Towards a Decision-Support System for Selecting the Appropriate Business Process Modeling Formalism: A Context-Aware Roadmap

  • Afef AwadidEmail author
  • Selmin Nurcan
  • Sonia Ayachi Ghannouchi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 287)


Business Process Modeling (BPM) is the cornerstone of the Business Process Management field, which has become a crucial topic in the competitiveness of enterprise information systems. The importance of BPM to Business Process Management can be justified by the serious problems, which may arise in the latter, if the former is not conducted correctly. This can take place, inter alia, when an inappropriate choice of a BPM formalism for a given BPM context has been made. Such an improper choice is due not only to the availability of a huge number of BPM formalisms but also to the lack of guidelines assisting in the selection process. Our aim in this paper, is to propose a context-aware roadmap with associated methodological guidelines underpinning the selection of the appropriate BPM formalism. To this end, a systematic literature review (SLR) of studies on BPM formalisms quality has been undertaken. The contribution of this paper is threefold viz. the SLR itself, a context-aware roadmap, along with a context model inspired by the Zachman framework, and is a first step towards a decision support system for selecting the appropriate BPM formalism.


BPM formalism Context-aware selection Methodological guidelines SLR Context model Roadmap 


  1. 1.
    Campos, C.S., Daher, S.F.D., Almeida, A.T.: New patents on business process management information systems and decision support. Recent Pat. Comput. Sci. 4(2), 91–97 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aldin, L., de Cesare, S.: A comparative analysis of business process modelling techniques. In: Proceedings of the UK Academy for Information Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li, Y., Cao, B., Xu, L., Yin, J., Deng, S., Yin, Y., Wu, Z.: An efficient recommendation method for improving business process modeling. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 10(1), 502–513 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tan, W., Xu, W., Yang, F., Xu, L., Jiang, C.: A framework for service enterprise workflow simulation with multi-agents cooperation. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 7(4), 523–542 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luo, W., Alex Tung, Y.: A framework for selecting business process modeling methods. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 99(7), 312–319 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geyer, R.W., Fourier, C.J.: Determining the suitability of a business process modelling technique for a particular application. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 26(1), 252–266 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glassey, O.: A case study on process modelling—three questions and three techniques. Decis. Support Syst. 44(4), 842–853 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A multi-model view of process modelling. Requir. Eng. 4(4), 169–187 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosemann, M., Recker, J.C.: Context-aware process design: exploring the extrinsic drivers for process flexibility. In: Proceedings of Workshops and Doctoral Consortium (CAISE 2006), pp. 149–158. Namur University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yousfi, A., Dey, A.K., Saidi, R., Hong, J.H.: Introducing decision-aware BPs. Comput. Ind. 70, 13–22 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pereira, J.L., Silva, D.: Business process modeling languages: a comparative framework. In: Rocha, Á., Correia, A., Adeli, H., Reis, L., Mendonça Teixeira, M. (eds.) New Advances in Information Systems and Technologies. AISCLNCS, vol. 444, pp. 619–628. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-31232-3_58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scanavachi Moreira Campos, A.C., de Almeida, A.T.: Multicriteria framework for selecting a process modelling language. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 10(1), 17–32 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giaglis, G.M.: A taxonomy of business process modeling and information systems modeling techniques. Int. J. Flex. Manuf. Syst. 13(2), 209–228 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distributed Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 16(11), 1282–1292 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 1–26. Keele University, Keele (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keele, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In: Technical report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical report. EBSE (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Birkmeier, D., Kloeckner, S., Overhage, S.: An empirical comparison of the usability of BPMN and UML activity diagrams for business users. In: ECIS, vol. 2 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Recker, J. C., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: How good is BPMN really? Insights from theory and practice (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Recker, J.C., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grossmann, G., Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Modelling and enforcement of inter-process dependencies with business process modelling languages. J. Res. Pract. Inf. Technol. 42(4), 289 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nysetvold, A.G., Krogstie, J.: Assessing business process modeling languages using a generic quality framework. Adv. Top. Database Res. 5, 79–93 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peixoto, D., Batista, V., Atayde, A., Borges, E., Resende, R., Pádua, C.I.P.S.: A comparison of BPMN and UML 2.0 activity diagrams. In: VII Simposio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software, vol. 56 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Recker, J.C., zur Muehlen, M., Siau, K., Erickson, J., Indulska, M.: Measuring method complexity: UML versus BPMN. Association for Information Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tangkawarow, I.R.H.T., Waworuntu, J.: A comparative of business process modelling techniques. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 128(1), p. 012010 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tsironis, L., Anastasiou, K., Moustakis, V.: A framework for BPML assessment and improvement: a case study using IDEF0 and eEPC. BPM J. 15(3), 430–461 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tsironis, L., Gentsos, A., Moustakis, V.: Empowerment the IDEF0 modeling language. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 3(5), 109 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patig, S., Casanova-Brito, V.: Requirements of process modeling languages-results from an empirical investigation. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik, vol. 39 (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Opitz, N., Erek, K., Langkau, T., Kolbe, L., Zarnekow, R.: Kick-starting green business process management–suitable modeling languages and key processes for green performance measurement (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nielen, A., Jeske, T., Schlick, C., Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Interdisciplinary assessment of process modeling languages applicable for small to medium-sized enterprises. In: 8th International Conference on Computing, Communications and Control Technologies: CCCT, pp. 47–52 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bertoni, M., Bordegoni, M., Cugini, U., Regazzoni, D., Rizzi, C.: PLM paradigm: how to lead BPR within the product development field. Comput. Ind. 60(7), 476–484 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ziemann, J., Matheis, T., Freiheit, J.: Modelling of cross-organizational business processes-current methods and standards. EMISA, 87–100 (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Söderström, E., Andersson, B., Johannesson, P., Perjons, E., Wangler, B.: Towards a framework for comparing process modelling languages. In: Pidduck, A.B., Ozsu, M.T., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 600–611. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-47961-9_41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wahl, T., Sindre, G.: An analytical evaluation of BPMN using a semiotic quality framework. Adv. Top. Database Res. 5, 94–105 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1532–1539. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Russell, N., Aalst, W., Hofstede, A.: Workflow exception patterns. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 288–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11767138_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling-a comparative analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10(4), 1 (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Johansson, L.O., Wärja, M., Carlsson, S.: An evaluation of business process model techniques, using Moody’s quality criterion for a good diagram. In: BIR12. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.Org, vol. 963 (2012)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mili, H., Tremblay, G., Jaoude, G.B.: Business process modeling languages: sorting through the alphabet soup. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 43(1), 4 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kelemen, Z.D., Kusters, R., Trienekens, J., Balla, K.: Selecting a process modeling language for process based unification of multiple standards and models. Technical report TR201304, Budapest (2013)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heidari, F., Loucopoulos, P., Brazier, F., Barjis, J.: A unified view of business process modelling languages 1 (2012) Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kock, N., Verville, J., Danesh-Pajou, A., DeLuca, D.: Communication flow orientation in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: results from a field study. Decis. Support Syst. 46(2), 562–575 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Aksu, F., Vanhoof, K., De Munck, L.: Evaluation and comparison of business process modeling methodologies for small and midsized enterprises. In: Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering (ISKE), pp. 664–667. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cortes-Cornax, M., Dupuy-Chessa, S., Rieu, D., Dumas, M.: Evaluating choreographies in BPMN 2.0 using an extended quality framework. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) BPMN 2011. LNBIP, vol. 95, pp. 103–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-25160-3_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Service interaction patterns: towards a reference framework for service-based business process interconnection. Faculty of IT, Queensland University of Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Genon, N., Heymans, P., Amyot, D.: Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 visual notation. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 377–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19440-5_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Awadid, A., Nurcan, S.: Towards enhancing business process modeling formalisms of EKD with consistency consideration. In: RCIS Conference. IEEE, Grenoble (2016)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Daoudi, F., Nurcan, S.: A benchmarking framework for methods to design flexible business processes. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 12(1), 51–63 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schalles, C., Creagh, J., Rebstock, M., Ave, R.: Exploring usability-driven differences of graphical modeling languages: an empirical research report (2012)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rima, A., Vasilecas, O., Šmaižys, A.: Comparative analysis of business rules and business process modeling languages. Comput. Sci. Tech. 1(1), 52–60 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Di Ciccio, C., Marrella, A., Russo, A.: Knowledge-intensive processes: an overview of contemporary approaches. In: 1st International Workshop on Knowledge-intensive Business Processes, KiBP 2012, Rome (2012)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Afrasiabi Rad, A., Benyoucef, M., Kuziemsky, C.E.: An evaluation framework for business process modeling languages in healthcare. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 4(2), 1–19 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jang, J., Fekete, A., Greenfield, P., Kuo, D.: Expressiveness of workflow description languages. In: ICWS, pp. 104–110 (2003)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mohammadi, M., Mukhtar, M.B.: Theoretical and conceptual approach for evaluation business process modelling languages. J. Converg. Inf. Technol. 8(4), 372–384 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Opdahl, A.L., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge–Wand–Weber model. Softw. Syst. Model. 1(1), 43–67 (2002)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Developing a meta model for the Bunge–Wand–Weber ontological constructs. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 75–91 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P.: A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of process modeling grammars. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 447–461. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11767138_30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Krogstie, J.: Ontology-versus pattern-based evaluation of process modeling languages: a comparison. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 20(1), 48 (2007)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.: Pattern based analysis of BPEL4WS. QUT Technical report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2002)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ou-Yang, C., Lin, Y.D.: BPMN-based business process model feasibility analysis: a petri net approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46(14), 3763–3781 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dussart, A., Aubert, B.A., Patry, M.: An evaluation of inter-organizational workflow modelling formalisms. J. Database Manag. (JDM) 15(2), 74–104 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Integrated process modeling: an ontological evaluation. Inf. Syst. 25(2), 73–87 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Green, P.F., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M.: Ontological evaluation of enterprise systems interoperability using ebXML. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 17(5), 713–725 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Manning, C.: Candidate interoperability standards: an ontological overlap analysis. Data Knowl. Eng. 62(2), 274–291 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(3), 301–326 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H., van der Aalst, W.M.: Fundamentals of control flow in workflows. Acta Inform. 39(3), 143–209 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Recker, J.C.: Why do we keep using a process modelling technique? (2007)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Recker, J.C., Indulska, M.: An ontology-based evaluation of process modeling with petri nets. IBIS – Internat. J. Interoperability Bus. Inf. Syst. 2(1), 45–64 (2007)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    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. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2006)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wohed, P., Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., Hofstede, A.H.M., Russell, N.: On the suitability of BPMN for business process modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11841760_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zur Muehlen, M., Indulska, M.: Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: a representational analysis. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 379–390 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    van der Aalst, W.M.: Patterns and xpdl: a critical evaluation of the xml process definition language. BPM Center report BPM-03-09,, pp. 1–30 (2003)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ning, K., Li, Q., Chen, Y.L.: Study of evaluation technology of business process modeling methods. Jisuanji Jicheng Zhizao Xitong/Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst. (China) 8(10), 792–796 (2002)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Eloranta, L., Kallio, E., Terho, I.: A notation evaluation of BPMN and UML activity diagrams. Special course in information systems (2006)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Saidani, O., Nurcan, S.: Towards context aware business process modelling. In: 8th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support (BPMDS 2007), CAiSE, vol. 7, p. 1 (2007)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods–a review and comparative analysis. Inf. Syst. J. 21(3), 249–268 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Krogstie, J.: Evaluating UML using a generic quality framework. In: Favre, L. (ed.) UML and the Unified Process. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2003)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    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
  80. 80.
    Wolfswinkel, J.F., Furtmueller, E., Wilderom, C.P.: Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(1), 45–55 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Afef Awadid
    • 1
    Email author
  • Selmin Nurcan
    • 1
  • Sonia Ayachi Ghannouchi
    • 2
  1. 1.CRI, University of Paris 1 Pantheon-SorbonneParisFrance
  2. 2.RIADI LaboratoryUniversity of ManoubaManoubaTunisia

Personalised recommendations