=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-247/paper-13
|storemode=property
|title=PICTURE – A new Approach for Domain-Specific Process Modelling
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-247/FORUM_12.pdf
|volume=Vol-247
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/caise/BeckerPR07
}}
==PICTURE – A new Approach for Domain-Specific Process Modelling==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-247/FORUM_12.pdf
45
PICTURE – A new Approach for Domain-Specific
Process Modelling
Jörg Becker, Daniel Pfeiffer, Michael Räckers
European Research Center for Information Systems, Leonardo-Campus 3,
48149 Münster, Germany
{becker, pfeiffer, raeckers}@ercis.de
Abstract. In this paper a new process modelling method especially for public
administrations is presented. With established generic process modelling
methods reorganisation projects in this domain could only identify limited
reorganization potential and just led to small local improvements [1]. Therefore,
we have created the domain specific modelling approach PICTURE. The
PICTURE-method applies the domain vocabulary to efficiently capture the
process landscape of a public organisation.
Keywords: Domain Specific Modelling, E-Government, Process Building
Blocks, Public Administration, Process Landscape.
1 Process Modelling in Public Administrations
So far process modelling in public administrations has mainly been performed with
generic (general-purpose) languages [1, 2]. These modelling languages, such as
Activity Diagrams (AD) [3], Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN) [4], or
Event Driven Process Chains (EPC) [5], are flexible instruments to describe diverse
processes in many different domains. However, they do not consider in particular
public administration [6] and reorganisation specific questions [7] like: (1) what
processes, activities, or products depend on legal regulations or (2) how can a very
large number of processes be acquired efficiently?
In this paper we present the process modelling method PICTURE. The PICTURE-
method consists of a modelling language and a procedure model which guides the
application of the language. Both parts are implemented in a web-based tool.
PICTURE allows for an efficient modelling of the entire process landscape of an
organisation. As it is based on a simple, domain specific language, not only isolated
processes can be represented but a complete overview on the practices of an
organisation is accomplished. This overall view allows for reorganisation decisions
that are based on the consideration of structural analogies, potential synergy effects,
and economies of scale. PICTURE takes the specific legal and political constraints
within public administrations into account and indicates technical and organisational
measures to improve the efficiency of the process landscape.
46
2 The PICTURE-Method
The first step during an application of the PICTURE-method is to define the
objectives of the project. Based on these goals the PICTURE-method can be
customised for the specific properties of the situation. The second step of the
PICTURE-approach is to model the entire process landscape. PICTURE focuses on a
strong involvement of the officials of an administration in the modelling project. With
the PICTURE-approach the modelling is performed in a distributed manner and the
acquisition of process models is done in a coarse granular form to reduce time and
effort for modelling. The third step is to analyse and use the process models.
Basic construct of the PICTURE modelling language is the so called process
building block. A process building block represents a certain set of activities within
an administrational process [8]. The PICTURE-method contains altogether 29
different process building blocks. Some examples of process building blocks are
“Incoming Document”, “Create Document” or “Formal Assessment”.
Process building blocks have been specifically developed for public
administrations and apply the vocabulary of this domain. As they are domain specific
the meaning of a process building block is characterised by a corresponding domain
statement [9]. Contrary to constructs of traditional process modelling approaches like
activities in an AD or functions in an EPC, process building blocks in PICTURE
reside at a particular level of abstraction. For example a function in an EPC can be
instantiated as: “Waiting for document”, “Receiving application form via letter”, or
“Signing the labour contract”. These functions stand for differently abstract
phenomenon in the real world. However, an instance of a process building block, for
example “Incoming Document” has always a specific meaning, in this case that a
document arrives. The meaning is inherently pre-defined for this building block and is
not specified by the modeller.
Fig. 1. Processes, sub-processes and process variants.
47
In PICTURE the process building blocks are the only way to describe the
administrational processes. This simple syntax makes the modelling easy for the
method’s users. Furthermore, processes are represented as a sequential flow of
building blocks. Also this syntactical restriction guides the method’s user and
simultaneously promotes the construction of structurally comparable models. Since
only process building blocks can be used, the type of each model element is not just
syntactically but also semantically fixed. Problems like naming conflicts [10] in a
model comparison are avoided, because the name of a process building block is
specified by the language designer rather then the modeller.
Additional facts about the processes can be collected with the help of attributes
assigned to the process building blocks. For example possible attributes for the
process building block “Enter Data into IT” are “Source”, “Source Medium“, or
“Processing Time”. Altogether, PICTURE contains nearly 50 different attributes.
Attributes provide the core information for a subsequent process analysis, in which,
according to predetermined goals, corresponding weaknesses and potentials are
detected.
In PICTURE a process can consist of several sub-processes (cf.
Fig. 1 a)). A sub-process is a process section being carried out by a responsible
official or a position within a single organisational unit. Sub-processes can be linked
together to visualise a whole process. The majority of the modelling activities take
place on the sub-process level. Within the scope of the sub-process the responsible
official can collect all relevant information and represent them in form of process
building blocks and attributes. However, some processes contain only one sub-
process (cf.
Fig. 1 b)). An example is the process “Notification on fees for a motor vehicle”. The
modelling with the PICTURE-language is strictly sequential. PICTURE offers no
language constructs to represent forks in the course of process building blocks. It is
also not possible to model iterations. To describe technically important ramifications
in the process flow, PICTURE offers two different ways: On the one hand attributes
can be used to specify different cases with percentage values. For example an
incoming document can arrive in 50% of the cases through the communication
medium mail, in 30% per email, and in 20% per fax. On the other hand it is possible
to specify process variants (cf. Fig. 1 c)). A process variant defines an alternative
sequence within a sub-process. The frequency of a process variant can be weighted by
percentage values.
3 Evaluation of the PICTURE-method
In two case studies in the City of Münster and the University of Münster, the
PICTURE-method has proved to be viable and efficient. We collected altogether 340
process models in the two case studies. In comparison in the Regio@KomM project
processes of a municipal administration have been acquired with the modelling
language EPC [1]. In this project the collection of 22 administrational processes took
six person hours on average. The paper based modelling of a single process with the
PICTURE-method required only half of that time. With the tool based modelling the
48
time could be further reduced to a fourth. The participants at University of Münster
and City of Münster who had pervious experiences with EPC modelling evaluated the
PICTURE-approach as faster to learn and its models as easier to understand in
comparison to EPC.
Currently, the PICTURE-method is applied in the cities of Bielefeld and Hamm. It
is an objective of the project to compare the different processes of the cities and
consolidate them if significant variations are recognised.
Acknowledgements. The work published in this paper is partly funded by the
European Commission through the STREP PICTURE. It does not represent the view
of European Commission or the PICTURE consortium, and the authors are solely
responsible for the paper's content.
References
[1] Algermissen, L., Delfmann, P., Niehaves, B.: Experiences in Process-oriented
Reorganisation through Reference Modelling in Public Administrations - The Case Study
Regio@KomM. In: Proc. 13th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2005)
(2005)
[2] Janssen, M.: Modeling for Accountability: The Case of the Virtual Business Counter. In:
Proc. 11th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2005) (2005) 2021-2029
[3] Object Management Group. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification.[Online]. Available:
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/05-07-04
[4] Object Management Group. BPMN Final Adopted Specification 1.0.[Online]. Available:
http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/OMG%20Final%20Adopted%20BPMN%201-
0%20Spec%2006-02-01.pdf
[5] Scheer, A.-W.: ARIS - Business Process Modeling. 3 edn. Springer Publishing, Heidelberg
et al. (2000)
[6] Bretschneider, S.: Management Information Systems in Public and Private Organizations:
An Empirical Test. Public Administration Review 50 (1990) 536-545
[7] Maier, R., Remus, U.: Towards a Framework for Knowledge Management Strategies:
Process Orientation as Strategic Starting Point. In: Proc. 34th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS2001) (2001) 1-10
[8] Rupprecht, C., Funffinger, M., Knublauch, H., Rose, T.: Capture and Dissemination of
Experience about the Construction of Engineering Processes. In: Proc. 12th International
Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE2000) (2000) 294-308
[9] Guizzardi, G., Pires, L. F., Sinderen, M. J. v.: On the role of Domain Ontologies in the
design of Domain-Specific Visual Modeling Languages. In: Proc. 2nd Workshop on
Domain-Specific Visual Languages (2002)
[10]Pfeiffer, D., Gehlert, A.: A framework for comparing conceptual models. In: Proc.
Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2005)
(2005) 108-122