Modeling Software Processes Using BPMN: When and When Not?

  • Marlon Dumas
  • Dietmar PfahlEmail author


Software process models capture structural and behavioral properties of software development activities, supporting the elicitation, analysis, simulation, and improvement of software development processes. Various approaches for the modeling and model-driven analysis of software development processes have been proposed but little progress has been made regarding standardization. With increasing demands regarding flexibility and adaptability of development processes, the constant evolution of development methods and tools, and the trend toward continuous product deployment, better support for process engineers in terms of universally applicable modeling notations as well as simulation and enactment mechanisms has become more desirable than ever. In contrast to software process modeling, the discipline of business process modeling has attained a greater level of consensus and standardization, leading most notably to the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). The success of BPMN as a standard business process modeling notation has made scholars ponder whether BPMN could also be used for modeling software development processes. This chapter analyzes this question by eliciting fundamental assumptions made in BPMN about the nature of business process models, which ultimately determine which aspects of the process are included in the model and which aspects are either left out or treated as ancillary.


Business Process Software Process Software Product Line Process Instance User Story 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This work is supported by the institutional research grant IUT20-55 of the Estonian Research Council.


  1. 1.
    Bendraou, R., Jézéquel, J.M., Gervais, M.P., Blanc, X.: A comparison of six UML-based languages for software process modeling. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36(5), 662–675 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger, T., She, S., Lotufo, R., Wasowski, A., Czarnecki, K.: A study of variability models and languages in the systems software domain. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(12), 1611–1640 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Böckers, A., Lott, C.M., Rombach, H.D., Verlage, M.: MVP-L language report version 2. Technical report Nr. 265/95, University of Kaiserslautern, Department of Computer Science (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bröckers, A., Differding, C., Hoisl, B., Kollnischko, F., Lott, C.M., Münch, J., Verlage, M., Vorwieger, S.: A graphical representation schema for the software process modeling language mvp-l. Technical report, University of Kaiserslautern (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campos, A.L.N., Oliveira, T.C.: Software processes with bpmn: an empirical analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7983, pp. 338–341. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, L., Babar, M.: A systematic review of evaluation of variability management approaches in software product lines. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53(4), 344–362 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christov, S., Chen, B., Avrunin, G.S., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J., Brown, D., Cassells, L., Mertens, W.: Formally defining medical processes. Methods Inf. Med. 47(5), 392–398 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M., Over, J.: Process modeling. Commun. ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deiters, W., Gruhn, V.: Process management in practice applying the funsoft net approach to large-scale processes. Autom. Softw. Eng. 5(1), 7–25 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    dos Santos Rocha, R., Fantinato, M.: The use of software product lines for business process management: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(8), 1355–1373 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engels, G., Förster, A.F., Heckel, R., Thöne, S.: Process modeling using uml. In: Dumas, M., der Aalst, W.M.P.V., ter Hofstede, A. (eds.) Process-Aware Information Systems. Wiley, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Favre, C., Fahland, D., Völzer, H.: The relationship between workflow graphs and free-choice workflow nets. Inf. Syst. 47, 197–219 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harmon, P., Wolf, C.: Business Process Modeling Survey. BPTrends Associates (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hull, R., Damaggio, E., De Masellis, R., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath, F.T., Hobson, S., Linehan, M.H., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.N., Vaculín, R.: Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Event-based System, pp. 51–62. ACM, New York, NY (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jablonski, S., Bussler, C.: Workflow Management: Modeling Concepts, Architecture and Implementation. International Thomson Computer Press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kellner, M., Madachy, R., Raffo, D.: Software process simulation modeling: Why? what? how? J. Syst. Softw. 46(2/3), 91–105 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    La Rosa, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., Milani, F.: Business process variability modeling: A survey. BPM Center Report BPM-13-16, (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martínez-Ruiz, T., García, F., Piattini, M., Münch, J.: Modelling software process variability: an empirical study. IET Softw. 5(2), 172–187 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Münch, J., Armbrust, O., Kowalczyk, M., Soto, M.: Software Process Definition and Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    OMG: Business process model and notation. OMG Standard BPMN 2.0, Object Management Group. (2011)
  22. 22.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Formalisms to support the definition of processes. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 24(2), 198–211 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pillat, R.M., Oliveira, T.C., Fonseca, F.L.: Introducing software process tailoring to bpmn: Bpmnt. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 58–62. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Recker, J.: Continued use of process modeling grammars: the impact of individual difference factors. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 19(1), 76–92 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Recker, J.: Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with bpmn. Bus. Process Manag. J. 16(1), 181–201 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Redding, G., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Iordachescu, A.: A flexible, object-centric approach for business process modelling. Serv. Oriented Comput. Appl. 4(3), 191–201 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reis, S., Metzger, A., Pohl, K.: Integration testing in software product line engineering: a model-based technique. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4422, pp. 321–335. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rombach, H.: MVP-L: A Language for Process Modeling in-the-large. University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1991)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Valenca, G., Alves, C., Alves, V., Niu, N.: A systematic mapping study on business process variability. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 5(1), 1–21 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer Science, University of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations