Advertisement

Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 1097–1115 | Cite as

Consistency requirements in business process modeling: a thorough overview

  • Afef AwadidEmail author
  • Selmin Nurcan
Special Section Paper

Abstract

The field of business process modeling has been beset by inter-model consistency problems which are mainly due to the existence of multiple variants of the same business process, for instance when models have been produced by different actors, or through the time by a same (or different) actor(s), as well as the possibility of its modeling from discrete and complementary perspectives (using different lenses). Accordingly, our overall aim in this paper is to provide a thorough overview of consistency requirements in business process modeling, which is strongly needed not only for the sake of a comprehensive investigation of this challenging subject, but also for the sake of empowering significant contributions to it. In order to do so, we opted for a systematic literature review of consistency among business process models as starting point and basis to attain the intended overview and to guide our contributions in this field.

Keywords

Business process modeling Consistency requirements Inter-model consistency Systematic literature review Context-awareness Map formalism 

References

  1. 1.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M., Over, J.: Process modelling. Commun. ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rolland, C.: A primer for method engineering. In: Proceedings of the INFormatique des ORganisations et Systemes d’Information et de Décision, Toulouse, France (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rolland, C.: A comprehensive view of process engineering. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 1–24, Springer, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feiler, P.H., Humphrey, W.S.: Software process development and enactment: Concepts and definitions. In: Continuous Software Process Improvement, Second International Conference on the Software Process, pp. 28–40, IEEE (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling. Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method, vol. 309. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dumas, M., Van der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H.: Process-Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Le Reengineering, vol. 93. Dunod, Paris (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peterson, R.S., Smith, D.B., Martorana, P.V., Owens, P.D.: The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: one mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(5), 795 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muskens, J., Bril, R.J., Chaudron, M.R.: Generalizing consistency checking between software views . In: 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 169–180, IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Configuration and management of process variants. In: Handbook on Business Process Management 1, pp. 237–255, Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucas, F.J., Molina, F., Toval, A.: A systematic review of UML model consistency management. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(12), 1631–1645 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A.: Inconsistency management in software engineering: Survey and open research issues. In: Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 1, pp. 329–380 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nurcan, S.: Ingénierie et Architecture d’Entreprise et des Systèmes d’Information-Concepts, Fondements et Méthodes (Habilitation dissertation, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chapurlat, V.: Vérification et validation de modèles de systèmes complexes: application à la Modélisation d’Entreprise (Habilitation dissertation, Université Montpellier II) (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Wohed, P.: On the suitability of UML 2.0 activity diagrams for business process modelling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling. vol. 53, pp. 95–104 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mendling, J., Neumann, G., Nüttgens, M.: A comparison of XML interchange formats for business process modelling. Workflow handbook, pp. 185–198 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Akobeng, A.K.: Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Arch. Dis. Child. 90(8), 845–848 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    IEEE standard 42010. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Persson, M., Törngren, M., Qamar, A., Westman, J., Biehl, M., Tripakis, S., Denil, J.: A characterization of integrated multi-view modeling in the context of embedded and cyber-physical systems. In: 11th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, IEEE Press, p. 10 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brooks, C., Cheng, C.P., Feng, T.H., Lee, E.A., Von Hanxleden, R.: Model Engineering Using Multimodeling (No. UCB/EECS-2008-39). California University, Berkeley (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cicchetti, A., Ciccozzi, F., Leveque, T.: A hybrid approach for multi-view modeling. In: Electronic Communications of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology, 50 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Broy, M., Feilkas, M., Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Merenda, S., Ratiu, D.: Seamless model-based development: from isolated tools to integrated model engineering environments. Proc. IEEE 98(4), 526–545 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Engels, G., Küster, J.M., Heckel, R., Groenewegen, L.: A methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models. In: ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 186–195, ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O.P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., Linkman, S.: Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(1), 7–15 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University 33(2004), 1–26 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keele, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In: Technical Report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: The journey to business process compliance. Handbook of Research on BPM IGI Global, pp. 426–454 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bork, D., Karagiannis, D.: Model-driven development of multi-view modeling tools the MuVieMOT approach. In: ICSOFT-PT, 2014, pp. IS-11, IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yan, Z., Dijkman, R., Grefen, P.: Business process model repositories—framework and survey. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(4), 380–395 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Capturing variability in business process models: the Provop approach. J. Softw. Maint. Evolut. Res. Pract. 22(6–7), 519–546 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smirnov, S., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J.: Business process model abstraction based on behavioral profiles. In: Service-Oriented Computing, pp. 1–16, Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koliadis, G., Vranesevic, A., Bhuiyan, M., Krishna, A., Ghose, A.K.: A combined approach for supporting the business process model lifecycle (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gerth, C., Luckey, M., Kuster, J.M., Engels, G.: Detection of semantically equivalent fragments for business process model change management. In: IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, pp. 57–64, IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zemni, M.A., Mammar, A., Ben Hadj Alouane, N.: A behavior-aware systematic approach for merging business process fragments. In: 19th International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, pp. 194–197, IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pascalau, E., Awad, A., Sakr, S., Weske, M.: On maintaining consistency of process model variants. In: Business Process Management Workshops, pp. 289–300, Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient consistency measurement based on behavioral profiles of process models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 37(3), 410–429 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Koschmider, A., Blanchard, E.: User assistance for business process model decomposition. In: 1st IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, pp. 445–454 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koliadis, G., Ghose, A.: Verifying semantic business process models in inter-operation. In: IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, 2007, pp. 731–738 (2007)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Milani, F., Dumas, M., Ahmed, N., Matulevičius, R.: Modelling families of business process variants: a decomposition driven method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.1322 (2013)
  40. 40.
    Dijkman, R., Gfeller, B., Küster, J., Völzer, H.: Identifying refactoring opportunities in process model repositories. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53(9), 937–948 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., Yang, X.: Defining adaptation constraints for business process variants. In: Business Information Systems, pp. 145–156, Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rastrepkina, M.: Managing variability in process models by structural decomposition. In: Business Process Modeling Notation, pp. 106–113, Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pascalau, E., Rath, C.: Managing business process variants at eBay. In: Business Process Modeling Notation, pp. 91–105, Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bork, D., Buchmann, R., Karagiannis, D.: Preserving multi-view consistency in diagrammatic knowledge representation. In: Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management, pp. 177–182, Springer International Publishing (2015)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cheng-Leong, A., Li Pheng, K., Keng Leng, G.R.: IDEF*: a comprehensive modelling methodology for the development of manufacturing enterprise systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 37(17), 3839–3858 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chen-Burger, Y.H.: Knowledge sharing and inconsistency checking on multiple enterprise models. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Management and Organizational Memories Workshop, Seattle, Washington, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Koehler, J., Tirenni, G., Kumaran, S.: From business process model to consistent implementation: a case for formal verification methods. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference. Proceedings. Sixth International, pp. 96–106, IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Worzberger, R., Kurpick, T., Heer, T.: On correctness, compliance and consistency of process models. In: IEEE 17th Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, pp. 251–252, IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., Garcia-Banuelos, L., Käärik, R.: Aligning business process models. In: IEEE International EDOC Conference, pp. 45–53, IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.: On the discovery of preferred work practice through business process variants. In: Conceptual Modeling-ER, pp. 165–180, Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gulden, J., Frank, U.: MEMOCenterNG—a full-featured modeling environment for organization modeling and model-driven software development. In: 22nd International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Hammamet, Tunisia (2010)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Delen, D., Benjamin, P.C.: Towards a truly integrated enterprise modeling and analysis environment. Comput. Ind. 51(3), 257–268 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Leist, S., Zellner, G.: Evaluation of current architecture frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied computing, pp. 1546–1553, ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Shunk, D.L., Kim, J.I., Nam, H.Y.: The application of an integrated enterprise modeling methodology—FIDO—to supply chain integration modeling. Comput. Ind. Eng. 45(1), 167–193 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fang, X., Liu, L., Liu, X.: Analyzing the consistency of business process based on behavioral Petri Net. Int. J u- e-Serv. Sci. Technol. 8(2), 25–34 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: The ICoP framework: identification of correspondences between process models. In: 22nd International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Hammamet, Tunisia (2010)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Koubarakis, M., Plexousakis, D.: A formal framework for business process modelling and design. Inf. Syst. 27(5), 299–319 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M., Cardoso, J.: On a quest for good process models: the cross-connectivity metric. In: CAISE’2008, pp. 480–494, Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Martens, A.: Consistency between executable and abstract processes. In: e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service. Proceedings. The 2005 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 60-67, IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Behavioral consistency for B2B process integration. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 81–95, Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Fang, X., Wang, M., Yin, Z.: Behavior consistency analysis based on the behavior profile about transition multi-set of Petri Net. Przegląd Elektrotechniczny 89(1b), 171–173 (2013)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    De Medeiros, A.A., van der Aalst, W.M., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Quantifying process equivalence based on observed behavior. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 55–74 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J.: Perceived consistency between process models. Inf. Syst. 37(2), 80–98 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Niemann, M., Siebenhaar, M., Schulte, S., Steinmetz, R.: Comparison and retrieval of process models using related cluster pairs. Comput. Ind. 63(2), 168–180 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Förster, A., Engels, G.: Detecting and resolving process model differences in the absence of a change log. In: Business Process Management, pp. 244–260, Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph matching algorithms for business process model similarity search. In: Business Process Management, pp. 48–63, Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Van der Aalst, W.M., De Medeiros, A.A., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Process equivalence: Comparing two process models based on observed behavior. pp. 129–144, Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: Discovering reference process models by mining process variants. In: IEEE International Conference on Web Services, pp. 45–53, IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Nurcan, S., Rolland, C.: Using EKD-CMM electronic guide book for managing change in organisations. In: Proceedings of the 9th European–Japanese Conference on Information Modeling and Knowledge Bases, Iwate, Japan, pp. 105–123 (1999)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Daoudi, F., Nurcan, S.: A benchmarking framework for methods to design flexible business processes. Special issue of the Software Process: Improvement and Practice. J. Bus. Process Manag. Dev. Support 12(1), 51–63 (2007)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bhave, A., Krogh, B.H., Garlan, D., Schmerl, B.: View consistency in architectures for cyber-physical systems. In: 2011 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS), pp. 151–160, IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Qureshi, T.N.: Enhancing model-based development of embedded systems architecture-centric modeling, simulation and model-transformation in an automotive context (2012)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rosemann, M., Recker, J.C.: Context-aware process design: Exploring the extrinsic drivers for process flexibility. In: The 18th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Proceedings of Workshops and Doctoral Consortium, pp. 149–158, Namur University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Saidani, O., Nurcan, S.: Towards context aware business process modelling. In: 8th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support (BPMDS’07), CAiSE, vol. 7, p. 1 (2007)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Saidani, O., Nurcan, S.: A role-based approach for modeling flexible business processes. BPMDS 6, 111–120 (2006)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Yousfi, A., Dey, A.K., Saidi, R., Hong, J.H.: Introducing decision-aware BPs. Comput. Ind. 70, 13–22 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rosemann, M., Recker, J.C., Flender, C., Ansell, P.D.: Understanding context-awareness in business process design (2006)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Awadid, A., Nurcan, S.: A systematic literature review of consistency among business process models. In: International Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support, pp. 175–195, Springer International Publishing (2016)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Barrios, J., Nurcan, S.: Model driven architectures for enterprise information systems. In: International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 3–19, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Riga, Lettonie (2004)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Awadid, A., Nurcan, S.: Towards enhancing business process modeling formalisms of EKD with consistency consideration. In: 2016 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), Grenoble, France, pp. 1–12, IEEE(2016)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Branco, M.C., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K., Küster, J., Völzer, H.: A case study on consistency management of business and IT process models in banking. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 913–940 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Küster, J., Völzer, H., Favre, C., Branco, M.C., Czarnecki, K.: Supporting different process views through a shared process model. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(4), 1207–1233 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Johannsen, F., Leist, S., Braunnagel, D.: Testing the impact of wand and Weber’s decomposition model on process model understandability (2014)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Branco, M.C., Wider, A.: Generating preliminary edit lenses from automatic pattern discovery in business process modeling. In: CAiSE Forum, pp. 65–72 (2013)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Song, W., Zhang, W., Zhang, G., Ding, J., Zhang, X.: Quantifying consistency between conceptual and executable business processes. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC), pp. 9–16, IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Xing, J., Zhang, X., Song, W., Yang, Q., Ge, J., Wang, H.: BPEL Similarity—a metric based on activity constraint graphs. In: Asia-Pacific Conference on Business Process Management, pp. 39–55. Springer International Publishing (2013)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    ALMEIDA CASTELO BRANCO, M.O.I.S.E.S.: Managing Consistency of Business Process Models across Abstraction Levels (2014)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Letsholo, K.J., Chioasca, E.V., Zhao, L.: An integrative approach to support multi-perspective business process modeling. Int. J. Serv. Comput. 2(1), 11–24 (2014)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Dey, A.K.: Understanding and using context. Int. J. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 5(1), 4–7 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zimmermann, A., Lorenz, A., Oppermann, R.: An Operational definition of context. In: International and Indisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT 07), pp. 558–571, Springer (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CRI, University of Paris 1 Pantheon-SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations