Advertisement

Designing a Framework for the Development of Domain-Specific Process Modelling Languages

  • Sven JannaberEmail author
  • Dennis M. Riehle
  • Patrick Delfmann
  • Oliver Thomas
  • Jörg Becker
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10243)

Abstract

Domain-specific process modelling has gained increased attention, since traditional modelling languages struggle to meet the demands of highly specialized businesses. However, methodological support on the development of such domain-specific languages is still scarce, which hampers the specification of adequate modelling support. To this end, the paper applies a design-oriented research approach to create an integrated framework that facilitates the development of domain-specific process modeling languages. The framework is a result of 23 consolidated requirements from relevant literature and contains essential building blocks that need to be considered during the development process. It is demonstrated that the framework satisfies the identified requirements by structuring and systematizing the development of domain-specific languages, which increases language adequacy and quality.

Keywords

Business process management Domain-specific process modelling Framework Modelling language development 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Melenovsky, M.J.: Business process management’s success hinges on business-led initiatives. Gart. Res. 1–6 (2005). https://www.gartner.com/doc/483847/business-process-managements-success-hinges
  2. 2.
    Becker, J., Mathas, C., Winkelmann, A.: Geschäftsprozessmanagement. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eggersmann, M., Krobb, C., Marquardt, W.: A modeling language for design processes in chemical engineering. In: Laender, A.H.F., Liddle, S.W., Storey, V.C. (eds.) ER 2000. LNCS, vol. 1920, pp. 369–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45393-8_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, J., Breuker, D., Weiß, B., Winkelmann, A.: Exploring the status quo of business process modelling languages in the banking sector – an empirical insight into the usage of methods in banks. In: ACIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 8 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harmon, P., Wolf, C.: The State of Business Process Management (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heitkötter, H.: A framework for creating domain-specific process modeling languages. In: 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends (ICSOFT), Rome, Italy, pp. 127–136 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P., Aalst, W.M.P., Krogstie, J.: Business process management in the large. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 3, 385–388 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frank, U.: Some guidelines for the conception of domain-specific modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, EMISA 2011, Hamburg, Germany, 22–23 September 2011, pp. 93–106 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1532–1539 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.: A survey of comparative business process modeling approaches. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4439, pp. 82–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72035-5_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riehle, D.M., Jannaber, S., Karhof, A., Thomas, O., Delfmann, P., Becker, J.: On the de-facto standard of event-driven process chains: how EPC is defined in literature. In: Modellierung 2016, Karlsruhe, 2–4 März 2016, pp. 61–76. Köllen Druck+Verlag, Bonn (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Braun, R., Esswein, W.: Classification of domain-specific BPMN extensions. In: Frank, U., Loucopoulos, P., Pastor, Ó., Petrounias, I. (eds.) PoEM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 197, pp. 42–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-45501-2_4 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0 (2011). http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0
  15. 15.
    Thomas, O.: Fuzzy Process Engineering. Gabler Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Becker, J., Riehle, D.M., Clever, N.: Ansätze zur Unternehmensmodellierung – Eine Einordnung. In: Benker, T., Jürck, C., Wolf, M. (eds.) Geschäftsprozessorientierte Systementwicklung — Von der Unternehmensarchitektur zum IT-System, pp. 415–425. Springer, Wiesbaden (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-14826-3_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frank, U.: Domain-specific modeling languages: requirements analysis and design guidelines. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A., Clark, T., Cohen, S., Bettin, J. (eds.) Domain Engineering: Product Lines, Languages, and Conceptual Models, pp. 133–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Becker, J., Algermissen, L., Falk, T.: Prozessorientierte Verwaltungsmodernisierung: Prozessmanagement im Zeitalter von E-Government und New Public Management. Springer, Dordrecht (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karsai, G., Krahn, H., Pinkernell, C., Rumpe, B., Schindler, M., Völkel, S.: Design guidelines for domain specific languages. In: Proceedings of the 9th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modelling (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    March, S.T., Storey, V.C.: Design science in the information systems discipline: an introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Q. 32, 725–730 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Gengler, C.E., Rossi, M., Hui, W., Virtanen, V., Bragge, J.: The design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2006, vol. 24, pp. 83–106 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hevner, A.R.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19, 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24, 45–77 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wieringa, R.: DS as nested problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2009, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sonnenberg, C., vom Brocke, J.: Reconsidering the Build-Evaluate Pattern in Design Science Research. In: Proceedings of 7th Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, pp. 381–397 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    vom Brocke, J.M., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., Cleven, A.: Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In: 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy, pp. 1–13 (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mernik, M., Heering, J., Sloane, A.M.: When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Comput. Surv. 37, 316–344 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cho, H., Gray, J., Sun, Y., White, J.: Key challenges for modeling language creation by demonstration. In: ICSE 2011 Workshop on Flexible Modeling Tools, pp. 1–4 (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lin, F.-R., Yang, M.-C., Yu-Hua, P.: A generic structure for business process modeling. Bus. Process Manag. J. 8, 19–41 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Clark, T., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied Metamodelling. A Foundaton for Language Driven Development (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Klör, B., Bräuer, S., Beverungen, D., Monhof, M.: A domain-specific modeling language for electric vehicle batteries. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik Proceedings 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Casanova-Brito, V., Patig, S.: Requirements of process modeling languages – results from an empirical investigation. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik Proceedings 2011, pp. 756–765 (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zamli, K.Z., Ashidi, N., Isa, M.: A survey and analysis of process modeling languages. Malays. J. Comput. Sci. 17, 68–89 (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seel, C.: Reverse Method Engineering: Methode und Softwareunterstützung zur Konstruktion und Adaption semiformaler Informationsmodellierungstechniken. Logos Verlag, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Paige, R.F., Ostroff, J.S., Brooke, P.J.: Principles for modeling language design. Inf. Softw. Technol. 42, 665–675 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J.: Process modeling. Commun. ACM 35, 75–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Cesare, S., Serrano, A.: Collaborative modeling using UML and business process simulation. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2006), pp. 1–10 (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, B.A., Wastell, D.: The software process: modelling and technology. In: Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, B.A., Wastell, D. (eds.) Software Process: Principles, Methodology, and Technology. LNCS, vol. 1500, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi: 10.1007/3-540-49205-4_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chou, S.-C.: A process modeling language consisting of high level UML diagrams and low level process language. J. Object Technol. 1, 137–163 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Figl, K., Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: On the cognitive effectiveness of routing symbols in process modeling languages. In: Abramowicz, W., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) BIS 2010. LNBIP, vol. 47, pp. 230–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12814-1_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pichler, H., Eder, J.: Business process modeling and workflow design. In: Embley, D.W., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Handbook of Conceptual Modeling, pp. 259–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Russell, N.: On the suitability of BPMN for business process modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11841760_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schmidt, G., Braun, O.: Process language GPN. In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, pp. 197–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    van Hee, K.M., Sidorova, N., van der Werf, J.M.: Business process modeling using petri nets. In: Jensen, K., Aalst, W.M.P., Balbo, G., Koutny, M., Wolf, K. (eds.) Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency VII. LNCS, vol. 7480, pp. 116–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38143-0_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schalles, C., Creagh, J., Rebstock, M.: A causal model for analyzing the impact of graphical modeling languages on usability. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 24, 1337–1355 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Recker, J.: Evaluations of Process Modeling Grammars: Ontological, Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses Using the Example of BPMN. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Conradi, R., Liu, C.: Process modelling languages: one or many? In: Schäfer, W. (ed.) EWSPT 1995. LNCS, vol. 913, pp. 98–118. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). doi: 10.1007/3-540-59205-9_47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Atkinson, D.C., Weeks, D.C., Noll, J.: The design of evolutionary process modeling languages. In: 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 73–82 (2004)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Luo, W., Tung, Y.A.: A framework for selecting business process modeling methods. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 99, 312–319 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kolb, J., Rudner, B., Reichert, M.: Towards gesture-based process modeling on multi-touch devices. In: Bajec, M., Eder, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNBIP, vol. 112, pp. 280–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31069-0_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Metzger, D., Niemöller, C., Berkemeier, L., Brenning, L., Thomas, O.: Vom Techniker zum Modellierer - Konzeption und Entwicklung eines Smart Glasses Systems zur Laufzeitmodellierung von Dienstleistungsprozessen. In: Thomas, O., Nüttgens, M., Fellmann, M. (eds.) Smart Service Engineering, pp. 193–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Recker, J.: Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Bus. Process Manag. J. 16, 181–201 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fellmann, M., Bittmann, S., Karhof, A., Stolze, C., Thomas, O.: Do we need a standard for EPC modelling? The state of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic quality. Lecture Notes Informatics (LNI), vol. P-222, pp. 103–117. Gesellschaft fur Inform (2013)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Inf. Syst. J. 3, 217–237 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Krogstie, J.: Ontology- versus pattern-based evaluation of process modeling languages: a comparison. Commun. AIS. 20, 774–799 (2007)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14, 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    La Rosa, M., Gottschalk, F., Dumas, M., Van Der Aalst, W.M.P.: Linking domain models and process models for reference model configuration. In: Hofstede, A., Benatallah, B., Paik, H.-Y. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4928, pp. 417–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78238-4_43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15, 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Jannaber
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dennis M. Riehle
    • 2
  • Patrick Delfmann
    • 3
  • Oliver Thomas
    • 1
  • Jörg Becker
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Information Management and Information SystemsUniversity of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany
  2. 2.European Research Center for Information SystemsUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Information Systems ResearchUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options