A Meta-model-Framework for Structuring the Requirement Analysis in Process Design

  • Stephanie Meerkamm
  • Stefan Jablonski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6629)

Abstract

Today, with process management generally established as an integrated management tool, there is a strong interest in process modeling. The organizations spent time and effort in generating the optimal process model. Although there is a multitude of process modeling techniques available, the modeling process is often inefficient and the results are not satisfying. As each use case makes other demands on a process modeling language and tool it may be due to the neglect of some aspect of the design phase supposed to include a comprehensive requirement analysis and the implementation of these in an appropriate language and tool. Thus we want to offer a framework which focuses more on the design phase. The approach is based on a meta model hierarchy, focusing on modeling. This hierarchy is extended with a design phase. The increased quality of the final process models will also influence the whole process life cycle.

Keywords

process management process design process modeling meta model hierarchy specification of process modeling languages requirement analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Prak, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glass, R.: On Design. IEEE Software 16, 103–104 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Business Process Modeling - A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Association for Information Systems 10, 333–363 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Recker, J., Mendling, J.: Adequacy in Process Modeling: A Review of Measures and a Proposed Research Agenda. In: 8th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support, Trontheim (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosemann, M.: Potential Pitfalls of Process Modeling: part A. Business Process Management Journal 12, 249–254 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    OMG: BPMN Business Process Modeling Notation (2010) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language (UML) (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55, 243–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abecker, A., Hinkelmann, K., Maus, H., Müller, H.J.: Geschäftsprozessorientiertes Wissensmanagement – Effektive Wissensnutzung bei der Planung um Umsetzung von Geschäftsprozessen, vol. 1. Aufage Springer Verlag, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Allweyer, T.: Geschäftsprozessmanagement – Strategie, Entwurf, Implementierung, Controlling. W3L-Verlag, Herdecke (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Becker, J., Kugler, M., Rosemann, M.: Process management. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harrington, H.J.: Total Improvement Management - The Next Generation in Performance Improvement. McGraw-Hill, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, R.G., Dale, B.G.: Business Process Management: A Review and Evaluation. Business Process Management Journal 4, 214–225 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmelzer, H.J., Sesselmann, W.: Geschäftsprozessmanagement in der Praxis, vol. 6. vollständig überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage Carl Hanser Verlag, München (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management - Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hofacker, I., Vetschera, R.: Algorithmical Approaches to Business Process Design. Computer & Operational Research 28, 1253–1275 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reijers, H.: Design and Control of Workflow Processes: Business Process Management for the Service Industry. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reijers, H.A., Netjes, M., Vanderfeesten, I.: On pragmatic and formal process design aproaches. In: 8th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support, Trontheim (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M.: Business process management: A survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The application of Petri Net to Workflow Management The Journal of Curciuts. Systems and Computers 8, 21–66 (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reijers, H.A., Liman, M.S.: Best practice in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of succesful redesign heuristics Omega (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davenport, T.H., Short, J.E.: The New Industrial Engineering: Informationtechnology and Business Process Redesign. IEEE Management Review (1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malone, T.W., Crowstone, K., Lee, J., Pentland, B., Dellarocas, C., Wyner, G., Quimby, J., Osborn, C., Bernstein, A., Herman, G., Klein, M., O’Donnell, E.: Tools for Inventing Organizations: Towards a Handbook for Organizational Processes. Management Science 45 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zairi, M., Sinclair, D.: Business process re-engineering and processmanagement - A survey of current practice and future trends in integrated management. Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal 1, 8–30 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aktinson, C., Kühne, T.: Concepts for comparing modeling tool architectures. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 398–413. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aktinson, C., Kühne, T.: The essence of multilevel metamodeling. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, p. 19. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Henderson-Seller, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: A power-type-based metamodeling framework. Software and System Modeling 5, 72–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karagiannis, D., Kühn, H.: Metamodelling Platforms. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) EC-Web 2002. LNCS, vol. 2455, p. 182. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMG: MOF 2.0 Specification (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frank, U.: Evaluating Modelling Languages: Relevant Issues, Epistemological Challenges and a Preliminary Research Framework. Arbeitsbericht des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Koblenz, vol. 15 (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frank, U., van Laak, B.D.: Anforderungen an Sprachen zur Modellierung von Geschäftsprozessen. In: Frank, U., Hampe, F. (eds.) Arbeitsbericht des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik, vol. 34. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz-Landau (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Volz, B., Jablonski, S.: Towards an Open Meta Modeling Environment. In: 10th Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM 2010) Reno/Tahoe, Nevada, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Volz, B., Jablonski, S.: OMME - A Flexible Modeling Environment. Workshop on Flexible Modeling Tools (FlexiTools@SPLASH 2010), Reno/Tahoe, Nevada, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meerkamm, S.: Configuration of Multi-Perspectives Variants. In: 1st. Int’l. Workshop on Reuse in Business Process Management (rBPM 2010), Hoboken, NJ, USA (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Meerkamm
    • 1
  • Stefan Jablonski
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Applied Computer Science IVUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations