How Much Language Is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation

  • Michael zur Muehlen
  • Jan Recker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5074)


The Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) is an increasingly important industry standard for the graphical representation of business processes. BPMN offers a wide range of modeling constructs, significantly more than other popular languages. However, not all of these constructs are equally important in practice as business analysts frequently use arbitrary subsets of BPMN. In this paper we investigate what these subsets are, and how they differ between academic, consulting, and general use of the language. We analyzed 120 BPMN diagrams using mathematical and statistical techniques. Our findings indicate that BPMN is used in groups of several, well-defined construct clusters, but less than 20% of its vocabulary is regularly used and some constructs did not occur in any of the models we analyzed. While the average model contains just 9 different BPMN constructs, models of this complexity have typically just 4-5 constructs in common, which means that only a small agreed subset of BPMN has emerged. Our findings have implications for the entire ecosystems of analysts and modelers in that they provide guidance on how to reduce language complexity, which should increase the ease and speed of process modeling.


BPMN Language Analysis Process Modeling 


  1. 1., OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation Specification. Final Adopted Specification. Object Management Group (2006),
  2. 2.
    Fowler, M.: UML Distilled: A Brief Guide To The Standard Object Modelling Language, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston, Massachusetts (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siau, K., Cao, Q.: Unified Modeling Language: A Complexity Analysis. Journal of Database Management 12, 26–34 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P.: A Study of the Evolution of the Representational Capabilities of Process Modeling Grammars. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 447–461. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siau, K., Erickson, J., Lee, L.Y.: Theoretical vs. Practical Complexity: The Case of UML. Journal of Database Management 16, 40–57 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kobryn, C.: UML 2001: A Standardization Odyssey. Communications of the ACM 42, 29–37 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Pattern-based Translation of BPMN Process Models to BPEL Web Services. International Journal of Web Services Research 5, 42–61 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Krogstie, J.: Ontology- versus Pattern-based Evaluation of Process Modeling Languages: A Comparison. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 20, 774–799 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: How Good is BPMN Really? Insights from Theory and Practice. In: Ljungberg, J., Andersson, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems, Goeteborg, Sweden, pp. 1582–1593 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    zur Muehlen, M., Ho, D.T.-Y.: Service Process Innovation: A Case Study of BPMN in Practice. In: Sprague Jr., R.H. (ed.) Proceedings of the 41th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, Hawaii (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wahl, T., Sindre, G.: An Analytical Evaluation of BPMN Using a Semiotic Quality Framework. In: Siau, K. (ed.) Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol. 5, pp. 102–113. Idea Group, Hershey, Pennsylvania (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barabási, A.-L., Bonabeau, E.: Scale-Free Networks. Scientific American 288, 50–59 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, W.: Random Texts Exhibit Zipf’s-Law-Like Word Frequency Distribution. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 38, 1842–1845 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zipf, G.K.: On the Dynamic Structure of Concert Programs. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 41, 25–36 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamming, R.W.: Error Detecting and Error Correcting Codes. Bell System Technical Journal 26, 147–160 (1950)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rossi, M., Brinkkemper, S.: Complexity Metrics for Systems Development Methods and Techniques. Information Systems 21, 209–227 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael zur Muehlen
    • 1
  • Jan Recker
    • 2
  1. 1.Howe School of Technology ManagementStevens Institute of TechnologyHobokenUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Information TechnologyQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations