Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 1159–1188 | Cite as

Design science in action: developing a modeling technique for eliciting requirements on business process management (BPM) tools

Special Section Paper

Abstract

Selecting a suitable business process management (BPM) tool to build a business process support system for a particular business process is difficult. There are a number of BPM tools on the market that are available as systems to install locally and as services in the cloud. These tools are based on different BPM paradigms (e.g., workflow or case management) and provide different capabilities (e.g., enforcement of the control flow, shared spaces, or a collaborative environment). This makes it difficult for an organization to select a tool that would fit the business processes at hand. The paper suggests a solution for this problem. The core of the solution is a modeling technique for business processes for eliciting their requirements for a suitable BPM tool. It produces a high-level, business process model, called a “step-relationship” model that depicts the essential characteristics of a process in a paradigm-independent way. The solution presented in this paper has been developed based on the paradigm of design science research, and the paper discusses the research project from the design science perspective. The solution has been applied in two case studies in order to demonstrate its feasibility.

Keywords

Business process modeling Workflow  Case management Shared space Design science 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all members of our team without whose efforts this paper would have never been written. Special thanks to Athanasios Karapantelakis and Nirjal Khadka, who participated in the project aimed at validation of the modeling technique suggested in this project. The authors are also much in debt to the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped us to improve the structure and readability of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    ActionFlow: ActionFlow web site, available (2012–10-01) at: http://www.actionflow.com (2012)
  2. 2.
    Agile manifesto: Manifesto for Agile Software Development, available (2012–10-01) at: http://agilemanifesto.org/ (2001)
  3. 3.
    Alter, S.: Work system theory: overview of core concepts, extensions, and challenges for the future. JAIS 14(2), 72–121 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, J., Donnellan, B., Hevner, A.R.: Exploring the Relationship between Design Science Research and Innovation: A Case Study of Innovation at Chevron, Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andersson, T., Bider, I., Svensson, R.: Aligning people to business processes experience report. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 10(4), 403–413 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anttila, J., Jussila, K.: An advanced insight into managing business processes in practice. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 24(8), 918–932 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Appian: Appian cloud BPM, available (2012–10-01) at: http://www.appian.com/bpm-software/cloudbpm.jsp (2012)
  8. 8.
    Baresi, L., Casati, F., Castano, S., Fugini, M.G., Mirbel, I., Pernici, B.: Workflow design methodology. In: Grefen, P., Pernici, B., Sanchez, G. (eds.) Database Support for Workflow Management: The WIDE Project, pp. 47–94, Kluwer (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baskerville, R.L., Pries-Heje, J., Venable, J.: Soft Design Science Methodology, DERIST 2009, ACM, pp. 1–11 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bider, I., Bellinger, G., Perjons, E.: Modeling an agile enterprise: reconciling systems and process thinking. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A. (eds.) The Practice of Enterprise Modelling, IFIP, LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 238–252, Springer, Berlin (2011a)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bider, I., Johannesson, P., Schmidt, R.: Experiences of using different communication styles in business process support systems with the shared spaces architecture, Proceedings of CAiSE 2011, LNCS, Vol. 6741, pp. 299–313, Springer, Berlin, (2011b)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bider, I., Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: Design science research as movement between individual and generic situation-problem-solution spaces. In: Baskerville, R., De Marco, M., Spagnoletti, P. (eds.) Organizational Systems. An Interdisciplinary Discourse, pp. 35–61. Springer, Berlin (2013a)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bider, I., Karapantelakis, A., Khadka, N.: Building a high-level process model for soliciting requirements on software tools to support software development: experience report. PoEM 2013 (Short Papers). CEUR 1023, 70–82 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bider I., Perjons E., Johannesson P.: In Search of the Holy Grail: Integrating social Software with BPM. Experience Report. LNBIP, No 50, pp 1–13, Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Evaluating adequacy of business process modeling approaches. Handb. Res. Complex Dyn. Process Manag. Techn. Adapt. Turbul. Environ., IGI, 79–102 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bider, I., Perjons E.: Preparing for the Era of Cloud Computing: Towards a Framework for Selecting Business Process Support Services. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, LNBIP, No 113, pp. 16–30, Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bider, I., Perjons, E., Riaz Dar, Z.: Using Data-Centric Business Process Modeling for Discovering Requirements for Business Process Support Systems: Experience Report. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, LNBIP 147, pp. 63–77, Springer, Berlin (2013c)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Box, G.E.P., Draper, N.R.: Empirical Model Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley, New York (1987)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    BPMN: Business Process Model and Notation website, Object Management Group, available (2012–10-01) at: http://www.bpmn.org/ (2012)
  20. 20.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duarte Filho, N. F., Costa, N. P.: A set of requirements for business process management suite (BPMS). In: Advances in Information Systems and Technologies, pp. 487–496, Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    FIPS: Standard for integration definition for function modeling (IDEF0). National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). FIPS publication, p. 183 (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gilbert, P.: The next decade of BPM. Keynote presentation at BPM 2010 conference, available (2012–10-01) at: http://www.bpm2010.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2010-09-14-Gilbert-BPM-2010-Keynote.pdf (2010)
  24. 24.
    Giere, R.: Scientific Perspectivism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: A manifesto for Business Revolution, Harper Business, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hant, V.D.: Process Mapping: How to Reengineer Your Business Processes. Wiley, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    iPB: iPB Reference Manual, available (2012–10-01) at: http://docs.ibissoft.se/node/3 (2012)
  29. 29.
    Khan, R.: Evaluating BPM software. Bus. Integr. J. October issue (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khomyakov M., Bider, I.: Achieving Workflow Flexibility through Taming the Chaos, OOIS 2000–6th international conference on object oriented information systems, pp. 85–92, Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kleiner, N.: The focus of requirements engineering in workflow application development. CEUR Workshops Proc. 75, 372–377 (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Link, E.: Diffusion Dynamics and Pricing of Innovations. Lund University Press, Lund (1997)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Müller, D., Reichert, M., Herbst, J.: Data-Driven Modeling and Coordination of Large Process Structures. In OTM2007, PartI, LNCS 4803. pp. 131–49, Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neuman, W.L.: Social Research Methods. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sixth Edition, Peason (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., Sinz, E.J.: Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 20(1), 7–10 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–78 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Projectplace: Project Place website available (2012–10-01) at: http://www.projectplace.com (2012)
  38. 38.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York (1962)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    SalesForce: SaleForce website, available (2012–10-01) at: http://www.salesforce.com (2012)
  40. 40.
    Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35(1), 37–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    SpringCM: Content cloud services, available (2012-10-01) at: https://www.springcm.com/products/springcm-content-cloud-services (2012)
  42. 42.
    Swenson, K.D. (ed.): Mastering the Unpredictable: How Adaptive Case Management Will Revolutionize the Way That Knowledge Workers Get Things Done. Meghan-Kiffer Press, Tampa (2010)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl. Eng. 53(2), 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Van, Hee K.M.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wieringa, R.J.: Design science as nested problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, ACM, Philadelphia, pp. 1–12 (2009)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wohed, P., Andersson, B., Johannesson, P.: Open source workflow systems, Mod. Bus. Process Automa. 401–434 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DSVStockholm UniversityKista, StockholmSweden
  2. 2.IbisSoft AB StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations