Integrating Process Modeling Methodology, Language and Tool – A Design Science Approach

  • Jörg Becker
  • Nico Clever
  • Justus Holler
  • Johannes Püster
  • Maria Shitkova
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 165)


Providing high quality process models in a timely manner can be of major impact on almost all process management projects. Modeling methodologies in the form of normative procedure models and process modeling guidelines are available to facilitate this cause. Modeling languages and according tools, however, do neglect the available methodologies. Our work searches to close this research gap by proposing a modeling environment that integrates insights from modeling methodologies with a modeling language and a tool. Main features are a simple modeling language that generalizes most existing languages, four layers of abstraction and semantic standardization through a glossary and use of attributes. Our approach allows for rapid preparation of modeling activities and ensures high model quality during all modeling phases, thus minimizing rework of the models. The prototype was evaluated and improved during two practical projects.


Business Process Modeling Business Process Modeling Tool Process Modeling Methodology Business Process Modeling Language 


  1. 1.
    Becker, J., Kahn, D.: The Process in Focus. In: Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes, pp. 3–13. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kettinger, W.J., Teng, J.T.C., Guha, S.: Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools. MIS Quarterly 21, 55–80 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M.: Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scheer, A.-W.: Aris - Business Process Modeling. Springer, Berlin (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murata, T.: Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 77, 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN),
  7. 7.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language (UML),
  8. 8.
    Gartner: Magic Quadrant for Business Process Management Suites (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven Process Modeling Guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology 52, 127–136 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. Business Process Management Journal 12, 249–254 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part B. Business Process Management Journal 12, 377–384 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling - A Research Agenda. Information Systems Research 13, 363–376 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24, 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly. 26, xiii–xxiii (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., Cleven, A.: Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search Process. In: Proceedings of the ECIS 2009, Verona, pp. 2206–2217 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allweyer, T.: Geschäftsprozessmanagement. W3L-Verlag, Herdecke (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmelzer, H.J., Sesselmann, W.: Geschäftsprozessmanagement in der Praxis. Carl Hanser Verlag, München (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moody, D.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55, 243–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vergidis, K., Tiwari, A., Majeed, B.: Business process analysis and optimization: beyond reengineering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 38, 69–82 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Overweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management: Models, Techniques and Empirical Studies, pp. 30–49. Springer, Berlin (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Recker, J.: “Modeling with tools is easier, believe me”—The effects of tool functionality on modeling grammar usage beliefs. Information Systems 37, 213–226 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Delfmann, P., Herwig, S., Lis, Ł., Stein, A., Tent, K., Becker, J.: Pattern Specification and Matching in Conceptual Models. A Generic Approach Based on Set Operations. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures 5, 24–43 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Delfmann, P., Herwig, S., Lis, L.: Unified Enterprise Knowledge Representation with Conceptual Models - Capturing Corporate Language in Naming Conventions. In: 30th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2009), Phoenix, Arizona, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siau, K., Erickson, J., Lee, L.: Theoretical vs. Practical Complexity. Journal of Database Management 16, 40–57 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Muehlen, M.Z., Recker, J.: How Much Language Is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Becker, J., Clever, N., Holler, J., Püster, J., Shitkova, M.: Semantically Standardized and Transparent Process Model Collections via Process Building Blocks. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information, Process, and Knowledge Management - eKNOW 2013, Nice, pp. 172–177 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Becker, J., Clever, N., Holler, J., Shitkova, M.: Icebricks - Business Process Modeling on the Basis of Semantic Standardization. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 394–399. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tremblay, M., Hevner, A., Berndt, D.: The Use of Focus Groups in Design Science Research. Design Research in Information Systems, pp. 121–143. Springer US (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Becker, J., Schütte, R.: A Reference Model for Retail Enterprises. In: Fettke, P. and Loos, P. (eds.) Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis. pp. 182–205. Idea Group Publishing (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Becker, J., Clever, N., Holler, J., Shitkova, M.: Towards A Usability Measurement Framework for Process Modelling Tools. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Jeju Island, Korea (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Clever, N., Holler, J., Püster, J., Shitkova, M.: Growing Trees – A Versioning Approach for Business Process Models based on Graph Theory. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS, Utrecht (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Becker
    • 1
  • Nico Clever
    • 1
  • Justus Holler
    • 1
  • Johannes Püster
    • 1
  • Maria Shitkova
    • 1
  1. 1.ERCISUniversity of MuensterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations