Advertisement

Abstract

The paper suggests using a business process canvas as a model of a process in a nutshell that presents the essential properties of the process and the context in which it is run, including the position of the process in the business process ecosystem. The canvas consists of three sections: positioning, operations and resources. A positioning section, called Outside, includes such components, as the purpose of the process existence, strategic goals (to be) achieved by having the process, related processes and mechanisms of initiation of new process instances. The operations sections, called Inside, gives an overview of the work of the process instance, and it includes such components as operational goal, milestones, main events and activities, outcomes and constraints. The resources section, called Resources, describes resources/assets used in the process instances, and includes such components, as participants, tools, methods, etc. The paper proposes a canvas layout, describes its components, and presents an example. In conclusion, the paper discusses areas where the canvas could be used in practice.

Keywords

BPM Business process Business process modeling Canvas Goal Context 

References

  1. 1.
    Hoverstadt, P.: Why business should take enterprise architecture seriously. In: Gøtze, J., Jensen-Waud, A. (eds.) Beyond Alignment: Applying Systems Thinking in Architecting Enterprises, pp. 55–166. College Publications, London (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bider, I.: State-oriented business process modeling: principles, theory and practice (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bider, I., Perjons, E., Elias, M., Johannesson, P.: A fractal enterprise model and its application for business development. Softw. Syst. Model. 16, 663–689 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkman, R., Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A.: Business process architectures: overview, comparison and framework. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 10, 129–158 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green, S., Ould, M.: A framework for classifying and evaluating process architecture methods. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 10, 415–425 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koliadis, G., Ghose, A.K., Padmanabhuni, S.: Towards an enterprise business process architecture standard. In: 2008 IEEE Congress on Services - Part I, Honolulu, HI, USA, pp. 239–246. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Clark, T.: Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bijl, M., Devlin, J.P., Ruting, D.: Process Model Canvas. http://www.processmodelcanvas.com/
  10. 10.
    Campbell, A., Gutierrez, M., Lancelott, M.: Operating Model Canvas: Aligning Operations and Organization with Strategy. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alter, S.: Work system theory: overview of core concepts, extensions, and challenges for the future. JAIS 14, 72–121 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Business Process Design Templates. http://klariti.com/business-process-design-template/
  13. 13.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bider, I., Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: Design science research as movement between individual and generic situation-problem–solution spaces. In: Baskerville, R., De Marco, M., Spagnoletti, P. (eds.) Designing Organizational Systems, pp. 35–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33371-2_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawson, H.W.: A Journey Through the Systems Landscape. College Publications, London (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bider, I., Kowalski, S.: A framework for synchronizing human behavior, processes and support systems using a socio-technical approach. In: Bider, I., Gaaloul, K., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD 2014. LNBIP, vol. 175, pp. 109–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43745-2_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elias, M., Shahzad, K., Johannesson, P.: A business process metadata model for a process model repository. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD 2010. LNBIP, vol. 50, pp. 287–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Markovic, I., Kowalkiewicz, M.: Linking business goals to process models in semantic business process modeling. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, Munich, Germany, pp. 332–338. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kueng, P., Kawalek, P.: Goal-based business process models: creation and evaluation. Bus. Process Manag. J. 3, 17–38 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vasconcelos, A., Caetano, A., Neves, J., Sinogas, P., Mendes, R., Tribolet, J.: A framework for modeling strategy, business processes and information systems. In: Proceedings Fifth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 69–80. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bider, I., Bellinger, G., Perjons, E.: Modeling an agile enterprise: reconciling systems and process thinking. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) PoEM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 238–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24849-8_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu, E.S.K., Mylopoulos, J.: Using goals, rules, and methods to support reasoning in business process reengineering. In: 1994 Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Wailea, HI, USA, pp. 234–243. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ouali, S., Mhiri, M., Bouzguenda, L.: A multidimensional knowledge model for business process modeling. Procedia Comput. Sci. 96, 654–663 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33143-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salgado, C.E., Teixeira, J., Machado, R.J., Maciel, R.S.P.: Generating a business model canvas through elicitation of business goals and rules from process-level use cases. In: Johansson, B., Andersson, B., Holmberg, N. (eds.) BIR 2014. LNBIP, vol. 194, pp. 276–289. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11370-8_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eijndhoven, T. van, Iacob, M.-E., Ponisio, M.L.: Achieving business process flexibility with business rules. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, Munich, Germany, pp. 95–104. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Evaluating adequacy of business process modeling approaches. In: Wang, M., Sun, Z. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Complex Dynamic Process Management: Techniques for Adaptability in Turbulent Environments, pp. 79–102. IGI Global, Hershey (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koutsopoulos, G., Bider, I.: Teaching and learning state-oriented business process modeling. experience report. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Gulden, J., Nurcan, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD 2017. LNBIP, vol. 287, pp. 171–185. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59466-8_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harmony Online Consultation Project – A ST Transformer Project for Harmony Inside. http://harmonyproject.blogs.dsv.su.se/
  30. 30.
    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).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16373-9_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Glória Júnior, I., Gonçalves, R.F.: The identification of the professional profile that uses canvas approach. In: Nääs, I., Vendrametto, O., Reis, J.M., Gonçalves, R.F., Silva, M.T., von Cieminski, G., Kiritsis, D. (eds.) APMS 2016. IAICT, vol. 488, pp. 544–551. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51133-7_65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morris, W.T.: On the art of modeling. Manag. Sci. 13, B707–B717 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DSVStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations