Business Process Modeling: Current Issues and Future Challenges

  • Marta Indulska
  • Jan Recker
  • Michael Rosemann
  • Peter Green
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5565)


Business process modeling has undoubtedly emerged as a popular and relevant practice in Information Systems. Despite being an actively researched field, anecdotal evidence and experiences suggest that the focus of the research community is not always well aligned with the needs of industry. The main aim of this paper is, accordingly, to explore the current issues and the future challenges in business process modeling, as perceived by three key stakeholder groups (academics, practitioners, and tool vendors). We present the results of a global Delphi study with these three groups of stakeholders, and discuss the findings and their implications for research and practice. Our findings suggest that the critical areas of concern are standardization of modeling approaches, identification of the value proposition of business process modeling, and model-driven process execution. These areas are also expected to persist as business process modeling roadblocks in the future.


business process modeling Delphi study issues challenges 


  1. 1.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do Practitioners Use Conceptual Modeling in Practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering 58, 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M. (eds.): Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davenport, T.H., Short, J.E.: The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign. Sloan Management Review 31, 11–27 (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erl, T.: Service-oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design. Prentice Hall, Upple Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scheer, A.-W.: ARIS - Business Process Modeling, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eikebrokk, T.R., Iden, J., Olsen, D.H., Opdahl, A.L.: Exploring Process-Modelling Practice: Towards a Conceptual Model. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 376. IEEE, Waikoloa (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalkey, N., Helmer, O.: An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science 9, 458–467 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murphy, M.K., Black, N.A., Lamping, D.L., McKee, C.M., Sanderson, C.F.B., Askham, J., Marteau, T.: Consensus Development Methods, and their Use in Clinical Guideline Development. Health Technology Assessment 2, 1–88 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van de Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L.: The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes. Academy of Management Journal 17, 605–621 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Okoli, C., Pawlowski, S.D.: The Delphi Method as a Research Tool: an Example, Design Considerations and Applications. Information & Management 42, 15–29 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Powell, C.: The Delphi Technique: Myths and Realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing 41, 376–382 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richards, J.I., Curran, C.M.: Oracles on “Advertising": Searching for a Definition. Journal of Advertising 31, 63–76 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hall, C., Harmon, P.: The 2007 Enterprise Architecture. Process Modeling, and Simulation Tools Report. (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blechar, M.J.: Magic Quadrant for Business Process Analysis Tools. Gartner Research Note G00148777. Gartner, Inc., Stamford, Connecticut (2007) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cochran, S.W.: The Delphi Method: Formulation and Refining Group Judgments. Journal of Human Sciences 2, 111–117 (1983)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (eds.): The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications [Online Reproduction from 1975]. Addison-Wesley, London (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Bruin, T., Rosemann, M.: Using the Delphi Technique to Identify BPM Capability Areas. In: Toleman, M., Cater-Steel, A., Roberts, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 643–653 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Bruin, T.: Insights into the Evolution of BPM in Organisations. In: Toleman, M., Cater-Steel, A., Roberts, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 632–642 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen, J.: A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 37–46 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Recker, J.: Opportunities and Constraints: The Current Struggle with BPMN. Business Process Management Journal 15 (in press, 2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ouyang, C., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Mendling, J.: From Business Process Models to Process-Oriented Software Systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology 19 (in press, 2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., Morris, M.G.: Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory And Future Of Technology Adoption Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8, 267–286 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Quarterly 25, 351–370 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mukhopadhyay, T., Kekre, S., Kalathur, S.: Business Value of Information Technology: A Study of Electronic Data Interchange. MIS Quarterly 19, 137–156 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Recker, J.: Understanding Process Modelling Grammar Continuance: A Study of the Consequences of Representational Capabilities. Faculty of Information Technology, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ono, R., Wedemeyer, D.J.: Assessing the Validity of the Delphi Technique. Futures 26, 289–304 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Indulska
    • 1
  • Jan Recker
    • 2
  • Michael Rosemann
    • 2
  • Peter Green
    • 1
  1. 1.UQ Business SchoolThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Business Process Management Group, Faculty of Science and TechnologyQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations