=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Linking BPMN, ArchiMate, and BWW: Perfect Match for Complete and Lawful Business Process Models?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1023/paper15.pdf
|volume=Vol-1023
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifip8-1/Penicina13
}}
==Linking BPMN, ArchiMate, and BWW: Perfect Match for Complete and Lawful Business Process Models?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1023/paper15.pdf
Linking BPMN, ArchiMate, and BWW: Perfect Match
for Complete and Lawful Business Process Models?
Ludmila Penicina
Institute of Applied Computer Systems, Riga Technical University,
1 Kalku, Riga, LV-1658, Latvia
ludmila.penicina@rtu.lv
Abstract. Enterprise architecture (EA) models are helpful for describing
elements that are necessary for modelling business processes at different
architectural layers of the enterprise. Business process models are used to
describe detailed enterprise processes in order to analyse and improve them.
Business process logic provided in the business layer of EA is very abstract
comparing with business process models. Therefore EA models and business
process models must be linked to address in detail both structural and
behavioural aspects of the information system. However linked EA and
business process models do not imply that the models provide complete and
lawful descriptions of the information system. The paper uses a theoretical
foundation of Bunge-Wand-Weber system’s model and evaluates how industry
standards BPMN and ArchiMate contribute to creation of complete and lawful
business process models.
Keywords: Business process modelling, BPMN, ArchiMate, BWW.
1 Introduction
Nowadays organizations employ industry modelling standards like BPMN to
understand and improve business processes. However, BPMN models are only one
component of business modelling required for a holistic view of end-to-end business
processes. More information is needed to build information systems supporting
organizational business processes [1]. BPMN models mainly cover business process
flow, but structural aspects such as actors, data objects, existing IT landscape, etc. are
outside of BPMN scope. Enterprise Architecture (EA) models can reflect these
aspects and are an essential component of creating accurate and complete business
process models. Building complete and accurate business process models requires
maintaining the relationships with EA models to add a structural context to processes
(like actors, objects, etc.) and to refine business process models with an architectural
layer perspective, namely, to depicting at what level each process is occurring –
business, application, or infrastructure level. ArchiMate enterprise architecture
modelling language has been developed in order to provide a uniform representation
for diagrams that describe enterprise architectures [2]. In ArchiMate language the
existence of business processes model is depicted. However, ArchiMate does not,
prescribe to list the flow of activities in detail [2]. Linkage between business process
models and EA models would allow looking at the business processes at different
layers of the enterprise in detail.
However besides the challenge of linking two modelling languages from different
domains - BPMN and ArchiMate – there exists another challenge, namely, analysing
completeness and lawfulness of business process models. By “completeness of
process models” the author means that models must contain all necessary elements
from information system’s point of view and by “lawfulness of process models” -
compliance with laws related to the system. In this paper Bunge-Wand-Weber
(BWW) model is used as a theoretical foundation to evaluate completeness and
lawfulness of business process models. BWW model describes the necessary concepts
for building an information system [3] and in this research is used to evaluate to what
extent BPMN and ArchiMate support description of complete and lawful business
process models. BWW model consists of constructs present in the real world that
must be represented in information system.
The aim of this paper is to propose an approach towards creating complete and
lawful business process models by linking BPMN models with ArchiMate models to
add active and passive structure to flow aspect of BPMN and evaluate completeness
and lawfulness of models using BWW model. The proposed approach requires a
repository-based modelling tool that can accommodate all three modelling methods
used, namely, BPMN, ArchiMate, and BWW.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 related work is outlined. In Section
3 elements of BWW model are presented. In Section 4 the mapping of ArchiMate and
BPMN is discussed. In Section 5 the evaluation of BPMN and ArchiMate using
BWW model is discussed. In Section 6 algorithms for checking the completeness and
lawfulness of business process models are discussed. Brief conclusions and future
work are presented in Section 7.
2 Related Works
There exist a number of researches for linking ArchiMate and BPMN notations. The
authors of [6] propose the approach of harmonizing BPMN, ArchiMate and UML
notations. The authors of [7] analyse support of different kinds of active structure
assignment in enterprise modelling techniques and frameworks, including ArchiMate,
DODAF, and ARIS. Since these frameworks are be used in the description of an
Enterprise Architecture in tandem with the detailed description of business processes,
the authors also discuss the support for active structure allocation in processes
modelling techniques, including XPDL, UML Activity Diagrams and BPMN in their
analysis. The authors conclude that a complete integrated approach to the assignment
of active structure and behaviour is yet to be incorporated into the languages and
frameworks considered. However, the authors of the studies described do not propose
to evaluate linked business process models and EA models for completeness and
lawfulness.
The BWW model has been used in a number of studies for evaluation of modelling
techniques. The authors of [5] report on the outcomes of an ontological analysis of
BPMN and explore identified issues by reporting on interviews conducted with
BPMN users in Australia. As a result [5] defines few potential shortcomings in
BPMN - such as existence of some ambiguous elements in its specification.
The authors of [8] examine how process modelling techniques have developed and
compare modelling techniques using BWW model as a benchmark used for the
analysis of grammars that purport to model, the real world, and the interactions within
it. The authors of [9] propose an approach for developing a conceptual model that
represents the structural, relational and behavioural elements of the computing
systems based on the BWW model. The authors of [10] use of the BWW model to
compare the representation capabilities of two business rule modelling languages.
This research is based on the results of related works and evaluates how the
necessary elements for building an information system described by BWW model are
represented by BPMN models linked with ArchiMate models.
3 BWW Model
The lack of consistent theoretical foundation for building information systems urged
Wand and Weber [3] to build a set of models for the evaluation of modelling
techniques. Wand and Weber have extended the systems ontology presented by Mario
Bunge [4]. Wand and Weber developed a formal foundation called BWW model for
modelling information systems [3] consisting of the constructs present in the real
world that must be represented in information system. BWW model is a high-level
ontology containing general concepts that are necessary for description of information
systems [5]. Further in the text the elements of BWW model will be shown in italics.
Due to the limitation of space the author has omitted the descriptions of BWW
elements that can be found in [8].
The paper proposes to use BWW model as a theoretical foundation for evaluating
BPMN and EA models for completeness and lawfulness. BPMN and ArchiMate
models are standards with different abstraction levels, therefore gaps exist between
these two standards. BPMN is used at the detailed process level, ArchiMate is used at
EA level describing different layers of enterprise. BPMN and ArchiMate are
complementary standards. Novelty of using BWW model as a theoretical foundation
for linking BPMN and EA resides in the following:
1. Providing systems view of interlinked business processes and enterprise
architecture. Interlinked ArchiMate 2.0 and BPMN 2.0 models describe elements
that can be viewed and analysed as systems, e.g., application layer system, related
subsystems and system environment.
2. Possibility to describe lawful states and events of systems – the evaluation of
BPMN and ArchiMate using BWW shows that nor BPMN 2.0 nor ArchiMate 2.0
has the ability to describe lawful states and events of the systems at the different
abstraction levels.
3. Emergent properties of systems - emergent properties describe properties
possessed by a system and not by isolated elements. Emergent properties are
specific properties of the system as a whole and this is added-value from BWW
model.
4. Kind element of BWW model will provide the possibility to describe variations of
business processes, e.g., Electronic submission process variation is Electronic
submission of a journal paper or Electronic submission of a monograph.
4 Linking BPMN and ArchiMate
In an ArchiMate model, the existence of business processes is depicted [2]. It does
not, however, list the flow of activities in detail [2]. The ArchiMate 2.0 specification
[2] states: “During business process modelling, a business process can be expanded
using a business process design language; e.g., BPMN.” However the specification
itself does not define the relationship at the meta-model level. The author proposes to
define the linkage between BPMN and ArchiMate at the meta-models levels, by
extending the behavioural elements of ArchiMate with corresponding elements from
BPMN 2.0 meta-models. In this section behavioural elements of ArchiMate business,
application and technology layer are mapped to corresponding BPMN elements. The
principle of linking BPMN with ArchiMate resides in the following, namely, high
level descriptions of enterprise behaviour are extended with corresponding BPMN
models. Table 1 describes how each element is expanded by BPMN.
Table 1. Mapping ArchiMate and BPMN.
ArchiMate Business Layer Element BPMN Element
Business Process Business Process Diagram, Pools, Lanes
Function Task, Sub-Process
Business Interaction Collaboration Diagram
Business Event Event
Business Object Data Object
Business Role Lane
ArchiMate Application Layer Element BPMN Element
Application Function Service Task, Script Task
Data Object Data Object
ArchiMate Technology Layer Element BPMN Element
Device Data Store
Artefact Data Objects
5 Evaluation of BPMN and ArchiMate Using BWW Model
Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) [11] is the de-facto standard for
representing in a very expressive graphical way the processes occurring in virtually
every kind of organization [12]. However BPMN has its limitations when it comes to
modelling other aspects of organization such as organizational structure and roles,
data, business rules, technical systems, etc. [1]. The mapping of BWW into BPMN
presented in [5] is taken as a basis and extended with statements that BPMN supports
the BWW notions of the State, Property as well as Stable and Unstable States. In
BPMN the State of the Data Object can be captured if the Data Object is attached to a
Sequence Flow that is an input of an Activity, and it comes out of the Activity with a
different State. Property of a Thing can be defined using BPMN Attributes of
elements, Stable and Unstable States can be described using BPMN Compensation
Activities and Compensation Events. The State of a Thing does not describe the
overall State of a System. One solution for detecting the State of a System is to define
a set of all States of all Things present in the System. The second solution for
detecting the State of a System is to look at System’s Emergent Properties which
based on BWW are defined as properties belonging only to the System and not to its
components [8]. One more solution is included in BPMN modelling language. BPMN
allows defining multiple end states of a process. In [2] author describes the state of
the process as the state of the system. Business processes do not always end normally
(as intended) and very often exceptions occur. BPMN allows defining separate end
events to indicate distinct end states (“normal end state” and “exceptional end state”)
[1]. Multiple end states of BPMN process can each correspond to Stable and Unstable
State of a System or Subsystem. In BPMN the State of System can be described also
with the States of all Data Objects that refers to a particular Pool that is considered to
be a System. Exceptional end state should be linked with the State of the
corresponding Data Object to reflect the Unstable State of a System. Figure 1 depicts
a simple BPMN example with multiple End Events that might occur and define
different end States of the process and system.
State 1
Submission Failed State 2
No
Send
Check
Yes Submission to
Submission
Reviewers
Receive Submission
Submission OK?
Submission Complete
Fig. 1. Different end states of a process in BPMN.
There are 6 BWW model elements that are not supported by BPMN notation,
namely, State law, Conceivable State Space, Lawful State Space, History,
Conceivable Event Space, and Lawful Event Space. Since BWW model describes
aspects that are important for building information systems [5], these six elements are
to be taken into consideration to define a complete and consistent description of
business processes.
To provide a uniform representation for diagrams that describe enterprise
architectures, the ArchiMate enterprise architecture modelling language has been
developed [2]. ArchiMate 2.0 language defines 3 layers of an enterprise architecture
[2]:
1. Business layer offers products and services to external customers.
2. Application layer supports the business layer with application services.
3. Technology layer offers infrastructure services needed to run applications.
Table 2 shows the mapping of BWW to ArchiMate modelling language (only core
elements of ArchiMate are considered. Use of extensions would provide more details
concerning the Environment in BWW model).
Table 2. BWW elements mapped into ArchiMate elements.
BWW Elements Corresponding ArchiMate Concepts
System Enterprise architecture, Business layer, Application layer,
Technology layer
System environment Business layer (for Application and Technology layers),
Application layer (for Technology and Business layers),
Technology layer (for Business and Application layers)
System structure Relationships
System composition Structural concepts, Informational concepts
Level structure Relationships between layers, Business layer, Application
layer, Technology layer
Subsystem Business layer, Application layer, Technology layer
System decomposition Business layer, Application layer, Technology layer,
Structural concepts, Informational concepts
Thing Business actor, Business role, Business collaboration,
Location, Business interface, Business object, Application
component, Application collaboration, Application
interface, Data object, Node, Device, System software,
Infrastructure interface, Network, Communication path,
Product, Contract, Artifact
Property Meaning, Value, Representation
Class, Kind Relationships
Event, External event, Internal Business event
event, Poorly-defined event
Transformation Business service, Business process, Business function,
Business interaction, Application function, Application
interaction, Application service, Infrastructure function,
Infrastructure service
Acts on, Coupling Structural relationships
State, Conceivable state Not supported by ArchiMate
space, Lawful state space,
State law, Stable state,
Unstable state, History,
Conceivable event space,
Lawful event space, Well-
defined event, Lawful
transformation
From BWW point of view enterprise architecture is a System consisting of
Subsystems – business, application and technology layers (while these sub-systems
are not the only ones that can be identified in the EA). Business layer, application
layer and technology layer are separate Systems consisting of structural and
behavioural elements that are considered to be BWW Things. Structural and
informational concepts form System Composition and ArchiMate Relationships
between these concepts form System Structure. BWW element Thing is supported by
ArchiMate active and passive structural elements. BWW element Property is
supported by ArchiMate element Meaning, since Meaning is related to ArchiMate
Business object element and thus is as a Property of a Thing. According to BWW
model Property maps the thing into some Value. According to ArchiMate Value is the
relative worth, utility, or importance of a business service or product – hence it is
mapped to the Property element of BWW model. Representation is the property of a
Business Object, hence, it is mapped to the Property element of BWW model. BWW
model elements Class and Kind are supported with ArchiMate Relationships
(grouping, composite, aggregate). ArchiMate does not provide a straightforward
mapping to BWW State element. However, if ArchiMate models are related to BPMN
models, notion State is supported by different States of BPMN Data Objects and
multiple End Events of the process. Since BWW model element Transformation is
defined as a mapping from one State to another State, it is supported by all ArchiMate
behavioural concepts. BWW elements Acts on and Coupling are mapped into
ArchiMate structural relationships between ArchiMate concepts that are mapped into
BWW Things. Altogether the ArchiMate modelling language does not support the
description of 11 BWW model constructs comparing to 6 BWW elements missing in
BPMN. Nevertheless, ArchiMate allows defining structural components of an
information system at all three levels of the enterprise architecture in much greater
detail than BPMN.
6 Towards Analysing Completeness and Lawfulness of Business
Process Models
Business process modelling requires a meta-structure (background knowledge) that
maintains the relationships between all the different models linked to business process
models. When creating business process models linked with the set of enterprise
models, it is necessary to achieve that all aspects of business process are stored and
can be accessed and reused afterwards. Assuming that BWW model can be used as a
meta-structure for analysing the completeness and lawfulness of the business process
models it is necessary to identify which elements from BWW model are supported by
BPMN and ArchiMate models. BWW model defines elements of the information
system that are supported by BPMN and ArchiMate standards as well as a set of
elements that are not supported by these standards. It indicates that complementary to
BPMN and ArchiMate models it is necessary to address these missing elements in
order to build the information system that conforms with a functioning system
described by BWW model [3]. Mappings presented in the previous sections show that
majority of BPMN and ArchiMate core elements can be mapped to BWW constructs.
However, still, there exist six elements that cannot be represented using these two
modelling languages, namely, State Law (SL), Conceivable State Space (CSS), Lawful
State Space (LSS), History (H), Conceivable Event Space (CES), and Lawful Event
Space (LES). These missing BWW model elements have to be added to interlinked
BPMN and ArchiMate models in order to include all BWW model’s elements
required for building an information system.
The proposed approach requires a repository-based modelling tool that:
1. Accommodate all three modelling methods used, namely, BPMN, ArchiMate, and
BWW. Meaning that the modelling tool supports the meta-models and visual
representations of BPMN, ArchiMate, and BWW.
2. Possibility to add to the BPMN, ArchiMate meta-model the missing elements from
BWW model.
3. Allows defining algorithms, mechanisms, and queries to execute the completeness
and lawfulness analysis on the business process models. E.g., analysing if all
BWW elements are present in the business process models, analysing lawful event
space – lawfulness analysis showing what are the lawful events in the business
process models, analysing the lawful state space - lawfulness analysis showing
what are the lawful states in the business process models, analysing whether
unconceivable states and events are present in the model – lawfulness analysis
showing if models are realistic.
Let’s review an illustrative example. Figure 2 depicts a fragment of business
process of Electronic paper submission process and ArchiMate 2.0 model that shows
Business level and Application level, however does not show detailed process. The
business process in the ArchiMate model called Electronic submission process is
extended with BPMN business process model containing 2 lanes. Further the
ArchiMate business process Receive Submission is linked with BPMN lane Editor
that contains activities that Editor is responsible for. The ArchiMate business process
Review Process is linked with the BPMN lane Reviewer that contains the activities
the Reviewer is responsible for. The ArchiMate business role Editor is linked with the
BPMN lane Editor and the business role Reviewer is linked with the lane Reviewer.
Nevertheless ArchiMate model supplements BPMN model with layers and active and
passive structure, still these models does not include descriptions of (the added value
of BWW):
1. State Law - a set of all properties that are lawful to a Submission.
2. Conceivable State Space and Lawful State Space - to indicate what states of a data
objects (e.g., Submission) and systems (e.g., Application components system) are
lawful and what are conceivable. For example, Submission can have Incomplete or
Not conforming with the Template or Accepted states, from which only Accepted is
a lawful state.
3. History of states - for business process monitoring purposes it is necessary to
maintain a log of previous states of a Submission, such as Submitted, Reviewed,
Accepted, etc.
4. Conceivable Event Space and Lawful Event Space - it is necessary to indicate what
events described in BPMN model are lawful, e.g., New Submission is a lawful
event in the system, but events like System’s error are unlawful.
5. Emergent properties of a system - one of the emergent property of Electronic
submission system is faster and more efficient management of submissions.
6. Business process variations - using Kind element it is possible to describe different
variations of the business process, e.g., Electronic submission of a monograph.
Fig. 2. Relationships between BPMN and ArchiMate.
7 Conclusions
In this paper a step towards evaluating completeness and lawfulness of business
process models using BWW system’s model is discussed. It was concluded that to
implement the approach for completeness and lawfulness analysis the repository-
based modelling tool is required. The modelling tool must allow accommodating
BPMN, ArchiMate and BWW meta-models and defining algorithms, mechanisms and
queries for lawfulness and completeness checking. Another essential feature is
supplementing the BPMN and ArchiMate meta-models with elements from BWW
model that are missing, namely, State Law (SL), Conceivable State Space (CSS),
Lawful State Space (LSS), History (H), Conceivable Event Space (CES), and Lawful
Event Space (LES), because the lack of these elements hinder lawfulness and
completeness of business process models. Analysing business process models using
the BWW system’s model will allow analysing what necessary elements for
information system developing are missing in the models. The further work will
include implementing the prototype of the described repository-based modelling tool
and described algorithms and queries using the ADOxx platform [13] because this
platform allows creating customized modelling languages and defining algorithms,
mechanisms and queries for analysing the models.
References
1. Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style with Implementer’s Guide. Cody-Cassidy Press (2011).
2. The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification, http://goo.gl/7gC5B.
3. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis
and design grammars. Information Systems Journal. 3, 217–237 (1993).
4. Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Vol. 4: Ontology II: A World of Systems. (1979).
5. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Do Process Modelling Techniques Get
Better ? A Comparative Ontological Analysis of BPMN. Campbell, Bruce, Underwood, Jim,
& Bunker, Deborah (Eds.) 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. (2005).
6. Berg, M. Van Den: ArchiMate , BPMN and UML : An approach to harmonizing the
notations. Orbus software white paper. (2012).
7. Arpini, R.H., Almeida, J.P. a.: On the support for the assignment of active structure and
behavior in enterprise modeling approaches. Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM
Symposium on Applied Computing - SAC ’12. p. 1686. ACM Press, New York, New York,
USA (2012).
8. Rosemann, M., Recker, J.: A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of
process modeling grammars. Advanced Information Systems Engineering. 447–461 (2006).
9. Goumopoulos, C., Kameas, A.: Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer
Applications. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (2010).
10.Muehlen, M. zur, Indulska, M., Kamp, G.: Business Process and Business Rule Modeling: A
Representational Analysis. 2007 Eleventh International IEEE EDOC Conference Workshop.
pp. 189–196. IEEE (2007).
11.OMG: Business Process Model and Notation 2.0, www.bpmn.org.
12.Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A.: BPMN: An introduction to the standard. Computer Standards &
Interfaces. 34, 124–134 (2012).
13.BOC GROUP: ADOxx.org.