Subject-oriented plural method meets BPMN: a case study

Subject-oriented approach to business process management focuses on the subjects and their interactions with the aim to capture more accurate process information with increased fidelity. In a common setting, business processes are modeled by process engineers or modeling experts who often create their processes in a top-down fashion. However, this may pose risks to the acceptance and adoption of these models in practice, particularly in knowledge-centric environments. The Plural method follows a subject-oriented approach and allows process participants, rather than a centralized group of process engineers, to model and maintain their processes in a decentralized way. It guides process participants to focus on the roles and their interactions in terms of message exchanges. This study investigates the use of BPMN 2.0 for the Plural method. With the aim to show the applicability of the notation for a subject-oriented approach and report on the benefits and limitations of the new edition of the Plural method in general, we performed a case study in an industry company. Guided by a coordinator, 11 process participants modeled four processes that they participate by following the Plural method. These models were also compared with the classical models developed prior to the application of the Plural method to better understand the influence. Analyses showed that the application of the Plural resulted in more complete process models. However, there are concerns regarding the understandability of these models when compared with their classical counterparts. It has been shown that the Plural method is a powerful tool for process discovery and modeling, but an improvement on its models is needed to obtain full value of the framework.

[1]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Business Process Management , 2016, Business & Information Systems Engineering.

[2]  Elbeyi Pelit,et al.  The effects of employee empowerment on employee job satisfaction: A study on hotels in Turkey , 2011 .

[3]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[4]  Sara K. Kearns,et al.  The Agenda: What Every Business Must Do to Dominate the Decade , 2002 .

[5]  Neil F. Doherty,et al.  The Importance of User Ownership and Positive User Attitudes in the Successful Adoption of Community Information Systems , 2001, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[6]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects , 2008, BPM.

[7]  Stefan Oppl,et al.  S-BPM ONE - Education and Industrial Developments , 2012, Communications in Computer and Information Science.

[8]  Stefan Rass,et al.  S-BPM Illustrated , 2013, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[9]  Matthias Kurz,et al.  BPM 2.0: Business Process Management Meets Empowerment , 2010, S-BPM ONE.

[10]  P. Harmon The State of Business Process Management , 2013 .

[11]  Roger Maull,et al.  Alternative perspectives on service quality and customer satisfaction: the role of BPM , 2008 .

[12]  York P. Freund Critical success factors , 1988 .

[13]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Unleashing the Effectiveness of Process-Oriented Information Systems: Problem Analysis, Critical Success Factors, and Implications , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[14]  Alh Aldwin Schroot Comparing subject-oriented and classical business process models from the end-user perspective , 2013 .

[15]  Werner Schmidt,et al.  Subject-Oriented Business Process Management , 2012, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[16]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs , 1999, MIS Q..

[17]  Wolfgang Reinhardt,et al.  Knowledge Worker Roles and Actions— Results of Two Empirical Studies , 2011 .

[18]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Process Mining - Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes , 2011 .

[19]  R. N. Kanungo,et al.  The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice , 1988 .

[20]  Paul Harmon,et al.  chapter 16 – Business Process Management Suites , 2007 .

[21]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  The effects of process-oriented organizational design on firm performance , 2013, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[22]  Onur Demirörs,et al.  Plural: A decentralized business process modeling method , 2011, Inf. Manag..

[23]  Mark von Rosing,et al.  Business Process Model and Notation - BPMN , 2015, The Complete Business Process Handbook, Vol. I.

[24]  D. L. Parnas,et al.  On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules , 1972, Software Pioneers.

[25]  Stephan Sneed Mapping Possibilities of S-BPM and BPMN 2.0 - Implementing a BPM Interface , 2012, S-BPM ONE.

[26]  Onur Demirörs,et al.  Business Process Modeling Pluralized , 2013, S-BPM ONE.

[27]  Alison Parkes Critical Success Factors in Workflow Implementation , 2002 .

[28]  Onur Demirörs,et al.  Process modeling by process owners: A decentralized approach , 2008, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..