Enabling Flexibility of Business Processes Using Compliance Rules: The Case of Mobiliar

  • Thanh Tran Thi Kim
  • Erhard Weiss
  • Christoph RuhsamEmail author
  • Christoph Czepa
  • Huy Tran
  • Uwe Zdun
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)


  1. (a)

    Situation faced: Insurance case work can follow established procedures only to a certain degree, as the work depends upon experienced knowledge workers who decide the best solutions for their clients. To produce quality documents in such a knowledge-intensive environment, business users of Die Mobiliar, the oldest private insurance company in Switzerland, were guided by a wizard application that enabled them to compose insurance documents from predefined building blocks in a series of pre-defined steps. As these steps were hardcoded into the wizard application, the processes could not adapt quickly enough to accommodate new insurance products and associated documentation. Rapidly changing insurance markets produce new types of documents daily, so business users must react flexibly to client requests. Although fully automated processes can be defined when sufficient process knowledge exists, they seriously hinder the innovation and business agility that is critical in insurance markets.

  2. (b)

    Action taken: To overcome this problem, Die Mobiliar uses the Papyrus Communication and Process Platform ( as the basis for its customized “Mobiliar Korrespondenz System” (MKS, Mobiliar Correspondence System), with full functionality for online interactive business document production (ISIS Papyrus). Our approach combines automatically executed business compliance rules with process redesign to provide the flexibility that is essential for insurance processes. The original processes are split into reusable sub-processes, accompanied by a set of ad hoc tasks that the business users can activate at runtime to meet clients’ emergent requirements. A set of compliance rules guarantees that the process conforms to corporate and regulatory standards.

  3. (c)

    Results achieved: The business compliance rule approach has two primary benefits: (i) company management has a process that is well-documented and provably compliant, and (ii) the business users can respond flexibly to their clients’ needs within the boundaries of defined compliance rules, thus improving the customer experience. The flexibility achieved by this approach allows business users to adapt their insurance processes, an advantage from which the whole insurance industry can benefit. The redesigned process with few reusable core elements, combination with a set of ad hoc tasks, decreases the number of process templates (wizard processes) that are required to handle unpredictable situations. A smaller template library also reduces maintenance efforts for business administrators.

  4. (d)

    Lessons learned: Rigid process modeling is not suitable for highly dynamic business domains, like the insurance industry, that are moving into the digital era. Instead, a hybrid of declarative and imperative modeling is best suited to such domains. Our approach provides a maximum of flexibility within mandated constraints, enabling businesses to adapt to changing market requirements with minimal involvement by IT departments. In order to set expectations properly, the use of the two modeling types should be transparent to business users. The adoption of the new approach happens gradually to cope with business considerations like the integration of compliance checking into Die Mobiliar’s production system.




This work was supported by the FFG project CACAO, no. 843461 and the Wiener Wissenschafts, Forschungs, and Technologie funds (WWTF), Grant No. ICT12-001.


  1. BPMN. Specification—Business process model and notation. Accessed July 14, 2016, from
  2. Clarke, E. M. (2008). The birth of model checking. In O. Grumberg & H. Veith (Eds.), 25 years of model checking: History, achievements, perspectives (pp. 1–26). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Czepa, C., Tran, H., Zdun, U., Rinderle-Ma, S., Tran Thi Kim, T., Weiss, E., & Ruhsam, C. (2015). Supporting structural consistency checking in adaptive case management. In International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS) (pp. 311–319).Google Scholar
  4. Czepa, C., Tran, H., Zdun, U., Tran Thi Kim, T., Weiss, E., & Ruhsam, C. (2016a). Towards a compliance support framework for adaptive case management. In 5th International Workshop on Adaptive Case Management and other Non-workflow Approaches to BPM (AdaptiveCM 16), 20th IEEE International Enterprise Computing Workshops (EDOCW 2016).Google Scholar
  5. Czepa, C., Tran, H., Zdun, U., Tran Thi Kim, T., Weiss, E., & Ruhsam, C. (2016b). Ontology-based behavioral constraint authoring. In 2nd International Workshop on Compliance, Evolution and Security in intra- and Cross-Organizational Processes (CeSCoP 2016), 20th IEEE International Enterprise Computing Workshops (EDOCW 2016).Google Scholar
  6. De Smedt, J., De Weerdt, J., Vanthienen, J., & Poels, G. (2016). Mixed-paradigm process modeling with intertwined state spaces. Business Information System Engineering, 58, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dwyer, M. B., Avrunin, G. S., & Corbett, J. C. (1999). Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 411–420). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  8. Fahland, D., Lübke, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., & Zugal, S. (2009). Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: The issue of understandability. In T. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, E. Proper, R. Schmidt, P. Soffer, & R. Ukor (Eds.), Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling: 10th International Workshop, BPMDS 2009, and 14th International Conference, EMMSAD 2009, held at CAiSE 2009, Amsterdam, June 8–9, 2009. Proceedings (pp. 353–366). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Fahland, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., & Zugal, S. (2010). Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: The issue of maintainability. In S. Rinderle-Ma, S. Sadiq, & F. Leymann (Eds.), Business Process Management Workshops: BPM 2009 International Workshops, Ulm, September 7, 2009. Revised Papers (pp. 477–488). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Governatori, G., & Rotolo, A. (2010). Norm compliance in business process modeling. In Semantic Web Rules—International Symposium, RuleML 2010, Washington, DC, October 21–23, 2010. Proceedings (pp. 194–209).Google Scholar
  11. Haisjackl, C., Barba, I., Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Hadar, I., Reichert, M., Pinggera, J., & Weber, B. (2016). Understanding declare models: Strategies, pitfalls, empirical results. Software and System Modeling, 15, 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ISIS Papyrus. ISIS Papyrus solution catalog – Swiss Mobiliar. Accessed March 11, 2016, from
  13. ISIS Papyrus. ISIS Papyrus Press Release. Accessed August 18, 2016, from
  14. Mobiliar: Die Mobiliar Versicherungen und Vorsorge. Accessed March, 11, 2016, from
  15. Prescher, J., Di Ciccio, C., & Mendling, J. (2014). From declarative processes to imperative models. In Accorsi, R., Ceravolo, P., & Russo, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis {(SIMPDA} 2014), Milan, November 19–21, 2014. pp. 162–173.
  16. Tran Thi Kim, T., Pucher, M. J., Mendling, J., & Ruhsam, C. (2013). Setup and maintenance factors of ACM systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including Subser. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 8186 LNCS (pp. 172–177).Google Scholar
  17. Tran Thi Kim, T., Weiss, E., Ruhsam, C., Czepa, C., Tran, H., & Zdun, U. (2015). Embracing process compliance and flexibility through behavioral consistency checking in ACM – A Repair Service Management Case. BPM 2015 4th Work. ACM Other Non-Workflow Approaches to BPM (pp. 1–12).Google Scholar
  18. Tran, T., Ruhsam, C., Pucher, M. J., Kobler, M., & Mendling, J. (2014). Towards a pattern recognition approach for transferring knowledge in ACM. In 18th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops and Demonstrations, EDOCW 2014 (pp. 134–138). doi: 10.1109/EDOCW.2014.28.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thanh Tran Thi Kim
    • 1
  • Erhard Weiss
    • 1
  • Christoph Ruhsam
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christoph Czepa
    • 2
  • Huy Tran
    • 2
  • Uwe Zdun
    • 2
  1. 1.ISIS Papyrus Europe AGMaria EnzersdorfAustria
  2. 2.Research Group Software ArchitectureUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations