Indicators for Open Issues in Business Process Models

  • Ralf LaueEmail author
  • Wilhelm Koop
  • Volker Gruhn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9619)


[Context and motivation] In the early phases of requirements engineering, often graphical models are used to communicate requirements. In particular, business process models in graphical languages such as BPMN can help to explain the process that a software system should support. These models can then be used to derive more detailed requirements. [Question/Problem] Often, such models are incomplete (showing only the most important cases) or contain labels in natural language that are prone to ambiguities and missing information. The requirements engineer has to identify missing / ambiguous information manually. The aim of this paper is to discuss certain classes of such potential problems and how they can be found automatically. [Principal ideas/results] First, we analyzed a collection of business process models and found that they frequently contain typical types of problems. Second, we described those potential problems in a formal way. We present a catalogue of indicators for potential problems and suggest questions to be asked by a requirements engineer for getting additional information about the depicted process. We also developed a tool prototype that uses a combination of linguistic analysis and inspection of the control flow. This tool prototype was applied to 2098 business process models. [Contribution] The paper presents a catalogue of potential problems in business process models. It also shows how these problems can be identified automatically.


Business Process Models Natural language processing 



We thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for funding the AUTEM project in which this research has been done (grant no. 599444).


  1. 1.
    Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Eggert, M., Schwittay, S.: Generalizability and applicability of model-based business process compliance-checking approaches a state-of-the-art analysis and research roadmap. BuR - Bus. Res. 5(2), 221–247 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry, D.M., Kamsties, E., Krieger, M.M.: From Contract Drafting to Software Specification: Linguistic Sources of Ambiguity, A Handbook (2003).
  3. 3.
    Berry, D., Kamsties, E.: Ambiguity in requirements specification. In: do Prado Leite, J.C.S., Doorn, J.H. (eds.) Perspectives on Software Requirements. he Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 753, pp. 7–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cardoso, E., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Requirements engineering based on business process models: a case study. In: 13th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, pp. 320–327. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chantree, F., Nuseibeh, B., Roeck, A.N.D., Willis, A.: Identifying nocuous ambiguities in natural language requirements. In: International Conference on Requirements Engineering 2006, pp. 56–65. IEEE Computer Society (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chklovski, T., Pantel, P.: VerbOcean: mining the web for fine-grained semantic verb relations. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 33–40. ACL (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Oca, I.M.M., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., Rodriguez-Morffi, A.: A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Information and Software Technology (2014). (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Empson, W.: Seven types of ambiguity. Chatto & Windus, London (1956)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fabbrini, F., Fusani, M., Gnesi, S., Lami, G.: An Automatic Quality Evaluation for Natural Language Requirements. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on RE: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2001), vol. 1 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Lami, G., Maccari, A.: Application of linguistic techniques for use case analysis. In: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 157–164 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database (Language, Speech, and Communication). The MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fellmann, M., Zasada, A.: State-of-the-art of business process compliance approaches. In: 22 European Conference on Information Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groefsema, H., Bucur, D.: A survey of formal business process verification: from soundness to variability. In: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design, pp. 198–203 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Checking properties of business process models with logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Modelling, Simulation, Verification and Validation of Enterprise Information Systems, pp. 84–93 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Reducing the cognitive complexity of business process models. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics, pp. 339–345. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: A heuristic method for detecting problems in business process models. Bus. Proc. Manag. J. 16(5), 806–821 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Detecting common errors in event-driven process chains by label analysis. Enterp. Modell. Inf. Sys. Architect. 6(1), 3–15 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Havel, J., Steinhorst, M., Dietrich, H., Delfmann, P.: Supporting terminological standardization in conceptual models - a plugin for a meta-modelling tool. In: 22nd European Conference on Information Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    de la Vara, J.L., Sánchez, J., Pastor, Ó.: Business process modelling and purpose analysis for requirements analysis of information systems. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 213–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kiyavitskaya, N., Zeni, N., Mich, L., Berry, D.M.: Requirements for tools for ambiguity fication and measurement in natural language requirements specifications. Requir. Eng. 13(3), 207–239 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Körner, S.J., Brumm, T.: RESI - a natural language specification improver. In: IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, pp. 1–8 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koschmider, A., Reijers, H.A.: Improving the process of process modelling by the use of domain process patterns. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 9(1), 29–57 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lami, G., Ferguson, R.W.: An empirical study on the impact of automation on the requirements analysis process. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 22(3), 338–347 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leopold, H., Eid-Sabbagh, R., Mendling, J., Azevedo, L.G., Baião, F.A.: Detection of naming convention violations in process models for different languages. Decis. Support Syst. 56, 310–325 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leopold, H., Smirnov, S., Mendling, J.: On the refactoring of activity labels in business process models. Inf. Sys. 37(5), 443–459 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mendling, J., Recker, J., Reijers, H.A.: On the usage of labels and icons in business process modeling. IJISMD 1(2), 40–58 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miers, D.: Best practice BPM. ACM Queue 4(2), 40–48 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nigam, A., Arya, N., Nigam, B., Jain, D.: Tool for automatic discovery of ambiguity in requirements. IJCSI Int. J. Comput. Sci. 9(5), 350–356 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Osborne, M., MacNish, C.: Processing natural language software requirement specifications. Int. Conf. Requirements Eng. 1996, 229–237 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pap, Z., Majzik, I., Pataricza, A., Szegi, A.: Methods of checking general safety criteria in UML statechart specifications. Reliab. Eng. Sys. Saf. 87(1), 89–107 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peters, N., Weidlich, M.: Using glossaries to enhance the label quality in business process models. In: Dienstleistungsmodellierung 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raffo, D., Ferguson, R., Setamanit, S., Sethanandha, B.: Evaluating the impact of requirements analysis tools using simulation. Softw. Process: Improv. Pract. 13(1), 63–73 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smirnov, S., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Action patterns in business process model repositories. Comput. Ind. 63(2), 98–111 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Storch, A., Laue, R., Gruhn, V.: Flexible evaluation of textual labels in conceptual models. In: Enterprise modelling and information systems architectures - EMISA 2015. (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Verma, K., Kass, A., Vasquez, R.G.: Using syntactic and semantic analyses to improve the quality of requirements documentation. Semantic Web 5(5), 405–419 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Applied Sciences of ZwickauZwickauGermany
  2. 2.Paluno - The Ruhr Institute for Software TechnologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations