Empirical Research in Executable Process Models



Perhaps one of the reasons BPM research concentrates on analytical modeling of business processes is that BPMN is standardized fully in this regard and modeling tools support the notation very well. In this book, we focus instead on empirical research in executable process models. This requires a complete and precise specification of process models, which graduate from “PowerPoint slide” into an executable artifact running inside a workflow engine in the Cloud. In this chapter, we introduce fundamental background concepts defining executable business processes, discussing empirical research methods suitable for business process management, and presenting different architectural options for process execution and close with a brief history leading toward executable BPMN.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    G. Alonso, F. Casati, H. Kuno, V. Machiraju, Web Services: Concepts, Architectures and Applications (Springer, Berlin, 2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Bussler, B2B Integration: Concepts and Architecture (Springer, Berlin, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.J. Crawley, Statistics: An Introduction Using R (Wiley, Hoboken, 2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. DeRemer, H.H. Kron, Programming-in-the-large versus programming-in-the-small. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-2(2), 80–86 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Figl, Comprehension of procedural visual business process models. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59(1), 41–67 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Fisher, Statistical methods and scientific induction. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 17, 69–78 (1955)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Foster, S. Uchitel, J. Magee, J. Kramer, LTSA-WS: a tool for model-based verification of web service compositions and choreography, in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’06 (ACM, New York, 2006), pp. 771–774Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Freund, B. Rücker, Real-Life BPMN: With Introductions to CMMN and DMN (CreateSpace, Scotts Valley, 2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Houy, P. Fettke, P. Loos, Empirical research in business process management–analysis of an emerging field of research. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 16(4), 619–661 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Ivanchikj, C. Pautasso, S. Schreier, Visual modeling of restful conversations with restalk. Softw. Syst. Model. 17(3), 1031–1051 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Jordan, J. Evdemon, Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0 (Object Management Group, Inc., Needham, 2011).
  12. 12.
    D. Jordan, J. Evdemon et al., Web Services Business Process Execution Language (WS-BPEL) Version 2.0 OASIS standard, Burlington, April 2007, pp. 1–264Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Kalliamvakou, G. Gousios, K. Blincoe, L. Singer, D.M. German, D. Damian, The promises and perils of mining github, in Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2014 (ACM, New York, 2014), pp. 92–101Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Kent, Model driven engineering, in International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods (Springer, Basel, 2002), pp. 286–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.K.L. Ko, S.S.G. Lee, E.W. Lee, Business process management (bpm) standards: a survey. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 15(5), 744–791 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Koehler, R. Hauser, J. Küster, K. Ryndina, J. vanhatalo, M. Wahler, The role of visual modeling and model transformations in business-driven development. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 211, 5–15 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O. Kopp, K. Görlach, D. Karastoyanova, F. Leymann, M. Reiter, D. Schumm, M. Sonntag, S. Strauch, T. Unger, M. Wieland et al., A classification of bpel extensions. J. Syst. Integr. 2(4), 3–28 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Kunze, A. Luebbe, M. Weidlich, M. Weske, Towards understanding process modeling – the case of the BPM academic initiative, in Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN 2011), ed. by R. Dijkman, J. Hofstetter, J. Koehler, vol. 95 (Springer, Berlin, 2011), pp. 44–58Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Leymann, Managing business processes via workflow technology, in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 2001), VLDB 2001 (2001), p. 729Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Leymann, D. Roller, M.-T. Schmidt, Web services and business process management. IBM Syst. J. 41(2), 198–211 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Y.K. Malaiya, M.N. Li, J.M. Bieman, R. Karcich, Software reliability growth with test coverage. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 51(4), 420–426 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    G.J. Myers, The Art of Software Testing (Wiley, Hoboken, 1979)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A.J. Onwuegbuzie, N.L. Leech, Validity and qualitative research: an oxymoron? Qual. Quant. 41(2), 233–249 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. Ouyang, M. Dumas, W.M.P. van der Aalst, A.H.M. ter Hofstede, J. Mendling, From business process models to process-oriented software systems. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 19(1), 2 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Pasley, How BPEL and SOA are changing web services development. IEEE Internet Comput. 9(3), 60–67 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Pautasso, G. Alonso, Visual composition of web services, in Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (VL/HCC2003) (IEEE, Piscataway, 2003), pp. 92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Pautasso, E. Wilde, Why is the web loosely coupled?: a multi-faceted metric for service design, in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web (ACM, New York, 2009), pp. 911–920Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C. Pautasso, O. Zimmermann, The web as a software connector. IEEE Softw. 35(1), 93–98 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Recker, J. Mendling, On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages, in Proceedings of Workshops and Doctoral Consortium of the 18th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAISE) (2006), pp. 521–532Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    H.A. Reijers, J. Mendling, A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Humans 41(3), 449–462 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Runeson, M. Höst, A. Rainer, B. Regnell, Case Study Research in Software Engineeering – Guidelines and Examples (Wiley, Hoboken, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    K. Sarshar, P. Loos, Comparing the control-flow of epc and petri net from the end-user perspective, in Business Process Management, ed. by W.M.P. van der Aalst, B. Benatallah, F. Casati, F. Curbera (Springer, Berlin, 2005), pp. 434–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    H. Störrle, On the impact of layout quality to understanding uml diagrams: diagram type and expertise, in Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (IEEE, Piscataway, 2012), pp. 49–56Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst, Verification of workflow nets, in International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets (Springer, Berlin, 1997), pp. 407–426Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst, The application of petri nets to workflow management. J. Circuits Syst. Comput. 8(1), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst, Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41(10), 639–650 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst et al., Three good reasons for using a petri-net-based workflow management system, in Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Information and Process Integration in Enterprises (IPIC’6). Citeseer (1996), pp. 179–201Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. Weerawarana, F. Curbera, F. Leymann, T. Storey, D.F. Ferguson, Web Services Platform Architecture: SOAP, WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, WS-BPEL, WS-Reliable Messaging, and More (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2005)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    R. Wettel, M. Lanza, R. Robbes, Software systems as cities: a controlled experiment, in 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2011 (IEEE, Piscataway, 2011), pp. 551–560Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M.C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, A. Wesslén, Experimentation in Software Engineering (Springer, Berlin, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    L. Zhang, J.-H. Tian, J. Jiang, Y.-J. Liu, M.-Y. Pu, T. Yue, Empirical research in software engineering—a literature survey. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 33(5), 876–899 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    M. zur Muehlen, J. Recker, How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation, in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2008), CAiSE 2008 (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 465–479Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz Universität HannoverFachgebiet Software EngineeringHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Software Institute, Faculty of InformaticsUSILuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations