 99. Springer-Verlag.
  14. Weber, B., Reijers, H. A., Zugal, S., and Wild, W. (2009). The Declarative Approach to Business Process Execution: An Empirical Test. In Proc. CAiSE 7809, pages 270-285.
  15. WFMC (2002). Workflow management coalition workflow standard: Workflow process definition interface - XML process definition language (XPDL) (WFMCTC-1025). Technical report, Workflow Management Coalition, Lighthouse Point, Florida, USA.
  16. White, S. A. (2006). Introduction to bpmn. Technical report, IBM Software Group.
  17. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., and Wesslén, A. (2000). Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA.
  18. zur Muehlen, M. (2002). Workflow-Based Process Controlling : Foundation, Design, and Application of Workflow-driven Process Information Systems. Logos Verlag, Berlin.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

C. Silva N., A. L. de Oliveira C., A. L. A. Albino F. and M. F. Lima R. (2014). Declarative Versus Imperative Business Process Languages - A Controlled Experiment . In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-758-029-1, pages 394-401. DOI: 10.5220/0004896203940401

in Bibtex Style

author={Natália C. Silva and César A. L. de Oliveira and Fabiane A. L. A. Albino and Ricardo M. F. Lima},
title={Declarative Versus Imperative Business Process Languages - A Controlled Experiment},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - Declarative Versus Imperative Business Process Languages - A Controlled Experiment
SN - 978-989-758-029-1
AU - C. Silva N.
AU - A. L. de Oliveira C.
AU - A. L. A. Albino F.
AU - M. F. Lima R.
PY - 2014
SP - 394
EP - 401
DO - 10.5220/0004896203940401