Modelling Sensible Business Processes

  • David Simões
  • Nguyen Hoang Thuan
  • Lalitha Jonnavithula
  • Pedro AntunesEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9446)


In this paper we develop the concept of sensible business process, which appears in opposition to the more traditional concept of mechanistic business process that is currently supported by most business process modelling languages and tools. A sensible business process is founded on a rich model and affords predominant human control. Having developed a modelling tool supporting this concept, in this paper we report on a set of experiments with the tool. The obtained results show that sensible business processes (1) capture richer information about business processes; (2) contribute to knowledge sharing in organisations; and (3) support better process models.


Sensible processes Process stories Business process modelling Business process management 


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.: Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw. Eng. 2013, 1–37 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ko, R., Lee, S., Lee, E.: Business process management (BPM) standards: a survey. Bus. Process Manag. J. 15(5), 744–791 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antunes, P., Mourão, H.: Resilient business process management: framework and services. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(2), 1241–1254 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mourão, H., Antunes, P.: Supporting effective unexpected exceptions handling in workflow management systems. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Special Track on Organizational Engineering, Seoul, Korea. ACM Press, pp. 1242–1249 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sadiq, S., Orlowska, M., Sadiq, W.: Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. Inf. Syst. 30(5), 349–378 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.: Joint Cognitive Systems: Introduction to Cognitive Systems Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Antunes, P., Zurita, G., Baloian, N., Sapateiro, C.: Integrating decision-making support in geocollaboration tools. Group Decis. Negot. 23(2), 211–233 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klein, G.: Naturalistic decision making. Hum. Factors 50(3), 456–460 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S.: BPM and social software. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) Business Process Management Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 649–658. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Antunes, P., Simões, D., Carriço, L., Pino, J.: An end-user approach to business process modeling. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 36(6), 1466–1479 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part B. Bus. Process Manag. J. 12(3), 377–384 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A.: Bpmn: an introduction to the standard. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 34, 124–134 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W., Hofstede, A., Wohed, P.: On the suitability of Uml 2.0 activity diagrams for Bp modelling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling. Australian Computer Society, Inc., pp. 95–104 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mayer, R.: IDEF0 Function Modeling. Air Force Systems Command (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andrews, T., Curbera, F., Dholakia, H., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Liu, K., Roller, D., Smith, D., Thatte, S., Trickovic, I., Weerawarana, S.: Business process execution language for web services version 1.1. BEA, IBM, Microsoft, SAP, Siebel (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shapiro, R.: Xpdl 2.0: integrating process interchange and Bpmn. In: Fischer, L. (ed.) Workflow Handbook, pp. 183–194. Future Strategies Inc, Lighthouse Point (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Momotko, M., Subieta, K.: Process query language: a way to make workflow processes more flexible. In: Benczúr, A.A., Demetrovics, J., Gottlob, G. (eds.) ADBIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3255, pp. 306–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schulte, S., Janiesch, C., Venugopal, S., Weber, I., Hoenisch, P.: Elastic business process management: state of the art and open challenges for BPM in the cloud. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 46, 36–50 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cabitza, F., Simone, C.: Computational coordination mechanisms: a tale of a struggle for flexibility. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 22(4–6), 475–529 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silva, A., Rosemann, M.: Processpedia: an ecological environment for BPM stakeholders’ collaboration. Bus. Process Manag. J. 18(1), 20–42 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kabicher-Fuchs, S., Rinderle-Ma, S., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Charoy, F., Christiaanse, R., Mendling, J.: Human-centric process-aware information systems (Hc-Pais) (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reason, J.: Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate, England (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Antunes, P.: BPM and exception handling: focus on organizational resilience. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 41(3), 383–392 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCarty, W.: Modeling: a study in words and meanings. A Companion to Digital Humanities, pp. 254–270. Blackwell, Malden (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle, S.: Change patterns and change support features – enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data Knowl. Eng. 66(3), 438–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCormack, J., Dorin, A., Innocent, T.: Generative design: a paradigm for design research. In: Proceedings of Futureground, Design Research Society, Melbourne (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Antunes, P., Ferreira, A.: Developing collaboration awareness support from a cognitive perspective. In: Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, 2011. IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Antunes, P., Herskovic, V., Ochoa, S., Pino, J.: Reviewing the quality of awareness support in collaborative applications. J. Syst. Softw. 89, 146–169 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: The design theory Nexus. MIS Q. 38, 731–755 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simões, D., Antunes, P., Pino, J.: Humanistic approach to the representation of business processes. In: 16th IEEE International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), Wuhan, China. IEEE, pp. 655–665 (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Santoro, F., Borges, M., Pino, J.: Acquiring knowledge on business processes from stakeholders’ stories. Adv. Eng. Inform. 24, 138–148 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Denning, S.: The springboard: how storytelling ignites action in knowledge-era organizations. J. Organ. Change Manag. 14(6), 609–614 (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Antunes, P., Herskovic, V., Ochoa, S., Pino, J.: Modeling highly collaborative processes. In: Shen, W., Li, W., Barthès, J. et al. (eds.) 17th IEEE International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), Whistler, BC, Canada. IEEE, pp. 184–189 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Simões, D., Antunes, P., Cranefield, J.: Enriching knowledge in business process modelling: a storytelling approach. In: Razmerita, L., Phillips-Wren, G., Jain, L. (eds.) Innovations in Knowledge Management: The Impact of Social Media, Semantic Web and Cloud Computing. Springer, Germany (2016)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Trkman, P.: The critical success factors of business process management. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 30(2), 125–134 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kolb, J., Zimoch, M., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: How social distance of process designers affects the process of process modeling: insights from a controlled experiment. In: 29th Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2014), Enterprise Engineering Track, Gyeongju, South Korea (24–28 March 2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kovacic, A.: Business renovation: business rules (still) the missing link. Bus. Process Manag. J. 10(2), 158–170 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Ontological analysis of integrated process models: testing hypotheses. Aust. J. Inf. Syst. 9(1), 30–38 (2001)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Caetano, A., Silva, A., Tribolet, J.: Using roles and business objects to model and understand business processes. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM symposium on Applied computing, Santa Fe, New Mexico. ACM, pp. 1308–1313 (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Riemer, K., Johnston, R., Indulska, M.: Questioning the philosophical foundations of business process modelling. In: Gregor, S. (ed.) Information Systems Foundations: Theorising in a Dynamic Discipline, pp. 1–16. ANU E Press, Canberra (2014)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Recker, J.: A socio-pragmatic constructionist framework for understanding quality in process modelling. Aust. J. Inf. Syst. 14(2), 43–62 (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Recker, J.: Activity labeling in process modeling: empirical insights and recommendations. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 467–482 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Simões
    • 1
  • Nguyen Hoang Thuan
    • 2
  • Lalitha Jonnavithula
    • 2
  • Pedro Antunes
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of SciencesUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.School of Information ManagementVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations