Experiences from Selecting a BPM Notation for an Enterprise

  • Kurt Sandkuhl
  • Jörn Wiebring
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 228)


Much research work in business process modeling (BPM) has been spent on determining which notation is most suitable for industrial practice. However, a lot of this work was performed in academic environments instead of industrial settings. This paper introduces and discusses a case of selecting a BPM notation for a medium-sized enterprise from utility industries. The steps taken in this decision making process include the analysis of requirements originating from regulation in the domain, a survey among the future users of the notation, and the evaluation of candidate notations by expert users. The main contributions of this paper are (1) a case study from energy industries showing issues and challenges when deciding on the most suitable notation, (2) a survey comparing the understandability of notations from the users’ perspective and (3) experiences from the decision making process.


Business process modelling Experience report Process modelling notations 



This work was partly financed by the German State of Mecklenburg – Western Pomerania with funds of the European Fund for Regional Development in the research project ECLORA. Furthermore, it was partially financially supported by Government of Russian Federation, Grant 074-U01.


  1. Aguilar-Savén, R.S.: Business process modelling: Review and framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 90(2), 129–149 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, J., Pfeiffer, D., Räckers, M.: Domain specific process modelling in public administrations – the PICTURE-approach. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 68–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: Unified Modeling Language (UML), version, 1. Rational Software Corporation, Santa Clara (1998)Google Scholar
  4. Bortz, J., Döring, N.: Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation – Für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 4th edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  5. Bundesnetzagentur: Geschäftsprozesse zur Kundenbelieferung mit Elektrizität, GPKE. Konsolidierte Fassung ab, 1 April 2012.$file/Konsolidierte_Lesefassung_GPKE.pdf Accessed 20 Nov 2014
  6. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Mäesalu, R., Reijers, H.A., Semenenko, N.: Understanding business process models: the costs and benefits of structuredness. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Figl, K., Laue, R.: Cognitive complexity in business process modeling. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 452–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kalpic, B., Bernus, P.: Business process modelling in industry—the powerful tool in enterprise management. Comput. Ind. 47(3), 299–318 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Knuth, D.E.: Computer-drawn flowcharts. Commun. ACM 6(9), 555–563 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krogstie, J.: Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems: A Quality Approach. Springer, London New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Melcher, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Seese, D.: On measuring the understandability of process models. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 465–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) Business Information Systems. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 142–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mikula, S.: Qualität von Geschäftsprozessnotationen. Diploma thesis, Rostock University, September 2011Google Scholar
  14. Ottensooser, A., Fekete, A., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Menictas, C.: Making sense of business process descriptions: An experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations. J. Syst. Softw. 85(3), 596–606 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Parsons, J., Cole, L.: What do pictures mean? guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(2005), 327–342 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Recker, J. Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? an experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Australia, 5–7 December 2007, Toowoomba (2007)Google Scholar
  17. Reisig, W.: A Primer in Petri Net Design. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. The Enterprise Engineering Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). ISBN 978-3662437247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M.: ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management. In: Aalst, W.M., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 376–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schrepfer, M., Wolf, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: The impact of secondary notation on process model understanding. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 161–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Business Process Management: The Third Wave, 1st edn. Meghan-Kiffer Press, Tampa (2003)Google Scholar
  22. Van der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. White, S.A.: Introduction to BPMN. Business Process Trends, July 2004.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.ITMO UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations