Multi-process Reporting and Analysis for Change Management and Performance Reviews

  • Mario Cortes-CornaxEmail author
  • Adrian MosEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 288)


Business process design and governance are two important phases of Business Process Management (BPM). They are however usually performed using tools that tend to be too generic and technical for most business analysts. For instance, they promote Business Intelligence (BI) mechanisms to extract reports for the analysis of the executed processes, but they typically focus on one process definition at a time. This approach has shortcomings in organisations where there are large collections of processes that need to be managed consistently. In previous work, we proposed the generation of domain-specific studios, in order to enable analysts to design their processes in a much more intuitive way than with generic languages. This work is a logical continuation through the addition of domain-specific multi-process reporting and analysis. By defining analytics metrics in a domain-specific space, analysts are able to make business performance reviews and manage change in ways that apply directly and quickly to entire collections of process. The appropriateness and the feasibility of the approach are shown through a detailed use-case and a complete prototype implementation.


Reporting BPM Change management DSL BI 


  1. 1.
    van der Aa, H., Leopold, H., Reijers, H.A.: Dealing with behavioral ambiguity in textual process descriptions. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 271–288. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.: Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw. Eng. 2013, 37 (2013). Article ID 507984. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dijkman, R.M., La Rosa, M., Reijers, H.A.: Managing large collections of business process models-current techniques and challenges. Comput. Ind. 63(2), 91–97 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eclipse-Fundation: Business Intelligence and Reporting Tools (BIRT) Project (2004).
  5. 5.
    Eclipse-Fundation: Xtext (2006).
  6. 6.
    Eclipse-Fundation: Sirius (2007).
  7. 7.
    Eclipse-Fundation: Mangrove (2009).
  8. 8.
    Jablonski, S., Volz, B., Dornstauder, S.: Evolution of business process models and languages. In: 2nd International Conference on Business Process and Services Computing (BPSC), pp. 46–59. Citeseer (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leopold, H., Smirnov, S., Mendling, J.: On the refactoring of activity labels in business process models. Inf. Syst. 37(5), 443–459 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mernik, M., Heering, J., Sloane, A.M.: When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 37(4), 316–344 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milani, F., Dumas, M., Ahmed, N., Matulevičius, R.: Modelling families of business process variants: a decomposition driven method. Inf. Syst. 56, 55–72 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mos, A.: Domain specific monitoring of business processes using concept probes. In: Toumani, F., et al. (eds.) ICSOC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8954, pp. 213–224. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-22885-3_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mos, A., Cortes-Cornax, M.: Business matter experts do matter: a model-driven approach for domain specific process design and monitoring. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNBIP, vol. 260, pp. 210–226. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45468-9_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mos, A., Cortes-Cornax, M.: Generating domain-specific process studios. In: 20th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp. 1–10. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mos, A., Jacquin, T.: A platform-independent mechanism for deployment of business processes using abstract services. In: 17th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW), pp. 71–78. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OMG: Business process model and notation (BPMN) version 2.0 (2011).
  17. 17.
    Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: How the structuring of domain knowledge helps casual process modelers. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 445–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16373-9_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part a. Bus. Process Manage. J. 12(2), 249–254 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosemann, M., Brocke, J.: The six core elements of business process management. In: Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1. IHIS, pp. 105–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_5 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style: A Levels-Based Methodology for BPM Process Modeling and Improvement Using BPMN 2.0. Cody-Cassidy Press, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Merks, E., Paternostro, M.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Pearson Education, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Refactoring large process model repositories. Comput. Ind. 62(5), 467–486 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Xerox Research Center EuropeMeylanFrance

Personalised recommendations