E-mail: gabriel.riso@gmail.com
Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
Rio das Ostras – RJ, Brasil
E-mail: ailtonsilvaferreira@yahoo.com.br
Submission: 07/09/2016
Revision: 23/09/2016
Accept: 08/06/2017
ABSTRACT
In the perspective of organizational
context, the present paper deals with the different types of architecture of
BPM. As objectives, it is proposed to formulate a conceptual model of the main
architectures present in the scientific literature based on methodological and
logical webibliomining. As for the methodology, it is utilized Web of Science
database and the software Nails in order to promote the logical pathway of the
proposed webibliomining research. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis
are part of the approach to the subject. As a result, the conceptual view of
the UML, BPMN, CIMOSA, IDEF, ARIS, IEM, GRAI, GERAM and EKD architectures is
developed, in terms of temporal aspects, socio-technical characteristics,
visualization and analysis, among other factors which offers substantial
argument to decide what framework is better in each scenario.
Keywords: Business Process Modeling;
Organizational Modeling; Modeling;Webibliominig; Architecture Framework
1. INTRODUCTION
In
the nowadays industrialized world, the organizational processes, or still
business processes, have become extremely relevant tools for the management of
modern organizations, which are inserted in a competitive market with
increasingly demanding clients.
In
this context, identifying and assimilating the workflow of organizational
environments is a necessary condition for the development of processes
improvement, which, in turn, generate benefits such as efficiency gains,
quality and flexibility; as well as other aspects conducive to sustainable
competitive advantages.
In
the definition of Conforti, Dumas, García-Bañuelos and Rosa (2016), a process
encompasses elements of work (action) and resources (people, equipment,
information) in order to achieve a result for a specific consumer.
In
this context, business process modeling is the practice of science to verify
how this work and resources are arranged in an organization to identify
opportunities for improvement and, consequently, positive results. This
resource disposition refers to the way in which modeling is organized, that is,
its architecture.
There
is a large number of researches in the scientific literature on business
process modeling architectures. In the view of Rosa, Van Der Aalst, Dumas and
Milani (2017), this theme has become a mature discipline, exhibiting a
well-defined set principles, methods and tools that combine knowledge of
information technology, management sciences and industrial engineering with the
aim of continuously improving business processes.
Exploring
the concepts, we can identify several methodologies and architectures that
characterize the different applications of the process modeling theme such as:
BPMN (Business Process Model and Notation); UML (Unified Modeling Language);
ARIS (Architecture of Integrated Information Systems); CIMOSA (Computer
Integrated Manufacturing Open System Architecture); IDEF (Integration
DEFinition); among others. Such a variety engenders an aspect of complexity in
choice by a method that is efficient to promote the goal of process improvement
in organizations.
The
main objective of this paper is to propose a comparative and conceptual
analysis promoted by a logical webiblioming research; which provides an
accurate and rational overview of the state of the art of literature regarding
the main reference architectures of BPM in the scientific environment. In this
context, this paper seeks a better understanding of the main modelling
methodologies in academic field about organizational processes and
organizational management environment.
In
addition to the webibliomining data, the systematic quantitative and
qualitative approach of scientific research and recent empirical studies of
relevant authors of literature is based on the proposal of a conceptual
comparative analysis adapted from the work developed by the authors Barat,
Kulkarni, Clark and Barn (2016).
Therefore,
this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the Theoretical
Framework that serves as an elementary basis for sustaining the development of
the theme throughout the article; In section 3, the Methodological Resources
are presented with the intention of conferring scientific ballast and listing
the stages of the research in a coherent way; Section 4 encompasses the
Webibliomining Analysis performed on the subject of modeling architectures.
Section 5 presents the duly grounded Conclusion of the topic discussed;
Finally, the bibliographic references are presented at the end of the paper.
2. BACKGROUND
The
theoretical reference of the present paper is centered in ascertaining the main
aspects and characteristics of the architectures of modeling of business
processes more common to the scientific literature, obtained with the aid of
extensive systematized bibliographical research. In this context, the modeling
techniques will be emphasized: BPMN; UML; ARIS; CIMOSA; and IDEF.
As
secondary approaches, due to the lower popularity in the literature, the
following sub-topic entitled "Other business process modeling
architectures" is briefly discussed in the following methodologies: IEM
(Integrated Enterprise Modeling); GERAM (Generalised Enterprise Reference
Architecture and Methodology); EKD (Enterprise Knowledge Development); e GRAI
(Graphs with Results and Actions Inter-related).
2.1.
BPMN
BPMN
is considered a highly efficient generic modeling architecture for modeling
business processes across multiple domains of interest, relying on a
considerable amount of tools and techniques that facilitate process management
activities. As for its symbology, or flow architecture, we have the elements:
start event; end event; c) task; gateways, decision structures; and flow arrow
of the model. An example of the application of this symbology is given in
figure 01.
Figure 1:
Example of BPMN
Source: Braghetto, Ferreira and
Vincent (2011)
In
the study promoted by Yan et al. (2018) about the compliance levels of procedures
used for the redesign of clinical processes, one can verify the flexible
semantics of the BPMN architecture, which facilitates the analysis of complex
protocols. In this same work, the flexibility aspect of BPMN is also exalted
when adapting matrices of time X tasks (very commonly used in the clinical
sector) to a BPMN model of heuristic characteristic.
Another
proof of BPMN's flexibility in its application to different domains of interest
is set forth in the research by Chinosi and Trombetta (2012), which affirms
BPMN as the standard to graphically represent processes that occur in virtually
all types ranging from cooking recipes to the Nobel Prize-awarding process,
incident management, e-mail voting systems, travel booking procedures, and more.
Mendling,
Recker, Reijers, and Leopold (2018) explain that BPMN covers the areas of
process documentation and scenario improvement (process optimization) using
technical process modeling applications such as workflow engineering,
simulation, or service composition web. Such techniques consist of a core of
major graphics and a set of additional "configurations".
Since
the same authors define that the graphic set is sufficient to describe the
essence of business processes, since it aims to generate intuitive models;
While the additional set provides constructs to support advanced process
modeling concepts (which require more detail by their complexity), such as
orchestration and process choreography, workflow specification, event-based
decision making, and exception handling .
Haisjackl,
Soffer, and Lime Weber (2018) have shown that individuals are more likely to
use the overview strategy to understand and assimilate BPMN models, thus
confirming the fact of efficient graphical representation in this modeling
technique, once that the data and the relationships between data are presented
in an agile way, one can have a quick view of the whole system.
Thus,
in the BPMN architecture, processes are modeled by information flows. This is
due to the fact that a flow of information transits between departments and is
controlled by different stakeholders involved in the company, rather than being
tied to a specific system.
Therefore,
the flexible and dynamic nature of the BPMN models applied to the real
processes and their clear relation with the concept of
"horizontalization" in matrix management in a company, or simply,
process management, is perceived.
2.2.
UML
In a
brief introductory definition of UML, Fowler (2014) explains the modeling
technique as being a set of graphical notations, supported by a base that helps
in the description of the domain of interest and in the design of software
systems, those that are built using the object-oriented style; Larman (2002)
can be defined as a diagram notation used to specify, construct, and document
the artifacts of systems.
The
authors Karim, Liawatimena, Trisetyarso, Abbas and Suparta (2017) support the
concept that the UML architecture is based on structural, behavioral and
interaction elements that provide a standard notation for the preparation of
architecture plans for systems projects information, including conceptual
aspects such as business processes and system functions.
According
to its creators Booch, Rumbaugh and Jacobson (2006), there was a clear purpose
to encourage the standardization of language to aid in the development and
modeling of software project structures through UML diagrams.
Ambler
(2004) and Larman (2002) establish the class diagram as the most relevant
diagram to represent a system model. The classes (components of the system),
their attributes (characteristics) and their methods (actions) are described in
Cosio et al (2018) research about the development of Pervasive Healthcare
Systems, which consists on approaching monitoring solutions into the hands of
the patients. The relations of interaction between objects in the class diagram
in those systems are represented in figure 02.
Figure 2: UML Class Diagram
Source: Cosío et al. (2018)
Pessini,
Santander, Silva, Andrade and Schemberger (2017), explaining the aspects of
agility and simplicity in modeling, explain that the methodology used in UML
logic and its visual resources make discussions at a strategic organizational
level about a given project more efficient in which information has to be debated
and adapted to the guidelines given by different professionals with different
degrees of intelligence in software and systems programming. Figure 3 shows a
diagram of UML use cases.
Figure 3: UML Use Case Diagram
Source: Yu, Gu, Liu, Sun, Qian and Guo
(2017)
2.3.
ARIS
The
Event Driven Process Chain (EPC), a simplified part of the ARIS methodology,
displays flowcharts developed to model business processes that are easily
understood and used, their basic elements being data, process and functions, as
shown in the schematic representation of Figure 04.
Panayiotou,
Stavrou and Gayialis (2017), in their work of applying the ARIS architecture to
design supply chain processes in small and medium enterprises, affirm that this
technique of process modeling originated from as a proposal for simplification
in the face of increasing complexity in process modeling of business, due to
the increase in the number of business process modeling methods available.
The
same authors also highlight the different perspectives that can be applied to
the ARIS architecture, which in the specific case study covered different views
of the supply chain as: processes and activities, organization, information
systems, risk management and decision making. Therefore, the dynamism aspect is
assumed as inherent to this modeling technique.
Figure 4: ARIS
Architecture Framework
Source: Tbaishat (2017)
Rosa
et al. (2017) explain that the architecture used by ARIS explains the flow of
control of a process in terms of logical and temporal dependence of activities
and this makes its graphical modeling intuitive. Such language is focused on
the capture and understanding of processes for scope of projects and to discuss
business requirements and process improvement initiatives with specialists in
the domains of interest.
2.4.
CIMOSA
The
authors Latiffianti, Siswanto, Wiratno and Saputra (2017), who promoted a
business process mapping with CIMOSA in companies with the objective of
effective management of their value chains, explain that this modeling
technique was initially designed for companies based in the Computer
Manufacturing Integrated (CIM) system but is also suitable for other types of
manufacturing systems (as proven in its case study).
The
same authors divide the CIMOSA architecture into two parts: a particular
architecture, which is defined as a set of models documenting the business
environment; and a reference architecture used to assist users in the process
of constructing their own particular architecture with a set of models describing
the various aspects of the company at different levels of modeling. The general
aspects of the CIMOSA architecture can be checked in figure 05.
Figure 5:
CIMOSA Archtecture Perspectives
Source: Anis, Spadoni and Vernadat.
(2004)
In
CIMOSA, modeling aspects are based on the organization's events. According to
Weichhart, Stary and Vernadat (2017) the purpose of this modeling method is to
describe the functions that are carried out in the company and its attributes
at the level of detail desired by the user, thus differentiating themselves
from the traditional business process modeling methods ; which are basically
guided by the functional decomposition, that is, the division of the functions
of the system modeled into sub functions.
2.5.
IDEF
Like
other architectures, IDEF presents diagrams and process flows in an organized
way, allowing the identification of opportunities for improvement in the
process.
Belavilacqua,
Mazzuto and Paciarotti (2014) explain that the notation allows a complex
analysis of the processes, considering their inputs, outputs, constraints and
interactions. In this way, it is possible to structure a real-world logic model
representing the behavior of the client and the way in which the client
executes its actions in the system.
The IDEF
modeling architecture is designed for business processes and sequences of a
system, providing two perspectives, the process schema and the object schema.
The concept of diagramming present in IDEF consists of two elementary aspects:
a set of boxes (representatives of functions / activities); and arrows
(representatives of driving data or objects).
The
arrows are input, control and output (Input, Control, Output) mechanisms.
However, such arrows do not lead to information flows, only data or objects to
perform the functions and activities related to them. The structure of the IDEF
architecture is given in figure 06.
Sychenko,
Mironov and Białoń (2017) present a case study where IDEF is used in a domain
of interest related to the repair of maintenance equipment of an electricity
supply substation and define the modeling architecture as grouped methods for
the representation of requirements necessary for the development of information
systems, and can be used to develop tools, techniques and processes for
industrial integration.
Figure 6: IDEF
Architecture
Source: Nadezda, Foresti and
Micheloni (2017)
The
same authors emphasize in their case study the fact that IDEF allows the user
to represent in a simplified way the main functions of input, output and
mechanisms for the elaboration of activities and the controls that must be
followed using the process diagram.
2.6.
Other modeling architectures
The
IEM framework, or integrated enterprise modeling architecture, uses an
object-oriented approach and adapts it to the corporate description. An
oriented division of all the elements of a company forms the core of the IEM in
the generic classes of the object: "product", "resource"
and "order".
Jin and
Jäkel (2018) state that such classes can gradually receive complete and
specified data (encouraging modeling), making it possible to show both the
typical business line and the subclasses of company-specific products, orders
and resources. Structures (e.g. lists of parts or organizational charts) can be
shown as relational characteristics of classes.
As
for the EKD modeling architecture, the authors Awadid and Nurcan (2016) define
it as a methodology that aims to support both organizational change efforts and
the development of information systems that effectively support the development
of the organization.
Stirna
and Persson (2009) complement the EKD architecture as a supplier in a
systematic and controlled way to analyze, understand, develop and document an
organization and its components using organizational modeling.
Briefly
discussing GRAI's methodology (or method of engineering), we can see its
presence in Business Process Modeling centered on the product manufacturing
cycle, primarily involving the design part, emphasizing design, performance and
functional aspects.
Lakhoua
and Rahmouni (2011) explain the GRAI architecture as a systemic, collaborative
and participatory approach that is adapted to the engineering design department
modeling in order to support the structuring of both coordination decisions and
design activity.
According
to Bernus, Noran and Molina (2015), GERAM architecture, the last one addressed
in the referential of this article, aims to generalize the contributions of
several existing and emerging corporate modeling techniques, establishing the
completeness and adequacy of these to form the basis for developing process
improvement (since management can choose to combine the elements of more than
one modeling technique and use them in combination).
According
to Romero and Vernadat (2016), GERAM was developed to foster the use of all
business reference architectures together (generalization). Therefore, it is
assumed that they must have comparable characteristics and features.
Although
there are other business process modeling architectures with relevant aspects
for the development of the literature of the subject, it is believed to have
chosen the most popular and diverse methodologies to compose this theoretical
framework in order to promote a comprehensive and enriching discussion about
the characteristics and process modeling elements to be addressed.
In the present paper, a qualitative
research was carried out in which the principle of representativeness presented
by Santos (2012) was obeyed, where a representative sample of relevant content
from a consulted bibliographic universe was extracted rigorously. The
quantitative approach also characterizes this work in the webibliomining review
where the Web of Science database, an important source of scientific studies of
international relevance, was used.
For the formulation of the
theoretical framework of the paper, the most recent publications in the
literature have been prioritized, focusing on works from the year 2016. Such
chronological limit was broken for topics where no relevant publications were
found or even where there were no publications of said subjects in the predetermined
range. An example of this was some modeling architectures such as GERAM and IEM
that have lost significant relevance in recent years.
Elementary quotations that offered a
concise basis of understanding for the themes also had greater freedom outside
the chronological limit because they represent information of high relevance
and therefore enriching the body of the present article.
For the formulation of the
systematic webibliomining revision, the CAPES journal platform was used through
the consultation in the renowned Web of Science database. We did research using
the following terms:
a)
'BPMN' AND 'Architecture'
b) 'UML'
AND 'Architecture'
c)
'ARIS' AND 'Architecture'
(d)
'CIMOSA' AND 'Architecture'
e)
'IDEF' AND 'Architecture'
f) 'IEM'
AND 'Architecture'
(g)
'EKD' AND 'Architecture'
h)
'GRAI' AND 'Architecture'
i)
'GERAM' AND 'Architecture'
We used the search feature by
topics, where we generated results that contained the terms searched in the
title, keywords and abstract. The temporal filter was applied until 2017 aiming
to collect only complete annual metrics. The results were also filtered to only
detect articles from peer-reviewed journals. The results are displayed in
section 4.
4. WEBIBLIOMINING ANALYSIS
Analyzing the general aspects about
the business process modeling architectures addressed in this article, one can
promote the first classification in the proposed comparative view. Dividing
these techniques into the classes of information systems: BPMN; UML; ARIS;
IDEF; CIMOSA; EKD; and EMI. And in manufacturing support systems: GRAI; and
GERAM.
However, all the reference
architectures in process modeling considered in this article are treated in an
equal degree of comparability for the proposed objective of developing the
conceptual comparative vision seeking a better understanding of the performance
of such architectures regarding organizational processes and organizational
management environment .
Through
the results of the analysis in the Web of Science database, it was promoted the
acquisition of the webibliomining data components for the reference
architectures in process modeling treated in this article.It is necessary to
state that those results are a piece of collection of the most relevant and
valuable content in the scientific literature.
A total of 369 articles were
detected, with more than half of them (57%) dealing with the UML architecture.
The BPMN and CIMOSA architectures represented their popularity in the
scientific literature with 12% of articles, both. The percentage relation of
the articles referring to the architectures can be checked in figure 07.
Figure 7: Percentage ratio of archival articles found
in webibliomining
Table 01 shows the quantitative in
descending order of such articles detected in webibliomining, followed by the
predominant study area in which the studies of the modeling architecture in
question are concentrated. The indicators of the authors and countries that
published the most, as well as the percentage of articles in the English
language make up the data analysis.
Table 1: Classification of the modeling techniques regarding the aspects
Modeling Architecture
|
Papers Cited
|
Study Field
|
Author with most publications
|
Country with most publication
|
Paper in English
|
UML
|
211
|
Computer Science
|
Trujillo, J.
|
USA
|
98,6%
|
BPMN
|
45
|
Computer Science
|
Chiotti, O.
Lorre, J. P.
|
Germany
|
97,8%
|
CIMOSA
|
44
|
Computer Science
|
West, A.
|
England
|
100%
|
ARIS
|
24
|
Computer Science
|
Scheer, A. W.
|
Germany
|
95,8%
|
IDEF
|
18
|
Engineering
|
Venkateswaran, J.
Zakarian, A.
|
USA
|
95%
|
GRAI
|
12
|
Computer Science
|
Doumeingts, G.
|
France
|
100%
|
GERAM
|
8
|
Computer Science
|
Bernus, P.
|
Australia
|
100%
|
IEM
|
4
|
Engineering
|
X
|
Germany
|
100%
|
EKD
|
3
|
Engineering
|
X
|
USA
|
100%
|
Caption: X
= Insufficient Data
|
It is possible to conclude from the
analysis of table 01, that the UML, BPMN and CIMOSA architectures can be
clearly noticed as the three most numerous publications about the researched
subject. Conversely, GRAI, GERAM, IEM and EKD display low numbers of detected
articles.
The predominant area of study, in
which the architectures are inserted, is that of Computer Science, with the
exception of IDEF, IEM and EKD, which are predominantly inserted in the field
of engineering. This fact can be explained by the fact that the approach of
these architectures is more focused on the operational environment, while other
architectures such as UML and CIMOSA are more focused on software engineering.
There is no surprise about the
dominance of the English language in publications. However, the countries with
the largest publication are diverse and varied, with Germany and USA being the
most frequent representatives.
4.1.
Temporal aspects
In the evolutionary aspect of the
webibliomining analysis of the publications of the modeling architectures
treated in this article, the three modeling architectures with the highest
number of published articles were observed with more attention: BPMN, UML and
CIMOSA. Their graphs relating to publication histories are given in figure 08,
09 and 10.
Figure 8: BPMN: Publications beetwen (2005 – 2017)
As can be seen in figure 08,
publications related to the terms 'architecture' and 'BPMN' show a certain
variability reaching its peak in 2016, with 10 published papers, and the lowest
value in 2005 with only one article, find papers in the years 2008, 2007 and
2006.
Figure 9: UML: Publications beetwen (1999 – 2017)
The publications on the terms
'architecture' and 'UML' (figure 09) show a larger quantitative with the first
article dating from 1999. There is still a variable trend in the graph and its peak
in 2017 with 19 published articles.
Figure 10: CIMOSA: Publications between (1993 – 2017)
The interpretation of the graph of
figure 10 suggests some decadence of the themes related to the CIMOSA modeling
architecture in the scientific literature because there are no articles
published in the Web of Science database in the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and
2017. The peak of publications is in the year 2002, where 7 articles were
published.
The architectures ARIS and IDEF,
with 24 and 18 published articles, respectively, exhibit low number of
publications per year and can be classified as secondary architectures.
Regarding IEM architectures; EKD; GRAI and GERAM, the publication gaps are
significant during the period considered, suggesting a strong unpopularity in
the scientific academic environment.
4.2.
Comparative analysis of modeling
architectures
In this topic, a systematic mapping
study is promoted, relating the most relevant business process modeling
techniques of the scientific literature. This study provided a comparative view
of these architectures in relation to the aspects of the model, socio-technical
characteristics and visualization and analysis elements of the model.
Regarding the comparative evaluation
of the modeling architectures in the aspects of the model, the authors
considered the following interpretation of the factors: Why (purpose of the
model); What (model structuring); As (behavioral specification of the model);
and Who (specification of stakeholders, actors of the process). In table 02,
the evaluation in question can be observed.
Modeling Architecture
|
Model Aspects
|
|||
Why?
|
What?
|
How?
|
Who?
|
|
BPMN
|
Ñ
|
I
|
I
|
Ok
|
UML
|
I
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
ARIS
|
I
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
CIMOSA
|
I
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
IDEF
|
I
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
I
|
IEM
|
Ñ
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
EKD
|
Ok
|
I
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
GRAI
|
Ñ
|
I
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
GERAM
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
Ok
|
Caption: Ok = Adequate; I = Insufficient; Ñ = Not
Appropriate
|
GERAM
is perceived as the modeling architecture that fulfills all the requirements of the model
according to the authors with excellence. However, as stated by Bernus, Noran and
Molina (2015) and Romero & Vernadat (2016), the creation of this reference
architecture was an effort by developers of business process modeling to
generalize contributions from other underlying architectures. Even the part of
languages (and notation) UML and BPMN can be implemented in GERAM to
represent systems.
