An Approach Toward the Economic Assessment of Business Process Compliance

  • Stephan KuehnelEmail author
  • Andrea Zasada
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11158)


Business process compliance (BPC) denotes business processes that adhere to requirements originating from different sources, e.g., laws or regulations. Compliance measures are used in business processes to prevent compliance violations and their consequences, such as fines or monetary sanctions. Compliance measures also incur costs, e.g., for tools, hardware, or personnel. To ensure that companies can work economically even in intensively regulated environments, the economic viability of BPC has to be taken into account. A body of literature is already devoted to the economic assessment of processes and focuses on the business perspective, whereas corresponding approaches for BPC appear to be lacking. Consequently, we introduce a novel approach that allows for an economic assessment of process-based compliance measures. The approach takes monetary consequences of compliance violations into account and is based on the well-known basic workflow patterns for control flows. We demonstrate its applicability by means of an exemplary ordering process affected by Article 32 (1) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation.


Business process compliance Economic assessment Compliance cost Workflow patterns 


  1. 1.
    Governatori, G., Hashmi, M., Lam, H.-P., Villata, S., Palmirani, M.: Semantic business process regulatory compliance checking using LegalRuleML. In: 20th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, pp. 746–761 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schultz, M.: Towards an empirically grounded conceptual model for business process compliance. In: 32nd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 138–145 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kühnel, S.: Toward a conceptual model for cost-effective business process compliance. In: Proceedings of Informatik 2017. Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), pp. 1631–1639 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pham, H.C., Pham, D.D., Brennan, L., Richardson, J.: Information security and people. A conundrum for compliance. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 21, 1–16 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kumar, A., Yao, W., Chu, C.-H.: Flexible process compliance with semantic constraints using mixed-integer programming. INFORMS J. Comput. 25, 543–559 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Magnani, M., Montesi, D.: Computing the cost of bpmn diagrams. Technical report UBLCS-07-17, Bologna (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magnani, M., Montesi, D.: BPMN: how much does it cost? An incremental approach. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 80–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sampath, P., Wirsing, M.: Computing the cost of business processes. In: Yang, J., Ginige, A., Mayr, H.C., Kutsche, R.-D. (eds.) UNISCON 2009. LNBIP, vol. 20, pp. 178–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sampathkumaran, P.B., Wirsing, M.: Financial evaluation and optimization of business processes. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 4(2), 91–120 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vom Brocke, J., Recker, J., Mendling, J.: Value-oriented process modeling: integrating financial perspectives into business process re-design. BPM J. 16, 333–356 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation. A Manifesto for Business Revolution. HarperBusiness Essentials, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seyffarth, T., Kühnel, S., Sackmann, S.: A taxonomy of compliance processes for business process compliance. In: Carmona, J., Engels, G., Kumar, A. (eds.) BPM 2017. LNBIP, vol. 297, pp. 71–87. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kirzner, I.M., Boettke, P.J., Sautet, F.E.: The Economic Point of View. An Essay in the History of Economic Thought. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rastrepkina, M.: Managing variability in process models by structural decomposition. In: International Workshop on Business Process Modeling Notation, pp. 106–113 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14, 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Narendra, N.C., Varshney, V.K., Nagar, S., Vasa, M., Bhamidipaty, A.: Optimal control point selection for continuous business process compliance monitoring. In: International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, pp. 2536–2541 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bhamidipaty, A., Narendra, N.C., Nagar, S., Varshneya, V.K., Vasa, M., Deshwal, C.: Indra: an integrated quantitative system for compliance management for IT service delivery. IBM J. Res. Dev. 53, 1–12 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Martin Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany
  2. 2.University of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations