nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Towards a Decision-Support System for Selecting the Appropriate Business Process Modeling Formalism: A Context-Aware Roadmap

verfasst von : Afef Awadid, Selmin Nurcan, Sonia Ayachi Ghannouchi

Erschienen in: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Business Process Modeling (BPM) is the cornerstone of the Business Process Management field, which has become a crucial topic in the competitiveness of enterprise information systems. The importance of BPM to Business Process Management can be justified by the serious problems, which may arise in the latter, if the former is not conducted correctly. This can take place, inter alia, when an inappropriate choice of a BPM formalism for a given BPM context has been made. Such an improper choice is due not only to the availability of a huge number of BPM formalisms but also to the lack of guidelines assisting in the selection process. Our aim in this paper, is to propose a context-aware roadmap with associated methodological guidelines underpinning the selection of the appropriate BPM formalism. To this end, a systematic literature review (SLR) of studies on BPM formalisms quality has been undertaken. The contribution of this paper is threefold viz. the SLR itself, a context-aware roadmap, along with a context model inspired by the Zachman framework, and is a first step towards a decision support system for selecting the appropriate BPM formalism.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Modeling Exchange Agreements with DEMO/PSI and Core Component of Communication

Nächstes Kapitel Designing a Decision-Making Process for Partially Observable Environments Using Markov Theory

Acronyms used in Table 1: Specific Modeling Purpose (SMP) (focus on a single specific modeling purpose), Generic Modeling Purpose (GMP) (emphasis on a collection of modeling purposes), Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Unified Modeling Language- Activity Diagram (UML-AD), UML-State Diagram (UML-SD), Event-driven Process Chain (EPC), Workflow-net (WF-net), Yet Another Workflow Language (YAWL), Extended Enterprise Modeling Language (EEML), Data Flow Diagram (DFD), Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF), extended Event-Process Chain (eEPC), Role Activity Diagram (RAD), Business Use Case (BUC), Business Object Interaction Diagram (BOID), Coordination, Cooperation and Communication (C3) method, Architecture of Integrated Information Systems (ARIS), Business Modeling Language (BML), XML Process Definition Language (XPDL), Business Process Execution Language (BPEL), Business Process Modeling Language (BPML), Web Service Choreography Interface (WSCI), Web Services Choreography Description Language (WS-CDL), Actor Role (AR) diagram, Enterprise Knowledge Development –Change Management Method (EKD-CMM), BPEL for Web Services (BPEL4WS), Entity Relationship (ER) diagram, Business Process Specification Shema (BPSS), Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules (SBVR), Production Rule Representation (PRR), Simulation Reference Markup Language (SRML), and Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL).

Campos, C.S., Daher, S.F.D., Almeida, A.T.: New patents on business process management information systems and decision support. Recent Pat. Comput. Sci. 4(2), 91–97 (2011)CrossRef

Aldin, L., de Cesare, S.: A comparative analysis of business process modelling techniques. In: Proceedings of the UK Academy for Information Systems (2009)

Li, Y., Cao, B., Xu, L., Yin, J., Deng, S., Yin, Y., Wu, Z.: An efficient recommendation method for improving business process modeling. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 10(1), 502–513 (2014)CrossRef

Tan, W., Xu, W., Yang, F., Xu, L., Jiang, C.: A framework for service enterprise workflow simulation with multi-agents cooperation. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 7(4), 523–542 (2013)CrossRef

Luo, W., Alex Tung, Y.: A framework for selecting business process modeling methods. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 99(7), 312–319 (1999)CrossRef

Geyer, R.W., Fourier, C.J.: Determining the suitability of a business process modelling technique for a particular application. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 26(1), 252–266 (2015)

Glassey, O.: A case study on process modelling—three questions and three techniques. Decis. Support Syst. 44(4), 842–853 (2008)CrossRef

Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A multi-model view of process modelling. Requir. Eng. 4(4), 169–187 (1999)CrossRef

Rosemann, M., Recker, J.C.: Context-aware process design: exploring the extrinsic drivers for process flexibility. In: Proceedings of Workshops and Doctoral Consortium (CAISE 2006), pp. 149–158. Namur University Press (2006)

10.

Yousfi, A., Dey, A.K., Saidi, R., Hong, J.H.: Introducing decision-aware BPs. Comput. Ind. 70, 13–22 (2015)CrossRef

11.

Pereira, J.L., Silva, D.: Business process modeling languages: a comparative framework. In: Rocha, Á., Correia, A., Adeli, H., Reis, L., Mendonça Teixeira, M. (eds.) New Advances in Information Systems and Technologies. AISCLNCS, vol. 444, pp. 619–628. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31232-3_58 CrossRef

12.

Scanavachi Moreira Campos, A.C., de Almeida, A.T.: Multicriteria framework for selecting a process modelling language. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 10(1), 17–32 (2016)CrossRef

13.

Giaglis, G.M.: A taxonomy of business process modeling and information systems modeling techniques. Int. J. Flex. Manuf. Syst. 13(2), 209–228 (2001)CrossRef

14.

van Der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distributed Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRef

15.

Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 16(11), 1282–1292 (1990)CrossRef

16.

Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 1–26. Keele University, Keele (2004)

17.

Keele, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In: Technical report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical report. EBSE (2007)

18.

Birkmeier, D., Kloeckner, S., Overhage, S.: An empirical comparison of the usability of BPMN and UML activity diagrams for business users. In: ECIS, vol. 2 (2010)

19.

Recker, J. C., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: How good is BPMN really? Insights from theory and practice (2006)

20.

Recker, J.C., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (2007)

21.

Grossmann, G., Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Modelling and enforcement of inter-process dependencies with business process modelling languages. J. Res. Pract. Inf. Technol. 42(4), 289 (2010)

22.

Nysetvold, A.G., Krogstie, J.: Assessing business process modeling languages using a generic quality framework. Adv. Top. Database Res. 5, 79–93 (2006)CrossRef

23.

Peixoto, D., Batista, V., Atayde, A., Borges, E., Resende, R., Pádua, C.I.P.S.: A comparison of BPMN and UML 2.0 activity diagrams. In: VII Simposio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software, vol. 56 (2008)

24.

Recker, J.C., zur Muehlen, M., Siau, K., Erickson, J., Indulska, M.: Measuring method complexity: UML versus BPMN. Association for Information Systems (2009)

25.

Tangkawarow, I.R.H.T., Waworuntu, J.: A comparative of business process modelling techniques. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 128(1), p. 012010 (2016)

26.

Tsironis, L., Anastasiou, K., Moustakis, V.: A framework for BPML assessment and improvement: a case study using IDEF0 and eEPC. BPM J. 15(3), 430–461 (2009)

27.

Tsironis, L., Gentsos, A., Moustakis, V.: Empowerment the IDEF0 modeling language. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 3(5), 109 (2009)CrossRef

28.

Patig, S., Casanova-Brito, V.: Requirements of process modeling languages-results from an empirical investigation. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik, vol. 39 (2011)

29.

Opitz, N., Erek, K., Langkau, T., Kolbe, L., Zarnekow, R.: Kick-starting green business process management–suitable modeling languages and key processes for green performance measurement (2012)

30.

Nielen, A., Jeske, T., Schlick, C., Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Interdisciplinary assessment of process modeling languages applicable for small to medium-sized enterprises. In: 8th International Conference on Computing, Communications and Control Technologies: CCCT, pp. 47–52 (2010)

31.

Bertoni, M., Bordegoni, M., Cugini, U., Regazzoni, D., Rizzi, C.: PLM paradigm: how to lead BPR within the product development field. Comput. Ind. 60(7), 476–484 (2009)CrossRef

32.

Ziemann, J., Matheis, T., Freiheit, J.: Modelling of cross-organizational business processes-current methods and standards. EMISA, 87–100 (2007)

33.

Söderström, E., Andersson, B., Johannesson, P., Perjons, E., Wangler, B.: Towards a framework for comparing process modelling languages. In: Pidduck, A.B., Ozsu, M.T., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 600–611. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-47961-9_41 CrossRef

34.

Wahl, T., Sindre, G.: An analytical evaluation of BPMN using a semiotic quality framework. Adv. Top. Database Res. 5, 94–105 (2006)CrossRef

35.

List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1532–1539. ACM (2006)

36.

Russell, N., Aalst, W., Hofstede, A.: Workflow exception patterns. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 288–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11767138_20 CrossRef

37.

Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling-a comparative analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10(4), 1 (2009)

38.

Johansson, L.O., Wärja, M., Carlsson, S.: An evaluation of business process model techniques, using Moody’s quality criterion for a good diagram. In: BIR12. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.Org, vol. 963 (2012)

39.

Mili, H., Tremblay, G., Jaoude, G.B.: Business process modeling languages: sorting through the alphabet soup. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 43(1), 4 (2010)CrossRef

40.

Kelemen, Z.D., Kusters, R., Trienekens, J., Balla, K.: Selecting a process modeling language for process based unification of multiple standards and models. Technical report TR201304, Budapest (2013)

41.

Heidari, F., Loucopoulos, P., Brazier, F., Barjis, J.: A unified view of business process modelling languages 1 (2012)

42.

Kock, N., Verville, J., Danesh-Pajou, A., DeLuca, D.: Communication flow orientation in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: results from a field study. Decis. Support Syst. 46(2), 562–575 (2009)CrossRef

43.

Aksu, F., Vanhoof, K., De Munck, L.: Evaluation and comparison of business process modeling methodologies for small and midsized enterprises. In: Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering (ISKE), pp. 664–667. IEEE (2010)

44.

Cortes-Cornax, M., Dupuy-Chessa, S., Rieu, D., Dumas, M.: Evaluating choreographies in BPMN 2.0 using an extended quality framework. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) BPMN 2011. LNBIP, vol. 95, pp. 103–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25160-3_8 CrossRef

45.

Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Service interaction patterns: towards a reference framework for service-based business process interconnection. Faculty of IT, Queensland University of Technology (2005)

46.

Genon, N., Heymans, P., Amyot, D.: Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 visual notation. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 377–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19440-5_25 CrossRef

47.

Awadid, A., Nurcan, S.: Towards enhancing business process modeling formalisms of EKD with consistency consideration. In: RCIS Conference. IEEE, Grenoble (2016)

48.

Daoudi, F., Nurcan, S.: A benchmarking framework for methods to design flexible business processes. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 12(1), 51–63 (2007)CrossRef

49.

Schalles, C., Creagh, J., Rebstock, M., Ave, R.: Exploring usability-driven differences of graphical modeling languages: an empirical research report (2012)

50.

Rima, A., Vasilecas, O., Šmaižys, A.: Comparative analysis of business rules and business process modeling languages. Comput. Sci. Tech. 1(1), 52–60 (2013)CrossRef

51.

Di Ciccio, C., Marrella, A., Russo, A.: Knowledge-intensive processes: an overview of contemporary approaches. In: 1st International Workshop on Knowledge-intensive Business Processes, KiBP 2012, Rome (2012)

52.

Afrasiabi Rad, A., Benyoucef, M., Kuziemsky, C.E.: An evaluation framework for business process modeling languages in healthcare. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 4(2), 1–19 (2009)CrossRef

53.

Jang, J., Fekete, A., Greenfield, P., Kuo, D.: Expressiveness of workflow description languages. In: ICWS, pp. 104–110 (2003)

54.

Mohammadi, M., Mukhtar, M.B.: Theoretical and conceptual approach for evaluation business process modelling languages. J. Converg. Inf. Technol. 8(4), 372–384 (2013)CrossRef

55.

Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge–Wand–Weber model. Softw. Syst. Model. 1(1), 43–67 (2002)

56.

Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Developing a meta model for the Bunge–Wand–Weber ontological constructs. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 75–91 (2002)CrossRef

57.

Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P.: A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of process modeling grammars. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 447–461. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11767138_30 CrossRef

58.

Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Krogstie, J.: Ontology-versus pattern-based evaluation of process modeling languages: a comparison. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 20(1), 48 (2007)

59.

Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.: Pattern based analysis of BPEL4WS. QUT Technical report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2002)

60.

Ou-Yang, C., Lin, Y.D.: BPMN-based business process model feasibility analysis: a petri net approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46(14), 3763–3781 (2008)CrossRef

61.

Dussart, A., Aubert, B.A., Patry, M.: An evaluation of inter-organizational workflow modelling formalisms. J. Database Manag. (JDM) 15(2), 74–104 (2004)CrossRef

62.

Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Integrated process modeling: an ontological evaluation. Inf. Syst. 25(2), 73–87 (2000)CrossRef

63.

Green, P.F., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M.: Ontological evaluation of enterprise systems interoperability using ebXML. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 17(5), 713–725 (2005)CrossRef

64.

Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Manning, C.: Candidate interoperability standards: an ontological overlap analysis. Data Knowl. Eng. 62(2), 274–291 (2007)CrossRef

65.

Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(3), 301–326 (2005)CrossRef

66.

Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H., van der Aalst, W.M.: Fundamentals of control flow in workflows. Acta Inform. 39(3), 143–209 (2003)CrossRef

67.

Recker, J.C.: Why do we keep using a process modelling technique? (2007)

68.

Recker, J.C., Indulska, M.: An ontology-based evaluation of process modeling with petri nets. IBIS – Internat. J. Interoperability Bus. Inf. Syst. 2(1), 45–64 (2007)

69.

Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Wohed, P.: On the suitability of UML 2.0 activity diagrams for business process modelling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, vol. 53, pp. 95–104. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2006)

70.

Wohed, P., Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., Hofstede, A.H.M., Russell, N.: On the suitability of BPMN for business process modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11841760_12 CrossRef

71.

Zur Muehlen, M., Indulska, M.: Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: a representational analysis. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 379–390 (2010)CrossRef

72.

van der Aalst, W.M.: Patterns and xpdl: a critical evaluation of the xml process definition language. BPM Center report BPM-03-09, BPMcenter.org, pp. 1–30 (2003)

73.

Ning, K., Li, Q., Chen, Y.L.: Study of evaluation technology of business process modeling methods. Jisuanji Jicheng Zhizao Xitong/Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst. (China) 8(10), 792–796 (2002)

74.

Eloranta, L., Kallio, E., Terho, I.: A notation evaluation of BPMN and UML activity diagrams. Special course in information systems (2006)

75.

Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)CrossRef

76.

Saidani, O., Nurcan, S.: Towards context aware business process modelling. In: 8th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support (BPMDS 2007), CAiSE, vol. 7, p. 1 (2007)

77.

Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods–a review and comparative analysis. Inf. Syst. J. 21(3), 249–268 (2011)CrossRef

78.

Krogstie, J.: Evaluating UML using a generic quality framework. In: Favre, L. (ed.) UML and the Unified Process. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2003)

79.

Letsholo, K.J., Chioasca, E.V., Zhao, L.: An integrative approach to support multi-perspective business process modeling. Int. J. Serv. Comput. 2(1), 11–24 (2014)

80.

Wolfswinkel, J.F., Furtmueller, E., Wilderom, C.P.: Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(1), 45–55 (2013)CrossRef

Titel: Towards a Decision-Support System for Selecting the Appropriate Business Process Modeling Formalism: A Context-Aware Roadmap
verfasst von: Afef Awadid
Selmin Nurcan
Sonia Ayachi Ghannouchi
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59465-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-59466-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59466-8_15

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"