research-article

Case model landscapes: toward an improved representation of knowledge-intensive processes using the fCM-language

Authors:

Fernanda Gonzalez-Lopez,

Jorge Munoz-Gama,

Valeria Herskovic,

Marcos SepúlvedaAuthors Info & Claims

Software and Systems Modeling, Volume 20, Issue 5

Pages 1353 - 1377

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-021-00885-y

Published: 01 October 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Case Management is a paradigm to support knowledge-intensive processes. The different approaches developed for modeling these types of processes tend to result in scattered information due to the low abstraction level at which the inherently complex processes are represented. Thus, readability and understandability are more challenging than in imperative process models. This paper extends a case modeling language—the fragment-based Case Management (fCM) language—to a so-called fCM landscape (fCML) with the goal of modeling a single knowledge-intensive process from a higher abstraction level. Following the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology, we first define requirements for an fCML, and then review how literature—in the fields of process overviews and case management—could support them. Design decisions are formalized by specifying a syntax for an fCML and the transformation rules from a given fCM model. The proposal is empirically evaluated via a laboratory experiment. Quantitative results imply that interpreting an fCML requires less effort in terms of time—and is thus more efficient—than interpreting its equivalent fCM case model. Qualitative results provide indications on the factors affecting case model interpretation and guidelines for future work.

References

[1]

Becker, J., Pfeiffer, D., Räckers, M., Fuchs, P.: Business process management in public administrations—the picture approach. In: PACIS 2007, Auckland, New Zealand, July 3-6, pp. 1–14 (2007)

[2]

Burton-Jones A, Wand Y, and Weber R Guidelines for empirical evaluations of conceptual modeling grammars J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2009 10 6 495-532

[3]

Chiao, C.M., Künzle, V., Reichert, M.: Integrated modeling of process-and data-centric software systems with philharmonic flows. In: 2013 IEEE 1st International Workshop on Communicating Business Process and Software Models Quality, Understandability, and Maintainability (CPSM), pp. 1–10. IEEE (2013)

[4]

Davis F Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology MIS Q. 1989 13 3 319-340

[5]

De Smedt J, De Weerdt J, Serral E, and Vanthienen J Discovering hidden dependencies in constraint-based declarative process models for improving understandability Inf. Syst. 2018 74 40-52

[6]

Di Ciccio C, Marrella A, and Russo A Knowledge-intensive processes: characteristics, requirements and analysis of contemporary approaches J. Data Semant. 2015 4 1 29-57

[7]

Dijkman R, Vanderfeesten I, and Reijers H Business process architectures: overview, comparison and framework Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2016 10 2 129-158

[8]

Eid-Sabbagh, R.H., Dijkman, R., Weske, M.: Business process architecture: use and correctness. In: BPM 2012, Tallinn, Estonia, September 3–6, pp. 65–81. Springer (2012)

[9]

Eid-Sabbagh, R.H., Hewelt, M., Meyer, A., Weske, M.: Deriving business process data architectures from process model collections. In: ICSOC 2013, Berlin, Germany, December 2–5, pp. 533–540. Springer (2013)

[10]

Gonzalez-Lopez F and Bustos G Business process architecture design methodologies—a literature review Bus. Process Manag. J. 2019 25 6 1317-1334

[11]

Gonzalez-Lopez F and Bustos G Integration of business process architectures within enterprise architecture approaches: a literature review Eng. Manag. J. 2019 31 2 127-140

[12]

Gonzalez-Lopez, F., Pufahl, L.: A landscape for case models. In: Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling, pp. 87–102. Springer (2019)

[13]

Green S and Ould M The primacy of process architecture CAiSE Workshops 2004 2 154-159

[14]

Gruhn V and Wellen U Analysing a process landscape by simulation J. Syst. Softw. 2001 59 3 333-342

[15]

Hartson R and Pyla P The UX Book: Process and Guidelines for Ensuring a Quality User Experience 2012 Amsterdam Morgan Kaufmann

[16]

Hewelt M, Pufahl L, Mandal S, Wolff F, and Weske M Toward a methodology for case modeling Softw. Syst. Model. 2019 19 1-27

[17]

Hewelt, M., Weske, M.: A hybrid approach for flexible case modeling and execution. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) Business Process Management Forum. BPM 2016, vol. 260. Springer (2016)

[18]

Hewelt, M., Wolff, F., Mandal, S., Pufahl, L., Weske, M.: Towards a methodology for case model elicitation. In: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS 2018, EMMSAD 2018, vol. 318. Springer (2018)

[19]

Höst M, Regnell B, and Wohlin C Using students as subjects—a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment Empir. Softw. Eng. 2000 5 3 201-214

[20]

Hull, R., Damaggio, E., De Masellis, R., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath III, F.T., Hobson, S., Linehan, M., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., et al.: Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: DEBS 2011, pp. 51–62. ACM (2011)

[21]

Krogstie, J.: Quality of business process models. In: Proceedings of PoEM’2012. LNBIP vol. 134, pp. 76–90 (2012)

[22]

Künzle V and Reichert M PHILharmonicFlows: towards a framework for object-aware process management J. Softw. Maint. Evol. Res. Pract. 2011 23 205-244

[23]

Lantow, B.: Adaptive case management-a review of method support. In: POEM 2018, pp. 157–171. Springer (2018)

[24]

Lucero, A.: Using affinity diagrams to evaluate interactive prototypes. In: INTERACT 2015, pp. 231–248. Springer (2015)

[25]

Lunn K, Sixsmith A, Lindsay A, and Vaarama M Traceability in requirements through process modelling, applied to social care applications Inf. Softw. Technol. 2003 45 15 1045-1052

[26]

Malinova, M.: A language for designing process maps. Ph.D. thesis, Vienna University of Economics and Business (2016)

[27]

Malinova, M., Leopold, H., Mendling, J.: An explorative study for process map design. In: CAiSE Forum, June 16–20, Thessaloniki, Greece (2014)

[28]

Marin, M.A., Hauder, M., Matthes, F.: Case management: an evaluation of existing approaches for knowledge-intensive processes. In: BPM Workshops 2015. Springer (2015)

[29]

Mendling J, Reijers HA, and van der Aalst W Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG) Inf. Softw. Technol. 2010 52 2 127-136

[30]

Mendling J, Reijers HA, and Cardoso J What makes process models understandable? Bus. Process Manag. J. 2007 4714 48-63

[31]

Mertens, S., Frederik, Poels, G.: Enhancing declarative process models with dmn decision logic. In: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS 2015, EMMSAD 2015, pp. 151–165. Springer (2015)

[32]

Moody D The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 2009 35 6 756-779

[33]

Nigam A and Caswell NS Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification IBM Syst. J. 2003 42 3 428-445

[34]

Norman, D.A.: Cognitive engineering. User centered system design, pp. 31–61 (1986)

[35]

OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), V. 2.0 (2011)

[36]

OMG: Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN) V. 1.1 (2016)

[37]

Parsons J and Cole L What do the pictures mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques Data Knowl. Eng. 2005 55 3 327-342

[38]

Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: BPM 2006, pp. 169–180. Springer (2006)

[39]

Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: BPM 2011, pp. 383–394. Springer (2011)

[40]

Pufahl, L., Ihde, S., Glöckner, M., Franczyk, B., Paulus, B., Weske, M.: Countering congestion: a white-label platform for the last mile parcel delivery. In: BIS 2020. LNBIP vol. 389. Springer (2020)

[41]

Steinau, S., Andrews, K., Reichert, M.: The relational process structure. In: CAiSE 2018, pp. 53–67. Springer (2018)

[42]

Steinau S, Marrella A, Andrews K, Leotta F, Mecella M, and Reichert M DALEC: a framework for the systematic evaluation of data-centric approaches to process management software Softw. Syst. Model. 2019 18 2679-2716

[43]

ter Hofstede AH and Proper HA How to formalize it? Formalization principles for information system development methods Inf. Softw. Technol. 1998 40 10 519-540

[44]

The Open Group: ArchiMate 3.0.1 Specification (2017)

[45]

Vaculin, R., Hull, R., Heath, T., Cochran, C., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.: Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. In: 15th IEEE International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC 2011), pp. 151–160. IEEE (2011)

[46]

van der Aalst, W., Berens, P.: Beyond workflow management: product-driven case handling. In: 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 42–51. ACM (2001)

[47]

van der Aalst W, Pesic M, and Schonenberg H Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support Comput. Sci. Res. Dev. 2009 23 99-113

[48]

van der Aalst W, Weske M, and Grünbauer D Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support Data Knowl. Eng. 2005 53 2 129-162

[49]

Vegas S, Apa C, and Juristo N Crossover designs in software engineering experiments: benefits and perils IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 2016 42 2 120-135

[50]

Weber, B., Neurauter, M., Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Furtner, M., Martini, M., Sachse, P.: Measuring cognitive load during process model creation. In: Information Systems and Neuroscience. LNISO vol. 10. Springer (2015)

[51]

Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer (2012)

[52]

Wieringa RJ Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering 2014 1 Berlin Springer

[53]

Zensen, A., Küster, J.: A comparison of flexible BPMN and CMMN in practice. In: EDOC 2018, pp. 105–114. IEEE (2018)

Cited By

Monashev MKrčál MMendling J(2023)Deviation from Standards and Performance in Knowledge-Intensive Processes: Evidence from the Process of Selling Customized IT SolutionsBusiness Process Management10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_25(430-446)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_25
Schreiber CAbbad-Andaloussi AWeber B(2023)On the Cognitive Effects of Abstraction and Fragmentation in Modularized Process ModelsBusiness Process Management10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_21(359-376)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_21

Index Terms

Case model landscapes: toward an improved representation of knowledge-intensive processes using the fCM-language

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

DCR-KiPN a Hybrid Modeling Approach for Knowledge-Intensive Processes
Conceptual Modeling
Abstract
Hybrid modeling approaches have been proposed to represent processes that have both strictly regulated parts and loosely regulated parts. Such process is so-called Knowledge-intensive Process (KiP), which is a sequence of activities based on ...
Identifying Support for Knowledge-Intensive Processes in BPMN and its Extensions
SBSI '23: Proceedings of the XIX Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems

Context: Business process modeling is widely used to increase the competitive advantage of organizations and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) is the standard language for modeling such processes. However, it is often extended to handle domain-...
Towards a metamodel for supporting decisions in knowledge-intensive processes
SAC '19: Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing

Knowledge-intensive processes (KiPs) cannot be fully specified at design time because not all information about the process is available prior to its execution. At runtime, new information emerges reflecting environment changes or unexpected outcomes. ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)

Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) Volume 20, Issue 5

Oct 2021

434 pages

ISSN:1619-1366

Issue’s Table of Contents

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021.

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 01 October 2021

Accepted: 23 March 2021

Revision received: 19 March 2021

Received: 11 December 2019

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 25 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Monashev MKrčál MMendling J(2023)Deviation from Standards and Performance in Knowledge-Intensive Processes: Evidence from the Process of Selling Customized IT SolutionsBusiness Process Management10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_25(430-446)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_25
Schreiber CAbbad-Andaloussi AWeber B(2023)On the Cognitive Effects of Abstraction and Fragmentation in Modularized Process ModelsBusiness Process Management10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_21(359-376)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_21

View Options

View options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents