=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Knowledge Dimension in Business Process Modeling
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-734/PaperVision07.pdf
|volume=Vol-734
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/caise/BusinskaK11
}}
==Knowledge Dimension in Business Process Modeling==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-734/PaperVision07.pdf
Knowledge Dimension in Business Process Modeling
Ligita Businska1 and Marite Kirikova2
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology
Riga Technical Univesity, Latvia
{Ligita.Businska1, marite.kirikova2}@cs.rtu.lv
Abstract. Business process models can be represented as stand-alone models
and as a par-of a system of models. In the case of the system of models the
business process model elements can be a part of other models that are included
in the system of models. Each model that relates to the business process via its
element can be regarded as a dimension of the business process. Thus the
organizational structure model (performer model), goal model, decision model,
location model, and other models represent a particular dimension of the
business process. One of the dimensions that have not yet evolved into a model
that could be easily related to the business process is knowledge dimension.
The problem resides in the not fully agreed-upon understanding of the
relationship between such notions as data, information, and knowledge. The
concept of information code allows to look closer at knowledge dimension of
the business process and to clarify several issues with respect to this dimension
and its proper place in business process model representation.
Keywords: data, information, knowledge, business process model.
1 Introduction
The period of distrust in business process model based approaches due to
unsuccessful re-engineering efforts in the previous century is over; and business
process re-engineering again becomes an important topic in scientific literature [1-4].
However, it is worth to remember that business process engineering have to be a
holistic approach and take into consideration various aspects of the business system,
including organizational and individual knowledge [1-5]. In order to provide new
means for the analysis of relationship between the business process and organizational
knowledge we propose to include knowledge dimension in the business process
model.
In business process modeling languages such as IDEF0, IDEF3, EPC diagrams in
ARIS tool, GRAPES BM in GRADE tool, UML 2.0 activity diagram, and BPMN 2.0
data, information and material flow is often represented by the same symbols and
without any unambiguous definitions of these concepts. On the other hand,
knowledge modeling languages (KMDL, GPO-WM, PROMOTE, and RAD) allow to
model knowledge, but do not address process logic to full extent and thus lose the
possibility to represent data. Currently, from the point of view of various ways how
data, information and knowledge are used in organizations, the following features of
180 Pre-proceedings of CAISE'11 Forum
business process modeling languages are not yet fully supported in any of the above
mentioned languages:
Possibility to separate information and data during business process
modeling
Opportunity to identify the owner of data, information and knowledge
Possibility to identify, plan, and manage knowledge of the role required for
participating in a particular activity and linking this knowledge to
competence model
Possibility to evaluate the amount of lost organizational knowledge if a
person – owner of knowledge – leaves the organization. i.e., to identify
which tacit knowledge in this case should be transformed into explicit
knowledge, such as documents, rules, systems, etc.
Opportunity to improve understanding about the knowledge usefulness,
validity and relevance for particular activities in a process
Opportunity to enable competence requirements management and proactive
training based on a process reengineering impact analysis.
We have already tried to address these issues with respect to BPMN notation in our
previous work [6]. This lead to the introduction of specific symbols for data,
information and knowledge objects. Experiments with the notation revealed that the
relationship between the phenomena behind the symbols is somewhat unclear in the
modeling process. Therefore in this paper we focus on analysis of this relationship by
investigating intersection of modern information theory assumptions and knowledge
management definitions of information and knowledge. The results obtained and their
application for different business process modeling languages, as well as a template of
activity representation with visible knowledge dimension are presented and discussed
in this paper.
In Section 2 we ponder over the terms data, information, and knowledge and come
to the conclusion that the use of information codes as a supplementary term helps to
clarify relationship between previous three terms. We use all four terms to define
information interaction in homogenous and heterogeneous environments. In section 3
we analyze information interaction in the context of business process modeling
languages. In Section 4 the template of business process model activity with visible
knowledge dimension and example of its use are represented. Section 5 consists of
brief conclusions and points to the research for analysis of knowledge dimension of
business processes.
2 Constituents of knowledge dimension
Data, information and knowledge are terms that are widely used, but still have no
commonly agreed definitions. Data are usually associated to database, knowledge
most often is associated to human beings while information is freely used in both
cases. In this work we do not discuss various interpretations of the above mentioned
terms deeply [7, 8, 9-11]. We focus on the relationship between data, information and
knowledge and rely upon the following observations and assumptions:
1) Knowledge is located in the knowledge holder (natural or artificial)
Knowledge Dimension in Business Process Modeling 181
2) Knowledge in the knowledge holder (e.g., human brain) has a particular
structure which may be regarded as a “mental model”. The “mental model”
can be natural or artificial, tacit and externalized, implicit and explicit
3) Any business process involves a knowledge process which is performed by a
natural or artificial knowledge holder
4) If several knowledge holders are involved in the business process, - data,
information, and knowledge exchange between them is possible. This
exchange differs from the exchange of other substances as it is asymmetric:
the amount of given information may differ from the received one; and the
knowledge holder by giving information does not lose knowledge on the
basis of which the information was provided.
To obtain a holistic and at least semi-formal view of the relationship between data,
information, and knowledge we use theory that shows that in information exchange a
substance called information codes is involved [7], i.e., information exchange is
accomplished via information codes.
Suppose the knowledge holder (object O1 provides some information codes T1 to
another knowledge holder (object O2). The state transition in O2 which receives this
information is illustrated in Fig. 1. In the first phase, the object O2 receives particular
information code Ic1. To perceive the code the object needs a particular “linguistic”
device that can recognize the code. (E.g., if the code is information in English, it can
be recognized if there is a “device” that can handle English). The received code is
transformed into data ∆d. Thus data are functional values of information codes which
correspond to new parameters of object state obtained in interaction with another
object.
Sate transition in object O2
P4
Data has no meaning for Reflective realization
object [Z1+∆iàR])
environment V starts information
information interaction with
interection with object O2
T5 – Object O2 starts
T1 – Object O1 from
P2 P3 P5
environment V
P1 Interpretation ∆i Parameters of internal
Data ∆d is acquired
Information codes sate of object O2 have
from information (information) of data
Ic1 are received changed (e.g., obtained
codes Ic1 ∆d is acquired new knowledge
from object O1
[Ic1 à∆d] [∆d à∆i] [K1+∆iàK2])
T2 – Detection of T3 – Interpretation of T4 – Information
information codes by data build on current absorption and
linguist device knowledge K1 realization
P6
Need for interaction
with environment V
is realized
[K1+∆iàIc2])
Fig. 1. State transition in knowledge owner when information codes are received.
In the next phase the object O2 decides upon the meaning of obtained data ∆d that
is subjective interpretation of ∆i by current knowledge of K1 of O2 taking into
consideration M1 – the set of its current needs or goals. According to [8] structured and
processed data is information that is time dependent (relevant only in a given point of
182 Pre-proceedings of CAISE'11 Forum
time) and correct with respect to the processed data set. In general, the amount of
received information can be calculated as difference between knowledge after data
interpretation and knowledge before interaction with object O1: ∆i=Z1-Z2. It can be
regarded as a measure of reduction of uncertainty for choosing actions in order to
achieve particular goals M1 [12].
Information exists from the moment data is interpreted till the moment when the
information has been absorbed or included in mental model of the object. As a result
of information absorption the content or structure of mental model (including
procedural and declarative knowledge which is stored in it) can be changed.
In the final phase realization of obtained information ∆i takes place and it can lead
to changes of internal state parameters of object O2 or/and to the next cycle of
interaction with environment. There can be several overlapping options of realization:
(1) a reflective action: K1+∆iR; (2) if the object starts the next cycle of iteration
with object (-s) from its environment, object O2 delivers appropriate set of
information codes: K1+∆iIc2: (3) if object changes its internal state, its mental
model can change, under certain conditions obtaining new knowledge: K1+∆iK2.
According to [13] knowledge is reasoning about data that is stored in object’s
“mental model” in order to promote action, problem solving, decision making,
learning, and teaching. Knowledge is a higher organizational level of data that allows
their specific interpretation. Requirements to data organization level can differ from a
simple grouping of the data to complicated data hyper-structures.
Thus according to [7] a single cycle of information interaction between object and
its environment is divided into three sequential phases: (1) object receives information
codes from its environment, (2) obtained codes are interpreted, and finally (3)
information is realized (reflected upon, absorbed, put into action). In Fig. 2 a
simplified example with two objects (process performer that is analyst and document
that includes interview protocols) is shown. The analyst performs the activity of
analyzing as-is business process model. Perceived information codes are realized as
new knowledge about actual business processes in the company.
Activity - As-is BPM
analysis
IcD1 – actual
changes in BPs
Analyst P1 Document D1
(Interview protocols)
Perception
Data obtained from the
perceived information codes
Interpretation
Interpretation of data based on the present goals and
knowledge,e.g., knowledge about BP modeling
languagies, organizational structure, project goals
Realization
Information realization happens as
processing of new knowledge about
actual BPs in the company
Fig.2. A simplified example of an activity.
Knowledge Dimension in Business Process Modeling 183
The performer of a business process can receive information codes in three
different ways, namely, from human, from active artificial object, and from passive
artificial object. Depending on the situation the interchange of information codes can
take place in homogenous (human-human, IS-IS) or heterogeneous (human-IS, IS-
document, human-document) environments. In Fig. 3 and 4 internal changes of
knowledge holders are illustrated. A in Fig. 3 shows information code interchange
and new knowledge (natural or artificial) development in homogenous environment
(on the left: human-human and on the right: computer system-computer system). Fig.
3 B illustrates how natural or artificial knowledge holder interacts with the passive
knowledge holder (document). Figure 4 illustrates heterogeneous environment with
two different types of knowledge holders. The interchange and knowledge
development can proceed differently depending on the level of intelligence of the
artificial knowledge holder (from the left to right: without data interpretation means;
with data interpretation means only, and with learning ability).
A B
Ic1 Ic1
Human O1 Ic2
Ic1 Document O1
P
P I R
Computer system
Human O2 O2
P I R
P I R
Fig. 3. A- Information interaction in homogenous environments; B - Information interaction
between active knowledge holders and passive knowledge (P – perception, I – interpretation, R
– realization).
A B C
Computer system Computer system Computer system
Ic1 Ic1 Ic2 Ic1 Ic2
O1 Ic2 O1 O1
P P I P I R
Human O2 Human O2 Human O2
P I R P I R P I R
Fig.4. Information interaction in heterogeneous environment (among active objects) (P –
perception, I – interpretation, R – realization).
184 Pre-proceedings of CAISE'11 Forum
The above analysis of information interaction shows that changes in knowledge are
initiated by perception of particular information codes. Thus for representing the
knowledge dimension it would be necessary to show knowledge before and after
perception of information codes as well as coded information itself. The potential of
contemporary business process modeling languages in this regard is examined in the
next section.
3 Information exchange in business process context
In our previous work [6] we analyzed different attempts to include knowledge
dimension in business process modeling and knowledge modeling languages and we
proposed to integrate knowledge-oriented modeling language KMDL [14] and BPMN
notation [15]. In that work three different objects: knowledge objects, information
objects and data objects were used. However, further experiments with the integrated
notation showed that it is difficult to distinguish between data and information
objects. Theoretical issues discussed in the previous section clarify the reason behind
this difficulty. It shows data rather as an internal than external phenomenon of the
knowledge holder and interchange of perceivable knowledge is accomplished via
information codes. None of the approaches analyzed in [6] took into consideration
information codes and therefore are not directly applicable for representation of
knowledge dimension in the way it is described in the previous section. On the other
hand knowledge modeling approaches analyzed in [6] are not used very often;
therefore in this work we consider “ordinary” business process modeling languages in
order to see how appropriate they are for inclusion of knowledge dimension. The
following business process modeling languages were analyzed: GRAPES BM – in
GRADE tool [16], EPC diagrams in ARIS [17], IDEF 3 [18], IDEF 0 [19], UML 2.0
activity graphs [20], and BPMN 2.0 [15]. The languages were analyzed from the
following two points of view (1) possibilities to represent data and knowledge (Table
1); (2) possibilities to represent process logics (Table 2). Both views are important for
representation of static and dynamic aspects of knowledge in individual knowledge
holders and in the process as a whole. In the Table 1 and 2 “-“ means “does not
support”; “-/+” means “somewhat supports”; “+” means “inclusion is possible”; “++”
means “almost fully supports”, and “+++” means “supports fully”.
Table 1. Representation of inputs, outputs and resources
Criteria GRAPES ARIS IDEF 0 IDEF 3 UML 2.0 BPMN
BM EPC 2.0.
Input/output [data] + +++ + - + ++
Input/output [inforamtion] + +++ + - + ++
Input/output [knowledge] - +/- - - - -
Resource [knowledge] - - - - - -
Resource [human] + ++ + - - +
Resource [artificial] + + + - - +
Resource [data store] + + - - + -
Knowledge Dimension in Business Process Modeling 185
Table 2. Representation of process logics
Criteria GRAPES EPC IDEF 0 IDEF 3 UML 2.0 BPMN
Process management -/+ -/+ + - -/+ -/+
Controls -/+ -/+ + - -/+ -/+
Decision points + + - - + +
Control flows + ++ - +++ ++ +++
Events + ++ - +/- + +++
From the point of process logics the best options are BPMN and ARIS EPC. The
least feasible is IDEF0, which lets to assume that this language has to be extended if
taken as a basis for the representation of knowledge dimension.
4 Representing knowledge dimension transparently
In this section we propose one possible way how to represent an activity with
knowledge dimension. We strive to show the proposed ideas graphically. It is not yet
a new business process modeling notation. The representation is based on IDEF0
notation. IDEF0 was chosen as the basis for activity template, because it gives an
opportunity to distinguish between controls (relates to knowledge holder‟s goals (see
Section 2), inputs/outputs (received and produced information codes), and resources
(knowledge in the holder). However, it must be admitted that IDEF0 notation is not
the most suitable for representing logic of the process, therefore, in our further
research we intend to combine it with other notations that give more means for
control and decision points modeling. The activity template and example of its use are
represented in Fig. 5 and 6.
Artificial object Artificial object
C C
A. as control B. as control
[location] Information codes [location] Information codes
Knowledge as control Kc
Owner.Kc1 – Name, ..., Owner.KcN – Name
Owner.Kcj+ Owner.Krm+...)– Name,
Owner.Kcj+ Owner.Krm+...)–Name
Information codes
Owner.Ki1 – Name, ..., Owner.KiN –
Information codes
Information codes
Information codes
Owner.Ko2=∑(Owner.Kii +
Owner.Ko1=∑(Owner.Kii +
Knowledge as output
Knowledge as input
Type
Name
Ko
I Activity O I O
Ki
...,
Artificial object Artificial object
Artificial object Performer(-s) Artificial object
as output as output
as input as input
[location] [location]
[location] [location]
Knowledge as resource
Owner.Kr1 – Name, ..., Owner.KrN – Name Kr
Artificial object as Information codes Artificial object as Information codes
resource R resource
R
[location] [location]
Fig. 5. Activity with a knowledge dimension: A: activity template; B: activity zoomed in (this
information is not presented in the template).
186 Pre-proceedings of CAISE'11 Forum
Each Activity (Fig. 5 A) corresponds to one of different combinations of interaction
between human, computer systems, and documents as shown in Fig. 2-4. Social
processes among performers inside the activity are not represented (Fig. 5 B). The
activity template has the following attributes: Activity name, Performers of the
activity (human or artificial (computer) system). For knowledge intensive activities
there is an additional attribute Type with possible values Socialization,
Externalization, Combination, and Internalization. These attributes and their values
are visually positioned in the central part of the template. The central part is
surrounded by four blocks that correspond to four types of knowledge, namely:
control knowledge Kc, input knowledge Ki, output knowledge Ko, and Resource
knowledge Kr. This is knowledge that is inside the knowledge holders (natural and/or
artificial) participating in the activity and can be referred to as tacit knowledge. Each
block of the tacit knowledge can be linked to particular artifacts: input artifacts I,
output artifacts O, resource artifacts R, and control artifacts C which in essence are
information codes perceived by tacit (natural or artificial) knowledge of the
performers of the process. Each block Kc, Ki, Ko, and Kr, of the template can be
related to particular concepts of the representation of organizational “mental model”,
if such is maintained. To illustrate the proposed template an activity of logical data
model development process is illustrated (Fig. 6). The development process starts
with an As-is business process model analysis when the analyst reads two documents:
current business process model and an interview protocol. As a result of this activity
the analyst should obtain new knowledge about actual business processes.
Analyst.Kc1 – knowledge about
Analyst.Kc1 – knowledge about project goals and timetable
project goals and timetable
1) Analyst.Ko2 = Analyst.Ki1 + Analyst.Kr1 + Analyst.Kc1 + D1 – knowledge
IcD1
2) Analyst.Ko3 = Analyst.Ko2 + D2 – knowledge about Actual BP
2) Analyst.Ko3 = Analyst.Ko2 + D2 – knowledge about Actual BP
I
1) Analyst.Ko2 = Analyst.Ki1 + Analyst.Kr1 + Analyst.Kc1 + D1 –
Analyst.Ki1 – knowledge about enterprise sphere of activity
Analyst.Ki1 – knowledge about enterprise sphere of activity
D1 Analyst P1 Document D1
Avalaible BP (Avalaible BP models)
models D1
Avalaible BP P I R
Internalization
models
knowledge about BPs within company;
1. As-is BPM
analysis
Role: Analyst IcD2
about BPs within company;
I
D2
Protocols Analyst P1 Document D2
D2 (Protocols)
Protocols
P I R
Analyst.Kr1 – knowledge about BP
modeling languagies Analyst.Kr1 – knowledge about BP modeling languagies
Fig. 6. Example of an activity represented by the template (on the left). What happens inside of
it is illustrated on the right.
6 Conclusions
In business process reengineering it is important to have a holistic view of the
enterprise. Since organizational knowledge is an essential aspect of an enterprise,
Knowledge Dimension in Business Process Modeling 187
there is a need for transparent linkage between the business process model and
organizational and individual knowledge. In order to achieve this transparency the
paper proposes a new activity template that gives visual means to relate business
process to organizational knowledge and to analyze knowledge circulation in a
business process. The model presented in the paper is in its experimental stage.
Analysis of possibility to introduce it to different business process modeling
languages is the next step of the research presented in the paper. Additionally we
consider interviewing experts who routinely use business process modeling languages
and notations in order to investigate how they presently capture knowledge.
References
1. Baimin B.S., Zijun H., and Xiohua G. Knowledge process reengineering and implementation of
enterprise knowledge management. In International Conference on Information Management,
Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, 2010, pp. 23-26.
2. Wang B. Sh-B , Wang Ch , Yang J. Research on the reengineering of government business processes
based on the environment of e-government. In: International Conference on E-Business and E-
Government, 2010, pp. 4503-4506.
3. Li B.-Z., Liu Y. Organizational change pattern based on business process reengineering. In
International Conference on E-Business and E-Government, 2010, pp. 1193-1197.
4. Chalaris I. E., Vlachopoulos S. Business Process Reengineering as a Modernizing Tool for the Public
Administration- From Theory to Reality. In Fourth Balkan Conference in Informatics, 2009, pp. 64-
69.
5. Weicher M, Chu W.W., Lin W. Ch., Le V., and Yu D. Business Process Reengineering:
Analysis and Recommendations, available at http://www.netlib.com/bpr1.htm#reenghr
6. Supulniece I., Bušinska L., and Kirikova M. Towards extending BPMN with the knowledge
dimension. in the Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling: Proceedings,
Tunisa, Hammamet, 2010. - 69-81. lpp.
7. Янковский С. Я. Концепции общей теории информации. НиТ. Текущие публикации, 2001.,
avilable at http://n-t.ru/tp/ng/oti03.htm
8. Maier R. Knowledge management systems. Information and communication Technologies for
knowledge management. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, third edition, 2007.
9. Tiwana, A. Knowledge Management Toolkit, The: Practical Techniques for Building a Knowledge
Management System, Pearson Education, 1999.
10. Beyon-Davies P.B. Significant threads: The nature of data, International Journal of Information
Management 29 (2009) 170-188).
11. Francois Ch (Ed.) International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, 2nd Edition, K.G. Saur,
Munhen, 2004.
12. Corning P. A., Control Information Theory: „The missing link‟ in the science of cybernetics, Systems
research and behavioral science, Syst.Res. 24, 297-311 (2007)
13. Beckman, T. A methodology for knowledge management. Proceedings of the IASTED International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing (ASC‟97), Banff, Canada, 1997, pp.29-32.
14. Gronau, N., Korf, R., Müller, C.: KMDL-Capturing, Analyzing and Improving Knowledge-Intensive
Business Processes. Journal of Computer Science 4, pp. 452-472 (2005)
15. BPMN, available at http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/PDF
16. GRADE Business Modeling, Language Reference, Infologistik GmbH, 1998
17. ARIS Expert Paper, Business Process Design as the Basis for Compliance Management, Enterprise
Architecture and Business Rules, March 2007
18. IDEF3, available at http://www.idef.com/IDEF3.html
19. IDEF0, available at http://www.idef.com/IDEF0.html
20. UML, available at http://www.visual-paradigm.com/VPGallery/diagrams/Activity.html