We Still Don’t Know How Much BPMN Is Enough, But We Are Getting Closer

  • Michael zur MuehlenEmail author
  • Jan Recker


Process models expressed in BPMN typically rely on a small subset of all available symbols. In our 2008 study, we examined the composition of these subsets, and found that the distribution of BPMN symbols in practice closely resembles the frequency distribution of words in natural language. We offered some suggestions based on our findings, how to make the use of BPMN more manageable and also outlined ideas for further development of BPMN. Since this paper was published it has provoked spirited debate in the BPM practitioner community, prompted the definition of a modeling standard in US government, and helped shape the next generation of the BPMN standard.


  1. 1.
    Chen, C., Song, I.-Y., Yuan, X., Zhang, J.: The Thematic and Citation Landscape of Data and Knowledge Engineering (1985–2007). Data & Knowledge Engineering 67 (2008) 234–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and Analysis of Business Process Models in BPMN. Information and Software Technology 50 (2008) 1281–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lassen, K.B., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Complexity Metrics for Workflow Nets Information and Software Technology 51 (2009) 610–626Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: Mining Business Process Variants: Challenges, Scenarios, Algorithms. Data & Knowledge Engineering 70 (2011) 409–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Monsalve, C., Abran, A., April, A.: Measuring Software Functional Size from Business Process Models. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 21 (2011) 311–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Recker, J.: Opportunities and Constraints: The Current Struggle with BPMN. Business Process Management Journal 16 (2010) 181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business Process Modeling: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10 (2009) 333–363Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robey, D., Markus, M.L.: Beyond Rigor and Relevance: Producing Consumable Research about Information Systems. Information Resource Management Journal 11 (1998) 7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swanson, E.B.: Information System Implementation: Bridging the Gap Between Design and Utilization. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    White, S.A., Miers, D.: BPMN Modeling and Reference Guide. Lighthouse Point, Florida, Future Strategies (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style, 2nd Edition, with BPMN Implementer's Guide: A structured approach for business process modeling and implementation using BPMN 2.0. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos, CA (2011).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN 2.0). OMG Specification dtc/11-01-03. Framingham, MA (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    WfMC: XML Process Definition Language (XPDL), WfMC Standards. WFMC-TC-1025,, 2001.
  14. 14.
    van Der Aalst, W. M., Ter Hofstede, A. H., Kiepuszewski, B., & Barros, A. P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 14 (2003) 1, 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Howe School of Technology Management, Stevens Institute of TechnologyHobokenUSA
  2. 2.Information Systems SchoolQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations