Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Multi-criteria Evaluation Approach for Selecting a Sensitive Business Process Modeling Language for Knowledge Management

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal on Data Semantics

Abstract

In an organizational context, the modeling and representation of sensitive business processes (SBPs) have become an effective way of managing and developing organization’s knowledge that needs to be capitalized. These processes are characterized by a high complexity and dynamism in their execution, high number of critical activities with intensive acquisition, sharing, storage and (re)use of very specific crucial knowledge, large diversity of heterogeneous knowledge and information sources, high number of knowledge conversion actions and high degree of collaboration among experts. Thus, the specification of a precise conceptualization for SBPs, and the selection of an appropriate SBP modeling language that adequately characterizes and integrates all their relevant dimensions are of prime importance. We aim at improving the localization and identification of the crucial knowledge that are mobilized by and created by these processes. This paper proposes a multi-criteria-based approach for evaluating and comparing currently widely used modeling languages (process oriented and knowledge oriented) for the representation of SBPs, taking into account their specific modeling requirements. We consider guiding and justifying the choice of the most suitable SBP modeling language for knowledge identification purposes. The different modeling languages are originally assessed according to the ontological completeness of SBP modeling aspects (i.e., the coverage of the functional, organizational, behavioral, informational, intentional and knowledge dimensions) based on the BPM4KI meta-model (as an SBP specification based on core ontologies). Secondly, they are evaluated according to several key requirement indicators (e.g., understandability, expressibility, complexity, level of adoption, tools availability and extendibility). Results show that none of the studied languages, individually, satisfies all the SBP modeling requirements. In this study, we choose the better one positioned nowadays, BPMN 2.0, as the best suited standard for SBP representation. Moreover, we develop a valid extension of BPMN 2.0 «BPMN4SBP» for integrating and implementing all relevant SBP modeling dimensions (the six BPM4KI dimensions), exploring the dynamic, interaction and knowledge aspects. The extension is then used to illustrate the representation of SBPs in a real case study in the healthcare domain.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html. The choice of DOLCE is justified by its generality and its independence of the application domain.

  2. http://ashms.org/.

References

  1. Grundstein M (2000) From capitalizing on company knowledge to knowledge management. In: Morey D, Maybury M (eds) Knowledge management, classic and contemporary works, Chap. 12. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 261–287

    Google Scholar 

  2. Saad I, Grundstein M, Sabroux C (2009) Une méthode d’aide à l’identification des connaissances cruciales pour l’entreprise. Revue SIM 14(3):43–78

    Google Scholar 

  3. Turki M, Saad I, Kassel G, Gargouri F (2012) SOPIM: sensitive organization’s process identification methodology for knowledge localization. In: European conference on knowledge management (ECKM). Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Spain

  4. Turki M (2012) Proposition d’une méthode multicritère et d’une ontologie noyau des processus d’organisation pour l’aide à l’identification des processus sensibles. Thèse de doctorat en informatique. FSEG Sfax, UPJV France

  5. Turki M, Saad I, Gargouri F, Kassel G (2014) A business process evaluation methodology for knowledge management based on multi-criteria decision-making approach. In: Saad I, Sabroux CR, Gargouri F (eds) Information systems for knowledge management. Wiley-ISTE, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ben Hassen M, Turki M, Gargouri F (2016) A business process meta-model for knowledge identification based on a core ontology. In: Shishkov B (ed) BMSD 2015. LNBIP, vol 257. Springer, Cham, pp 37–61. Revised Selected Papers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40512-4_3

  7. Schlenoff C, Gruninger M, Tissot F, Valois J, Lee J (2000) The process specification language (PSL) overview and version 1.0 specification. US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology

  8. Scheer AW (2000) ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management. In: Proceedings the business process management, models, techniques, and empirical studies. Springer, pp 376–389

  9. Wagner K, Klueckmann J (2006) Business process design as the basis for compliance management, enterprise architecture and business rules. In: AGILITY by ARIS business process management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 117–127

  10. Weidong Z, Weihui D (2008) Integrated modeling of business processes and knowledge flow based on RAD. In: IEEE international symposium on knowledge acquisition and modeling. China, pp 49–53

  11. Cabral L, Norton B, Domingue J (2009) The business process modelling ontology. In: 4th international workshop on semantic business process management, Crete

  12. OMG (2011) UML-Unified Modeling Language (2011) V2.4.1. Object Management Group, 2007. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/Superstructure/PDF

  13. OMG (2013) Business Process Modeling and Notation (BPMN). Version 2.0.2, 2013. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/pdf

  14. OMG (2016) Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN). Version 1.1. http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/1.1

  15. Abecker A (2001) DECOR consortium: DECOR—delivery of context-sensitive organizational knowledge. E-work and E-commerce. IOS Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schreiber G, Akkermans H, Anjewierden A, Hoog R, Shadbolt N, De Velde WV, Wielinga B (2002) Knowledge engineering and management: the common KADS methodology. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  17. Papavassiliou G, Mentzas G (2003) Knowledge modeling in weakly-structured business processes. J Knowl Manag 7(2):18–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hinkelmann K, Karagiannis D, Telesko R (2002) PROMOTE: Methodologie und Werkzeug für geschäftsprozessorientiertes Wissensmanagement. In: Abecker A et al (eds) Geschäftsprozessorientiertes Wissensmanagement. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–90

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Heisig P (2006) The GPO-WM® method for the integration of knowledge management into business processes. In: International conference on knowledge management, Graz, Austria, pp 331–337

  20. Strohmaier M, Yu E, Horkoff J, Aranda J, Easterbook S (2007) Analyzing knowledge transfer effectiveness-an agent-oriented modeling approach. In: Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, USA

  21. Donadel AC (2007) A method for representing knowledge-intensive processes. M.Sc. dissertation, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia e Gestão do Conhecimento, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil

  22. Hildebrandt TT, Mukkamala RR (2010) Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: Programming languages approaches to concurrency and communication-cEntric software. Cyprus, pp 59–73

  23. Gronau N, Korf R, Müller C (2005) KMDL-capturing, analyzing and improving knowledge-intensive business processes. J Univers Comput Sci 11:452–472

    Google Scholar 

  24. Arbeitsbericht, (umfangreiche Beschreibung) (2009) KMDL® v2.2. http://www.kmdl.de

  25. Oliveira FF (2009) Ontology collaboration and its applications. MSc dissertation, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Informática, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil

  26. Netto JM, Franca JBS, Baião FA, Santoro FM (2013) A notation for knowledge-intensive processes. In: IEEE 17th international conference on computer supported cooperative work in design, vol 1, pp 1–6

  27. Ben Hassen M, Turki M, Gargouri F (2015) Sensitive business process modeling for knowledge management. In: International conference on database and expert systems applications (DEXA’2015). Valencia-Spain

  28. Ben Hassen M, Turki M, Gargouri F (2016) Choosing a sensitive business process modeling formalism for knowledge identification. J Procedia Comput Sci 100:1002–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ben Hassen M, Turki M, Gargouri F (2017) Towards extending business process modeling formalisms with information and knowledge dimensions. In: 30th international conference on industrial and engineering applications of artificial intelligence and expert systems (IEA/AIE’ 2017), Arras, France

  30. Ben Hassen M, Turki M, Gargouri F (2017) Modeling dynamic aspects of sensitive business processes for knowledge localization. In: International conference on knowledge based and intelligent information and engineering systems (KES2017). Marseille-France (2017)

  31. Kassel G (2005) Integration of the DOLCE top-level ontology into the OntoSpec methodology. The Computing Research Repository (CoRR)abs/cs/0510050

  32. Kassel G, Turki M, Saad I, Gargouri F (2012) From collective actions to actions of organizations: an ontological analysis. In: Symposium understanding and modelling collective phenomena (UMoCop), Birmingham, England

  33. Turki M, Kassel G, Saad I, Gargouri F (2016) A core ontology of business processes based on DOLCE. J Data Semant 5(3):165–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Masolo C, Vieu L, Bottazzi E, Catenacci C, Ferrario R, Gangemi A, Guarino N (2004) Social roles and their descriptions. In: Dubois D, Welty C, Williams M-A (eds) Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, pp 267–277

  35. Roy B, Bouyssou D (1993) Aide multicritère à la décision: méthodes et cas. Economica Paris

  36. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Heisig P (2002) GPO-WM: Methode und Werkzeuge zum geschäftsprozessorientierten Wissensmanagement. In: Abecker A et al (eds) Geschäftsprozessorientiertes Wissensmanagement. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–64

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Supulniece I, Businska L, Kirikova M (2010) Towards extending BPMN with the knowledge dimension. In: Bider I, Halpin T, Krogstie J, Nurcan S, Proper E, Schmidt R, Ukor R (eds) BPMDS 2010, vol 50. LNBIP. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 69–81

    Google Scholar 

  39. Businska L, Kirikova M (2012) Knowledge dimension in business process modeling. In: Nurcan S (ed) CAiSE forum 2011, vol 107. LNBIP. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 186–201

    Google Scholar 

  40. Aalst WMP, Weske M, Grünbauer D (2005) Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl Eng 53(2):129–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. de Man H (2009) Case management: a review of modeling approaches. BPTrends. www.bptrends.com

  42. Hill C, Yates R, Jones C, Kogan SL (2006) Beyond predictable workflows: enhancing productivity in artful business processes. IBM Syst J 45(4):663–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Di Ciccio C, Marrella A, Russo A (2012) Knowledge-intensive processes: an overview of contemporary approaches. In: International workshop on knowledge-intense business processes, Italy, pp 32–47

  44. Gangemi A (2006) Ontology design patterns: a primer, with applications and perspectives. Tutorial on ODP. Laboratory for Applied Ontology Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technology CNR, Rome, Italy

  45. Kassel G (2010) A formal ontology of artefacts. Appl Ontol 5(3–4):223–246

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kassel G (2011) Fiche OntoSpec Agentive_entity-OS. http://www.laria.u-picardie.fr/IC/site/IMG/Agentive_entity-v1.1-OS.pdf

  47. Kassel G (2011) Fiche OntoSpec Participation_role-OS. http://www.laria.u-picardie.fr/IC/site/IMG/Participation_role-v1.3-OS.pdf

  48. Kassel G (2011) Fiche OntoSpec Function_&_Artefact-OS. http://www.laria.u-picardie.fr/IC/site/IMG/Function_&_Artefact-v1.0-OS.pdf

  49. Fortier J-Y, Kassel G (2004) Managing knowledge at the information level: an ontological approach. In: Proceedings of the ECAI’2004 workshop on knowledge management and organizational memories, Valencia (Spain), pp 39–45

  50. Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (2001) Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 129(1):1–47

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Ould M (1995) Business processes modelling and analysis for reengineering and improvement. Wiley, Birmingham

    Google Scholar 

  52. BOC Group (2014) Wissensmanagement mit PROMOTE. http://www.boc-group.com/de/landingpages/wissensmanagement-mit-promoter. Accessed date 22 Dec 2014

  53. KMDL Blog (2014). http://www.kmdl.de/. Accessed date 24 Nov 2014

  54. Eriksson HE, Penker M (2000) Business modeling with UML: business patterns at work. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  55. Businska L, Kirikova M (2011) Knowledge dimension in business process modeling. In: Forum at the conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 186–201

  56. Weber R (1997) Ontological foundations of information systems. Coopers & Lybrand and the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  57. Bunge M (1977) Treatise on basic philosophy, vol 3. Ontology I: the furniture of the world. Reidel, Boston, MassachUSetts

  58. Wand Y, Weber R (1990) An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans Software Eng 16(11):1282–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Recker J, Indulska M, Rosemann M, Green P (2005) Do process modelling techniques get better? A comparative ontological analysis of BPMN. In: 16th Australasian conference on information systems, Sydney, Australia

  60. Green P, Rosemann M, Indulska M, Manning C (2007) Candidate interoperability standards: an ontological overlap analysis. Data Knowl Eng 62:274–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Recker J, Rosemann M, Krogstie J (2007) Ontology-versus pattern-based evaluation of process modeling languages: a comparison. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 20:774–799

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rosemann M, Recker J, Indulska M, Green P (2006) A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of process modeling grammars. Adv Inf Syst Eng CAiSE 4001:447–461

    Google Scholar 

  63. Recker J, Indulska M (2007) An ontology-based evaluation of process modeling with petri nets. IBIS Int J Interoperability Bus Inf Syst 1(2):45–64

    Google Scholar 

  64. Weber B, Reijers HA, Zugal S, Wild W (2009) The declarative approach to business process execution: an empirical test. In: International conference on advanced information systems engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 470–485

  65. Heidari F, Loucopoulos P (2014) Quality evaluation framework (QEF): modeling and evaluating quality of business processes. Int J Acc Inf Syst 15(3):193–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. List B, Korherr B (2006) An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: ACM symposium on applied computing

  67. Ben Hassen M, Turki M, Gargouri F (2017) Using core ontologies for extending sensitive business process modeling with the knowledge perspective. In: Proceedings of the fifth European conference on the engineering of computer-based systems (ECBS’2017). ACM, p 2

  68. Recker JC, Rosemann M, Indulska M, Green P (2009) Business process modeling: a comparative analysis. J Assoc Inf 10:333–363

    Google Scholar 

  69. Harmon P, Wolf C (2011) Business process modeling survey. Business process trends, 36

  70. Stroppi LJR, Chiotti O, Villarreal PD (2011) Extending BPMN 2.0: method and tool support. In: Dijkman R, Hofstetter J, Koehler J (eds) BPMN 2011, vol 95. LNBIP. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 59–73

    Google Scholar 

  71. Braun R, Schlieter H, Burwitz M, Esswein W (2014) BPMN4CP: design and implementation of a BPMN extension for clinical pathways. In: IEEE international conference on bioinformatics and biomedicine, pp 9–16

  72. Braun R, Schlieter H, Burwitz M, Esswein W (2015) Extending a business process modeling language for domain-specific adaptation in healthcare. In: Thomas O, Teuteberg F (eds) Proceedings der 12. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2015), Osnabrück, S, pp 468–481

  73. Braun R, Burwitz M, Schlieter H, Benedict M (2015) Clinical processes from various angles-amplifying BPMN for integrated hospital management. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on bioinformatics and biomedicine (BIBM). IEEE, pp 837–845

  74. BPMN2 Modeler (2016). http://www.eclipse.org/bpmn2-modeler/. Accessed 25 June 2016

  75. Aagesen G, Krogstie J (2010) Analysis and design of business process using BPMN. In: Vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management 1—introduction, methods and information systems. Springer, New York, pp 213–235

    Google Scholar 

  76. La Rosa M, ter Hofstede AHM, Wohed P, Reijers HA, Mendling J, van der Aalst WMP (2011) Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 7(2):255–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wahl T, Sindre G (2005) An analytical evaluation of BPMN using a semiotic quality framework. In: Halpin TA, Siau K, Krogstie J (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on evaluating modeling methods for systems analysis and design (EMMSAD’05), held in conjunction with the 17th conference on advanced information systems (CAiSE’05), Porto, Portugal, FEUP, pp 533–544

  78. Indulska M, Recker J, Green P, Rosemann M (2008) Representational deficiency of process modeling languages: measures and implications. In: Golden W et al (eds) Proceedings of the 16th European conference on information systems, 9–11 June 2008 Ireland. ECIS, pp 1632–1643

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MIRACL Laboratory, ISIMS, University of Sfax, B.P. 242, 3021, Sakiet Ezzit, Sfax, Tunisia

    Mariam Ben Hassen, Mohamed Turki & Faïez Gargouri

Authors
  1. Mariam Ben Hassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamed Turki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Faïez Gargouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariam Ben Hassen.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ben Hassen, M., Turki, M. & Gargouri, F. A Multi-criteria Evaluation Approach for Selecting a Sensitive Business Process Modeling Language for Knowledge Management. J Data Semant 8, 157–202 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13740-019-00103-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13740-019-00103-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation