Reuse vs. Reusability of Software Supporting Business Processes

  • Hermann KaindlEmail author
  • Roman Popp
  • Ralph Hoch
  • Christian Zeidler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9679)


Reusing software is desirable, and so is reusing business processes. For reusing both in the course of developing software supporting business processes, an integration of related reuse approaches is necessary. Of course, such reuse is not for free and requires reusability of related artefacts, i.e., business process models and software parts supporting them. For successful reuse, of course, trade-offs with making artefacts reusable (or acquiring them) have to be beneficial.

In this paper, we present an integration of business process and software reuse and reusability (R&R). Based on it, we compare trade-offs between making reusable and reusing in the context of developing software supporting business processes. As a consequence, it should become easier to make rational judgments on whether and how to engage in R&R of such software.


Reuse and reusability Business process Business software 



Part of this research has been carried out in the ProREUSE project (No. 834167), funded by the Austrian FFG.


  1. 1.
    Angles, R., Ramadour, P., Cauvet, C., Rodier, S.: V-BPMI: A variability-oriented framework for web-based business processes modeling and implementation. In: 2013 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 1–11, May 2013Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph matching algorithms for business process model similarity search. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03848-8_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elias, M., Johannesson, P.: A survey of process model reuse repositories. In: Dua, S., Gangopadhyay, A., Thulasiraman, P., Straccia, U., Shepherd, M., Stein, B. (eds.) ICISTM 2012. CCIS, vol. 285, pp. 64–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29166-1_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frakes, W., Terry, C.: Software reuse: metrics and models. ACM Comput. Surv. 28(2), 415–435 (1996). doi: 10.1145/234528.234531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoch, R., Kaindl, H., Popp, R., Zeidler, C.: Aligning architectures of business and software: software driven by business process models and its user interface. In: Proceedings of the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2016. IEEE Computer Society (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hurtado Alegría, J.A., Bastarrica, M.C., Quispe, A., Ochoa, S.F.: An MDE approach to software process tailoring. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Software and Systems Process, ICSSP 2011, pp. 43–52, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2011).
  7. 7.
    Kaindl, H., Śmiałek, M., Nowakowski, W.: Case-based reuse with partial requirements specifications. In: 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2010), pp. 399–400, IEEE, New York, NY, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaindl, H., Mannion, M.: A feature-similarity model for product line engineering. In: Schaefer, I., Stamelos, I. (eds.) ICSR 2015. LNCS, vol. 8919, pp. 34–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14130-5_3 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markovic, I., Pereira, A.C.: Towards a formal framework for reuse in business process modeling. In: ter Hofstede, A., Benatallah, B., Paik, H.-Y. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4928, pp. 484–495. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mohr, F.: A metric for functional reusability of services. In: Schaefer, I., Stamelos, I. (eds.) ICSR 2015. LNCS, vol. 8919, pp. 298–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14130-5_21 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., Van Der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Mendling, J.: From business process models to process-oriented software systems. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 19(1), 2:1–2:37 (2009). doi: 10.1145/1555392.1555395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Popp, R., Kaindl, H.: Automated adaptation of business process models through model transformations specifying business rules. In: Nurcan, S., Pimenidis, E., Pastor, O., Vassiliou, Y. (eds.) Joint Proceedings of the CAiSE 2014 Forum and CAiSE 2014 Doctoral Consortium Co-located with the 26th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2014), Thessaloniki, Greece, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1164, pp. 65–72., 18–20 June 2014.
  13. 13.
    Popp, R., Kaindl, H.: Automated refinement of business processes through model transformations specifying business rules. In: 9th IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2015, Athens, Greece, pp. 327–333. IEEE, 13–15 May 2015.
  14. 14.
    Rotaru, O., Dobre, M.: Reusability metrics for software components. In: The 3rd ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications, p. 24 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sametinger, J.: Software Engineering with Reusable Components. Springer, New York (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shahzad, K., Elias, M., Johannesson, P.: Requirements for a business process model repository: a stakeholders’ perspective. In: Abramowicz, W., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) BIS 2010. LNBIP, vol. 47, pp. 158–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12814-1_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yan, Z., Dijkman, R., Grefen, P.: Business process model repositories - framework and survey. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(4), 380–395 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hermann Kaindl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roman Popp
    • 1
  • Ralph Hoch
    • 1
  • Christian Zeidler
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Computer TechnologyTU WienViennaAustria
  2. 2.Adaptive GmbHViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations