Guidelines of Business Process Modeling

  • Jörg Becker
  • Michael Rosemann
  • Christoph von Uthmann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1806)

Abstract

Process modeling becomes more and more an important task not only for the purpose of software engineering, but also for many other purposes besides the development of software. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate the quality of process models from different viewpoints. This is even more important as the increasing number of different end users, different purposes and the availability of different modeling techniques and modeling tools leads to a higher complexity of information models. In this paper the Guidelines of Modeling (GoM)1, a framework to structure factors for the evaluation of process models, is presented. Exemplary, Guidelines of Modeling for workflow management and simulation are presented. Moreover, six general techniques for adjusting models to the perspectives of different types of user and purposes will be explained.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S. B.: Conceptual Database Design. An Entity-Relationship-Approach. Benjamin Cummings, Redwood City, California (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Batini, C., Furlani, L., Nardelli, E.: What is a good diagram? A pragmatic approach. In: Chen, P. P.-S. (ed.): Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach: The Use of ER Concept in Knowledge Representation. Elsevier, North-Holland, 312–319Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., Schütte, R.: Guidelines of Modelling (GoM). Wirtschaftsinformatik 37 (1995) 5, 435–445 (in German)Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Chen, P. P.-S.: The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1 (1997) 1, 9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Curran, Th., Keller G.: SAP R/3. Business Blueprint: Understanding the Business Process Reference Model. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1998)Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Darke, P., Shanks, G.: Stakeholder Viewpoints in Requirements Definition: A Framework for Understanding Viewpoint Development Approaches. Requirements Engineering 1 (1996), 85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Davenport, T.H.: Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Boston, Massachusetts (1992)Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Davenport, T.H., Short, J.E.: The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesing. Sloan Management Review 31 (1990) 4, 11–27Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Davis, M., Paterson, R., Wilson, A.: UK GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United Kingdom. 5th ed., Clays Ltd, Bungay, Suffolk (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Deiters, W.: Information Gathering and Process Modeling in a Petri Net Based Approach: Part III, Chapter 1 of this volumeGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Deiters, W.; Gruhn, V.: The Funsoft Net Approach to Software Process Management. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 4 (1994) 2, 229–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Desel, J., Erwin, T.: Simulation of Business Processes: Part II, Chapter 2 in this volumeGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    van Es, R. M.; Post, H. A.: Dynamic Enterprise Modeling. A Paradigm Shift in Software Implementation. Kluwer, Deventer (1996)Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Georgakopoulos, D.; Hornick, M., Sheth, A.: An Overview of Workflow Management: From Process Modeling to Workflow Automation Infrastructure. Distributed and Parallel Databases 3 (1995) 2, 119–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: An Ontological Analysis of Integrated Process Modelling. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.): Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference-CAiSE’ 99. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1626. Springer-Verlag, Berlin et al. (1999), 225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Hammer, M.: Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business Review 68 (1990) 4, 104–112Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: a Manifesto for Business Revolution. London (1993)Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Hess, T., Brecht, L.: State of the Art des Business Process Redesign: Darstellung und Vergleich bestehender Methoden. 2nd ed., Gabler-Verlag, Wiesbaden (1996) (in German)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Horngren, Ch. T.; Harrison, W. T.: Accounting, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1992)Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    IDS Scheer AG: ARIS Methods. Version 4.1. Saarbrücken (1999)Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Ishikawa, K.: What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Jannsens, G. K., Verelst, J., Weyn, B.: Techniques for Modelling Workflows and their Support of Reuse: Part I, Chapter 1 in this volumeGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Kirchmer, M.: Business Process Oriented Implementation of Standard Software. Springer-Verlag, Berlin et al. (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Krogstie, J., Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G.: Towards a Deeper Understanding of Quality in Requirements Engineering. In: Iivari, J., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M. (eds.): Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering — CAiSE’ 95. Springer-Verlag, Berlin et al. (1995), 82–95Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Leymann, F., Altenhuber, W.: Managing business processes as information resources. IBM Systems Journal 33 (1994) 2, 326–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Workflow-based applications. IBM Systems Journal 36 (1997) 1, 102–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modeling. IEEE Software 11 (1994) 2, 42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Macaulay, L. A.: Requirements Engineering, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Miller, M. M.: Comprehensive GAAP Guide. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, San Diego et al. (1988)Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Moody, D. L.: Graphical Entity Relationship Models: Towards a More User Understandable Representation of Data. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.): Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling: Conceptual Modeling — ER’ 96. Springer-Verlag, Berlin et al. (1996), 227–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Moody, D. L.; Shanks, G. G.: What makes a Good Data Model? A Framework for Evaluating and Improving the Quality of Entity Relationship Models. The Australian Computer Journal, 30 (1998) 3, 97–110Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Moddy, D. L.: Shanks, G.: Improving the Quality of Entity Relationship Models: An Action Research Programme. In: Edmundson, B., Wilson, D. (eds.): Proceedings of the 9th Australiasian Conference on Information Systems. Vol. II, Sydney (1998), 433–448Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Nissen, H. W., Jeusfeld, M. A., Jarke, M., Zemanek, G. V., Huber, H.: Managing Multiple Requirements Perspectives with Metamodels. IEEE Software 13 (1996) 3, 37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Nummenmaa, J.; Tuomi, J.: Constructing layouts for ER-diagrams from visibility-representations. In: Kangassalo, H. (ed.): Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach — ER’ 90: Entity-Relationship Approach. Elsevier, North-Holland (1991), 303–317Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Oakland, J.S.: Total Quality Management: The Route to Improving Performance. 2nd ed., Nichols Publishing, New Jersey, NJ, (1993)Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Opdahl, A. L.: Towards a faceted modelling language. In: Galliers, R. et al.: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Information Systems — ECIS’ 97. Cork 1997, 353–366Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Pagnoni, A: Management-oriented Models of Business Processes: Part I, Chapter 7 in this volumeGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Pareira, V., Paterson, R., Wilson, A.: UK/US GAAP Comparison. 3rd ed., Briddles Ltd, Guildford and King’s Lynn (1994)Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Poirier, C. A.: Advanced Supply Chain Management: How to Build a Sustained Competition. Publishers’ Group West (1999)Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Reisig, W.: Petri Nets-An Introduction. Berlin (1985)Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Rosemann, M.: Complexity Management in Process Models. Gabler-Verlag, Wiesbaden (1996) (in German)Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Rosemann, M.: Managing the Complexity of Multiperspective Information Models using the Guidelines of Modeling. In: Fowler, D., Dawson, L. (eds.): Proceedings of the 3rd Australian Conference on Requirements Engineering. Geelong (1998), 101–118Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Rosemann, M, Green, P.: Enhancing the Process of Ontological Analysis-The “Who cares?” Dimension. In: Dampney, K. (ed.): Proceedings of the IS Foundations-Workshop. Sydney, 29. September (1999)Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    Rosemann, M., zur Mühlen, M.: Evaluation of Workflow Management Systems-a Meta Model Approach. Australian Journal of Information Systems 6 (1998) 1, 103–116Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Scheer, A.-W.: Business Process Engineering. 3rd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin et al. (1998)Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Scheer A.-W.: ARIS-Business Process Modeling. 2nd ed. Berlin et al. (1999)Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M: ARIS Architecture and Reference Models for Business Process Management, Part III, Chapter 8 in this volumeGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Scherr, A. L.: A new approach to business processes. IBM Systems Journal 32 (1993) 1, 80–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    Schütte, R., Rotthowe, Th.: The Guidelines of Modelling as an approach to enhance the quality of information models. In: Ling, T. W., Ram, S., Lee, M. L. (eds.): Conceptual Modeling — ER’ 98. 17th International ER-Conference, Singapore, November 16–19, 1998. Springer-Verlag, Berlin et al. (1998) 240–254Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    Spencer, R., Teorey, T.; Hevia, E.: ER Standards Proposal. In: Kangassalo, H. (ed.): Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach — ER’ 90: Entity-Relationship Approach. Elsevier, North-Holland (1991), 425–432Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    Tamassia, R., Di Battista, C., Batini, C.: Automatic graph drawing and readability of diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 18 (1988) 1, 61–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    Tunney, P.B., Reeve, J.M.: The Impact of Continuous Improvement on the Design of Activity Based Cost Systems. Journal of Cost Management (1992) 43–50Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    von Uthmann, C., Becker, J.: Petri Nets for Modeling Business Processes-Potentials, Deficits and Recommendations. In: Proceedings of the Colloquium on Petri Net Technologies for Modelling Communication Based Systems. Berlin 1999 (to appear)Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    von Uthmann, C., Becker, J.: Guidelines of Modeling (GoM) for Business Process Simulation. In: Scholz-Reiter, B., Stahlmann, H.-D., Nethe, A. (eds.): Process Modeling. Berlin, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Heh, K.M.: Business Process Redesign: A Petri-net-based approach. Computers in Industry 29 (1996) 1–2, 15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    Wand, Y.; Weber, R.: On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal 5 (1995) 3, 203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    Weber, R.: Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers & Lybrand Accounting Research Methodology Monograph No. 4, Melbourne (1997)Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., Roos, D.: The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production. Harpercollins (1991)Google Scholar
  59. [59]
    Zamperoni, A., Löhr-Richter, P.: Enhancing the Quality of Conceptual Database Specifications through Validation. In: Elmasri, R. A., Kouramajian, V., Thalheim, B. (eds.): Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach — ER’ 93. Springer-Verlag, Berlin et al. (1993), 85–98Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Becker
    • 1
  • Michael Rosemann
    • 2
  • Christoph von Uthmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.School of Information SystemsQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations