Perspectives to Process Modeling

Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 444)

Abstract

An important area of BPM is the modeling of processes. Processes modeling is done for a number of reasons in relation to BPM, and this chapter will describe main approaches to different types of process modeling. Modeling approaches will be structured according to the main modeling perspective being used. In conceptual modeling in general, one can identify 8 modeling perspectives; behavioral, functional, structural, goal-oriented, object-oriented, language action, organizational and geographical. In this chapter, we will present examples of process modeling according to these different perspectives, and discuss what perspectives are most appropriate to use to achieve the different goals of modeling.

Keywords

Business Process Modeling Language Unify Modeling Language Business Process Management Illocutionary Force 
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. Aagesen, G., Krogstie, J.: Analysis and design of business processes using BPMN. In: Handbook on Business Process Management, Springer (2010a)Google Scholar
  2. van de Aalst, W.: Formalization and Verification of Event-driven Process Chains. Information and Software Technology 41, 639–650 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science-Research and Development 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abdel-Hamid, T.K., Madnick, S.E.: Lessons Learned from Modeling the Dynamics of Software Development. Communications of the ACM 32(12) (1989)Google Scholar
  6. Ader, M., Lu, G., Pons, P., Monguio, J., Lopez, L., De Michelis, G., Grasso, M.A., Vlondakis, G.: Woorks, an object-oriented workflow system for offices. Technical report, ITHACA (1994)Google Scholar
  7. Ambriola, V., Conradi, R., Fuggetta, A.: Assessing Process-Centered Software Engineering Environments. ACM TOSEM 6(3) (1997)Google Scholar
  8. Anderl, R., Raßler, J.: In: Cascini, G. (ed.) Computer-Aided Innovation (CAI). IFIP, vol. 277, pp. 145–156. Springer, Boston (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Auramäki, E.R.H., Lyytinen, K.: Modelling offices through discourse analysis: The SAMPO approach. The Computer Journal 35(4), 342–352 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Austin, J.L.: How to do things with words. Harvard University Press (1962)Google Scholar
  11. Bandinelli, S., Fuggetta, A., Lavazza, L., Loi, M., Picco, G.P.: Modeling and Improving an Industrial Software Process. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(5) (1995)Google Scholar
  12. Benson, I., Everhard, S., McKernan, A., Galewsky, B., Partridge, C.: Mathematical Structures for Reasoning about Emergent Organization. In: ACM CSCW Workshop: Beyond Workflow Management, Philadelphia, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  13. Bernstein, A.: How Can Cooperative Work Tools Support Dynamic Group Processes? Bridging the Specificity Frontier. In: ACM CSCW Conference, Philadelphia, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  14. Bogia, D.P.: Supporting Flexible, Extensible Task Descriptions in and Among Tasks. PhD thesis (1995)Google Scholar
  15. Bolcer, G., Kaiser, G.: SWAP: Leveraging the web to manage workflow. IEEE Internet Computing 3(1) (1999)Google Scholar
  16. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language: User Guide Second Edition. Addison-Wesley (2005)Google Scholar
  17. Bråten, S.: Model Monopoly and communications: Systems Theoretical Notes on Democratization. Acta Sociologica, Journal of the Scandinavian Socialogical Association 16(2), 98–107 (1973)Google Scholar
  18. Bubenko Jr., J.A., Rolland, C., Loucopoulos, P., DeAntonellis, V.: Facilitating fuzzy to formal requirements modeling. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE 1994), Colorado Springs, USA, April 18-22, pp. 154–157. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994)Google Scholar
  19. Bubenko Jr., J.A.: Problems and unclear issues with hierarchical business activity and data flow modelling. Technical Report 134, SYSLAB, Stockholm (June 1988)Google Scholar
  20. Button, G.: What’s Wrong with Speach Act Theory. In: CSCW, vol. 3(1) (1995)Google Scholar
  21. Carlsen, S.: Action Port Model: A Mixed Paradigm Conceptual Workflow Modeling Language. In: Third IFCIS Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS 1998), New York (1998)Google Scholar
  22. Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model: Towards a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Conradi, R., Jaccheri, M.L.: Process Modelling Languages. In: Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, B.A., Wastell, D. (eds.) Promoter-2 1998. LNCS, vol. 1500, pp. 27–52. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cugola, G.: Tolerating deviations in process support systems via flexible enactment of process models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(11) (1998)Google Scholar
  25. Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J.: Process Modeling. Com. ACM 35(9) (1992)Google Scholar
  26. Davis, A.M.: Software Requirements Analysis & Specification. Prentice-Hall (1990)Google Scholar
  27. Davis, A.M.: A comparison of techniques for the specification of external system behavior. Communications of the ACM 31(9), 1098–1115 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, B.A., Wastell, D. (eds.): Promoter-2 1998. LNCS, vol. 1500. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  29. De Michelis, G., Grasso, M.A.: Situating Conversations within the Language/Action Perspective: The Milan Conversation Model. In: ACM CSCW Conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA (1994)Google Scholar
  30. Dietz, J.L.G.: DEMO: towards a discipline of Organisation Engineering. European Journal of Operations Research (1999)Google Scholar
  31. Dietz, J.L.G.: Integrating management of human and computer resources in task processing organizations: A conceptual view. In: Nunamaker, J.F., Sprague, R.H. (eds.) Proceedings of HICCS 1927, Maui, Hawaii, US, January 4-7. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994)Google Scholar
  32. Dignum, F., Weigand, H.: Communication and deontic logic. In: Wieringa, R., Feenstra, R. (eds.) Working Papers of the International Workshop on Information Systems - Correctness and Reuseability, IS-CORE 1994 (1994)Google Scholar
  33. Dori, D.: Why significant UML change is unlikely. Com. ACM 45, 82–85 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dourish, P., Holmes, J., MacLean, A., Marqvardsen, P., Zbyslaw, A.: Freeflow: Mediating between representation and action in workflow systems. In: ACM CSCW Conference, Boston, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  35. Dourish, P.: Re-Space-ing Place: “Place” and “Space” Ten Years On. In: Proc. ACM Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW 2006, Banff, Canada, pp. 299–308. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  36. Fickas, S.: Design issues in a rule-based system. Journal of Systems and Software 10(2), 113–123 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fischer, L.: Excellence in Practice IV - Innovation and excellence in workflow and knowledge management. In: Workflow Management Coalition. Future Strategies Inc., Florida (2000)Google Scholar
  38. Fox, M.S., Gruninger, M.: Enterprise modeling. AI Magazine (2000)Google Scholar
  39. Gane, C., Sarson, T.: Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques. Prentice Hall (1979)Google Scholar
  40. Geerts, G.L., McCarthy, W.E.: An Accounting Object Infrastructure for Knowledge-Based Enterprise Models. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14, 89–94 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Genesereth, M.R., Ketchpel, S.T.: Software agents. Communication of the ACM 37(7), 48–53 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Glance, N.S., Pagani, D.S., Pareschi, R.: Generalized Process Structure Grammars (GPSG) for Flexible Representation of Work. In: ACM CSCW Conference, Boston, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  43. Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: An overview of declarative process modeling principles and languages. Communications of Systemics and Informatics World Network 6, 51–58 (2009)Google Scholar
  44. Gopalakrishnan, S., Krogstie, J., Sindre, G.: Adapting UML Activity Diagrams for Mobile Work Process Modelling: Experimental Comparison of Two Notation Alternatives. In: van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Overbeek, S., Proper, E., Barjis, J. (eds.) PoEM 2010. LNBIP, vol. 68, pp. 145–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gordijn, J., Yu, Eric, van der Raadt, B.: e-service Design using i* and e3value. IEEE Software (May-June 2006)Google Scholar
  46. Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Integrated Process Modeling: An Ontolocial Evaluation. Information Systems 25(3) (2000)Google Scholar
  47. Habermas, J.: The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press (1984)Google Scholar
  48. Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Harper Business (1993)Google Scholar
  49. Harel, D.: Statecharts : A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming (8), 231–274 (1987)Google Scholar
  50. Harel, D., Lachover, H., Naamed, A., Pnueli, A., Politi, M., Sherman, R., Shtull-Trauring, A., Trakhtenbrot, M.: STATEMATE: a working environment for thedevelopment of complex reactive systems. IEEE TSE 16(4), 403–414 (1990)Google Scholar
  51. Harrison, S., Dourish, P.: Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Space and Place in Collaborative Systems. In: ACM Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW 1996, Boston, MA, pp. 67–76. ACM, New York (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Havey, M.: Essential Business Process Modelling. O’Reilly (2005)Google Scholar
  53. Hommes, B.-J., van Reijswoud, V.: The quality of business process modelling techniques. In: Conference on Information Systems Concepts (ISCO), Leiden. Kluwer (1999)Google Scholar
  54. Hruby, P.: Model-Driven Design Using Business Patterns. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  55. Hull, R., King, R.: Semantic database modeling: Survey, applications, and research issues. ACM Computing Surveys 19(3), 201–260 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hull, D., Wolstencroft, K., Stevens, R., Goble, C.A., Pocock, M.R., Li, P., Oinn, T.: Taverna: a tool for building and running workflows of services. Nucleic Acids Research 34(Web-Server-Issue), 729–732 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. IDEF-0: Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 183, December 21, Announcing the Standard for Integration Definition For Function Modeling (IDEF-0) (1993) Google Scholar
  58. Jarke, M., Bubenko jr, J.A., Rolland, A.: Sutcliffe, and Y. Vassiliou. Theories underlying requirements engineering: An overview of NATURE at genesis. In: Proceedings of RE 1993, pp. 19–31 (1993)Google Scholar
  59. Kappel, G., Rausch-Schott, S., Retschitzegger, W.: Coordination in workflow management systems a rule-based approach. Coordination Technology for Collaborative Applications, 99–119 (1998)Google Scholar
  60. Kavakli, E., Loucopoulos, P.: Goal Modeling in Requirements Engineering: Analysis and critique of current methods in. In: Krogstie, J., Siau, K., Halpin, T. (eds.) Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies. Idea Group Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  61. Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.W.: Semantische Prozeßmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozeßketten (EPK) (1992)Google Scholar
  62. King, J.L.: SimLanguage, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 3(1) (1995)Google Scholar
  63. Krogstie, J., Dalberg, V., Jensen, S.M.: Process modeling value framework, Enterprise Information Systems. In: Manolopoulos, Y., Filipe, J., Constantopoulos, P., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) Selected Papers from 8th International Conference, ICEIS 2006. LNBIP, vol. 3. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  64. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G.: Utilizing deontic operators in information systems specifications. Requirement Engineering Journal 1, 210–237 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Krogstie, J.: Integrated Goal, Data and Process modeling: From TEMPORA to Model-Generated Work-Places. In: Johannesson, P., Søderstrøm, E. (eds.) Information Systems Engineering From Data Analysis to Process Networks, pp. 43–65. IGI Publishing (2008)Google Scholar
  66. Kuntz, J.C., Christiansen, T.R., Cohen, G.P., Jin, Y., Levitt, R.E.: The virtual design team: A computational simulation model of project organizations. Communications of the ACM 41(11) (1998)Google Scholar
  67. Lei, Y., Singh, M.P.: A comparison of workflow metamodels, In: ER Workshop on Behavioral Modeling. LNCS, vol. 1565. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  68. Lillehagen, F., Krogstie, J.: Active Knowledge Models of Enterprises. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  69. Loos, P., Allweyer, T.: Process orientation and object-orientation - An approach for integrating UML with event-driven process chains (EPC), Germany (1998)Google Scholar
  70. Lu, R., Sadiq, S., Governatori, G.: On managing business processes variants. Data & Knowledge Engineering 68(7), 642–664 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lu, R., Sadiq, W.: A Survey of Comparative Business Process Modeling Approaches. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4439, pp. 82–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Marsan, M.A., et al. (eds.): Proceeding of the International workshop on Timed Petri Nets, Torino, Italy. IEEE Computer Society Press (1985)Google Scholar
  73. McCarthy, W.E.: The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. The Accounting Review 57, 554–578 (1982)Google Scholar
  74. Medina-Mora, R., Winograd, T., Flores, R., Flores, F.: The Action Workflow approach to workflow management technology. In: ACM CSCW Conference (1992)Google Scholar
  75. Mendling, J., Nüttgens, M.: EPC markup language (EPML): an XML-based interchange format for event-driven process chains (EPC). Information Systems and E-Business Management 4, 245–263 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mühlen, M.z., Becker, J.: Workflow management and object-orientation - A matter of perspectives or why perspectives matter. In: OOPSLA Workshop on Object-Oriented Workflow Management, Denver, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  77. Nossum, A., Krogstie, J.: Integrated Quality of Models and Quality of Maps. In: Paper presented at the EMMSAD 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  78. Nysetvold, A.G., Krogstie, J.: Assessing Business Process Modeling Languages Using a Generic Quality Framework. In: Siau, K. (ed.) Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol. 5, pp. 79–93. Idea Group, Hershey (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Olle, T.W., Hagelstein, J., MacDonald, I.G., Rolland, C., Sol, H.G., van Assche, F.J.M., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A.: Information Systems Methodologies. Addison-Wesley (1988)Google Scholar
  80. OMG Workflow Management Facility v. 1.2, Object Management Group (2000)Google Scholar
  81. Ould, M.A.: Business Processes - Modeling and Analysis for Re-engineering and Improvement. Wiley, Beverly Hills (1995)Google Scholar
  82. Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G.: A taxonomy for real-world modeling concepts. Information Systems 19(3), 229–241 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G.: Facet modeling: An approach to flexible and integrated conceptual modeling. Information Systems 22(5), 291–323 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A Declarative Approach for Flexible Business Processes Management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Petri, C.A.: Kommunikation mit automaten. Schriften des Rheinisch-Westfalischen Institut fur Instrumentelle Mathematik an der Universität Bonn (2) (1962) (in German)Google Scholar
  86. Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M.: ARIS Architecture and Reference Models for Business Process Management, pp. 301–304 (2000)Google Scholar
  87. Schonenberg, H., Weber, B., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Supporting Flexible Processes through Recommendations Based on History. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 51–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press (1969)Google Scholar
  89. Searle, J.R.: Expression and Meaning. Cambridge University Press (1979)Google Scholar
  90. Searle, J.R., Vanderveken, D.: Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press (1985)Google Scholar
  91. Seltveit, A.H.: An Abstraction-Based Rule Approach to Large-Scale Information Systems Development. In: Rolland, C., Cauvet, C., Bodart, F. (eds.) CAiSE 1993. LNCS, vol. 685, Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  92. Senge, P.: The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Century Business Publishers, London (1990)Google Scholar
  93. Shoham, Y.: Agent Oriented Programming: An Overview of the Framework and Summary of Recent Research. In: Masuch, M., Polos, L. (eds.) Logic at Work 1992. LNCS, vol. 808, pp. 123–129. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Singh, B., Rein, G.L.: Role Interaction Nets (RINs); A Process Description Formalism, Technical Report CT-083-92, MCC, Austin, Texas (1992)Google Scholar
  95. Stamper, R.: Semantics. In: Boland, R.J., Hirschheim, R.A. (eds.) Critical issues in Information Systems Research, pp. 43–78. John Wiley & Sons (1987)Google Scholar
  96. Störrle, H.: Describing Process Patterns with UML. In: Ambriola, V. (ed.) EWSPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2077, p. 173. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Suchman, L.: Do categories have politics? In: CSCW, vol. 2(3) (1994)Google Scholar
  98. Swenson, K.D., Maxwell, R.J., Matsymoto, T., Saghari, B., Irwin, I.: A business process environment supporting collaborative planning. Journal of Collaborative Computing 1(1) (1994)Google Scholar
  99. Sølvberg, A., Kung, C.H.: Information Systems Engineering. Springer (1993)Google Scholar
  100. Tomlinson, C., Scheevel, M.: Concurrent Programming. In: Kim, W., Lo-chovsky, F.H. (eds.) Object-oriented Concepts, Databases and Applications. Addison-Wesley (1989)Google Scholar
  101. Twining, W., Miers, D.: How to do things with rules. Weidenfeld and Nicholson (1982)Google Scholar
  102. UMM - UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology User Guide (2007)Google Scholar
  103. Ward, P.T.: The transformation schema: An extension of the dataflow diagram to represent control and timing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 12(2), 198–210 (1986)Google Scholar
  104. Zatarain-Cabada, R., Goldin, D.Q.: Interaction as a Framework for Modeling. In: Chen, P.P., Akoka, J., Kangassalu, H., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. LNCS, vol. 1565, p. 243. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer-Verlag New York Inc (2007)Google Scholar
  106. WfMC Workflow Handbook 2001. Workflow Management Coalition, Future Strategies Inc., Lighthouse Point, Florida, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  107. White. S.A. Introduction to BPMN. IBM Cooperation (2004)Google Scholar
  108. Wieringa, R.: Three roles of conceptual models in information systems design and use. In: Falkenberg, I.E., Lindgren, P. (eds.) Information Systems Concepts: An In-Depth Analysis, pp. 31–51. North-Holland (1989)Google Scholar
  109. Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition. Addison-Wesley (1986)Google Scholar
  110. Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26(3), 276–291 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations