Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Managing context in business process management systems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Businesses need to continuously focus on change and innovation in order to survive in dynamic environments. The ability of an organization to deploy appropriate business processes requires that the fit between business processes and systems that support the management of these processes is continuously maintained and evolved. Acquisition and use of the knowledge about the context in which business processes are defined, modified, and implemented can help maintain this fit. We identify requirements for a business process management system (BPMS) capable of managing contextual knowledge. Based on these requirements, we have enhanced KOPeR, a knowledge-based system for business process improvement, with an explanation facility that can acquire and maintain knowledge about the context behind process definitions and design choices. A case study that illustrates the functionalities of this system which is designed to improve the fit between business processes and BPMS is presented.

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

Access this article

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

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Notes

  1. Task-technology fit is the degree to which information technology assists an individual in performing his or her tasks i.e. it is the correspondence between task requirements, individual abilities, and the functionality and features provided by information technology [12].

References

  1. Thoburn J, Arunachalam S, Gunasekaran A (1999) Difficulties arising from dysfunctional information systems in manufacturing SMEs: case studies. Int J Agile Manage Syst 1(2):116–126. DOI 10.1108/14654659910280947

    Google Scholar 

  2. Faget J, Marin M, Mégard P, Owens V, Tarin L (2003) Business processes and business rules: business agility becomes real. In: Fischer L (ed) Workflow handbook 2003. Future Strategies Inc., in collaboration with the Workflow Management Coalition, Lighthouse Point, pp 77–92

  3. Reid J (1998) Creating agile organization. Ivey Bus J 63(1):

  4. Davenport T (1993) Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hammer M, Champy J (1993) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Harper Business Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dietz J (2004) Basic notions regarding business processes and supporting information systems. In: Fifth workshop on business process modeling, development, and support, Riga, Latvia

  7. Weske M, vd Aalst WMP, Verbeek HMW (2004) Guest editorial: advances in business process management. Data Knowl Eng 50(1):1–8. DOI 10.1016/j.datak.2004.01.001

    Google Scholar 

  8. Yusuf Y, Gunasekaran A, Abthorpe M (2004) Enterprise information systems project implementation: a case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce. Int J Prod Econ 87(3):251–266. DOI 10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.10.004

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wood T, Caldas M (2001) Reductionism and complex thinking during ERP implementations. Bus Process Manage J 7(5):387–393. DOI 10.1108/14637150110406777

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bajwa D, Garcia J, Mooney T (2004) An integrative framework for the assimilation of enterprise resource planning systems: phases, antecedents, and outcomes. J Comput Inform Syst 44(3):81–90

    Google Scholar 

  11. Panayiotou N, Gayialis S, Ilias I, Tatsiopoulos P (2004) An e-procurement system for governmental purchasing. Int J Prod Econ 90(1):79–102. DOI 10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00103-8

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goodhue D, Thompson R (1995) Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q 19(2):213–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Seshasai S, Gupta A, Kumar A (2005) An integrated and collaborative framework for business design: A knowledge engineering approach. Data Knowl Eng 52(1):157–179. DOI 10.1016/j.datak.2004.06.007

  14. Nissen M (1999) Knowledge-based knowledge management in the reengineering domain. Decision Support Syst 27(1):47–65. DOI 10.1016/S0167-9236(99)00036-6

  15. Nissen M (1998) Redesigning reengineering through measurement-driven inference. MIS Q 22(4):509–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tersine R, Wacker J (2000) Customer-aligned inventory strategies: agility maxims. Int J Agile Manage Syst 2(2):114–120. DOI 10.1108/14654650010337122

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mason-Jones R, Naylor B, Towill D (2000) Engineering the leagile supply chain. Int J Agile Manage Syst 2(1):54–61. DOI 10.1108/14654650010312606

    Google Scholar 

  18. Umble E, Haft R, Umble M (2003) Enterprise resource planning: implementation procedures and critical success factors. Eur J Operat Res 146(2):241–257. DOI 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00547-7

    Google Scholar 

  19. Regev G, Wegmann A (2004) Remaining fit: on the creation and maintenance of fit. In: Fifth workshop on business process modeling, development, and support, Riga, Latvia

  20. Bititci U, Turner T, Ball P (1999) The viable business structure for managing agility. Int J Agile Manage Syst 1(3):190–199. DOI 10.1108/14654659910296571

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jarvis P, Stader J, Macintosh A, Moore J, Chung P (1999) A framework for equipping workflow systems with knowledge about organisational structure and authority. In: Workshop on systems modeling for business process improvement, University of Ulster, County Antrim, Northern Ireland, UK

  22. Kasarda J, Rondinelli D (1998) Innovative infrastructure for agile manufacturers. Sloan Manage Rev 39(2):73–82

    Google Scholar 

  23. Golden W, Powell P (1999) Exploring inter-organisational systems and flexibility in Ireland: a case of two value chains. Int J Agile Manage Syst 1(3):169–176. DOI 10.1108/14654659910296544

    Google Scholar 

  24. Koretz S, Lee G (1998) Knowledge management and drug development. J Knowl Manage 2(2):53–58. DOI 10.1108/13673279810249387

    Google Scholar 

  25. Neumann E, Thomas J (2002) Knowledge assembly for the life sciences. Drug Discov Today 7(20):s160–s162. DOI 10.1016/S1359-6446(02)02432-7

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chandrasekaran B, Tanner M, Josephson J (1989) Explaining control strategies in problem solving. IEEE Expert Intell Syst Their Appl 4(1):19–24. DOI 10.1109/64.21896

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gregor S, Benbasat I (1999) Explanations from intelligent systems: theoretical foundations and implications for practice. MIS Q 23(4):497–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stylianou A, Madey G, Smith R (1992) Selection criteria for expert system shells: a socio-technical framework. Comm ACM 35(10):30–48. DOI 10.1145/135239.135240

    Google Scholar 

  29. Parikh M, Fazlollahi B, Verma S (2001) The effectiveness of decisional guidance: an empirical evaluation. Decis Sci 32(2):303–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dhaliwal J, Tung L (2000) Using group support systems for developing a knowledge-based explanation facility. Int J Inform Manage 20(2):131–149. DOI 10.1016/S0268-4012(99)00061-4

    Google Scholar 

  31. Haynes S (2001) Explanation in information systems: a design rationale approach, unpublished dissertation. Department of Information System and Department of Social Psychology. London, The London School of Economics and Political Science: 369

  32. Dhaliwal J, Benbasat I (1996) The use and effects of knowledge-based system explanations: theoretical foundations and a framework for empirical evaluation. Inform Syst Res 7(3):342–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Toulmin S, Rieke R, Janik A (1984) An introduction to reasoning. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ramesh B, Dhar V (1994) Representing and maintaining process knowledge for large-scale systems development. IEEE Intell Syst 9(4):54–59

    Google Scholar 

  35. MacLean A, Young R, Bellotti V, Moran T (1996) Questions, options, and criteria: elements of design space analysis. In: Moran J et al (eds) Design rationale: concepts, techniques and use. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 21–51

    Google Scholar 

  36. Conklin J, Begeman M (1988) glBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans Inform Syst 6(4):303–331. DOI 10.1145/58566.59297

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lease M, Lively M, Leggett J (1990) Using an issue-based hypermedia system to capture the software life cycle process. Hypermedia 2(1):29–46

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shum S, Hammond N (1994) Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? Int J Hum Comput Stud 40(4):603–652. DOI 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1029

  39. Nwana H (1996) Software agents: an overview. Knowl Eng Rev 11(3):205–244

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gilbert D, Aparicio M, Atkinson B, Brady S, Ciccarino J, Grosof B, O’Connor P, Osisek D, Pritko S, Spagna R, Wilson L (1995) IBM intelligent agent strategy, IBM Corporation

  41. Franklin S, Graesser A (1996) Is it an agent or just a program? A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In: Third international workshop on agent theories, architectures, and languages, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  42. Nissen M (1999) An intelligent agent for web-based process redesign. In: Thirty-second hawaii international conference on system sciences, Maui, HI

  43. Stoddard D, Meadows C (1992) Capital holding corporation: reengineering the direct response group, Harvard Business School Case No. 9–192–001

  44. Talebzadeh H, Mandutianu S, Winner CF (1995) Countrywide loan-underwriting expert system. AI Mag 16(1):51–64

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nissen M (2000) An intelligent tool for process redesign: manufacturing supply-chain applications. Int J Flexe Manufact Syst 12(4):321:339. DOI 10.1023/A:1008178217369

  46. Kock N (1998) Government transformation and structural rigidity: Redesigning a service acquisition process. Acquisit Rev Q 5(4):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  47. Maknia J (2004) Change management framework for business processes. In: Fifth workshop on business process modeling, development, and support, Riga, Latvia

  48. SAP-AG (2004) Business process management with SAP NetWeaver, SAP Solution Brief, SAP AG

  49. IDS-Scheer (2002) Measure, analyze, and optimize your business process performance!: ARIS process performance manager (ARIS PPM), IDS Scheer AG. 2004:1–34

  50. Deborin E, Basrai J, Benedetti T, Halchin R, Mahfouz T, Perera N, Shamshabad B, Spory R, Turakhia R (2002) Continuous business process management with HOLOSOFX BPM suite and IBM MQSeries workflow. IBM Corporation

  51. zur Muehlen M (2004) Workflow-based process controlling: foundation, design, and application of workflow-driven process information systems. Logos Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  52. Casati F, Dayal U, Sayal M, Shan M-C (2002) Business process intelligence, HPL-2002–119: 13

  53. Dellarocas C, Klein M (2000) A knowledge-based approach for designing robust business processes. In: vd Aalst WMP et al (eds) Business process management, models, techniques, and empirical studies, LNCS 1806. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 50–65

    Google Scholar 

  54. Davenport T, Stoddard D (1994) Reengineering: business change of mythic proportions?. MIS Q 18(2):121–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Millie Kwan M, Balasubramanian P (2003) KnowledgeScope: managing knowledge in context. Decis Support Syst 35(4):467–486. DOI 10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00126-4

    Google Scholar 

  56. Koubarakis M, Plexousakis D (2002) A formal model for business process modeling and design. Inform Syst 27(5):299–319. DOI 10.1016/S0306-4379(01)00055-2

    Google Scholar 

  57. Yu E, Mylopoulos J (1996) Using goals, rules, and methods to support reasoning in business process reengineering. Int J Intell Syst Acc Finance Manage 5(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the two editors and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions. The suggestion to address the “synchronous” and “historical” views was provided by an editor. This work was supported in part by grants from ONR and AFRL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Information Systems, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA

    Balasubramaniam Ramesh & Radhika Jain

  2. School of Business and Public Policy, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, 93943, USA

    Mark Nissen

  3. Management Science and Information Systems, University of Massachusetts at Boston, Boston, MA, 02108, USA

    Peng Xu

Authors
  1. Balasubramaniam Ramesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Radhika Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Nissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peng Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Balasubramaniam Ramesh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramesh, B., Jain, R., Nissen, M. et al. Managing context in business process management systems. Requirements Eng 10, 223–237 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-005-0005-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-005-0005-6

Keywords