Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Business Process Modeling

  • Marlon DumasEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_260


Workflow modeling


A business process model is a representation of the way an organization operates to achieve a goal, such as delivering a product or a service. Business process models may be given as input to a workflow management system to automatically coordinate the tasks composing the business process model. However, business process modeling may be conducted purely for documentation purposes or to analyze and improve the operations of an organization, without this improvement effort implying automation by means of a workflow system.

A typical business process model is a graph consisting of at least two types of nodes: task nodes and control nodes. Task nodes describe units of work that may be performed by humans or software applications or a combination thereof. Control nodes capture the flow of execution between tasks, therefore establishing which tasks should be enabled or performed after completion of a given task. Business process models, especially when...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Davenport TH. Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Boston: Harvard Business School; 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dumas M, La Rosa M, Reijers HA, Mendling J. Fundamentals of business process management. Berlin/New York: Springer; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellis CA. Information control nets: a mathematical model of office information flow. In: Proceedings Conference on Simulation, Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems; 1979. p. 225–40.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammer M. Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Bus Rev. 1990;68(4): 104–12.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jablonski S, Bussler C. Workflow management: modeling concepts, architecture, and implementation. London: International Thomson Computer; 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kiepuszewski B, Ter Hofstede AHM, van der Aalst WMP. Fundamentals of control flow in workflows. Acta Inform. 2003;39(3):143–209.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kindler E. On the semantics of EPCs: resolving the vicious circle. Data Knowl Eng. 2006;56(1):23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krogstie J. Quality in business process modeling. Cham: Springer; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levitt T. Marketing myopia. Boston: Harvard Business Press; 1960. p. 45–56.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ludäscher B, Altintas I, Berkley C, Higgins D, Jaeger E, Jones M, Lee EA, Tao J, Zhao Y. Scientific workflow management and the Kepler system. Concurr Comput–Pract Exp. 2006;18(10):1039–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mendling J, Reijers HA, van der Aalst WMP. Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf Softw Technol. 2010;52(2):127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muth P, Wodtke D, Weissenfels J, Dittrich A, Weikum G. From centralized workflow specification to distributed workflow execution. J Intell Inform Syst. 1998;10(2):159–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Polyvyanyy A, García-Bañuelos L, Dumas M. Structuring acyclic process models. Inf Syst. 2012;37(6):518–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reichert M, Dadam P. ADEPTflex: supporting dynamic changes of workflow without loosing control. J Intell Inform Syst. 1998;10(2):93–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reijers HA, Mendling J. A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A. 2011;41(3):449–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vaculín R, Hull R, Heath T, Cochran C, Nigam A, Sukaviriya P. Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference; 2011. p. 151–60.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst WMP, Pesic M, Schonenberg H. Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support. Comput Sci R&D 2009;23(2):99–113.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM. YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inform Syst. 2004;30(4):245–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TartuTartuEstonia