Advertisement

From Complexity to Insight:

Querying Large Business Process Models to Improve Quality
  • Kurt E. MadsenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 342)

Abstract

This industry study presents work in querying manufacturing processes using a portal to navigate query results in the broader context of enterprise architecture. The approach addresses the problem of helping stakeholders (e.g., management, marketing, engineering, operations, and finance) understand complex BPM models. Stakeholders approach models from different viewpoints and seek different views. Gleaning insight into improving model quality is challenging when models are large and complex. The focus of this work was on process models only, not process execution, because many legacy organizations have done initial BPM modeling but do not have BPM systems in production or have yet to realize the benefits of coupling log mining with incremental model refinement. The use cases presented address the complexity of multi-year, process models used by ~10,000 workers globally to develop new products. These models were queried to find quality issues, isolate stakeholder data flows, and migrate BPMN [1] activities to cloud-based, micro-services. The approach presented creates filtered process views, which serve as starting points for stakeholders to navigate interconnected models within TOGAF [2] enterprise architecture models. The process querying lifecycle—query, manipulate, and transform—was also applied to other enterprise models. Lessons learned from introducing BPM into a legacy organization, model refinement, limitations of research, and open problems are summarized.

Keywords

Process querying Business process management Business intelligence Process compliance Process standardization Architecture portal 

References

  1. 1.
    Business Process Model and Notation Specification, version 2.0.2, sect. 7.3.1. https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/. Accessed 30 July 2018
  2. 2.
    TOGAF version 9.2, Part IV. http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf92-doc/arch/. Accessed 30 July 2018
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Dettmer, H.W.: Goldratt’s theory of constraints: a systems approach to continuous improvement. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee (1997). Section: The categories of legitimate reservationGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kumar, A., Sabbella, S.R., Barton, R.R.: Managing controlled violation of temporal process constraints. In: BPM 2015, pp. 280–296 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    APQC Process Classification Framework (PCF) - Automotive (OEM) - Excel Version 7.0.5. https://www.apqc.org/knowledge-base/documents/apqc-process-classification-framework-pcf-automotive-oem-excel-version-705. Accessed 13 July 2018
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Ouyang, C., Barros, A., van der Aalst, W.: Process Querying: Enabling Business Intelligence Through Query-Based Process Analytics, p. 3. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.04.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Wei, Z.: Efficient XML stream processing and searching, pp. 1, 18–21. Florida State University (2012). http://ww2.cs.fsu.edu/~wzhang/dissertation.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2018
  11. 11.
    Github site for this project. https://github.com/curiouskurt/pq2018
  12. 12.
    Alizadeh, M., de Leoni, M., Zannone, N.: History-based Construction of Log-Process Alignments for Conformance Checking: Discovering What Really Went Wrong? p. 9, Eindhoven University of Technology, 19–21 November 2014Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katuu, S.: Enterprise content management and digital curation applications–maturity model connections. UNESCO Memory of the World in the Digital Age Conference, p. 1029 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MetaTech, Inc.TampaUSA

Personalised recommendations