Abstract
Imperative process languages, such as BPMN, describe business processes in terms of collections of activities and control flows among them. Despite their popularity, such languages remain useful mostly for structured processes whose flow of activities is well-known and does not vary greatly. For unstructured processes, on the other hand, the verdict is still out as to the best way to represent them. In our previous work, we have proposed Azzurra, a specification language for business processes founded on social concepts, such as roles, agents and commitments. In this paper, we present the results of an experiment that comparatively evaluates Azzurra and BPMN in terms of their ability to represent structured and unstructured processes. Our results suggest that Azzurra is better suited than BPMN for unstructured business processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Scenario descriptions, experimental results and data analysis are available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/8qlwd5svqbt3hmw/Empirical%20evaluation.zip?dl=0.
References
van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support. Comput. Sci. Res. Dev. 23(2), 99–113 (2009)
van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process management: a comprehensive survey. In: ISRN Software Engineering (2013)
Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The goal question metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley, New York (1994)
vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M.: Handbook on Business Process Management 1: Introduction, Methods, and Information Systems (2010)
Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)
Dalpiaz, F., Cardoso, E., Canobbio, G., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Social specifications of business processes with Azzurra. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, pp. 7–18 (2015)
Di Ciccio, C., Marrella, A., Russo, A.: Knowledge-intensive processes: characteristics, requirements and analysis of contemporary approaches. J. Data Semant. 4(1), 29–57 (2015)
Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W.M., ter Hofstede, A.H.: Process-Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology. Wiley, New York (2005)
Guarino, N.: Formal ontology and information systems. In: Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (1998)
Harmon, P.: The State of Business Process Management 2016. Technical report, BPTrends (2016)
Harvey, M.: Intuitive Biostatistics. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)
Hull, R.: Artifact-centric business process models: brief survey of research results and challenges. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5332, pp. 1152–1163. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88873-4_17
Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M.: Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Springer, New York (2010)
Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)
Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_37
Recker, J.: BPMN research: what we know and what we don’t know. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Business Process Model and Notation, pp. 1–7 (2012)
Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems - Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Rozinat, A., De Medeiros, A.A., Günther, C.W., Weijters, A., van der Aalst, W.M.: Towards an Evaluation Framework for Process Mining Algorithms. BPM Center Report BPM-07-06, BPMcenter.org, p. 10 (2007)
Staab, S., Gomez-Perez, A., Daelemana, W., Reinberger, M.L., Noy, N.F.: Why evaluate ontology technologies? Because it works! IEEE Intell. Syst. 19(4), 74–81 (2004)
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2000)
Acknowledgement
The research leading this paper has been funded by ERC advanced grant 267856 “Lucretius: Foundations for Software Evolution”, unfolding during the period of April 2011 – March 2016. It has also received fundings from the SESAR Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 699306 under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cardoso, E., Labunets, K., Dalpiaz, F., Mylopoulos, J., Giorgini, P. (2016). Modeling Structured and Unstructured Processes: An Empirical Evaluation. In: Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song, IY., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9974. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46397-1_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46397-1_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46396-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46397-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)