A Systematic Mapping Study on Business Process Variability

Business Process Management align s organisational strategy and business operation. The dynamic environment within which organisation s operate promotes changes in business processes, in a phenomenon known as business process variability. The goal of this resea rch is reviewing business process variability literature to comprehend this phenomenon and analyse its theoretical foundation. Through a systematic mapping study, 80 primary studies acted as sources of evidence to answerthree research questions. By summarizing this theoretical background, we establish a conceptual synthesis of business process variability. We equally describe business process variability approaches and observewhether these were empirically assessed. Finally, we discuss research opportunit ies in the field. Our study shows that concepts in business process variability domain are used in an inconsistent manner, demanding a common vocabulary. A significant number of approaches is available, but most of them lack empirical studies. Additionally, our findings provide a diagnosis of the major challenges in the field.

[1]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Preserving correctness during business process model configuration , 2010, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[2]  Mehmet Kara,et al.  REVIEW ON COMMON CRITERIA AS A SECURE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT MODEL , 2012 .

[3]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Using Mapping Studies in Software Engineering , 2008, PPIG.

[4]  Mark Vervuurt.  Modeling Business Process Variability , 2007 .

[5]  Safaai Deris,et al.  RESEARCH REVIEW FOR DIGITAL IMAGE SEGMENTATION TECHNIQUES , 2011 .

[6]  Pierre-Yves Schobbens,et al.  Symbolic model checking of software product lines , 2011, 2011 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[7]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Towards a Classification and Lifecycle of Business Process Change , 2008, BPMDS 2008.

[8]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Evidence-based software engineering , 2004, Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[9]  Danilo Caivano,et al.  Business Process Lines to Develop Service-Oriented Architectures Through the Software Product Lines Paradigm , 2008, SPLC.

[10]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  Can you Trust a Single Data Source Exploratory Software Engineering Case Study? , 2002, Empirical Software Engineering.

[11]  Janice Singer,et al.  Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering , 2007 .

[12]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Using mapping studies as the basis for further research - A participant-observer case study , 2011, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[13]  Vander Alves,et al.  Managing variability in business processes: an aspect-oriented approach , 2011 .

[14]  Jan Vanthienen,et al.  Compliant and Flexible Business Processes with Business Rules , 2006, BPMDS.

[15]  Kai Petersen,et al.  Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering , 2008, EASE.

[16]  B. Kitchenham,et al.  Case Studies for Method and Tool Evaluation , 1995, IEEE Softw..

[17]  Carolyn B. Seaman,et al.  Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[18]  Peter Dadam,et al.  Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems - a survey , 2004, Data Knowl. Eng..

[19]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Capturing variability in business process models: the Provop approach , 2010, J. Softw. Maintenance Res. Pract..

[20]  J. Zhao,et al.  Business Process Management Common Body Of Knowledge , 2009 .

[21]  Jens Müller.  Supporting Change in Business Process Models Using Pattern-Based Constraints , 2009, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[22]  Maria Beatriz Felgar de Toledo,et al.  A survey on reuse in the business process management domain , 2012, Int. J. Bus. Process. Integr. Manag..

[23]  Vinay Kulkarni,et al.  Business process families using model-driven techniques , 2011, Int. J. Bus. Process. Integr. Manag..

[24]  ReichertManfred,et al.  Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems , 2004 .

[25]  Gil Regev,et al.  Taxonomy of Flexibility in Business Processes , 2006, BPMDS.

[26]  Jeffrey C. Carver,et al.  Replicating software engineering experiments: addressing the tacit knowledge problem , 2002, Proceedings International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering.

[27]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Configurable multi-perspective business process models , 2011, Inf. Syst..

[28]  Mala . V. Patil,et al.  IMPORTANCE OF DATA COLLECTION AND VALIDATION FOR SYSTEMATIC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS , 2011 .

[29]  Daniela E. Damian,et al.  Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering Research , 2008, Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering.

[30]  Alain Wegmann.  Flexibility: Change, but Change What? , 2006, BPMDS.

[31]  Barbara Kitchenham,et al.  What's up with software metrics? - A preliminary mapping study , 2010, J. Syst. Softw..

[32]  Iris Reinhartz-Berger,et al.  Facilitating Reuse by Specialization of Reference Models for Business Process Design , 2007 .

[33]  Gunter Saake,et al.  Flexible feature binding in software product lines , 2011, Automated Software Engineering.

[34]  Maria-Eugenia Iacob,et al.  Achieving Business Process Flexibility with Business Rules , 2008, 2008 12th International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference.

[35]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Questionnaire-based variability modeling for system configuration , 2009, Software & Systems Modeling.

[36]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Mining business process variants: Challenges, scenarios, algorithms , 2011, Data Knowl. Eng..

[37]  Pnina Soffer.  Analyzing the Scope of a Change in a Business Process Model , 2004, CAiSE Workshops.

[38]  Colette Rolland,et al.  Business Process Lines to Deal with the Variability , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.