Requirements elicitation using BPM notations: focusing on the strategic level representation

Business process models (BPM) can be useful for requirements elicitation, among other uses. Since the active participation of all stakeholders is a key factor for successful requirements engineering, it is important that BPM be shared by all stakeholders. Unfortunately, organizations may end up with inconsistent BPM not covering all stakeholders' needs and constraints. The use of multiple levels of abstraction (MLA), such as at the strategic, tactical and operational levels, is often used in various process-oriented initiatives to facilitate the consolidation of various stakeholders' needs and constraints. This article surveys the use of MLA in recent BPM research publications and reports on a BPM action-research case study conducted in a Canadian organization, with the aim of exploring the usefulness of the strategic level.

[1]  R. Anthony,et al.  Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis , 1965 .

[2]  Chung Yee Lee,et al.  Business process management: survey and methodology , 1995 .

[3]  D. Sinclair,et al.  Business process re‐engineering and process management , 1995 .

[4]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Integrating multi-perspective views into ontological analysis , 2000, ICIS.

[5]  Jon Atle Gulla,et al.  On the challenges of business modeling in large-scale reengineering projects , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Requirements Engineering. ICRE 2000. (Cat. No.98TB100219).

[6]  Fu-Ren Lin,et al.  A generic structure for business process modeling , 2002, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[7]  T.C. Lethbridge,et al.  Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) and the Software Engineering Education Knowledge (SEEK) - a preliminary mapping , 2001, 10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice.

[8]  Kulwant S. Pawar,et al.  The application of business process modelling to organisational analysis of concurrent engineering environments , 2003 .

[9]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Special issue on action research in information systems: making is research relevant to practice--foreword , 2004 .

[10]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  A success model for Business process modeling: Findings from A multiple case study , 2004, PACIS.

[11]  Robert M. Davison,et al.  Principles of canonical action research , 2004, Inf. Syst. J..

[12]  Alain Abran,et al.  Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge : 2004 Version , 2005 .

[13]  Rainer Sommer,et al.  Comparison and evaluation of business process modelling and management tools , 2007, Int. J. Serv. Stand..

[14]  Tore Dybå,et al.  The Future of Empirical Methods in Software Engineering Research , 2007, Future of Software Engineering (FOSE '07).

[15]  Alain April,et al.  IT process conformance measurement : a sarbanes-oxley requirement , 2007 .

[16]  Per Runeson,et al.  Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering , 2009, Empirical Software Engineering.

[17]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  From conceptual process models to running systems: A holistic approach for the configuration of enterprise system processes , 2008, Decis. Support Syst..

[18]  Bruce Silver,et al.  Bpmn Method And Style , 2009 .

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

[20]  Alain Abran,et al.  Representing Unique Stakeholder Perspectives in BPM Notations , 2010, 2010 Eighth ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications.

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

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