=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1684/paper16
|storemode=property
|title=None
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1684/paper16.pdf
|volume=Vol-1684
}}
==None==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1684/paper16.pdf
The Formalization of the Business Process Modeling
Goal: Extended Abstract*
Ligita Businska1, Marite Kirikova1
1
Institute of Applied Computer Systems, Riga Technical University, Kalku 1, Riga,
LV-1658, Latvia
{ligita.businska, marite.kirikova}@rtu.lv
Abstract. While in general, the goal of modeling is a central notion in choice of
a modeling technique, in the most of researches, which propose guidelines,
techniques and methods for business process modeling language evaluation
or/and selection, the business process modeling goal is not formalized and,
respectively, not transparently taken into account. To overcome this gap, and to
explicate and help to handle the business process modeling complexity, the
approach to formalize the business process modeling goal and the supporting
three dimensional business process modeling framework were developed.
Keywords: Business process modeling · business process language · business
process modeling goal · business process modeling framework.
1 Introduction
Nowadays business process modeling application areas are rapidly expanding. As a
result, enterprises are faced with a situation where the same business processes are
modeled for different purposes. On the other hand, a number of studies indicate that
particular business process modeling languages are more appropriate for certain
business process modeling goals and less appropriate for other business process
modeling goals. The question arises, how to find a modeling language that is suitable
for a certain modeling goal. The selected modeling language must have modeling
constructions to represent business process from a certain perspective, as well as
make it possible to model a business process with a certain degree of precision and
formalization according to the required level of abstraction.
Looking at different researches that propose guidelines, techniques and methods
for business process modeling languages evaluation or/and selection, one can
conclude that the business process modeling goal is not formalized and respectively is
not transparently taken into account in selection of modeling languages. The modelers
have to themselves decide what characteristics of the modeling language are more
suitable for a particular modeling purpose, or the researchers offer a certain modeling
language for certain modeling tasks without verification and evaluation of possible
alternatives. For instance, there is a group of solutions, such as [1,2,3,4,5], that offer
to estimate business process modeling language characteristics. However, it is not
*
The full version of the paper has been accepted for the Issue 8 of the journal "Complex
Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly" https://csimq-journals.rtu.lv/.
explained what characteristics of the modeling language are necessary for being
suitable for a particular modeling purpose. Other researches offer to use particular
business process modeling languages for certain modeling purposes (e.g., [6]).
However, the choice of the modeling language is mostly based on the author's
subjective opinion. Another category of solutions (e.g., [7,8,9,10]) offers to adapt
business process model content to new modeling purpose, using various techniques,
such as changing the level of granularity, reducing unnecessary details or generalizing
the content of the model. Finally, there are solutions that provide transformations
between different abstraction levels [11,12,13,14,15,16], for instance, the conceptual
models are transformed to realization models according to Model Driven Approach
(MDA) [17]. Each abstraction level is realized by certain modeling language, and the
choice of this language is not clarified.
This paper takes the position that before deciding what modeling language to use,
the business process modeling goal has to be well understood and formalized. Then
the business process modeling language can be selected or developed according to the
formalized business process modeling goal. The paper proposes the way how to
formalize the business process modeling goal, specifying what parameters should
have the desirable business process abstraction. As a result, business process
modeling languages can be evaluated according to the values of the modeling goal
parameters.
2 Formalizing Business Process Modeling Goal
A natural way to learn about the world around us is modeling. When we create
models, the subject under the research is replaced by another mental or physical
object, which is more convenient, safer, or cheaper to use than the original. According
to such general explanation of the model, any kind of modeling requires the creation
of the abstraction of the research object. In a general sense, abstraction is understood
as highlighting of the important properties of the research object or phenomenon and
ignoring unimportant properties or creating the general concepts or ideas from the set
of objects or facts [18]. Abstraction facilitates understanding of complex things,
replacing the real object with a simplified and generalized representation, e.g., the
model of that object. There is a number of abstraction techniques, but analyzing the
business process modeling language specifications and business process modeling
framework documentations, it is possible to identify three most commonly used
business process abstraction types:
Filtration of the business process elements according to the certain modeling
perspective. Real business process has an infinite set of different elements. When
creating business process abstraction, a particular set of elements is selected,
eliminating other elements. The unnecessary elements are filtered according to the
defined criteria. In the case of the business process modeling, these criteria are
often replaced by the concept of perspective.
Generalization from the details about the business process execution according to
the selected level of the uncertainty. Depending on the purpose of the modeling,
the same business process can be modeled with different degrees of precision. The
degree of precision (or uncertainty) of the business process modeling is selected
according to the level of generalization. In the lowest generalization levels the
business process model includes the most details about the business process
execution, in such a way minimizing the uncertainty and inaccuracy. In the highest
generalization levels the model is created with coarser granularity and is less
meaningful in content. This may be achieved, for example, by increasing the
degree of uncertainty, abstracting from implementation details, dissembling the
obvious things, ignoring the insignificant differences, and generalizing the similar
behaviors.
Reducing the complexity by "hiding" the part of the business process in the lower
level of the decomposition. Every sub-process is a set of the business process
activities that is "hidden" at the lower level of detail, thus, simplifying the
understanding of the complex business process.
By analyzing several business process modeling language specifications (BPMN,
DFD, IDEF0, EPC, UML AD, etc.) and business process modeling framework
documentations [19,20,21,22,23], we have found that, in order to create the business
process model for a particular goal, all three above-mentioned types of abstraction
should be used. According to this statement, the business process modeling goal can
be defined as follows:
“The business process modeling goal is to create the business process abstraction
from a certain perspective, at the appropriate levels of generalization and
decomposition. The business process modeling goal is described by the expression
MBP = {GL, DL, P}, where MBP is the business process modeling purpose, GL is the
generalization level, DL is the decomposition level, and P is the modeling
perspective.”
The parameters GL, DL, and P are reflected in the specific Business Process
Modeling framework. This framework was developed by amalgamating business
process modeling knowledge available in resources of IEEE, ACM, Elsevier,
Springer, and other sources. The framework has three dimensions that are defined
according to the modeling goal’s parameters. Each framework dimension has
appropriate "scale" of "values". In accordance with the Business Process Modeling
Framework, a modeler chooses the perspective and the levels of generalization and
decomposition. Next, it is necessary to evaluate the modeling language with the
quantitative metrics, for identifying those languages that are most relevant to the
modeling goal parameters. For instance, in order to evaluate to which extent the
business process modeling language conforms to the desired perspective, it should be
measured whether the modeling language offers syntactical constructions for all
necessary business process elements. But, in order to evaluate the conformity to the
required generalization level, the flexibility and multiplicity of the modeling language
should be estimated. That is, for modeling at the highest generalization level, the
modeling language should be the most flexible and provide only one syntactical
construction for each business process element, however, it is not so, when modeling
at lower generalization levels. The appropriate metrics and algorithms for evaluating
how modeling languages conform to the selected values of the modeling goal
parameters are out of the scope of this paper.
3 Conclusion
The paper proposes to formalize business process modeling goals according to the
modeling perspective, the level of generalization, and the level of decomposition. The
proposed solution uncovers complexity of business process modeling and is the first
step towards development of a support system for evaluating conformity of the
business process modeling languages according to particular modeling goals, as a
result helping to handle the business process modeling complexity.
Acknowledgment. This work has been partly supported by the European Social Fund
within the project “Support for the implementation of doctoral studies at Riga
Technical University”.
References
1. Recker, J. Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business Process Modeling: A
Maturing Discipline?, http://www.bpmi.org
2. Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M.: Ontological Evaluation of Enterprise Systems
Interoperability Using ebXML. EEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.
17 (5), 713-725 (2005)
3. Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Integrated Process Modeling: an Ontological Evaluation.
Information System. 25 (2), 73-87 (2000)
4. zur Muehlen M., Recker J., Indulska M.: Sometimes Less is More: Are Process Modeling
Languages Overly Complex? In: EDOC Conference Workshop, pp. 197 – 204. IEEE
Press (2007)
5. Heidari, F., Loucopoulos, P., Brazier, F., Barjis, J.: A Meta-Meta-Model For Seven
Business Process Modeling Languages. In: Business Informatics (CBI), 2013 IEEE 15th
Conference, pp. 216-221. IEEE Press (2013)
6. Nieto-Ariza, E.M., Rodríguez-Ortiz, G., Ortiz-Hernández, J.: An empirical evaluation for
business process tools. In: Advanced Software Engineering: Expanding the Frontiers of
Software Technology, pp. 77-84. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
7. Bobrik, R., Reichert, M., Bauer, T.: Parameterizable Views for Process Visualization,
http://doc.utwente.nl/64125/
8. Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: Process Model Abstraction: A Slider Approach.
In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 325 - 331. IEEE Press
(2008)
9. Smirnov, S., Reijers, H.A., Weske, M., Nugteren, T.: Business Process Model
Abstraction: A Definition, Catalog, and Survey. In: Distributed and Parallel Databases. 30
(1), 63-99 (2012)
10. Rosa, M.L., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Mendling, J.: Configurable multi-
perspective business process models. Information Systems. 36 (2), 313-340 (2011)
11. Dehnert, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Bridging the Gap between Business Models and
Workflow Specifications International. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems. 13
(3), 51-69 (2004)
12. Mendling, J., Ziemann, J.: Transformation of BPEL Processes to EPCs, http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.90.2429
13. Dreiling, A., Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: From Conceptual Process Models to
Running Workflows: A Holistic Approach for the Configuration of Enterprise Systems,
http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2005/30/
14. Brahe, S., Bordbar, B.: A Pattern-Based Approach to Business Process Modeling and
Implementation in Web Services. In: Service-Oriented Computing ICSOC 2006, pp. 166-
177. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
15. Hoyer, V., Bucherer, E., Schnabel, F.: Collaborative e-Business Process Modelling:
Transforming Private EPC to Public BPMN Business Process Models. In: Business
Process Management Workshops, pp 185-196. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
16. Mendling, J., Lassen, K.B., Zdun, U.: Transformation Strategies between Block-Oriented
and Graph-Oriented Process Modelling Languages, http:/
/citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.169.7370
17. MDA - The Architecture of Choice for a Changing World, http://www.omg.org/
mda/
18. Free Dictionary, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
19. Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures.
Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
20. Eid-Sabbagh, R.-H., Dijkman, R., Weske, M.: Business Process Architecture: Use and
Correctness. In: Business Process Management, pp. 65-81. Springer: Heidelberg (2012)
21. Swenson, K.: The Difference Between Workflow and BPR, http://www.e-
workflow.org/downloads/workflow-bpr_kswenson.pdf
22. McLeod, G.: The Difference between Process Architecture and Process Modeling/Design
(and why you should care), http://grahammcleod.typepad.com/files/
processarchitecturevsprocessmodelingmcleod.pdf
23. van Nuffel, D., de Backer, M.: Multi-abstraction layered business process modeling.
Computers in Industry. 63 (2), 131–147 (2012)