Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (BPMDS 2017, EMMSAD 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 287))

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.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    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).

References

  1. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CRI, University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Afef Awadid & Selmin Nurcan

  2. RIADI Laboratory, University of Manouba, Manouba, Tunisia

    Sonia Ayachi Ghannouchi

Authors
  1. Afef Awadid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Selmin Nurcan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonia Ayachi Ghannouchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Afef Awadid .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Haifa , Haifa, Israel

    Iris Reinhartz-Berger

  2. University of Duisburg-Essen , Duisburg, Germany

    Jens Gulden

  3. Université de Paris 1 Panthéon - Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Selmin Nurcan

  4. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Wided Guédria

  5. Saint Louis University , St. Louis, Missouri, USA

    Palash Bera

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Awadid, A., Nurcan, S., Ghannouchi, S.A. (2017). Towards a Decision-Support System for Selecting the Appropriate Business Process Modeling Formalism: A Context-Aware Roadmap. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Gulden, J., Nurcan, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2017 2017. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 287. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59466-8_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation