Semantic Business Process Management

  • Jörg BeckerEmail author
  • Daniel Pfeiffer
  • Thorsten Falk
  • Michael Räckers
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


The objective of this chapter is to describe and evaluate an approach for the automated analysis of business process models. It is described why an automated way of process analysis is necessary and why it is beneficial to use our approach. As business process models are moving in the center of decision making, it is important for the corresponding decision makers to get transparent, fast, and comprehensive results of process analysis. Dealing with huge amount of data this is only possible with automated support. Based on a comprehensive literature study, we identified different deviations and conflicts that usually arise in business process modeling projects. The class of semantic building block-based languages which combines structural modeling elements with corresponding domain semantics can help avoiding these conflicts. Beside the conceptual development of the language class we conducted an empirical evaluation of PICTURE, a business process modeling language that is an instantiation of semantic building block-based languages. Our results show that (a) our derived language class is applicable, (b) modeling conflicts significantly can be reduced, and (c) modeled data can be analyzed automatically.


Business Process Modeling Language Domain Ontology Domain Statement Business Process Modeling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Algermissen L, Delfmann P, Niehaves, B (2005) Experiences in process-oriented reorganization through reference modelling in public administrations – the case study Regio@KomM. In: Proceedings of the 13th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2005), RegensburgGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendsen R, van Engers T, Schurink W (2008) Adoption of high impact governmental eServices: seduce or enforce? In: Wimmer MA, Scholl HJ, Ferro E (eds) Proceedings of the 7th international conference on electronic government (EGOV 2008) at the 19th international conference on database and expert systems applications (DEXA 2008), Turin, Italy, pp 73–84Google Scholar
  3. Arnold A (1993) Verification and comparison of transition systems. In: Gaudel M-C, Jouannaud J-P (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on theory and practice of software development (TAPSOFT 1993), Orsay, France, pp 121–135Google Scholar
  4. Baacke L, Fitterer R, Rohner P (2007a) Measuring impacts of ICT on the process landscape of public administrations. In: Remenyi D (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on e-government (ICEG 2007), Montreal, Canada, 2007, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  5. Baacke L, Rohner P, Winter R (2007b) Aggregation of reference process building blocks to improve modeling in public administrations. In: Grönlund A, Scholl HJ, Wimmer MA (eds) Electronic government: 6th international EGOV conference, proceedings of ongoing research, project contributions and workshops, Trauner Druck, Linz, 2007, pp 149–156Google Scholar
  6. Batini C, Lenzerini M, Navathe SB (1986) A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Comput Surv 18(4):323–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker J, Algermissen L, Falk T, Pfeiffer D, Fuchs P (2006) Model based identification and measurement of reorganization potential in public administrations: the PICTURE-approach. In: Proceedings of the 10th pacific Asia conference on information systems (PACIS 2006), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2006, pp 860–875Google Scholar
  8. Becker J, Algermissen L, Pfeiffer D, Räckers M (2007a) Bausteinbasierte Modellierung von Prozesslandschaften mit der PICTURE-Methode am Beispiel der Universitätsverwaltung Münster. Wirtschaftsinformatik 49(4):267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker J, Bergener P, Kleist S, Pfeiffer D, Räckers M (2008) Evaluation of ICT investments in public administrations based on business process models. In: Proceedings of the 14th Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2008), Toronto, Canada, 2008, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  10. Becker J, Delfmann P, Knackstedt R (2007b) Adaptive reference modeling: integrating configurative and generic adaptation techniques for information models. In: Becker J, Delfmann P (eds) Reference modeling: efficient information systems design through reuse of information models. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 23–49Google Scholar
  11. Becker J, Pfeiffer D, Räckers M (2007c) Domain specific process modelling in public administrations: the PICTURE-approach. In: Wimmer MA, Scholl HJ, Grönlund A (eds) Proceedings of the 6th international conference on electronic government (EGOV 2007) at the 18th international conference on database and expert systems applications (DEXA 2007), Regensburg, Germany, 2007, pp 68–79Google Scholar
  12. Benamou N (2005) Bringing eGovernment interoperability to local governments in Europe. Eur Rev Polit Technol 3(1):1–9Google Scholar
  13. Betz S, Klink S, Koschmider A, Oberweis A (2006) Automatic user support for business process modeling. In: Hinkelmann K, Karagiannis D, Stojanovic N, Wagner G (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on semantics for business process management at the 3rd European semantic web conference (ESWC 2006), Budva, Montenegro, 2006, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  14. Bodart F, Patel A, Sim M, Weber R (2001) Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling: a theory and three empirical tests. Inform Syst Res 12(4):384–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Breuker D, Pfeiffer D, Becker J (2009) Reducing the variations in intra- and interorganizational business process modeling – an empirical evaluation. In: Proceedings of the internationale tagung wirtschaftsinformatik, Wien, Austria, 2009Google Scholar
  16. Brinkkemper S, Saeki M, Harmsen F (1999) Meta-modelling based assembly techniques for situational method engineering. Inform Syst 24(3):209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brockmans S, Ehrig M, Koschmider A, Oberweis A, Studer R (2006) Semantic alignment of business processes. In: Manolopoulos Y, Filipe J, Constantopoulos P, Cordeiro J (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international conference on enterprise information systems (ICEIS 2006), Paphos, Cyprus, 2006, pp 191–196Google Scholar
  18. Bunke H (1997) On a relation between graph edit distance and maximum common subgraph. Pattern Recognit Lett 18(8):689–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bunke H, Shearer K (1998) A graph distance metric based on the maximal common subgraph. Pattern Recognit Lett 19(3):255–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burton-Jones A, Meso P (2002) How good are these UML diagrams: an empirical test of the Wand and Weber good decomposition model. In: Applegate L, Galliers R, DeGross J (eds) Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on information systems (ICIS 2002), Barcelona, Spain, 2002, pp 101–114Google Scholar
  21. Burton-Jones A, Weber R (1999) Understanding relationships with attributes in entity-relationship diagrams. In: De P, De Gross JI (eds) Proceedings of the 20th international conference on information systems (ICIS 1999), Charlotte, NC, 1999, pp 214–228Google Scholar
  22. Chandrasekaran B, Joesephson J, Benjamins R (1999) What are ontologies and why do we need them? IEEE Intell Syst 14(1):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dalal NP, Kamath M, Kolarik WJ, Sivaraman E (2004) Toward an integrated framework for modeling enterprise processes. Commun ACM 47(3):83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davenport TH, Beers M (1995) Managing information about processes. J Manage Inform Syst 12(1):57–80Google Scholar
  25. Davenport TH, Short JE (1990) The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Manage Rev 31(4):11–27Google Scholar
  26. Davis I, Green P, Milton S, Rosemann M (2003) Using meta models for the comparison of ontologies. In: Siau K, Krogstie J, Halpin T (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on evaluation of modeling methods in systems analysis and design (EMMSAD 2003) at the 15th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2003), Velden, Austria, 2003, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  27. de Medeiros AKA, van der Aalst WMP, Weijters AJMM (2008) Quantifying process equivalence based on observed behavior. Data Knowl Eng 64(1):55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Du Bois B, Lange CFJ, Demeyer S, Chaudron MRV (2006) A qualitative investigation of UML modeling conventions. In: Kühne T (ed) Proceedings of the 1st workshop on quality in modeling at the 9th international conference on model driven engineering languages and systems (MoDELS 2006), Genoa, Italy, 2006, pp 91–100Google Scholar
  29. Ehrig M, Koschmider A, Oberweis A (2007) Measuring similarity between semantic business process models. In: Roddick JF, Hinze A (eds) Proceedings of the 4th Asia-pacific conference on conceptual modelling (APCCM 2007), Ballarat, Australia, 2007, pp 71–80Google Scholar
  30. Evermann J (2005) Towards cognitive foundation for knowledge representation. Inform Syst J 15(2):147–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fraser J, Adams N, Macintosh A, McKay-Hubbard A, Lobo TP, Pardo PF, Martínez RC, Vallecillo JS (2003) Knowledge management applied to E-government services: the use of an ontology. In: Proceedings of the knowledge management in electronic government (KMGov 2003), Rhodes, Greece, 2003, pp 116–126Google Scholar
  32. Gruhn V, Laue R (2007) What business process modelers can learn from programmers. Sci Comput Program 65(1):4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Guizzardi G, Herre H, Wagner G (2002a) On the general ontological foundations of conceptual modeling. In: Spaccapietra S, March ST, Kambayashi Y (eds) Proceedings of the 21st international conference on conceptual modeling (ER 2002), Tampere, Finland, 2002, pp 65–78Google Scholar
  34. Guizzardi G, Pires LF, van Sinderen MJ (2002b) On the role of domain ontologies in the design of domain-specific visual modeling languages. In: Tolvanen J-P, Gray J, Rossi M (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on domain-specific visual languages at the 17th annual ACM conference on object-oriented programming, systems, languages and applications (OOPSLA 2002), Seattle, WA, 2002, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  35. Hadar I, Soffer P (2006) Variations in conceptual modeling: classification and ontological analysis. J Assoc Inform Syst 7(8):568–592Google Scholar
  36. Hepp M, Dumitri R (2007) An ontology framework for semantic business process management. In: Oberweis A, Weinhardt C, Gimpel H, Koschmider A, Pankratius V, Schnizler B (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international conference Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2007), Karlsruhe, Germany, 2007, pp 423–440Google Scholar
  37. Hepp M, Leymann F, Domingue J, Wahler A, Fensel D (2005) Semantic business process management: a vision towards using semantic web services for business process management. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE 2005), Beijing, China, 2005, pp 535–540Google Scholar
  38. Herrmann P, Herrmann G (2006) Security requirement analysis of business processes. Electron Commerce Res 5(3–4):305–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hidders J, Dumas M, van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM, Verelst J (2005) When are two workflows the same? In: Atkinson M, Dehne F (eds) Proceedings of the 11th Australasian symposium on theory of computing (CATS 2005), Newcastle, Australia, 2005, pp 3–11Google Scholar
  40. Hirshfeld Y (1993) Petri nets and the equivalence problem. In: Börger E, Gurevich Y, Meinke K (eds) Proceedings of the 7th workshop on computer science logic (CSL 1993), Swansea, United Kingdom, 1993, pp 165–174Google Scholar
  41. Höfferer P (2007) Achieving business process model interoperability using metamodels and ontologies. In: Österle H, Schelp J, Winter R (eds) Proceedings of the 15th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2007), St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2007, pp 1620–1631Google Scholar
  42. Jallow AK, Majeed B, Vergidis K, Tiwari A, Roy R (2006) Operational risk analysis in business processes. BT Technol J 25(1):168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Janssen M (2005) Modeling for accountability: the case of the virtual business counter. In: Proceedings of the 11th Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2005), Omaha, NE, 2005, pp 2021–2029Google Scholar
  44. Kashyap V, Sheth A (1996) Semantic and schematic similarities between database objects a context-based approach. VLDB J 5(4):276–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kueng P (2000) Process performance measurement system: a tool to support process-based organizations. Total Qual Manage 11(1):67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kusiak A, Larson TN, Wang JR (1994) Reengineering of design and manufacturing processes. Comput Ind Eng 26(3):521–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lang K, Glunde J, Bodendorf F (1997) A framework for reusable reference process building blocks. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin 18(1):68–70Google Scholar
  48. Lange CFJ, Chaudron MRV (2006) Effects of defects in UML models: an experimental investigation. In: Osterweil LJ, Rombach D, Soffa ML (eds) Proceedings of the 28th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2006), Shanghai, China, 2006, pp 401–411Google Scholar
  49. Lawrence R, Barker K (2001) Integrating relational database schemas using a standardized dictionary. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2001), Las Vegas, NV, 2001, pp 225–230Google Scholar
  50. Malone TW, Bernstein A, Carr NG, Crowston K, Dellarocas C, Grunniger M, Herman GA, Jin Y, Klein M, Lee J, O'Donnell E, Orlikowski W, Osborn CS, Quimby J, Pentland BT, Tate A, Wyner GM, Yates J, Yoshioka T, Yost G (2003) Organizing business knowledge – MIT process handbook. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  51. Mendling J, Moser M, Neumann G, Verbeek HMW, van Dongen BF, van der Aalst WMP (2006) Faulty EPCs in the SAP reference model. In: Dustdar S, Fiadeiro JL, Sheth A (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international conference business process management (BPM 2006), Vienna, Austria, 2006, pp 451–457Google Scholar
  52. Milton SK, Kazmierczak E (2004) An ontology of data modelling languages: a study using a common-sense realistic ontology. J Database Manage 15(2):19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mylopoulos J (1998) Information modeling in the time of the revolution. Inform Syst 23(3–4):127–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Namiri K, Stojanovic N (2007) Pattern-based design and validation of business process compliance. In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) Proceedings of the 15th international conference on cooperative information systems (CoopIS 2007), Vilamoura, Portugal, 2007, pp 59–76Google Scholar
  55. Object Management Group (2004) UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification., Accessed on 30 Apr 2006
  56. Object Management Group (2006) BPMN final adopted specification 1.0 Accessed on 30 Apr 2006
  57. Parent C, Spaccapietra S (1998) Issues and approaches of database integration. Commun ACM 41(5):166–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pfeiffer D (2007) Constructing comparable conceptual models with domain specific languages. In: Österle H, Schelp J, Winter R (eds) Proceedings of the 15th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2007), St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2007, pp 876–888Google Scholar
  59. Pfeiffer D (2008) Semantic business process analysis: building block-based construction of automatically analyzable business process models. Dissertation, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  60. Pfeiffer D, Gehlert A (2005) A framework for comparing conceptual models. In: Desel J, Frank U (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on enterprise modelling and information systems architectures (EMISA 2005) at the 24th international conference on conceptual modeling (ER 2005), Klagenfurt, Austria, 2005, pp 108–122Google Scholar
  61. Polyvyanyy A, Smirnov S, Weske M (2010) Business process model abstraction. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management, vol 1. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  62. Pomello L, Rozenberg G, Simone C (1992) A survey of equivalence notions for net based systems. In: Rozenberg G (ed) Advances in Petri nets: the DEMON project. Springer, London, pp 410–472Google Scholar
  63. Process mining group the ProM framework (2007)∼cgunther/dev/prom/. Accessed on 01 May 2008
  64. Recker J (2008) Understanding process modelling grammar continuance – a study of the consequences of representational capabilities. PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  65. Rosemann M (2007) Preparation of process modeling. In: Becker J, Kugeler M, Rosemann M (eds) Process management: a guide for the design of business processes, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–78Google Scholar
  66. Rosemann M, van der Aalst WMP (2007) A configurable reference modelling language. Inform Syst 32(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosemann M, zur Mühlen M (1998) Evaluation of workflow management systems: a meta model approach. Aust J Inform Syst 6(1):103–116Google Scholar
  68. Rupprecht C, Funffinger M, Knublauch H, Rose T (2000) Capture and dissemination of experience about the construction of engineering processes. In: Wangler B, Bergman L (eds) Proceedings of the 12th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2000), Stockholm, Sweden, 2000, pp 294–308Google Scholar
  69. Sadiq S, Governatori G (2010) Managing regulatory compliance in business processes. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management, vol 2. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  70. Scheer A-W (2000) ARIS – business process modeling, 3rd edn. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Seltsikas P, Palkovits S (2006) Process modeling notations for eGovernment: an assessment of modeling notations for identity management and GUIDE’s methodology in practice. In: Proceedings of the eGo-vInterop'06 conference, Bordeaux, FranceGoogle Scholar
  72. Shanks G, Nuredini J, Tobin D, Moody DL, Weber R (2003) Representing things and properties in conceptual modelling: an empirical evaluation. In: Ciborra CU, Mercurio R, de Marco M, Martinez M, Carignani A (eds) Proceedings of the 11th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2003), Naples, Italy, 2003, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  73. Shanks G, Tansley E, Nuredini J, Tobin D, Weber R (2002) Representing part-whole relationships in conceptual modeling: an empirical evaluation. In: Applegate L, Galliers R, DeGross J (eds) Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on information systems (ICIS 2002), Barcelona, Spain, 2002, pp 89–100Google Scholar
  74. Soffer P, Golany B, Dori D (2003) ERP modeling: a comprehensive approach. Inform Syst 28(6):673–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Soffer P, Hadar I (2007) Applying ontology-based rules to conceptual modeling: a reflection on modeling decision making. Eur J Inform Syst 16(5):599–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stephenson CP, Bandara W (2007) Enhancing best practices in public health: using process patterns for business process management. In: Österle H, Schelp J, Winter R (eds) Proceedings of the 15th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2007), St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2007, pp 2123–2134Google Scholar
  77. Thomas O, Fellmann M (2007) Semantic EPC: enhancing process modeling using ontology languages. In: Hepp M, Hinkelmann K, Karagiannis D, Klein R, Stojanovic N (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on semantic business process and product lifecycle management (SBPM 2007) at the 3rd European semantic web conference (ESWC 2007), Innsbruck, Austria, 2007, pp 64–75Google Scholar
  78. van Dongen BF, Dijkman R, Mendling J (2008) Measuring similarity between business process models. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2008), Montpellier, France, 2008Google Scholar
  79. Wand Y (1996) Ontology as a foundation for meta-modelling and method engineering. Inf Softw Technol 38(4):281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wand Y, Weber R (1990) An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 16(11):1282–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wimmer K, Wimmer N (1992) Conceptual modeling based on ontological principles. Knowl Acquis 4(4):387–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Becker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel Pfeiffer
  • Thorsten Falk
  • Michael Räckers
  1. 1.European Research Center for Information SystemsUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations