Using a Controlled Vocabulary to Support Business Process Design

  • Carla Marques Pereira
  • Artur Caetano
  • Pedro Sousa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 88)

Abstract

Rapid business change demands the ability to adapt, rearrange and reinvent business processes while keeping the alignment with supporting information systems. However, such tasks require a business process to be consistently specified and modelled. To address this issue, this paper describes an organizational taxonomy that defines a controlled vocabulary to design business processes using the concepts of information entity, business process, organizational unit, actor, business schedule and business goal.

Keywords

organizational taxonomy ontology business process design conceptual modelling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Davenport, T., Short, J.: The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign. Sloan Management Review 32(5), 554–571 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dietz, J.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology, p. 244. Springer, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M.: Business process management: A survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    OMG Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), version 2.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ko, R., Lee, S., Lee, E.: Business process management standards: a survey. Business Process Management Journal 15(5) (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Workflow Resource Patterns: Identification, Representation and Tool Support. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 216–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dumas, M., Hofstede, A.H., van der Aalst, W.: Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology. Wiley Publishing, Chichester (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ellis, C.A., Nutt, G.J.: Workflow: The Process Spectrum. In: NSF Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation in Information Systems: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions, Athens, GA (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Std 1471-2000: IEEE Recommended Practice for Architecture Description of Software-Intensive Systems. IEEE, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, P., Tolk, A.: Observations on New Developments in Composability and Multi-Resolution Modeling. In: Winter Simulation Conference WSC 2007, Washington DC, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K., Herman, G.A.: Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Council, S.-C.: Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) (2003), http://supply-chain.org/
  14. 14.
    Petri, C.A.: Kommunikation mit Automaten. In: Institut für instrumentelle Mathematik. University of Bonn, Bonn (1962)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schriber, T.J.: Fundamentals of Flowcharting. Wiley, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Program 8(3), 231–274 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.-W.: Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). In: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage, Saarbrücken, Germany (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG, Unified Modeling Language Specification: Superstructure, version 2.0, Revised Final Adopted Specification (ptc/04-10-02) Object Management Group (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    OMG, Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Specification. v 1.1 (formal/2008-01-17) (January 2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen, P.: The entity-relationship model: Towards a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1) (1976)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gane, C., Sarson, T.: Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and techniques. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1979)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Searle, J.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Winograd, T.: A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Human-Computer Interaction 3(1), 3–30 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jagannathan, R.: Data Flow Models. In: Zomaya, E. (ed.) Parallel and Distributed Computing Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Linz, P.: An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata, 4th edn. University of California, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Davis, California (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sousa, P., et al.: Applying the Zachman Framework Dimensions to Support Business Process Modeling. In: Digital Enterprise Technology Perspectives and Future Challenges 2007, pp. 359–366. Springer US (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krogstie, J., Sølvberg, A.: Information Systems Engineering - Conceptual Modeling in a Quality Perspective Trondheim, Norway, Kompendiumforlaget (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spewak, S., Steven, H.: Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications and Technology. Wiley-QED Publication, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    List, B., Korherr, B.: A UML 2 Profile for Business Process Modelling. In: Akoka, J., Liddle, S.W., Song, I.-Y., Bertolotto, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I., van den Heuvel, W.-J., Kolp, M., Trujillo, J., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2005. LNCS, vol. 3770, pp. 85–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Caetano, A., Silva, A.R., Tribolet, J.: Business Process Model Decomposition with Separation of Concerns. In: 25th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, ACM SAC 2010. ACM, Sierre (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sousa, P., et al.: An Approach for Creating and Managing Enterprise Blueprints: A Case for IT Blueprints. In: Albani, A., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) CIAO! 2009. LNBIP, vol. 34, pp. 70–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carla Marques Pereira
    • 2
    • 3
  • Artur Caetano
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pedro Sousa
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Instituto Superior TécnicoTechnical University of LisbonLisboaPortugal
  2. 2.LinkLisboaPortugal
  3. 3.Centre for Organizational Design and EngineeringINESCLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations