Positioning Collaboration in Business Process Model Consolidation in VOs

  • Hodjat Soleimani MalekanEmail author
  • Mohammmad H. Rezazade Mehrizi
  • Hamideh Afsarmanesh
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 480)


Further to sharing their knowledge and information, organizations in a VO can also benefit from sharing and even combining/consolidating their Business Processes (BPs) in order to save costs, apply their best practices, and provide value-added services. A number of challenges are associated with the needed environment for BP consolidation. Our approach to tackle these challenges is two-fold. First part is addressed in this paper and deals with the human and procedural aspects of this problem and introduces an environment to support stakeholders of independent organizations with creating common understanding of each other’s BPs and manually designing/testing consolidated BPs. The second part of our approach is however outside of the scope of this paper, which develops a semi-automated mechanism and algorithms to improve efficiency of defining and disambiguating consolidated BPs. Focused on first part, this paper presents results of an empirical study investigating performance and applicability of our approach, with about eighty participants.


Business process consolidation Merging organizations Collaboration 


  1. 1.
    Afsarmanesh, H., Camarinha-Matos, L.: A framework for management of virtual organization breeding environments. In: Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., Ortiz, A. (eds.) Collaborative Networks and Their Breeding Environments. IFIP, vol. 186, pp. 35–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., Uba, R., Dijkman, R.: Business process model merging: an approach to business process consolidation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 22(2), 11 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerth, C.: Introduction. In: Gerth, C. (ed.) Business Process Models. Change Management. LNCS, vol. 7849, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dijkman, R.M., La Rosa, M., Reijers, H.A.: Managing large collections of business process models-current techniques and challenges. Comput. Ind. 63(2), 91–97 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0.2, December 2013. Last seen
  6. 6.
    Soleimani Malekan, H., Afsarmanesh, H.: Overview of business process modeling languages supporting enterprise collaboration. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) BMSD 2013. LNBIP, vol. 173, pp. 24–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Recker, J.: Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Bus. Process Manag. J. 16(1), 181–201 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management, pp. I–XXVII. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Figl, K., Weber, B.: Individual creativity in designing business processes. In: Bajec, M., Eder, J. (eds.) CAiSE Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 112, pp. 294–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schunselaar, D.M., Verbeek, E., van der Aalst, W.M., Raijers, H.A.: Creating sound and reversible configurable process models using CoSeNets. In: Abramowicz, W., Kriksciuniene, D., Sakalauskas, V. (eds.) BIS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 117, pp. 24–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wixom, B.H., Todd, P.A.: A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf. Syst. Res. 16(1), 85–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K.: The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 26(1), 87–119 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bernhard, E., Recker, J.C.: Preliminary insights from a multiple case study on process modelling impact (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ragin, C.C.: Fuzzy-Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burton-Jones, A., Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Guidelines for empirical evaluations of conceptual modeling grammars. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10(6), 495 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Aalst, W.M.: Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw. Eng. 2013, 1–37 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hodjat Soleimani Malekan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohammmad H. Rezazade Mehrizi
    • 2
  • Hamideh Afsarmanesh
    • 1
  1. 1.Informatics InstituteUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations