Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects

  • Hajo Reijers
  • Jan Mendling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5240)

Abstract

The use of subprocesses in large process models is an important step in modeling practice to handle complexity. While there are several advantages attributed to such a modular design, including ease of reuse, scalability, and enhanced understanding, the lack of precise guidelines turns out to be a major impediment for applying modularity in a systematic way. In this paper we approach this area of research from a critical perspective. Our first contribution is a review of existing approaches to process model modularity. This review shows that aside from some limited insights, a systematic and grounded approach to finding the optimal modularization of a process model is missing. Therefore, we turned to modular process models from practice to study their merits. In particular, we set up an experiment involving professional process modelers and tested the effect of modularization on understanding. Our second contribution, stemming from this experiment, is that modularity appears to pay off. We discuss some of the limitations of our research and implications for future design-oriented approaches.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of Workflow Nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adler, M.: An algebra for data flow diagram process decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14(2), 169–183 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alexander, C.: Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press (1970)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B.: Managing Modularity. Harvard Business Review 75(5), 84–93 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of Behavior. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 47(2), 47–145 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basu, A., Blanning, R.W.: Synthesis and Decomposition of Processes in Organizations. Information Systems Research 14(4), 337–355 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.: How good are these UML diagrams? An empirical test of the Wand and Weber good decomposition model. In: Applegate, L., Galliers, R., DeGross, J.I. (eds.) Proceedings of ICIS, pp. 101–114 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cardoso, J.: Poseidon: A Framework to Assist Web Process Design Based on Business Cases. Int. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 15(1), 23–55 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(6), 476–493 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook, T.D., Shadish, W.R., Campbell, D.T.: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damij, N.: Business Process Modelling Using Diagrammatic and Tabular Techniques. Business Process Management Journal 13(1), 70–90 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davis, R.: Business Process Modelling With Aris: A Practical Guide (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Desel, J., Esparza, J.: Free Choice Petri Nets. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 40. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dong, M., Chen, F.F.: Petri Net-Based Workflow Modelling and Analysis of the Integrated Manufacturing Business Processes. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 26(9), 1163–1172 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jablonski, S.: MOBILE: A Modular Workflow Model and Architecture. In: Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Dynamic Modelling and Information Systems (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M.: Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kock Jr., N.F.: Product Flow, Breadth and Complexity of Business Processes: An Empirical Study of 15 Business Processes in Three Organizations. Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal 2(2), 8–22 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Langlois, R.N.: Modularity in Technology and Organization. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 49(1), 19–37 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laue, R., Gruhn, V.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) Proceedings of BIS 2006. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. 85, pp. 1–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, G.S., Yoon, J.M.: An Empirical Study on Complexity Metrics of Petri Nets. Microelectronics and reliability 32(9), 1215–1221 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leymann, F.: Workflows Make Objects Really Useful. EMISA Forum 6(1), 90–99 (1996), http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Societies/GI-EMISA/forum/content_96_1/Emisa_1_96_S90-99.pdf Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Workflow-based Applications. IBM Systems Journal 36(1), 102–123 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Production Workflow - Concepts and Techniques. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lindsay, A., Downs, D., Lunn, K.: Business Processes: Attempts to Find a Definition. Information and Software Technology 45(15), 1015–1019 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K., Lee, J., Pentland, B.: Tools for Inventing Organizations: Toward a Handbook for Organizational Processes. Management Science 45(3), 425–443 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mendling, J.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models. PhD thesis, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mendling, J., Neumann, G., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 113–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mutschler, B., Weber, B., Reichert, M.U.: Workflow management versus case handling: Results from a controlled software experiment. In: Liebrock, L.M. (ed.) Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, vol. I, pp. 82–89 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ould, M.A.: Business Processes: Modelling and Analysis for Re-engineering and Improvement. Wiley, Chichester (1995)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parnas, D.: On the Criteria for Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prechelt, L.: Kontrollierte Experimente in der Softwaretechnik: Potenzial und Methodik. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Analyzing Process Models using Graph Reduction Techniques. Information Systems 25(2), 117–134 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sarshar, K., Loos, P.: Comparing the control-flow of EPC and Petri nets from the end-user perspective. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 434–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sharp, A., McDermott, P.: Workflow Modeling: Tools for Process Improvement and Application Development. Artech House (2001)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sheskin, D.J.: Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Evaluating workflow process designs using cohesion and coupling metrics. Computers in Industry (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through SESE decomposition. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 43–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., van Hattem, M., Reijers, H.A., de Munk, W.: Protos 7.0: Simulation made accessible. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, pp. 465–474. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the Deep Structure of Information Systems. Information Systems Journal 5, 203–223 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.U.: Change patterns and change support features in process-aware information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Weber, R.: Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers & Lybrand and the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne (1997)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wynn, M.T., Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Reduction rules for YAWL workflow nets with cancellation regions and or-joins. BPMCenter Report BPM-06-24, BPMcenter.org (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yourdon, E., Constantine, L.L.: Structured Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hajo Reijers
    • 1
  • Jan Mendling
    • 2
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations