Enterprise Process Modeling in Practice – Experiences from a Case Study in the Healthcare Sector

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 248)


In enterprise modeling it is customary to differentiate between the current, as-is situation and the future to-be situation and develop models of these to plan for how to fill the gap. In practice you are never able to implement the ideal to-be model, each to-be will be incremental steps on the way to a future best practice. So it will be useful to also maintain a separate ought-to-be model, to not forget the situation you strive for. A distinction between the ought-to-be, as-is, and the to-be model is necessary, and we have in this paper provided the basis for an approach for combining top-down ought-to-be and bottom-up as-is and to-be modelling to support the dynamic interplay between these models. The approach is illustrated through a practical application in the healthcare sector. The main results is that it is found beneficial to represent the to-be and ought-to-be models separately, to be able to discuss the long-term goals without being hampered by short-term technical and organizational limitations, but still have support for developing the next version of the organization.


Enterprise process modelling Case study Ought-to-be model 


  1. 1.
    Aagesen, G., Krogstie, J.: Analysis and design of business processes using BPMN. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management. International Handbook on Information Systems, pp. 213–235. Springer, Berlin (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alter, S.: A workaround design system for anticipating, designing, and/or preventing workarounds. In: Gaaloul, K., Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., Guerreiro, S., Ma, Q. (eds.) BPMDS 2015 and EMMSAD 2015. LNBIP, vol. 214, pp. 489–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bråten, S.: Model Monopoly and communications: systems theoretical notes on democratization. Acta Sociologica J. Scand. Socialogical Assoc. 16(2), 98–107 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clancy, T.R., Effken, J.A., Pesut, D.: Applications of complex systems theory in nursing education, research, and practice. Nurs. Outlook 56(5), 248–256 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conner, D.: Managing at the Speed of Change. Random House, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dahl, Y., Sørby, I.D., Nytrø, Ø.: Context in care–requirements for mobile context-aware patient charts. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 107(Pt 1), 597–601 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dietz, J.: Enterprise Ontology. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engen, R., Viljoen, S.: Citizen-centric Heathcare Delivery Reference Model (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fawcett, S.E., Cooper, M.B.: Process integration for competitive success: benchmarking barriers and bridges. Benchmarking: Int. J. 8(5), 396–412 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fossland, S., Krogstie, J.: Modeling as-is, ought-to-be and to-be – experiences from a case study in the health sector. In: PoEM 2015, Valencia, Spain (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilbreth, F.B., Gilbreth, L.M.: Process Charts. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (1921)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heggset, M., Krogstie, J., Wesenberg, H.: Understanding model quality concerns when using process models in an industrial company. In: Gaaloul, K., Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., Guerreiro, S., Ma, Q. (eds.) BPMDS 2015 and EMMSAD 2015. LNBIP, vol. 214, pp. 395–409. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Krogstie, J.: BPM-in-the-large – towards a higher level of abstraction in business process management. In: Janssen, M., Lamersdorf, W., Pries-Heje, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) EGES/GISP 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 334, pp. 233–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Krogstie, J.: Business process management in the large. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 3(6), 385–388 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    IDEF0 (2016). http://www.idef.com/IDEF0.htm. Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  16. 16.
    Krogstie, J., Dalberg, V., Moe Jensen, S.: Process modeling value framework. In: Manolopoulos, Y., Fillipe, J., Constantopoulos, P., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) Enterprise Information Systems. LNBIP, vol. 3, pp. 309–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krogstie, J.: Integrated goal, data and process modeling: from TEMPORA to model-generated work-places. In: Johannesson, P., Søderstrøm, E. (eds.) Information Systems Engineering From Data Analysis to Process Networks, pp. 43–65. IGI, Hershey (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krogstie, J.: Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems: A Quality Approach. Springer, London (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lillehagen, F., Krogstie, J.: Active Knowledge Modeling of Enterprises. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moody, D.L.: Theorethical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl. Eng. 55, 243–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: A conceptual modeling quality framework. Softw. Qual. J. 20, 201–228 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Open Group Archimate 2.1 Standard. http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/toc.html. Accessed 30 Mar. 2016
  23. 23.
    Price, R., Shanks, G.: A semiotic information quality framework: development and comparative analysis. J. Inf. Technol. 20(2), 88–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Recker, J.C., et al.: Business process modeling : a comparative analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10(4), 333–363 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stabell, C.B., Fjeldstad, Ø.D.: Configuring value for competitive advantage: on chains. Shops Netw. Strateg. Manag. J. 19, 413–437 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    TOGAF (2016). https://www.opengroup.org/togaf/. Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  28. 28.
    Troux Architect (2016). http://www.troux.com/. Accessed 1 Mar 2016
  29. 29.
    Weick, K.: Sensemaking in Organisations. Sage, London (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer Verlag Inc., New York (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.eFaros LtdOsloNorway
  2. 2.NTNUTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations