This paper proposes a framework to represent life-cycle activities performed in business process management (BPM). It is based on the function-behaviour-structure (FBS) ontology that represents all design entities uniformly, independently of the specific stages in their life cycle. The framework specifies a set of distinct activities that operate on the function, behaviour and structure of a business process, subsuming the different life-cycle stages within a single framework. This provides an explicit description of a number of BPM issues that are inadequately addressed in current life-cycle models. They include design-time analysis, flexibility of tasks and sub-processes, interaction between life-cycle stages, and the use of experience.


BPM BPM life cycle FBS ontology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business Process Management Demystified: A Tutorial on Models, Systems and Standards for Workflow Management. In: Desel, J., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ACPN 2003. LNCS, vol. 3098, pp. 1–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    zur Muehlen, M., Ho, D.T.-Y.: Risk Management in the BPM Lifecycle. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 454–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wetzstein, B., Ma, Z., Filipowska, M., Bhiri, S., Losada, S., Lopez-Cobo, J.-M., Cicurel, L.: Semantic Business Process Management: A Lifecycle Based Requirements Analysis. In: Hepp, M., Hinkelmann, K., Karagiannis, D., Klein, R., Stojanovic, N. (eds.) Semantic Business Process and Product Lifecycle Management. Proceedings of the Workshop SBPM 2007, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 1–10 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vergidis, K., Tiwari, A., Majeed, B.: Business Process Analysis and Optimization: Beyond Reengineering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part C: Applications and Reviews 38(1), 69–82 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gero, J.S., Kannengiesser, U.: The Situated Function-Behaviour-Structure Framework. Design Studies 25(4), 373–391 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gero, J.S., Kannengiesser, U.: A Function-Behavior-Structure Ontology of Processes. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 21(4), 379–391 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gero, J.S.: Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Kleer, J., Brown, J.S.: A Qualitative Physics Based on Confluences. Artificial Intelligence 24, 7–83 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruchten, P.: Architectural Blueprints – The “4+1” View Model of Software Architecture. IEEE Software 12(6), 42–50 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J.: Process Modeling. Communications of the ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luo, W., Tung, Y.A.: A Framework for Selecting Business Process Modeling Methods. Industrial Management & Data Systems 99(7), 312–319 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Aken, J.E.: Design Science and Organization Development Interventions: Aligning Business and Humanistic Values. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 43(1), 67–88 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schön, D.A., Wiggins, G.: Kinds of Seeing and their Functions in Designing. Design Studies 13(2), 135–156 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dewey, J.: The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology. Psychological Review 3, 357–370 (1896 reprinted in 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bartlett, F.C.: Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1932 reprinted in 1977)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, G.J., Gero, J.S.: What Does an Artificial Design Agent Mean by Being ‘Situated’? Design Studies 26(5), 535–561 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bickhard, M.H., Campbell, R.L.: Topologies of Learning. New Ideas in Psychology 14(2), 111–156 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clancey, W.J.: Situated Cognition: On Human Knowledge and Computer Representations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Declarative Process Modeling with Business Vocabulary and Business Rules. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4805, pp. 603–612. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhu, L., Osterweil, L.J., Staples, M., Kannengiesser, U., Simidchieva, B.I.: Desiderata for Languages to Be Used in the Definition of Reference Business Processes. International Journal of Software and Informatics 1(1), 37–65 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bandara, W., Indulska, M., Chons, S., Sadiq, S.: Major Issues in Business Process Management: An Expert Perspective. BPTrends, 1–8 (October 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Udo Kannengiesser
    • 1
  1. 1.NICTAAustralian Technology ParkAustralia

Personalised recommendations