Advertisement

Abstract

Various process variant modeling methods have been introduced in the literature to manage process diversity in a business context. In industrial settings, it is difficult to select a method suitable for the needs and limitations of the organization due to the limited number of examples and guidelines. In this paper, we report our experiences on variant modeling in a process management consultancy company. The company experienced difficulties in maintaining and reusing process definitions of their customers and decided to evaluate variant modeling methods as a solution. We selected two methods, the Decomposition Driven and the Provop, to develop variant models of seven software project management processes from five customers. We evaluated the results together with company experts. This study contributes to the field by providing real-life examples of two variant modeling methods, a comparison of the results with these methods and a guideline for choosing a method under comparable conditions.

Keywords

Business process modeling Process variant modeling Decomposition driven method Provop 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study has been conducted in 4S Information Systems in collaboration with process management team of the company. This study received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 660646.

References

  1. 1.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Capturing variability in business process models: the Provop approach. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. Res. Pract. 22, 519–546 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Döhring, M., Reijers, H., Smirnov, S.: Configuration vs. adaptation for business process variant maintenance: an empirical study. Inf. Syst. 39, 108–133 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayora, C., Torres, V., Weber, B., Reichert, M., Pelechano, V.: VIVACE: a framework for the systematic evaluation of variability support in process-aware information systems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 57, 248–276 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Enterprise, H.P.: Project and Portfolio Management – PPM. http://www8.hp.com/us/en/software-solutions/ppm-it-project-portfolio-management/
  5. 5.
    Milani, F., Dumas, M., Ahmed, N., Matulevicius, R.: Modelling families of business process variants: a decomposition driven method. CoRR abs/1311.1 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Configuration and management of process variants. In: Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1 SE - 11, pp. 237–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conforti, R., Dumas, M., Rosa, M.La., Maaradji, A., Nguyen, H.H., Ostovar, A., Raboczi, S.: Analysis of Business Process Variants in Apromore (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Project Management Institute Inc: A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yaldiz, A.: Evaluation of process variant modeling approaches: a case study, Ankara, Turkey (2016). http://expertjudgment.com/publications/METU_II_TR_2016_YILDIZ.pdf
  10. 10.
    Reichert, M., Rechtenbach, S., Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T.: Extending a business process modeling tool with process configuration facilities: the Provop demonstrator. In: Proceedings of BPM 2009 Demonstration Track (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.4S Information TechnologiesAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations