=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3758/paper-28
|storemode=property
|title=Sustainability in and through IoT-enhanced Business Processes
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3758/paper-28.pdf
|volume=Vol-3758
|authors=Manoli Albert,Antoni Mestre,Ronny Seiger,Victoria Torres,Pedro Valderas
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/bpm/AlbertMSTV24
}}
==Sustainability in and through IoT-enhanced Business Processes==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3758/paper-28.pdf
Sustainability in and through IoT-enhanced Business
Processes
Manoli Albert1 , Antoni Mestre1 , Ronny Seiger2 , Victoria Torres1 and Pedro Valderas1
1
VRAIN Institute, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
2
Institute of Computer Science, University of St.Gallen, St.Gallen, Switzerland
Abstract
In today’s interconnected world, businesses integrate Internet of Things (IoT) devices to enhance efficiency,
gather real-time data, and make informed decisions. These devices autonomously execute tasks and collect data,
revolutionizing business processes (IoT-enhanced BPs). They optimize operations, improve productivity, and
streamline resource utilization across various industries, such as manufacturing, retail, and logistics. However,
businesses must also focus on sustainability beyond environmental concerns, encompassing economic, social,
human, and technical aspects. Measuring the sustainability of IoT-enhanced BPs across these dimensions is
crucial for long-term viability. While sustainability in business processes has been integrated over the past two
decades, existing research has not sufficiently considered the role that IoT devices play in this context. To this end,
this work aims to analyze the impact of IoT devices on sustainability issues, emphasizing the need for ongoing
research in the BPM field to achieve sustainable IoT-enhanced BPs.
Keywords
IoT-enhanced business processes, Sustainability dimensions, IoT devices impact
1. Introduction
In today’s interconnected world, businesses are increasingly integrating Internet of Things (IoT) devices
into their operations to enhance efficiency, gather real-time data from their environments, and make
more informed decisions [1]. These IoT devices play a pivotal role in executing tasks autonomously
or collecting data from various sensors embedded in the environment. This symbiotic relationship
between IoT devices and business processes (BPs), hereinafter IoT-enhanced BPs [2], has revolutionized
the way organizations operate, offering unprecedented insights and capabilities.
By leveraging IoT devices, businesses can streamline operations, optimize resource utilization, and
improve overall productivity. However, beyond enhancing operational efficiency, it is imperative to en-
hance sustainability[3] across various dimensions as identified in [4]. More specifically across economic,
social, human, environmental, and technical aspects, all of which are interconnected and essential for
long-term viability. Measuring sustainability of IoT-enhanced BPs from these five dimensions becomes
paramount for organizations striving to align with sustainability goals and mitigate potential risks.
While concern for sustainability in BPs began to take shape in the 1970s and 1980s, it has been over
the past two decades that it has been more deeply and strategically integrated into the BPM field. To
this end, we find many works in the literature addressing how to integrate sustainability aspects into
BPs. This integration is achieved in different ways but also at different levels. For example, while some
works focus on how to measure specific sustainability aspects such as carbon emissions ([5]) or power
consumption ([6]) of BPs, others take a broader perspective providing: guidelines aimed at improving
BPs in terms of several environmental aspects [7], [8], sustainability patterns for the improvement of
existing BPs or for the design of new processes based on ecological goals [9], or considering several
phases of the BPM lifecycle ([10], [11],[8]).
Proceedings of the Best BPM Dissertation Award, Doctoral Consortium, and Demonstrations & Resources Forum co-located with
22nd International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2024), Krakow, Poland, September 1st to 6th, 2024.
$ malbert (M. Albert); amestre@vrain.upv.es (A. Mestre); ronny.seiger@unisg.ch (R. Seiger); vtorres@vrain.upv.es
(V. Torres); pvalderas@vrain.upv.es (P. Valderas)
0000-0003-3747-400X (M. Albert); 0000-0001-8572-2579 (A. Mestre); 0000-0003-1675-2592 (R. Seiger); 0000-0002-2039-2174
(V. Torres); 0000-0002-4156-0675 (P. Valderas)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
subvalue influences
* *
1 .. * supports 1 .. * 1
Regulation Value 1 .. * Dimension
1 .. *
1..*
1 .. *
represents
1 .. * 1 .. *
approximates 1 .. *
affects contributes to is aspect of
1 .. * 1
1 .. * 1 .. * *
subactivity
1 .. * influences 1 .. *
Indicator Activity 1 Goal
Figure 1: Generic sustainability meta-model from [4]
In the context of our work, we investigate sustainability aspects related to these IoT-enhanced BPs.
Using the IoT to support the automated execution of process activities or to acquire real-data from
the environment might positively contribute to sustainability in all dimensions. On the downside,
might also have a negative impact as the IoT devices generate costs along the sustainability dimensions
mentioned above. Among others, these refer to the provisioning, operation, and maintenance of the IoT
devices as well as to the necessary software and data processing infrastructure [12]. In addition, the IoT
provides novel opportunities to directly measure process-related sustainability indicators via sensors to
analyze the sustainability of business processes and activities. Thus, considering sustainability in and
through IoT-enhanced business processes necessitates an extensive analysis and trade-off discussion to
find feasible solutions. For this reason, in this work we aim at providing a comprehensive analysis over
the impact that IoT devices have over BPs when these need to be measured and improved according to
different sustainability dimensions.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces sustainability and presents
a generic meta-model for sustainability that will be used in section 3 to analize the impact that IoT
devices have over sustainability when dealing with IoT-enhanced BPs. Finally, section 4 concludes and
points out future work.
2. Sustainability
We can find in the literature several definitions of sustainability ([13],[14], [15]). Although the essence
of sustainability remains constant in all, its definition and application can vary depending on the specific
context where it is applied. However, all disciplines share the idea that sustainability consists of various
dimensions, some of which are considered relevant by all (i.e., the social, economic, and environmental
dimensions) and others more specific to the applied context (e.g., the governance, technological, cultural,
or knowledge dimensions)[16].
To provide a comprehensive framework that enhances holistic understanding, informed decision-
making, and consistent measurement of sustainability, conceptual models are commonly used. In the
context of software engineering, it is worth noting the sustainability model proposed by [4]. This
model introduces a generic sustainability model based on the six key concepts shown in Fig. 1. Here,
the sustainability Dimension plays a central role and refers to an aspect of or perspective on a Goal
related to sustainability. More specifically, to have a better understanding over sustainability issues, [17]
identified the importance of addressing the following five interrelated dimensions: 1) Individual (Human)
dimension that encompasses personal freedom and the capacity to act within an environment, human
dignity, and fulfillment, 2) Social dimension that involves the relationships between individuals and
groups, 3) Economic dimension that includes capital growth and liquidity, investment considerations, and
financial operations, 4) Technical dimension that relates to the maintenance and evolution of software
systems over time, and finally 5) Environmental dimension that concerns the use and stewardship of
natural resources. Each of these five dimensions is characterized by a set of values, i.e., by a moral or
natural good perceived as an expression of a particular dimension. Values may not be exclusive to one
dimension but can apply to multiple dimensions (e.g., a healthy environment is relevant to both the
environmental and individual dimensions). To measure a specific degree or score related to a value, an
indicator is used, which can be either a qualitative (e.g., satisfaction indexes) or quantitative metric (e.g.,
carbon emissions). A group of indicators collectively reflects a value that is supported by regulations,
optional elements that impact a value by either supporting or enforcing it (e.g., emission regulations
set legal limits for specific indicators). Many values across dimensions are regulated to protect them,
such as individual freedom supported by human rights and healthy air supported by carbon emission
directives from entities like the European Union. Finally, activities contribute to a specific value, like
using a train instead of an aircraft for mid-distance travel. The impact of these activities is measured by
the indicators they influence (e.g., choosing a train reduces emissions). Each value has corresponding
activities, and their impact is assessed by the indicators affected.
This model is used as a reference to perform the analysis developed next. More specifically, the
dimension, value, and indicator concepts are considered in this analysis. The remainder concepts are
out of the scope of this analysis.
3. Analyzing the Sustainability Impact of IoT Devices
Integrating IoT devices into BPs has significant implications for sustainability, encompassing the five
dimensions previously discussed: economic, social, human, environmental, and technical. While these
devices have the potential to significantly enhance sustainability, they also have negative impacts
that must be addressed. Balancing the positive impacts with the negative implications will be key to
maximizing the benefits of IoT regarding sustainably in BPs.
In this section, we explore the positive and negative impacts that IoT devices have across the
dimensions. To this end, each dimension is briefly defined and characterized by a set of values to
illustrate this duality of impact and to serve as a guide for conducting a sustainability analysis in
IoT-enhanced BPs. However, it is important to note that, in practice, the values identified for each
domain should be defined by the organizations themselves based on their sustainability objectives.
3.1. Individual (Human) Dimension
This dimension encompasses BPs participants’ freedom and the capacity to act within an environment,
human dignity, and fulfillment. Some related values include:
• Human Health. Refers to individuals’ overall well-being and physical condition, considering
factors such as nutrition, fitness, mental health, etc. A positive impact on human health is
expected when BPs use IoT devices since these can enable remote health monitoring, facilitate
timely intervention in medical emergencies, and promote preventive care through continuous
data collection and analysis (e.g., wearable devices designed to support physical tasks can enhance
worker ergonomics).
• Security. Security refers to the protection of individuals’ physical and digital well-being. The
overall impact of IoT devices on this value is expected to be positive since IoT technologies enhance
monitoring capabilities and enable proactive measures to mitigate risks (e.g., IoT sensors can detect
unauthorized access attempts or anomalies in physical environments, triggering immediate alerts).
However, IoT devices also introduce new security challenges and vulnerabilities (e.g., poorly
secured IoT cameras have been exploited by hackers to invade privacy or conduct surveillance
without authorization).
Indicators that may assess these values include quantitative metrics like the number of health-related
incidents detected early through IoT monitoring, employee satisfaction scores related to IoT-enabled
work environments, or qualitative assessments such as surveys gauging perceptions of privacy and
comfort with IoT technologies among stakeholders.
3.2. Social Dimension
This dimension involves the relationships between BPs participants and groups, aiming at ensuring
that BPs positively influence societies or communities. Some related values include:
• Inclusion. Ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their background or abilities, have equal
access to resources, opportunities, and participation in the BPs. IoT devices may have both, positive
and negative impacts on inclusion. For example, some assistive IoT devices can aid individuals
with disabilities, promoting greater inclusion. However, unequal access to IoT technology may
widen disparities, leading to a digital gap between those who have and lack access to digital
technologies (because of limited capacity or ability to use them).
• Transparency. Refers to ensuring openness, clarity, and accountability about data practices,
enabling real-time monitoring and reporting, ensuring regulatory compliance, and empowering
individuals to make informed decisions about their interactions with IoT-enabled services and
products. The impact of IoT devices is generally expected to be positive (e.g., IoT devices can
enhance transparency by providing clear information to individuals about what data is being
collected, how it is being used, and who has access to it).
Indicators for the social dimension include quantitative metrics such as the percentage of individuals
with disabilities benefiting from IoT assistive technologies, and qualitative assessments like surveys
gauging perceptions of transparency in IoT data practices among stakeholders.
3.3. Economic Dimension
This dimension refers to the capital growth and liquidity, investment considerations, and financial
BP operations. Therefore, it aims to responsibly manage the BP’s finite resources in a manner that
is economically beneficial to organizations. In this case, IoT devices play a crucial role in enhancing
the economic sustainability of BPs by improving operational efficiency, optimizing supply chains, and
boosting productivity. Some related values include:
• Efficacy. Refers to the amount of errors that occur within the execution of a BP. IoT devices are
expected to positively impact this value since thse are capable of automating tasks and avoiding
or minimizing the introduction of human errors (e.g., an automated irrigation system ensures
precise watering schedules, reducing the likelihood of over- or under-watering crops). However,
it is also important to consider that IoT devices are not entirely error-free and have a margin of
error. Nevertheless, this margin is typically much smaller than the errors introduced by manual
processes, making IoT devices valuable in improving overall process efficacy.
• Cost. Refers to the expenses associated with the execution of BPs. These can reduce operational
costs by substituting human labor with IoT-enabled machines like transportation robots, mini-
mizing waste, and improving operational efficiency. Nevertheless, at the same time, these involve
infrastructure and maintenance costs.
Indicators that may assess these values encompass both quantitative and qualitative measures. For
example, quantitative indicators may include total revenue generated, cost savings achieved through IoT
adoption, or return on investment from IoT implementations. On the other hand, qualitative measures
could gauge stakeholder perception of cost-saving initiatives and employee satisfaction with new
technology deployments.
3.4. Technical Dimension
This dimension relates to the maintenance and evolution of BPs over time. It seeks to optimize
maintenance factors, ensuring that the maintenance system will cost-effectively perform its functions
in the future, considering environmental and social impacts. Some related values include:
• Scalability. Refers to the capability of a BP to handle growth or reduction in size and demand.
When the tasks of a BP are supported by IoT devices, an appropriate architectural design can
facilitate the deployment of additional IoT devices when there is an increasing workload in terms
of data processing or number of users.
• Adaptability. Refers to the ability of a BP to meet specific needs based on the current context and
without significant disruptions. IoT-enhanced BPs can support adaptability by enabling real-time
adjustments based on detected changes and anomalies in the execution environment. For instance,
the raw data that is continuously captured by sensors can be used to identify unexpected user
behaviour or new environmental conditions to adapt the tasks of the process.
Examples of indicators for these values can include quantitative measurements such as the number
of supported users, amount of data processed per second, cost to evolve the system in person/hour; and
qualitative measurements such as the level of user satisfaction with system reliability or the perception
of the speed and effectiveness of adaptive responses to changing conditions.
3.5. Environmental Dimension
This dimension refers to the use and stewardship of natural resources in BPs. It focuses on the impact
of IoT devices supporting organization’s business activities related to living and non-living natural
systems in the environment, including ecosystems, land, air, and water [18]. IoT devices make a
resource consumption that have a negative impact on the environment (e.g., during their manufacturing,
distribution, installation, use, and end-of-life phases as illustrated in the Product Environmental Profile
(PEP) ecopassport database 1 ).
• Water. Pertains to the use and management of water resources. Water management is critical in
sustainable practices. IoT devices, such as smart water tap sensors preventing wastage, play a
pivotal role in optimizing water use efficiency.
• Air. Involves the quality of the atmosphere and the presence of pollutants. Air quality is crucial
for environmental health and, therefore, for humans. IoT devices, such as pollution filters, reduce
environmental pollutants and help to maintain air quality.
Examples of indicators measuring these values include quantitative measurements such as the number
of liters of water consumed, or the kilograms of paper recycled, and qualitative such as the maturity of
the e-waste management policy implemented in the company’s BPs, or the quality of the air perceived
by the humans involved in the BP.
4. Conclusions and further work
In this paper we have analyzed the impact that IoT devices have on BPs from a sustainability perspective,
considering economic, social, human, environmental, and technical dimensions. The analysis shows
that while IoT devices significantly enhance the sustainability of BPs, they also introduce costs and
challenges that need to be considered. In addition, in this analysis, we have provided some examples of
different types of indicators that can be used to assess the sustainability of each dimension.
At this point, it is important to highlight that IoT devices can serve both, directly and indirectly to
sustainability measurements. On the one hand, directly as a source of data to obtain these measurements.
On the other hand, indirectly by supporting the BP activity tasks that are being measured. This dual
role highlights their potential to enhance efficiency while simultaneously facilitating the measurement
of sustainability metrics.
This work constitutes a first step towards addressing sustainability in IoT-enhanced BPs. Thus, it
can be used as a guide to understanding how IoT devices can contribute in improving sustainability.
However, more advances in this context regarding sustainability are needed. Future research should
focus on sustainable models as the one presented by [4] where the IoT device concept should be taken
into account, as well as the relationships that this has with the remaining concepts in the model. Besides
revising this conceptual model, tools to specify and visualize the different aspects considered in it are
also needed.
1
https://register.pep-ecopassport.org/
Acknowledgments
This work has received funding from the Research and Development Aid Program (PAID-01-21) of the
UPV and funded with the Aid to First Research Projects (PAID-06-22), Research Vice-Rectorate of the
Polytechnic University of Valencia (UPV) and also from the Swiss National Science Foundation under
Grant No. IZSTZ0_208497 (ProAmbitIon project).
References
[1] C. Janiesch, A. Koschmider, M. Mecella, B. Weber, A. Burattin, C. Di Ciccio, G. Fortino, A. Gal,
U. Kannengiesser, F. Leotta, et al., The internet of things meets business process management: a
manifesto, IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine 6 (2020) 34–44.
[2] P. Valderas, V. Torres, E. Serral, Modelling and executing iot-enhanced business processes through
BPMN and microservices, J. Syst. Softw. 184 (2022) 111139.
[3] C. C. Venters, R. Capilla, E. Y. Nakagawa, S. Betz, B. Penzenstadler, T. Crick, I. Brooks, Sustainable
software engineering: Reflections on advances in research and practice, Information and Software
Technology 164 (2023) 107316.
[4] B. Penzenstadler, H. Femmer, A generic model for sustainability with process- and product-specific
instances, in: Proceedings of the 2013 Workshop on Green in/by Software Engineering, GIBSE ’13,
Fukuoka, Japan, March 26, 2013, ACM, 2013, pp. 3–8.
[5] A. Ghose, K. Hoesch-Klohe, L. Hinsche, L. Lê, Green business process management: a research
agenda, Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 16 (2009).
[6] A. Nowak, T. Binz, F. Leymann, N. Urbach, Determining power consumption of business processes
and their activities to enable green business process reengineering, in: 2013 17th IEEE International
Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, IEEE, 2013, pp. 259–266.
[7] S. Seidel, J. Recker, J. vom Brocke, Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: Functional affordances
of information systems in green transformations, MIS Quarterly 37 (2012) 1275–1299.
[8] S. Larsch, S. Betz, L. Duboc, A. M. Magdaleno, C. Bomfim, Integrating sustainability aspects
in business process management, in: Business Process Management Workshops: BPM 2016
International Workshops, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 19, 2016, Springer, 2017, pp. 403–415.
[9] P. Lübbecke, P. Fettke, P. Loos, Sustainability patterns for the improvement of it-related business
processes with regard to ecological goals, in: Business Process Management Workshops: BPM 2016
International Workshops, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 19, 2016, Springer, 2017, pp. 428–439.
[10] T. Schoormann, D. Behrens, R. Knackstedt, Sustainability in business process models: A taxonomy-
driven approach to synthesize knowledge and structure the field., in: ICIS, 2017.
[11] A. Nowak, F. Leymann, D. Schumm, The differences and commonalities between green and
conventional business process management, in: 2011 IEEE Ninth International Conference on
Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, IEEE, 2011, pp. 569–576.
[12] C. Gray, Energy consumption of internet of things applications and services, Ph. D. dissertation,
The University of Melbourne (2018).
[13] W. C. on Environment, Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987.
[14] R. W. Kates, T. M. Parris, A. A. Leiserowitz, What is sustainable development? goals, indicators,
values, and practice, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 47 (2005).
[15] U. Nations, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations
General Assembly, 2015.
[16] D. Couckuyt, A. V. Looy, A systematic review of green business process management, Bus. Process.
Manag. J. 26 (2020) 421–446. doi:10.1108/BPMJ-03-2019-0106.
[17] C. Becker, S. Betz, R. Chitchyan, L. Duboc, S. M. Easterbrook, B. Penzenstadler, N. Seyff, C. C.
Venters, Requirements: The key to sustainability, IEEE Software 33 (2016) 56–65.
[18] L. Marti, R. Puertas, Assessment of sustainability using a synthetic index, Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 84 (2020).