A Study of the Evolution of the Representational Capabilities of Process Modeling Grammars

  • Michael Rosemann
  • Jan Recker
  • Marta Indulska
  • Peter Green
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4001)


A plethora of process modeling techniques has been proposed over the years. One way of evaluating and comparing the scope and completeness of techniques is by way of representational analysis. The purpose of this paper is to examine how process modeling techniques have developed over the last four decades. The basis of the comparison is the Bunge-Wand-Weber representation model, a benchmark used for the analysis of grammars that purport to model the real world and the interactions within it. This paper presents a comparison of representational analyses of several popular process modeling techniques and has two main outcomes. First, it provides insights, within the boundaries of a representational analysis, into the extent to which process modeling techniques have developed over time. Second, the findings also indicate areas in which the underlying theory seems to be over-engineered or lacking in specialization.


Business Process Management Business Rule Business Process Modeling Notation Data Flow Diagram Ontological Evaluation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gartner Group: Delivering IT’s Contribution: The 2005 CIO Agenda. Gartner, Inc., Stamford, Connecticut (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petri, C.A.: Fundamentals of a Theory of Asynchronous Information Flow. In: Popplewell, C.M. (ed.) IFIP Congress 62: Information Processing, pp. 386–390. North-Holland, Munich (1962)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do Practitioners Use Conceptual Modeling in Practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering (in press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Floyd, C.: A Comparative Evaluation of System Development Methods. In: Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.) Information System Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, pp. 19–54. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An Ontological Model of an Information System. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16, 1282–1292 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars. Journal of Information Systems 3, 217–237 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the Deep Structure of Information Systems. Information Systems Journal 5, 203–223 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bunge, M.A.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy. In: Ontology I - The Furniture of the World, vol. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1977)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shanks, G., Tansley, E., Weber, R.: Using Ontology to Validate Conceptual Models. Communications of the ACM 46, 85–89 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Applying Ontologies to Business and Systems Modeling Techniques and Perspectives: Lessons Learned. Journal of Database Management 15, 105–117 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weber, R.: Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers & Lybrand and the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, Australia (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chisholm, R.M.: A Realistic Theory of Categories: An Essay on Ontology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guizzardi, G., Herre, H., Wagner, G.: On the General Ontological Foundations of Conceptual Modeling. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T., Kambayashi, Y. (eds.) ER 2002. LNCS, vol. 2503, pp. 65–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Milton, S., Rosemann, M.: Analysing and Comparing Ontologies with Meta Models. In: Krogstie, J., Halpin, T., Siau, K. (eds.) Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, pp. 1–16. Idea Group, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Söderström, E., Andersson, B., Johannesson, P., Perjons, E., Wangler, B.: Towards a Framework For Comparing Process Modelling Languages. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 600–611. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keen, C.D., Lakos, C.: Analysis of the Design Constructs Required in Process Modelling. In: Purvis, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering: Education and Practice, pp. 434–441. IEEE Computer Society, Dunedin (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Griethuysen, J.J.: Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base. ISO/TC97/SC5 Report N695. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Italy (1982)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tardieu, H.: Issues for Dynamic Modelling through Recent Development in European Methods. In: Sol, H.G., Crosslin, R.L. (eds.) Dynamic Modelling of Information Systems II, pp. 3–23. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gane, C., Sarson, T.: Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1979)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayer, R.J., Menzel, C.P., Painter, M.K., de Witte, P.S., Blinn, T., Perakath, B.: Information Integration For Concurrent Engineering (IICE) IDEF3 Process Description Capture Method Report. Interim Technical Report AL-TR-1995-XXXX. Logistics Research Division, College Station, Texas (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keen, C.D., Lakos, C.: Information Systems Modelling using LOOPN++, an Object Petri Net Scheme. In: Sol, H.G., Verbraeck, A., Bots, P.W.G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Working Conference on Dynamic Modelling and Information Systems, pp. 31–52. Delft University Press, Noordwijkerhout (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Integrated Process Modeling. An Ontological Evaluation. Information Systems 25, 73–87 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.-W.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK) (in German: Semantic Modeling of Processes based on Event-driven Process Chains). Working Paper 89. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik der Universität Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, Germany (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Ontological Analysis of Integrated Process Models: Testing Hypotheses. The Australian Journal of Information Systems 9, 30–38 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M.: Ontological Evaluation of Enterprise Systems Interoperability Using ebXML. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 17, 713–725 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    OASIS: ebXML Business Process Specification Schema Version 1.01. UN/CEFACT and OASIS (2001), Available at:
  27. 27.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Manning, C.: Candidate Interoperability Standards: An Ontological Overlap Analysis. Technical Report University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andrews, T., Curbera, F., Dholakia, H., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Liu, K., Roller, D., Smith, D., Thatte, S., Trickovic, I., Weerawarana, S.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services. Version 1.1. BEA Systems, International Business Machines Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, SAP AG and Siebel Systems (2003), Available at:
  29. 29.
    Arkin, A.: Business Process Modeling Language. (2002), Available at:
  30. 30.
    Arkin, A., Askary, S., Fordin, S., Jekeli, W., Kawaguchi, K., Orchard, D., Pogliani, S., Riemer, K., Struble, S., Takacsi-Nagy, P., Trickovic, I., Zimek, S.: Web Service Choreography Interface (WSCI) 1.0. BEA Systems, Intalio, SAP, Sun Microsystems (2002), Available at:
  31. 31.
    Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model. Software and Systems Modeling 1, 43–67 (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Soffer, P., Golany, B., Dori, D., Wand, Y.: Modelling Off-the-Shelf Information System Requirements. An Ontological Approach. Requirements Engineering 6, 183–199 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murata, T.: Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 77, 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34., OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation Specification. Final Adopted Specification. Object Management Group (2006), Available at:
  35. 35.
    Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Do Process Modelling Techniques Get Better? A Comparative Ontological Analysis of BPMN. In: Campbell, B., Underwood, J., Bunker, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems, Sydney, Australia (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Soffer, P., Wand, Y.: On the Notion of Soft-Goals in Business Process Modeling. Business Process Management Journal 11, 663–679 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M.: A Reference Methodology for Conducting Ontological Analyses. In: Lu, H., Chu, W., Atzeni, P., Zhou, S., Ling, T.W. (eds.) ER 2004. LNCS, vol. 3288, pp. 110–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M.: A Procedural Model for Ontological Analyses. In: Hart, D., Gregor, S. (eds.) Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising, pp. 153–163. ANU E Press, Canberra (2005)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Developing a Meta Model for the Bunge-Wand-Weber Ontological Constructs. Information Systems 27, 75–91 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Rosemann
    • 1
  • Jan Recker
    • 1
  • Marta Indulska
    • 2
  • Peter Green
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.UQ Business SchoolUniversity of QueenslandIpswichAustralia

Personalised recommendations