Testing a Selection of BPMN Tools for Their Support of Modelling Guidelines

  • Monique SnoeckEmail author
  • Isel Moreno-Montes de Oca
  • Tom Haegemans
  • Bjorn Scheldeman
  • Tom Hoste
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 235)


BPMN has become the de facto standard notation for process modelling. Past research has demonstrated the need for modelling guidelines to improve the quality of process models. In previous research we collected a set of practical guidelines through a systematic literature survey and classified those in different categories. In this paper we test a selection of BPMN tools for their support for these guidelines, and report on existing support per category of guideline and the kinds of support used by the tool to support the different guidelines. The results give insight into which domains of guidelines are well supported and which lack support from BPMN tools. Further, different preferences of the vendors are observed regarding the methods of support they implement in their tools.


  1. 1.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Born, M., Kirchner, J., Müller, J.P.: Context-driven business process modeling. In: The 1st International Workshop on Managing Data with Mobile Devices (MDMD 2009), Milan, Italy (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Recker, J., et al.: How good is BPMN really? insights from theory and practice. In: 14th European Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems, Goeteborg (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Recker, J.: BPMN modeling - who, where, how and why. BPTrends 5, 1–8 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A.: BPMN: An introduction to the standard. Comput. Stan. Interfaces 34(1), 124–134 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lübke, D., Schneider, K., Weidlich, M.: Visualizing use case sets as BPMN processes. In: 3rd International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization, REV 2008. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moreno-Montes de Oca, I., et al.: A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Inf. Softw. Technol. 58, 187–205 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moreno-Montes de Oca, I., Snoeck, M.: Pragmatic guidelines for Business Process Modeling. KU Leuven - FEB - Management Information Systems Group (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daneva, M.: A best practice based approach to CASE-tool selection. In: 4th IEEE International Software Engineering Standards Symposium and Forum (ISESS 1999), “Best Software Practices for the Internet Age”. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rivas, L., et al.: Tools selection criteria in software-developing Small and Medium Enterprises. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 10(1), 24–30 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Illes, T., et al.: Criteria for software testing tool evaluation. a task oriented view. In: Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress for Software Quality (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    IEEE, IEEE Std 1209-1992: IEEE Recommended Practice for the Evaluation and Selection of CASE Tools (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Du Plessis, A.L.: A method for CASE tool evaluation. Inf. Manage. 25(2), 93–102 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Le Blanc, L.A., Korn, W.M.: A structured approach to the evaluation and selection of CASE tools. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing: Technological Challenges of the 1990’s. ACM (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harmon, P., Wolf, C.: Business Process Trends; Business Process Modeling Survey (2011). Accessed from July 2015
  17. 17.
    BPMN-Forum. BPMN tool related posts and discussions (2015). Accessed from July 2015
  18. 18.
    Signavio. Guidelines by convention: Signavio Best Practice. Accessed from July 2015
  19. 19.
    Camunda, BPMN 2.0 Best Practices (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bizagi, Bizagi Process Modeler User’s Guide (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bonita. Bonita. Accessed from July 2015
  22. 22.
    Ramakrishan, M.: Top Ten BPM tools you cannot ignore! in Wordpress (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scheldeman, B., Hoste, T.: The support of best practices by BPMN tools, in Faculty of Economics and Business. KU Leuven, Belgium (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mendling, J., et al.: Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models. J. Syst. Softw. 85(5), 1188–1197 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monique Snoeck
    • 1
    Email author
  • Isel Moreno-Montes de Oca
    • 2
  • Tom Haegemans
    • 1
  • Bjorn Scheldeman
    • 1
  • Tom Hoste
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Center for Management InformaticsKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUCLVSanta ClaraCuba

Personalised recommendations