A Language for Process Map Design

  • Monika MalinovaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 202)


Organizations are leaning towards becoming more process-oriented in order to better serve their customers. An approach that enables achieving such process orientation is business process management (BPM). In this context business process modeling is used to graphically represent business processes. As a result organizations are faced with large collections of process models. The process models are typically organized in a process architecture which comprises a number of levels. The most top level is commonly the process map where all processes of one organization and the relations between them are depicted in a very abstract manner. Whereas there are well-defined languages for modelling the details of singular processes (e.g. BPMN, EPC), such a language for supporting the design of process maps is still missing. As a result, we are faced with a vast variety of process map designs from practice, as practitioners typically rely on their own creativity when undertaking this task. This study addresses this gap by using various methods to develop a language for process map design which will support practitioners to design their process maps in a standardized manner.


Process map Process architecture Process category 


  1. 1.
    Reijers, H.A.: Implementing bpm systems: the role of process orientation. Bus. Process. Manage. J. 12(4), 389–409 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dumas, M., Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frei, F.X., Kalakota, R., Leone, A.J., Marx, L.M.: Process variation as a determinant of bank performance: evidence from the retail banking study. Manage. Sci. 45(9), 1210–1220 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCormack, K.: Business process orientation: do you have it? Qual. Prog. 34(1), 51–60 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malinova, M., Leopold, H., Mendling, J.: An empirical investigation on the design of process architectures. Wirtschaftsinformatik 75 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Malinova, M., Mendling, J.: The effect of process map design quality on process management success. In: Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malinova, M., Leopold, H., Mendling, J.: A meta-model for process map design. In: CAiSE Forum (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dijkman, R.M., La Rosa, M., Reijers, H.A.: Managing large collections of business process models-current techniques and challenges. Comput. Ind. 63(2), 91–97 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kettinger, W.J., Grover, V.: Special section: toward a theory of business process change management. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 12, 9–30 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiraka, R.N., Manning, K.: Managing organisations through a process-based perspective: its challenges and benefits. Knowl. Process. Manage. 12(4), 288–298 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Porter, M.E.: Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance (2008).
  13. 13.
    Harmon, P.: Business Process Change: A Guide for Business Managers and BPM and Six Sigma Professionals. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeston, J., Nelis, J.: Business Process Management: Practical Guidelines to Successful Implementations. Routledge, London (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M.: Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes: with 83 Figures and 34 Tables. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moody, D.L.: The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., Linkman, S.: Systematic literature reviews in software engineering-a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(1), 7–15 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1983)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W.: User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WU ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations