Advertisement

Toward a methodology for case modeling

  • Marcin Hewelt
  • Luise PufahlEmail author
  • Sankalita Mandal
  • Felix Wolff
  • Mathias Weske
Special Section Paper
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Case management is increasingly used to capture and enact flexible, knowledge-intensive processes in organizations. None of the existing case management approaches provides a methodology for case model elicitation and modeling. In this contribution, three modeling methods for fragment-based case management are presented: one which focuses on the control-flow view, the process-first method, one which has a data-centric view, the object lifecycle-first method, and one which focuses on the goals of a case, the goals-first method. Following the design science process, each of the three methods was evaluated in two case modeling workshops with two different stakeholder groups (PhD students and secretaries), resulting in a total of six workshops. All participants were novices in case management and most of them as well in process modeling. The results indicate that the process-first method can be quickly learned by novices and it might be useful for scenarios where the focus is on the main process with some degree of flexibility. The object lifecycle-first method yields more flexible and consistent case models, but requires a higher initial modeling effort, as the lifecycle of the main case object has to be designed first. The goals-first method leads to a detailed and consistent case model and additionally provides, by means of the defined goals, a checklist what needs to be done for a case. This method requires in addition to the process modeling notation another model type, the goal hierarchy, and therefore is less suited for novice modelers, as found by the workshop results.

Keywords

Case management Goal modeling Object lifecycle Process elicitation Process modeling t.BPM 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Antunes, P., Simões, D., Carriço, L., Pino, J.A.: An end-user approach to business process modeling. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 36(6), 1466–1479 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyer, J., Kuhn, P., Hewelt, M., Mandal, S., Weske, M.: Unicorn meets chimera: integrating external events into case management. In: Proceedings of the BPM Demo Track, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1789, pp. 67–72. CEUR-WS.org (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhattacharya, K., Hull, R., Su, J.: A data-centric design methodology for business processes. In: Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling. IGI Global, pp 503–531 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-288-6.ch023
  4. 4.
    Ciccio, C.D., Marrella, A., Russo, A.: Knowledge-intensive processes: characteristics, requirements and analysis of contemporary approaches. J. Data Semant. 4, 29–57 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Gailly, F., Grefen, P., Poels, G.: The structured process modeling theory (SPMT) a cognitive view on why and how modelers benefit from structuring the process of process modeling. Inf. Syst. Front. 17(6), 1401–1425 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9585-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Gailly, F., Grefen, P., Poels, G.: Towards a structured process modeling method: Building the prescriptive modeling theory (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Combi, C., Oliboni, B., Zardini, A., Zerbato, F.: A methodological framework for the integrated design of decision-intensive care pathways—an application to the management of COPD patients. J. Healthc. Inform. Res. 1(2), 157–217 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41666-017-0007-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management, vol. 1. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Felder, R.M., Silverman, L.K.: Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng. Educ. 78, 674–681 (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Front, A., Rieu, D., Santorum, M., Movahedian, F.: A participative end-user method for multi-perspective business process elicitation and improvement. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(3), 691–714 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gonzalez-Lopez, F., Pufahl, L.: A landscape for case models. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Zdravkovic, J., Gulden, J., Schmidt, R. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, pp. 87–102. Springer, Berlin (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haarmann, S., Podlesny, N., Hewelt, M., Meyer, A., Weske, M.: Production case management: a prototypical process engine to execute flexible business processes. In: Proceedings of the BPM Demo Session, (BPM 2015), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1418, pp. 110–114. CEUR-WS.org (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hewelt, M., Weske, M.: A hybrid approach for flexible case modeling and execution. In: Business Process Management Forum - BPM Forum 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 18–22, 2016, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP), vol. 260, pp. 38–54. Springer (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45468-9_3 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hewelt, M., Wolff, F., Mandal, S., Pufahl, L., Weske, M.: Towards a methodology for case model elicitation. In: Gulden, J., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Schmidt, R., Guerreiro, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 318, pp. 181–195. Springer (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91704-7_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Künzle, V., Reichert, M.: PHILharmonicFlows: towards a framework for object-aware process management. J. Softw. Maint. Evolut. Res. Pract. 23(4), 205–244 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.524 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kueng, P., Kawalek, P.: Goal-based business process models: creation and evaluation. Business Process Manag. J. 3, 17–38 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lapouchnian, A.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an overview of the current research. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lapouchnian, A., Yu, Y., Mylopoulos, J.: Requirements-driven design and configuration management of business processes. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Business Process Management, pp. 246–261. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lübbe, A.: Tangible business process modeling. Dissertation, Universität Potsdam (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1109/52.268955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marin, M.A., Hauder, M., Matthes, F.: Case Management: An Evaluation of Existing Approaches for Knowledge-Intensive Processes. In: Business Process Management Workshops, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meyer, A., Weske, M.: Activity-centric and artifact-centric process model roundtrip. In: International Conference on Business Process Management, pp. 167–181. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moody, D.: The Method Evaluation Model: A Theoretical Model for Validating Information Systems Design Methods. ECIS 2003 Proceedings (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 428–445 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.423.0428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/ (2011)
  28. 28.
    OMG: Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN) 1.0. standard formal/2014-05-05, Object Management Group (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oppl, S., Alexopoulou, N.: Linking natural modeling to techno-centric modeling for the active involvement of process participants in business process design. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Design (IJISMD) 7(2), 1–30 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model. Softw. Syst. Model. 14(3), 1055–1080 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-013-0349-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosemann, M., Hjalmarsson, A., Lind, M., Recker, J.C.: Four facets of a process modeling facilitator. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–16. Association for Information Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., Weerdt, J.D.: Process mining analysis of conceptual modeling behavior of novices—empirical study using jmermaid modeling and experimental logging environment. Comput. Human Behavior 41, 486–503 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Turetken, O., Demirors, O.: Plural: a decentralized business process modeling method. Inf. Manag. 48(6), 235–247 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Data Science in Action, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Barthelmess, P., Ellis, C., Wainer, J.: Proclets: a framework for lightweight interacting workflow processes. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 10(04), 443–481 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl. Eng. 53(2), 129–162 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2004.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wieringa, R.J.: Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations