To Integrate or Not to Integrate – The Business Rules Question

  • Wei Wang
  • Marta Indulska
  • Shazia SadiqEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9694)


Due to complex and fragmented enterprise systems and modelling landscapes, organizations struggle to cope with change propagation, compliance management and interoperability. Two aspects related to the above are business process models and business rules, both of which have a role to play in the enterprise setting. Redundancy and inconsistency between business rules and business process models is prevalent, highlighting the need for consideration of integrated modelling of the two. An important prerequisite of achieving integrated modelling is the ability to decide whether a rule should be integrated into a business process model or modelled independently. However, in the current literature, little guidance can be found that can help modellers to make such a decision. Accordingly, our aim is to empirically test factors that affect such decisions. In this paper, we describe 12 such factors and present the results of an empirical evaluation of their importance. Through our study, we identify seven factors that can provide guidance for integrated modelling.


Business process management Business rule management Integrated modelling 


  1. 1.
    Zoet, M., Versendaal, J., Ravesteyn, P., Welke, R.J.: Alignment of business process management and business rules. In: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland, p. 34 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krogstie, J., McBrien, P., Owens, R., Seltveit, A.H.: Information systems development using a combination of process and rule based approaches. In: Andersen, R., Bubenko Jr., J.A., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. LNCS, vol. 498, pp. 319–335. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zur Muehlen, M., Indulska, M., Kittel, K.: Towards integrated modeling of business processes and business rules. In: Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS)-Creating the Future: Transforming Research into Practice, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 690–697. Citeseer (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: An ontological analysis of integrated process modelling. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 225–240. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Milanovic, M., Gasevic, D., Wagner, G.: Combining rules and activities for modeling service-based business processes. In: 2008 12th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, pp. 11–22 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mickevičiūtė, E., Butleris, R.: Towards the combination of BPMN process models with SBVR business vocabularies and rules. In: Skersys, T., Butleris, R., Butkiene, R. (eds.) ICIST 2013. CCIS, vol. 403, pp. 114–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bona, D.D., Re, G.L., Aiello, G., Tamburo, A., Alessi, M.: A methodology for graphical modeling of business rules. In: 2011 Fifth UKSim European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation (EMS), pp. 102–106. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Di Bona, D., Lo Re, G., Aiello, G., Tamburo, A., Alessi, M.: A methodology for graphical modeling of business rules. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation, Madrid, Spain, pp. 102–106 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Nicola, A., Missikoff, M., Smith, F.: Towards a method for business process and informal business rules compliance. J. Softw. Evol. Process 24, 341–360 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xiao, X., Su, S.Y.W.: Meta-rule enhanced interoperation of operations, rules and processes for achieving dynamic inter-organizational collaboration. In: 2012 IEEE 13th International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI), pp. 533–540 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zur Muehlen, M., Indulska, M.: Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: a representational analysis. Inform. Syst. 35, 379–390 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang, W., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S.: Integrated modelling of business process models and business rules: a research agenda. In: Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS). University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P.F., Indulska, M.: Do ontological deficiencies in modeling grammars matter? MIS Q. 35, 57–79 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, W., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S.: Factors affecting business process and business rule integration. In: Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS). University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wallace, R.O., Mellor, C.J.: Nonresponse bias in mail accounting surveys: a pedagogical note. Brit. Acc. Rev. 20, 131–139 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Malhotra, N.K.: Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 5th edn. Pearson Education India, New Delhi (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl. Eng. 58, 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, J.W., Jain, R.: Web services composition with traceability centered on dependency. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2005, pp. 89–89. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Roosmalen, M.W., Hoppenbrouwers, S.: Supporting corporate governance with enterprise architecture and business rule management: a synthesis of stability and agility. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Regulations Modelling and Deployment (ReMoD 2008) Held in Conjunction with the CAiSE 2008 Conference, Montpellier (2008).
  20. 20.
    Cappelli, C., Santoro, F.M., Cesar Sampaio do Prado Leite, J., Batista, T., Medeiros, A.L., Romeiro, C.S.C.: Reflections on the modularity of business process models: the case for introducing the aspect-oriented paradigm. Bus. Process Manag. J. 16, 662–687 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weigand, H., van den Heuvel, W.-J., Hiel, M.: Rule-based service composition and service-oriented business rule management. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Regulations Modelling and Deployment (ReMoD 2008), pp. 1–12. Citeseer (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Witman, P.D.: Software product lines and configurable product bases in business applications-a case from financial services. In: 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2009, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Loucopoulos, P., Kadir, W.M.N.W.: BROOD: business rules-driven object oriented design. J. Database Manag. (JDM) 19, 41–73 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taveter, K., Wagner, G.: Agent-oriented enterprise modeling based on business rules. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 527–540. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, W.: A survey of comparative business process modeling approaches. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4439, pp. 82–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G.: Deploying defeasible logic rule bases for the semantic web. Data Knowl. Eng. 66, 116–146 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ho, D.T.-Y., zur Muehlen, M.: From the stone age to the cloud: a case study of risk-focused process improvement. In: Proceedings of Australasian Conference on Computer and Information Science, Shanghai, China, pp. 144–160 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Iwaihara, M., Shiga, T., Kozawa, M.: Extracting business rules from web product descriptions. In: Zhou, X., Su, S., Papazoglou, M.P., Orlowska, M.E., Jeffery, K. (eds.) WISE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3306, pp. 135–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Production Workflow: Concepts and Techniques. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moreira, A., Fiadeiro, J.L., Andrade, L.: Evolving requirements through coordination contracts. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 633–646. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ofner, M.H., Otto, B., Österle, H.: Integrating a data quality perspective into business process management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 18, 1036–1067 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nelson, M.L., Peterson, J., Rariden, R.L., Sen, R.: Transitioning to a business rule management service model: case studies from the property and casualty insurance industry. Inf. Manag. 47, 30–41 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Norta, A., Eshuis, R.: Specification and verification of harmonized business-process collaborations. Inf. Syst. Front. 12, 457–479 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mammar, A., Ramel, S., Grégoire, B., Schmitt, M., Guelfi, N.: Efficient: a toolset for building trusted B2B transactions. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 430–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kovacic, A., Groznik, A.: The business rule-transformation approach. In: 26th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, 2004, vol. 1, pp. 113–117 (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Webber, W., Moffat, A., Zobel, J.: A similarity measure for indefinite rankings. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 28, 1–38 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., Sivakumar, D.: Rank aggregation methods for the web. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 613–622. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dummett, M.: The Borda count and agenda manipulation. Soc. Choice Welfare 15, 289–296 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Young, H.P.: An axiomatization of Borda’s rule. J. Econ. Theor. 9, 43–52 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xiaoyun, C., Yi, C., Xiaoli, Q., Min, Y., Yanshan, H.: PGMCLU: a novel parallel grid-based clustering algorithm for multi-density datasets. In: 1st IEEE Symposium on Web Society. SWS 2009, pp. 166–171 (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chen, L., Li, X., Han, J.: Medrank: discovering influential medical treatments from literature by information network analysis. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Australasian Database Conference, vol. 137, pp. 3–12. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2013)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fagin, R., Kumar, R., Sivakumar, D.: Comparing top k lists. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 17, 134–160 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.University of Queensland Business SchoolThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations