Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criteria and Heuristics for Business Process Model Decomposition

Review and Comparative Evaluation

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Business & Information Systems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is generally agreed that large process models should be decomposed into sub-processes in order to enhance understandability and maintainability. Accordingly, a number of process decomposition criteria and heuristics have been proposed in the literature. This paper presents a review of the field revealing distinct classes of criteria and heuristics. The study raises the question of how different decomposition heuristics affect process model understandability and maintainability. To address this question, an experiment is conducted where two different heuristics, one based on breakpoints and the other on data objects, were used to decompose a flat process model. The results of the experiment show that, although there are minor differences, the heuristics cause very similar results in regard to understandability and maintainability as measured by various process model metrics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The list of publications can be accessed at http://sep.cs.ut.ee/Main/ProcessDecomposition.

  2. The flat process model can be accessed at http://sep.cs.ut.ee/Main/ProcessDecomposition.

  3. The values for the experiment can be accessed at http://sep.cs.ut.ee/Main/ProcessDecomposition.

  4. The statistical analysis can be accessed at http://sep.cs.ut.ee/Main/ProcessDecomposition.

References

  • Antón A, McCracken W, Potts C (1994) Goal decomposition and scenario analysis in business process reengineering. Adv Inform Syst LNCS 811:94–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Becker J, Winkelmann A (2009) Developing a business process modeling language for the banking sector – a design science approach. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2009. http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1718&context=amcis2009. Accessed 18 Oct 2015

  • Braunnagel D, Johannsen F, Leist S (2014) Coupling and process modeling – an analysis at hand of the eEPC. In: Proceedings Modellierung 2014. Wien, pp 121–136. http://epub.uni-regensburg.de/29719/. Accessed 18 Oct 2015

  • Burton-Jones A, Meso PN (2004) Conceptualizing systems for understanding: an empirical test of decomposition principles in object oriented analysis. Inf Syst Res 17(1):38–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso J (2005) How to measure the control-flow complexity of web process and workflows. http://www.academia.edu/3156014/How_to_Measure_the_Control-flow_Complexity_of_Web_Processes_and_Workflows. Accessed 18 Oct 2015

  • Cardoso J, Mendling J (2006) A discourse on complexity of process models. Bus Process Manag Workshops LNCS 4103:117–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conforti R, Dumas M, García-Bañuelos L, La Rosa M (2014) Beyond tasks and gateways: discovering BPMN models with subprocesses, boundary events and activity markers. Bus Process Manag LNCS 8659:101–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Daneva M, Heib R, Scheer A (1996) Benchmarking business process models. Technical Report, Saarland University

  • Davis R (2001) Business process modelling with ARIS: a practical guide. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Leoni M, Munoz-Gama J, Carmona J, Van der Aalst WMP (2014) Decomposing alignment-based conformance checking of data-aware process models. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2014 Conferences. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 3–20

  • Dijkman R, Gfeller B, Küster J, Völzer H (2011) Identifying refactoring opportunities in process model repositories. Inf Softw Technol 53(9):937–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkman R, Vanderfeesten I, Reijers HA (2014) Business process architectures: overview, comparison and framework. Enterp Inf Syst. doi:10.1080/17517575.2014.928951

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumas M, La Rosa M, Mendling J, Raul M (2012) Understanding business process models: the costs and benefits of structuredness. In: CAiSE’12 Proc 24th Int Conf Adv Inf Syst Eng, vol 7328, pp 31–46

  • Eberle H, Unger T, Leymann F (2009) Process fragments. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems. LNCS, vol 5870, pp 398–405

  • Eppinger SD, Whintey DE, Smith RP, Gebala DA (1994) A model-based method for organizing task in product development. Res Eng Des 6(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang Y, He K, Feng Z, Huang Y (2014) Business process consolidation based on E-RPSTs. In: Serv. (SERVICES), 2014 IEEE World Congr. IEEE, pp 354–361

  • Ivanović D, Carro M, Hermenegildo M (2010) Automatic fragment identification in workflows based on sharing analysis. LNCS 6470:350–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen F, Leist S (2012) Wand and Weber’s decomposition model in the context of business process modeling. Bus Inf Syst Eng 4(5):275–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalaf R, Leymann F (2006) E role-based decomposition of business processes using BPEL. In: Proceeding ICWS’06 Proc IEEE Int Conf Web Serv, pp 770–780

  • Kim K, Won J, Kim C (2005) A fragment-driven process modeling methodology. In: Computational science and its applications – ICCSA 2005. LNCS, vol 3482, pp 817–826

  • Kitchenham B (2004) Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Technical Report, Keele Univ, vol 33, p 28

  • Kock NFJ, McQueen RJ (1996) Product flow, breadth and complexity of business processes: an empirical study of 15 business processes in three organizations. Bus Process Re-eng Manag J 2(2):8–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kueng P, Kawalek P (1997) Goal-based business process models: creation and evaluation. Bus Process Manag J 3:17–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusiak A, Wang J (1993) Efficient organizing of design activities. Int J Prod Res 31(4):753–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latva-Koivisto A (2001) Finding a complexity measure for business process models. Tech. Rep. Helsinki Univ. Technol. Syst. Anal., pp 1–26

  • León HCM, Farris JA, Letens G, Hernandez A (2013) An analytical management framework for new product development processes featuring uncertain iterations. J Eng Technol Manag 30(1):45–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li W, Moon YB (2012) Modeling and managing engineering changes in a complex product development process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 63(9):863–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinova M, Leopold H, Mendling J (2013) An empirical investigation on the design of process architectures. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik 2013, Leipzig

  • Malone TW, Crowston K, Lee JLJ, Pentland B (1993) Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes. Proc Second Work Enabling Technol Collab Enterp 45:425–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J (2006) Testing density as a complexity metric for EPCs. Tech. Rep. Vienna Univ. Econ. Bus. Adm.

  • Mendling J, Neumann G, van der Aalst W (2007) Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4803:113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Reijers HA, van der Aalst WMP (2010) Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf Softw Technol 52(2):127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milani F, Dumas M, Matulevičius R (2013) Decomposition driven consolidation of process models. Adv Inform Syst Eng LNCS 7908:193–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Muehlen MZ, Wisnosky D, Kindrick J (2010) Primitives: design guidelines and architecture for BPMN models. In: Australas. Conf. Inf. Syst

  • Muketha G, Ghani A (2010) A survey of business processes complexity metrics. Inf Technol J 9(7):1336–1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimmler TU, Eppinger SD (1994) Integration analysis of product decompositions. Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl K (2010) Requirements engineering: fundamentals, principles, and techniques. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Polyvyanyy A, Smirnov S, Weske M (2009) The triconnected abstraction of process models. In: Dayal U, Eder J, Koehler J, Reijers H (eds) Business process management, vol 5701. LNCS, pp 229–244

  • Polyvyanyy A, Smirnov S, Weske M (2010) Business process model abstraction. In: Handb. Bus. Process Manag. 1. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 149–166

  • Reijers HA (2003) A cohesion metric for the definition of activities in a workflow process. In: Proc. EMMSAD. pp 116–125

  • Reijers HA, Mendling J (2011) A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 41(3):449–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reijers HA, Vanderfeesten I (2004) Cohesion and coupling metrics for workflow process design. In: Proc Bus Process Manag – Second Int Conf BPM 2004, Potsdam, pp 290–305

  • Reijers HA, Mendling J, Dijkman RM (2011) Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf Syst 36(5):881–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers JL (1990) Knowledge-based tool for decomposing complex design problems. J Comput Civ Eng 4(4):298–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa L, Mendling J, La Rosa M (2012) Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models. J Syst Softw 85(5):1188–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadiq S, Governatori G (2010) Managing regulatory compliance in business processes. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handb. Bus. Process Manag. 2. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 159–175

  • Sharp A, McDermott P (2009) Workflow modeling: tools for process improvement and applications development. Artech House

  • Smirnov S, Dijkman R, Mendling J, Weske M (2010) Meronymy-based aggregation of activities in business process models. Concept Model LNCS 6412:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Smirnov S, Reijers HA, Weske M, Nugteren T (2012) Business process model abstraction: a definition, catalog, and survey. Distrib Parallel Databases 30(1):63–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RP, Morrow J (1999) Product development process modeling. Des Stud 20(3):237–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turetken O, Demirors O (2011) Plural: a decentralized business process modeling method. Inf Manag 48(6):235–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uba R, Dumas M, García-Bañuelos L, La Rosa M (2011) Clone detection in repositories of business process models. Bus Process Manag LNCS 6896:248–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderfeesten I, Cardoso J, Reijers HA (2007) A weighted coupling metric for business process models. CEUR Workshop Proc 247:41–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderfeesten I, Reijers HA, Mendling J, van der Aalst WMP, Cardoso J (2008a) On a quest for good process models: the cross-connectivity metric. LNCS 5074:480–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderfeesten I, Reijers HA, van der Aalst WMP (2008b) Evaluating workflow process designs using cohesion and coupling metrics. Comput Ind 59(5):420–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhatalo J, Völzer H, Koehler J (2009) The refined process structure tree. Data Knowl Eng 68(9):793–818. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2009.02.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber B, Reichert M, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2011) Refactoring large process model repositories. Comput Ind 62(5):467–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerberg AW, Subrahmainan E, Reich Y, Konda S (1997) Designing the process design process. Comput Chem Eng 21(Supplement):S1–S9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolter C, Schaad A (2007) Modeling of task-based authorization constraints in BPMN. In: Alonso G, Dadam P, Rosemann M (eds) Business process management, vol 4714. LNCS, pp 64–79

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the European Social Fund via the Doctoral Studies and Internationalisation Programme – DoRa.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tartu, Liivi 2, 504 09, Tartu, Estonia

    Fredrik Milani, Marlon Dumas, Raimundas Matulevičius, Naved Ahmed & Silva Kasela

Authors
  1. Fredrik Milani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marlon Dumas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raimundas Matulevičius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naved Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Silva Kasela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fredrik Milani.

Additional information

Accepted after two revisions by the editors of the special issue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milani, F., Dumas, M., Matulevičius, R. et al. Criteria and Heuristics for Business Process Model Decomposition. Bus Inf Syst Eng 58, 7–17 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0413-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0413-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation