Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Am I Allowed to Change an Activity Relationship? - A Metamodel for Behavioral Business Process Redesign

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing. EDOC 2024 Workshops (EDOC 2024)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 537))

  • 21 Accesses

Abstract

Business processes are constantly changing due to optimization, changes in legislation, or dissatisfaction among participants. Usually, process models are used as the basis for changing process behavior, but the models only provide limited information about possible risks, consequences, and vulnerability of the relationships between activities. Due to the lack of information, changes are implemented too hastily or not at all. In this paper, we elaborate on the relevant information for evaluating behavioral changes in the process. We present concepts and their relationships in a metamodel and show how the application of the metamodel can help to better assess process changes using the travel reimbursement process at a university. Furthermore, we discuss the potential of the proposed metamodel with regard to semi-automated business process redesign support.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Each aircraft has a maximum weight. Moreover, weighing is required to prevent staff health issues.

  2. 2.

    https://www.lff.bayern.de/themen/reisekosten/reisekosten-allgemeines/ (last access on 18.06.2024).

  3. 3.

    https://www.itilite.com/blog/business-travel-challenges (last access on 01.03.2024).

  4. 4.

    Downwelling in terms of a cascading effect, i.e., a chain of adjustments needed to recover consequential damages.

References

  1. Adamo, G., Borgo, S., Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Guarino, N., Sanfilippo, E.M.: Business process activity relationships: is there anything beyond arrows? In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNBIP, vol. 329, pp. 53–70. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98651-7_4

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Adamo, G., Francescomarino, C.D., Ghidini, C., Maggi, F.M.: Beyond arrows in process models: a user study on activity dependences and their rationales. Inf. Syst. 100, 101762 (2021)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Andree, K., Bano, D., Weske, M.: Beyond temporal dependency: an ontology-based approach to modeling causal structures in business processes. In: van der Aa, H., Bork, D., Proper, H.A., Schmidt, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2023, and EMMSAD 2023, Zaragoza, Spain, June 12-13, 2023, Proceedings. LNBIP, vol. 479, pp. 152–166. Springer, Cham (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Armas-Cervantes, A., van Beest, N.R.T.P., Rosa, M.L., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Interactive and incremental business process model repair. In: Panetto, H., et al. (eds.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. OTM 2017 Conferences - Confederated International Conferences: CoopIS, C &TC, and ODBASE 2017, Rhodes, Greece, October 23-27, 2017, Proceedings, Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10573, pp. 53–74. Springer, Cham (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beerepoot, I., Ciccio, C.D., Reijers, H.A., et al.: The biggest business process management problems to solve before we die. Comput. Ind. 146, 103837 (2023)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dean, M., Schreiber, G.: Owl web ontology language reference: W3C recommendation 10 February 2004 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dumas, M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fahland, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Model repair - aligning process models to reality. Inf. Syst. 47, 220–243 (2015)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Fehrer, T., Fischer, D.A., Leemans, S.J.J., Röglinger, M., Wynn, M.T.: An assisted approach to business process redesign. Decis. Support Syst. 156, 113749 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Governatori, G., Hoffmann, J., Sadiq, S.W., Weber, I.: Detecting regulatory compliance for business process models through semantic annotations. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008 International Workshops, Milano, Italy, September 1-4, 2008. Revised Papers. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 5–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Groefsema, H., van Beest, N.R.T.P., Governatori, G.: On the use of the conformance and compliance keywords during verification of business processes. In: Ciccio, C.D., Dijkman, R.M., del-Río-Ortega, A., Rinderle-Ma, S. (eds.) BPM 2022 Forum, Münster, Germany, September 11-16, 2022, Proceedings. LNBIP, vol. 458, pp. 21–37. Springer, Cham (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Groß, S., Stelzl, K., Grisold, T., Mendling, J., Röglinger, M., vom Brocke, J.: The business process design space for exploring process redesign alternatives. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 27(8), 25–56 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guizzardi, G., Guarino, N.: Semantics, ontology and explanation. CoRR abs/2304.11124 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hashmi, M., Governatori, G., Lam, H.-P., Wynn, M.T.: Are we done with business process compliance: state of the art and challenges ahead. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 57(1), 79–133 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-017-1142-1

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Risk management - guidelines. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lamine, E., Thabet, R., Sienou, A., Bork, D., Fontanili, F., Pingaud, H.: BPRIM: an integrated framework for business process management and risk management. Comput. Ind. 117, 103199 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mansar, S.L., Reijers, H.A.: Best practices in business process redesign: validation of a redesign framework. Comput. Ind. 56(5), 457–471 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Mansar, S.L., Reijers, H.A.: Best practices in business process redesign: use and impact. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 13(2), 193–213 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Meyer, A., Weske, M.: Extracting data objects and their states from process models. In: Gasevic, D., Hatala, M., Nezhad, H.R.M., Reichert, M. (eds.) EDOC 2013, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 9–13 September 2013, pp. 27–36. IEEE Computer Society (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  21. zur Muehlen, M., Rosemann, M.: Integrating risks in business process models. In: Ljungberg, J., Andersson, M. (eds.) ACIS 2005 Proceedings, Sydney, Australia, 2005, pp. 1606–1615 (2005). http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2005/50

  22. Ploesser, K., Peleg, M., Soffer, P., Rosemann, M., Recker, J.: Learning from context to improve business processes. BPTrends 6, 1–7 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Revoredo, K.: On the use of domain knowledge for process model repair. Softw. Syst. Model. 22(4), 1099–1111 (2023)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Flender, C.: Contextualisation of business processes. Int. J. Bus. Process. Integr. Manag. 3(1), 47–60 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Saidani, O., Nurcan, S.: Towards context aware business process modelling. In: BPMDS 2007, CAiSE, vol. 7, p. 1 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sell, C., Winkler, M., Springer, T., Schill, A.: Two dependency modeling approaches for business process adaptation. In: Karagiannis, D., Jin, Z. (eds.) KSEM 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5914, pp. 418–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10488-6_40

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Suriadi, S., et al.: Current research in risk-aware business process management - overview, comparison, and gap analysis. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34, 52 (2014)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change patterns and change support features - enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data Knowl. Eng. 66(3), 438–466 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change patterns and change support features in process-aware information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 19th International Conference, CAiSE 2007, Trondheim, Norway, June 11-15, 2007, Proceedings. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Weske, M.: Business Process Management - Concepts, Languages, Architectures, 3rd edn. Springer, Cham (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Winter, K., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Detecting constraints and their relations from regulatory documents using NLP techniques. In: Panetto, H., Debruyne, C., Proper, H.A., Ardagna, C.A., Roman, D., Meersman, R. (eds.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. OTM 2018 Conferences - Confederated International Conferences: CoopIS, C &TC, and ODBASE 2018, Valletta, Malta, October 22-26, 2018, Proceedings, Part I. LNCS, vol. 11229, pp. 261–278. Springer, Cham (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ye, T., Xu, H.: The impact of business travel on travelers’ well-being. Ann. Tourism Res. 85, 103058 (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160738320302024

  34. Zellner, G.: Towards a framework for identifying business process redesign patterns. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 19(4), 600–623 (2013)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computation, Information and Technology, Technical University of Munich, 74076, Heilbronn, Germany

    Kerstin Andree & Luise Pufahl

Authors
  1. Kerstin Andree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luise Pufahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin Andree .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Monika Kaczmarek-Heß

  2. Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences, Mönchengladbach, Germany

    Kristina Rosenthal

  3. Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Marek Suchánek

  4. Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Miguel Mira Da Silva

  5. TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Henderik A. Proper

  6. TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Marianne Schnellmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2025 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Andree, K., Pufahl, L. (2025). Am I Allowed to Change an Activity Relationship? - A Metamodel for Behavioral Business Process Redesign. In: Kaczmarek-Heß, M., Rosenthal, K., Suchánek, M., Da Silva, M.M., Proper, H.A., Schnellmann, M. (eds) Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing. EDOC 2024 Workshops . EDOC 2024. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 537. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-79059-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-79059-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-79058-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-79059-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics