Modeling Structured and Unstructured Processes: An Empirical Evaluation

Imperative process languages, such as BPMN, describe business processes in terms of collections of activities and control flows among them. Despite their popularity, such languages remain useful mostly for structured processes whose flow of activities is well-known and does not vary greatly. For unstructured processes, on the other hand, the verdict is still out as to the best way to represent them. In our previous work, we have proposed Azzurra, a specification language for business processes founded on social concepts, such as roles, agents and commitments. In this paper, we present the results of an experiment that comparatively evaluates Azzurra and BPMN in terms of their ability to represent structured and unstructured processes. Our results suggest that Azzurra is better suited than BPMN for unstructured business processes.

[1]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Social specifications of business processes with Azzurra , 2015, 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS).

[2]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Why Evaluate Ontology Technologies? Because It Works! , 2004, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[3]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies , 2012 .

[4]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction , 2000 .

[5]  Natalia Juristo Juzgado,et al.  Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation , 2010, Springer US.

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

[7]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support , 2009, Computer Science - Research and Development.

[8]  Hongyan Ma,et al.  Process-aware information systems: Bridging people and software through process technology , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems , 2012, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[10]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Imperative versus Declarative Process Modeling Languages: An Empirical Investigation , 2011, Business Process Management Workshops.

[11]  Cw Christian Günther,et al.  Towards an evaluation framework for process mining algorithms , 2007 .

[12]  H. D. Rombach,et al.  The Goal Question Metric Approach , 1994 .

[13]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Handbook on Business Process Management 1: Introduction, Methods, and Information Systems , 2010, BPM 2010.

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

[15]  Jan Recker,et al.  BPMN Research: What We Know and What We Don't Know , 2012, BPMN.

[16]  W.M.P. van der Aalst,et al.  Business Process Management: A Comprehensive Survey , 2013 .

[17]  Richard Hull,et al.  Business Artifacts: A Data-centric Approach to Modeling Business Operations and Processes , 2009, IEEE Data Eng. Bull..

[18]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Formal Ontology and Information Systems , 1998 .

[19]  Claudio Di Ciccio,et al.  Knowledge-Intensive Processes: Characteristics, Requirements and Analysis of Contemporary Approaches , 2015, Journal on Data Semantics.

[20]  Richard Hull,et al.  Artifact-Centric Business Process Models: Brief Survey of Research Results and Challenges , 2008, OTM Conferences.