Advertisement

IT Requirements of Business Process Management in Practice – An Empirical Study

  • Susanne Patig
  • Vanessa Casanova-Brito
  • Barbara Vögeli
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6336)

Abstract

Substantial use of dedicated software characterizes the highest level of Business Process Management (BPM) maturity. Currently, companies are far below this level. This situation is due to the fact that the existing BPM tools don’t satisfy key requirements of BPM. We have conducted a worldwide survey of major public companies to elicit these requirements, which are grounded in the nature of processes and the usage of software. The analysis of 130 responses indicates that human-oriented process modeling languages and BPM tools as well as BPM tools with software integration capabilities are most urgently required.

Keywords

Business Process Unify Modeling Language Business Process Management Process Execution Enterprise Resource Planning 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Economist Intelligence Unit (in co-operation with the IBM Institute for Business Value): The 2006 e-readiness rankings. A White Paper from the Economist Intelligence Unit. London et al. (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forbes: The Forbes Global (2000), http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/30/05f2000land.html
  3. 3.
    Gravetter, F.J., Wallnau, L.B.: Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 8th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Indulska, M., Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling: Perceived Benefits. In: Laender, A.H.F. (ed.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5829, pp. 458–471. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Indulska, M., Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling: Current issues and future challenges. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 501–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jackson, S.L.: Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach, 3rd edn. Wadsworth, Belmont (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jaklic, J., Bosilj-Vuksic, V., Stemberger, M.I.: Business Process Oriented Tool Selection Model – A Case Study. In: Hlupic, V., et al. (eds.) 1st Int. Conf. Future Challenges and Current Issues in Business Information, Organization and Process Management 2006, pp. 94–102. Westminster Business School, London (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Künger, P., Hagen, C.: The fruits of Business Process Management: an experience report from a Swiss bank. Business Process Management Journal 13, 477–487 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Limesurvey, Version 1.85, http://www.limesurvey.org/
  10. 10.
    McCormack, K., et al.: A global investigation of key turning points in business process maturity. Business Process Management Journal 15, 792–815 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neubauer, T.: An empirical study about the status of business process management. Business Process Management Journal 15, 166–183 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nietro-Ariza, E.M., Rodriguez-Ortiz, G., Ortiz-Hermández, J.: An empirical evaluation for business process tools. In: Ochoa, S.F., Roman, G.-C. (eds.) Advanced Software Engineering: Expanding the Frontiers of Software Technology, pp. 77–84. Springer, Boston (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 1.2. OMG Document Number: formal/2009-01-03, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.2/
  14. 14.
    Pernici, B., Weske, M.: Business process management. Data & Knowledge Engineering 56, 1–3 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pritchard, J.-P., Armisted, C.: Business process management – Lessons from European Business. Business Process Management Journal 5, 10–35 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T., Hueffner, T.: A Model for Business Process Management Maturity. In: Proc. ACIS 2004, Paper 6 (2004), http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2004/6
  17. 17.
    Recker, J.: BPMN Modeling – Who, where, how and why. BPTrends (March 2008) http://www.sparxsystems.com/press/articles/pdf/bpmn_survey.pdf
  18. 18.
    Schmietendorf, A.: Assessment of Business Process Modeling Tools under Consideration of Business Process Management Activities. In: Dumke, R., et al. (eds.) IWSM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5338, pp. 141–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F., Verbeek, E.: Business process management: Where business processes and web services meet. Data & Knowledge Engineering 61, 1–5 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC): The Workflow Reference Model, Document Number TC00-1003, Issue 1.1 (November 19 1995), http://www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/tc003v11.pdf
  22. 22.
    The Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC): Terminology & Glossary, Document Number WFMC-TC-1011, Issue 3.0 (February 1999), http://www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/TC-1011_term_glossary_v3.pdf
  23. 23.
    Wolf, C., Harmon, P.: The State of Business Process Management 2010. BPTrends Reports (February 2010), http://www.bptrends.com/surveys_landing.cfm
  24. 24.
    zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J., Indulska, M.: Sometimes less is more: Are process modeling languages overly complex? In: Proc. EDOC Conference Workshop, EDOC. Eleventh International IEEE, Annapolis, MD, pp. 197–204 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the Business Process Modeling Notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Patig
    • 1
  • Vanessa Casanova-Brito
    • 1
  • Barbara Vögeli
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Business Information SystemsUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations