Wand and Weber's good decomposition conditions for BPMN: An interpretation and differences to Event-Driven Process Chains

– The purpose of this paper is to specify the decomposition conditions of Wand and Weber for the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). Therefore, an interpretation of the conditions for BPMN is derived and compared to a specification of the conditions for enhanced Event-Driven Process Chains (eEPCs). Based on these results, guidelines for a conformance check of BPMN and eEPC models with the decomposition conditions are shown. Further, guidelines for decomposition are formulated for BPMN models. The usability of the decomposition guidelines is tested with modelling experts. , – An approach building on a representational mapping is used for specifying the decomposition conditions. Therefore, ontological constructs of the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontology are mapped to corresponding modelling constructs and an interpretation of the decomposition conditions for BPMN is derived. Guidelines for a conformance check are then defined. Based on these results, decomposition guidelines are formulated. Their usability is tested in interviews. , – The research shows that the decomposition conditions stemming from the information systems discipline can be transferred to business process modelling. However, the interpretation of the decomposition conditions depends on specific characteristics of a modelling language. Based on a thorough specification of the conditions, it is possible to derive guidelines for a conformance check of process models with the conditions. In addition, guidelines for decomposition are developed and tested. In the study, these are perceived as understandable and helpful by experts. , – Research approaches based on representational mappings are subjected to subjectivity. However, by having three researchers performing the approach independently, subjectivity can be mitigated. Further, only ten experts participated in the usability test, which is therefore to be considered as a first step in a more comprising evaluation. , – This paper provides the process modeller with guidelines enabling a conformance check of BPMN and eEPC process models with the decomposition conditions. Further, guidelines for decomposing BPMN models are introduced. , – This paper is the first to specify Wand and Weber's decomposition conditions for process modelling with BPMN. A comparison to eEPCs shows, that the ontological expressiveness influences the interpretation of the conditions. Further, guidelines for decomposing BPMN models as well as for checking their adherence to the decomposition conditions are presented.

[1]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  A weighted coupling metric for business process models , 2007, CAiSE Forum.

[2]  Jan Recker.  Evaluations of Process Modeling Grammars - Ontological, Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses Using the Example of BPMN , 2011, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.

[3]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Evaluating workflow process designs using cohesion and coupling metrics , 2008, Comput. Ind..

[4]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Managing Process Model Complexity via Concrete Syntax Modifications , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.

[5]  Jan Recker,et al.  How Much Language Is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation , 2008, CAiSE.

[6]  Peter Loos,et al.  Comparing the Control-Flow of EPC and Petri Net from the End-User Perspective , 2005, Business Process Management.

[7]  Jan Mendling,et al.  What Makes Process Models Understandable? , 2007, BPM.

[8]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Approaches for Business Process Model Complexity Metrics , 2007 .

[9]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness , 2008, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.

[10]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG) , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[11]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Business Process Modeling- A Comparative Analysis , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Hierarchy on Model - A Cognitive Perspective , 2011, EESSMod.

[13]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? , 2011, MIS Q..

[14]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Business Process Model and Notation - Third International Workshop, BPMN 2011, Lucerne, Switzerland, November 21-22, 2011. Proceedings , 2011, Business Process Modeling Notation.

[15]  Geert Poels,et al.  Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions , 2007, Data Knowl. Eng..

[16]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[17]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Quality metrics for business process models , 2007 .

[18]  Peter Loos,et al.  Understanding Understandability of Conceptual Models - What Are We Actually Talking about? , 2012, ER.

[19]  Reinhard Schütte,et al.  The Guidelines of Modeling - An Approach to Enhance the Quality in Information Models , 1998, ER.

[20]  Peter Meso,et al.  Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  Peter S. Pande,et al.  The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola, and Other Top Companies are Honing Their Performance , 2000 .

[22]  Sven Overhage,et al.  Quality Marks, Metrics, and Measurement Procedures for Business Process Models , 2012, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[23]  Florian Johannsen,et al.  Wand and Weber’s Decomposition Model in the Context of Business Process Modeling , 2012, Business & Information Systems Engineering.

[24]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Integrated Process Modeling: An Ontological Evaluation , 2000, Inf. Syst..

[25]  Ron Weber,et al.  Ontological foundations of information systems , 1997 .

[26]  Marta Indulska,et al.  A Reference Methodology for Conducting Ontological Analyses , 2004, ER.

[27]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Developing a meta model for the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontological constructs , 2002, Inf. Syst..

[28]  Ron Weber,et al.  A model of systems decomposition , 1989, ICIS '89.

[29]  Jan Recker,et al.  Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN , 2010, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[30]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A Study Into the Factors That Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[31]  John Krogstie,et al.  Towards a Deeper Understanding of Quality in Requirements Engineering , 1995, CAiSE.

[32]  R. G. Dromey,et al.  Cornering the Chimera , 1996, IEEE Softw..

[33]  Jörg Becker,et al.  Constructing a Semantic Business Process Modelling Language for the Banking Sector - An Evolutionary Dyadic Design Science Approach , 2010, Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. Int. J. Concept. Model..

[34]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  Factors of process model comprehension - Findings from a series of experiments , 2012, Decis. Support Syst..

[35]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[36]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension , 2011, Inf. Syst..

[37]  Rob Davis,et al.  ARIS Design Platform: Getting Started with BPM , 2007 .

[38]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Tools for Inventing Organizations: Toward a Handbook of Organizational Processes , 1999 .

[39]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Managing Process Model Complexity Via Abstract Syntax Modifications , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.

[40]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains , 1999, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[41]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[42]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Do Process Modelling Techniques Get Better? A Comparative Ontological Analysis of BPMN , 2005 .

[43]  Florian Johannsen,et al.  Coupling Metrics for EPC Models , 2013, Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[44]  Jorge S. Cardoso,et al.  Process control-flow complexity metric: An empirical validation , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC'06).

[45]  John Krogstie,et al.  Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[46]  Mathias Weske,et al.  A Semantic Approach for Business Process Model Abstraction , 2011, CAiSE.

[47]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  View-Based Process Visualization , 2007, BPM.

[48]  August-Wilhelm Scheer,et al.  Process Modeling Using Event-Driven Process Chains , 2005, Process-Aware Information Systems.