Business Process Modeling for Organizational Knowledge Management

  • Luca Abeti
  • Paolo Ciancarini
  • Rocco Moretti
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5065)


The growing complexity of a networked and information-dependent economy requires the innovation of the adopted processes together with their related services. In particular, many Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME’s) currently base their organizational models in a resource-centric view rather than in a knowledge-based organizational model which is a fundamental bound to their innovation capabilities. This paper presents a framework for organizational knowledge management. Our approach is based on Business Process Modeling (BPM), that is the main modeling practice connecting the management and engineering disciplines in software development. The aim is to present how the software requirements analysis can help in formalizing and sharing the knowledge concerning the business processes. Besides, we show how the service and ontology abstractions can be useful for software development.


Business Process Object Management Group Execution Business Process Language Model Drive Architecture Business Process Modeling Notation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abeti, L., Ciancarini, P., Moretti, R.: Service oriented software engineering for modeling agents and services in Grid systems. Multiagent and Grid Systems Journal 2(2), 135–148 (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adamides, E., Karacapilidis, N.: A knowledge centred framework for collaborative business process modeling. Business Process Management Journal 12(5), 557–575 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allilaire, F., Idrissi, T.: ADT: Eclipse development tools for ATL. In: Akehurst, D. (ed.) 2nd European Workshop on Model Driven Architecture (MDA) with an emphasis on Methodologies and Transformations (EWMDA-2), Canterbury, UK, pp. 171–178. The Computing Laboratory (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    BEA Systems International Business Machines Corporation and Microsoft Corporation. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL4WS) specifications (May 2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benatallah, B., Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., Maamar, Z.: Service Composition: Concepts, Techniques, Tools, and Trends. In: Stojanovic, Z., Dahanayake, A. (eds.) Service-Oriented Software System Engineering: Challenges and Practices, ch. 3, pp. 68–87. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berztiss, A.T., Bubenko, J.A.: A software process model for business reengineering. In: Proceedings of Information Systems Development for Decentralized Organizations (ISDO 1995), an IFIP 8.1 Working Conference, Norwell, MA, USA, August 1995, pp. 184–200. Chapman & Hall - Kluwer Academic Publishers (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruni, R., Lafuente, A., Montanari, U., Tuosto, E.: Service oriented architectural design. In: Barthe, G., Fournet, C. (eds.) TGC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4912, pp. 186–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruni, R., Lafuente, A., Montanari, U., Tuosto, E.: Style based reconfigurations of Software Architectures. Technical Report TR-07-17, Dipartimento di Informatica, University of Pisa (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bruni, R., Melgratti, H., Montanari, U.: Theoretical foundations for compensations in flow composition languages. In: POPL 2005: Proc. 32nd ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, vol. 40, pp. 209–220. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buscemi, M., Montanari, U.: CC-Pi: a constraint-based language for specifying Service Level Agreements. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 18–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davenport, T.: Process Innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML is used. Communications of the ACM 49(5), 109–113 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferrari, G.L., Hirsch, D., Lanese, I., Montanari, U., Tuosto, E.: Synchronised Hyperedge Replacement as a Model for Service Oriented Computing. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 22–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghezzi, C.: Software Engineering: Emerging Goals and Lasting Problems. In: Baresi, L., Heckel, R. (eds.) FASE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3922, Springer, Vienna, Austria (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giorgini, P., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J., Pistore, M.: The Tropos methodology: an overview. In: Gleizes, M.P., Bergenti, F., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) Methodologies And Software Engineering For Agent Systems, ch. 5, pp. 89–105. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Norwell, MA, USA (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hammer, M.: Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business Review 68(4), 104–112 (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hirsch, D., Montanari, U.: Consistent transformations for software architecture styles of distributed systems. In: Stefanescu, G. (ed.) Workshop on Distributed Systems. ENTCS, vol. 28, p. 4 (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kolp, M., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Organizational patterns for early requirements analysis. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 617–632. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 3rd edn. The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Massacci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: An ontology for secure socio-technical systems. In: IGI Global (ed.) Handbook of Ontologies for Business Interaction. Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, USA, vol. 1, p. 469 (December 2007) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Montanari, U.: Web Services and Models of Computation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 105, 5–9 (2004) (invited talk)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morecroft, J.: Mental models and learning in system dynamics practice. In: Michael (ed.) Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice, ch. 7, pp. 101–126. John Wiley, Hoboken (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    OMG. Meta-Object Facility (MOF), v. 1.4 (March 2002),
  25. 25.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language (UML) specification v. 2 (2004),
  26. 26.
    OMG. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) specification v. 1.0 (2006),
  27. 27.
    Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS). Web Services Resource, 2005. Working Draft (2005),
  28. 28.
    Papazoglou, P., Yang, J.: Design methodology for web services and business processes. In: Buchmann, A., Casati, F., Fiege, L., Hsu, M.-C., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) TES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2444, pp. 175–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paulson, L.: Services Science: A New Field for Today’s Economy. IEEE Computer Magazine 39(8), 18–21 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tsai, W.T.: Service-oriented system engineering: A new paradigm. In: Service-Oriented System Engineering, 2005. SOSE 2005. IEEE International Workshop, Washington, DC, USA, October 2005, vol. 0, pp. 3–8. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Abeti
    • 1
  • Paolo Ciancarini
    • 2
  • Rocco Moretti
    • 2
  1. 1.IMT Institute for Advanced StudiesPiazza S.PonzianoLuccaItaly
  2. 2.CS DeptUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations