skip to main content
10.1145/1141277.1141633acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages

Published:23 April 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

Conceptual Business Process Modelling Languages (BPMLs) express certain aspects of processes (e.g. activities, roles, interactions, data, etc.) and address different application areas. To evaluate BPMLs, a general framework is required. Although a lot of BPMLs are available in research and industry, an established evaluation framework as well as a comprehensive evaluation of BPMLs is missing. To bridge this gap, we propose a generic meta-model that captures a wide range of process concepts and evaluate seven BPMLs based on this meta-model.

References

  1. Billington, J., Christensen, S., van Hee, K. E., Kindler, E., Kummer, O., Petrucci, L., Post, R., Stehno, C. and Weber, M. The Petri Net Markup Language: Concepts. Technology, and Tools. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference Applications and Theory of PetriNets (ICATPN 2003), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Business Process Management Initiative: Business Process Modeling Language. Specification Version 1.0, November 13, 2002, http://www.bpmn.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Business Process Management Initiative: Business Process Modeling Notation. Specification Version 1.0, May 3, 2004, http://www.bpmn.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Curtis, B., Kellner, M. and Over, J. Process Modeling. Communication of the ACM, Vol. 35, No.9, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Hammer, M. Beyond Reengineering -- How the process-centered organization is changing our work and our lives. Harper Collins Publishers, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Harrington, J. H. Business Process Improvement -- The breakthrough strategy for total quality, productivity, and competitiveness. McGraw-Hill, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Holt, A., Ramsey, R. and Grimes, J. Coordinating System Technology as the Basis for a Programming Environment. Electrical Communication, Vol. 57, No. 4 (1983), pp. 307--314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacobson, I., Ericson, M. and Jacobson, A. The Object Advantage -- Business Process Reengineering with Object Technology. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Kueng, P. and Kawalek, P. Goal-based business process models: creation and evaluation. Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, April 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Lin, FR., Yang, MC. and Pai, YH. A generic structure for business process modeling. Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8. No.1, Emerald, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. List, B. and Korherr, B. A UML 2 Profile for Business Process Modelling. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Best Practices of UML (BP-UML 2005) at the 24th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2005), Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS 3770, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mayer, R., Menzel, C., Painter, M., Perakath, B., de Witte P. and Blinn T. Information Integration For Concurrent Engineering (IICE) -- IDEF3 Process Description Capture Method Report. Technical Report September 1995 http://www.idef.com/pdf/idef3_fn.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mendling, J., Neumann, G. and Nüttgens, M. A Comparison of XML Interchange Formats for Business Process Modelling. In Proceedings of the EMISA 2004 Workshop "Information Systems in E-Business and E-Government", Vol. 56 of Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Mendling, J. and Nüttgens, M. EPC Markup Language (EPML) -- An XML-Based Interchange Format for Event-Driven Process Chains (EPC). Technical Report JM-2005-03-10. Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Version 2005-03-10, http://wi.wu-wien.ac.at/~mendling/publications/TR05-EPML.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Object Management Group. Business Process Definition Metamodel. Version 1.0.2 (January 12th 2004), http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/BPDM/OMG-BPD-2004-01-12-Revision.pdf. Object Management Group: Unified Modelling Language. Version 2.0., http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/05-07-04.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Ould, M. Business Processes -- Modelling and Analysis for Re-engineering and Improvement. John Wiley & Sons, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Petri, C. A. Kommunikation mit Automaten. Dissertation, Schriften des IIM Nr. 2, Institut für Instrumentelle Mathematik, Universität Bonn, 1962.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Scheer, A.-W. ARIS -- Business Process Modeling. Springer Verlag, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Söderström, E., Andersson. B., Johannesson, P., Perjons, E. and Wangler B. Towards A Framework for Comparing Process Modelling Languages. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2002), Springer Verlag, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A. H. M. and Edmond, D. Workflow Data Patterns. QUT Technical report, FIT-TR-2004-01, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 2004, http://is.tm.tue.nl/research/patterns/documentation.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. van der Aalst, W. M. P., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., Kiepuszewski, B. and Barros, A. P. Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 14(3), pages 5--51, July, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Workflow Management Coalition. Interface 1: Process Definition Interchange Process Model, WfMC TC-1016-M (1998), http://www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/if19807m.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W. M. P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., and Russell, N. Pattern-based Analysis of the Control-flow Perspective of UML Activity Diagrams. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Conceptual Modelling (ER 2005), Springer Verlag, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SAC '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing
            April 2006
            1967 pages
            ISBN:1595931082
            DOI:10.1145/1141277

            Copyright © 2006 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 23 April 2006

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader