English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Declarative Versus Imperative Business Process Languages - A Controlled Experiment