As for the BPMN,
one can see its incongruity in the question "Why", where the
motivation to be promoting the modeling is not clearly structured to the participants
of the process. This is corroborated by Van Der Aalst (2011), who says that the
BPMN architecture focuses mainly on the information provided by process
participants, through workshops or interviews, in order to trace the flow of
the process. In this way, the flowchart is focused, and little attention is
paid to the real motivation and modeling objectives (process improvement).
In tables 03 and 04,
the analysis is enriched when considering the socio-technical characteristics
of the modeling architectures, in which the following factors are considered:
Modularity (each unit of the model must encapsulate a specific objective,
structure and behavior); Decomposition (referring to the capacity of the model
to be broken down into parts); Responsiveness (ability to respond adequately to
your environment); Autonomy (ability to react an external stimulus on its own);
Intention (develop according to your goal); Adaptability (ability to adapt to a
particular context or specific situation); Uncertainty (providing means for
developing the model in an unknown context); Temporal (indefinite delay time
between an action and its response).
Modeling Architecture |
Model
Aspects |
|||
Modularity |
Decomposition |
Responsivity |
Autonomy |
|
BPMN |
Ok (How?) |
Ok (How?) |
Ok |
I |
UML |
Ok |
Ok |
Ñ |
Ñ |
ARIS |
Ok |
Ok |
Ok |
Ok |
CIMOSA |
I |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
IDEF |
OK |
I |
Ñ |
Ñ |
IEM |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
EKD |
Ok |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
GRAI |
I |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
GERAM |
I |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Caption: Ok = Adequate; I = Insufficient; Ñ = Not Appropriate |
Modeling Architecture |
Model
Aspects |
|||
Intention |
Adaptability |
Uncertainty |
Temporal |
|
BPMN |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
UML |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
ARIS |
I |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
CIMOSA |
I |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
IDEF |
I |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
IEM |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
EKD |
Ok |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
GRAI |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
GERAM |
Ok |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Caption: Ok = Adequate; I = Insufficient; Ñ = Not
Appropriate |
Once again one
can notice the BPMN having its "How" aspect addressed in the characteristics of modularity and decomposition.
UML diagramming notation, as defined by Larman (2002), shows a better degree of
modularity and decomposition by being able to abstract (represent in a model)
reality in different parts, which are its set of diagrams in the case. Similar to
UML, the ARIS architecture is able to represent the system in different
component parts of its model.
The GRAI reference architecture, which does not show
significant popularity in the scientific literature, can be interpreted as
simplistic and lagged when analyzed of its socio-technical characteristics
compared to other more traditional modeling techniques.
According to Oertwig, Jochem and Knothe (2017), IEM does
not offer sufficient adaptability to new industry requirements as a business
modeling technique. These authors cite the example of materials management,
information and cash flows, the pursuit of sustainable corporate development,
which presents an additional challenge to decision makers.
In the last analysis, we have the comparison of the business
process modeling architectures in the light of the aspects: Visualization
(support for visualization of the model); Executability (machine
interpretability, support for simulation / execution); Quantitative analysis;
Qualitative Analysis. The comparative relation of these characteristics is
given in table 05.
Modeling Architecture |
Model
Aspects |
|||
Visualization |
Executability |
Quantitative Analysis |
Qualitative Analysis |
|
BPMN |
Ok |
Ok (How?) |
Ok (How?) |
Ok (How?) |
UML |
Ok |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
ARIS |
Ok |
Ok (How?) |
Ñ |
Ok (How?) |
CIMOSA |
Ok |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
IDEF |
Ok |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
IEM |
I |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
EKD |
Ok |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
GRAI |
Ok |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
GERAM |
Ok |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Ñ |
Caption: Ok = Adequate; I = Insufficient; Ñ = Not
Appropriate |
Observing
the executable aspects of modeling in relation to the UML architecture, Zur
Muehlen and Recker (2013) affirm that in its diagrammatic part, there is not
enough expressivity to describe executable computational functions, because its
semantics is not so defined as necessary for this purpose. This fact becomes
intuitive when one observes the purpose of the UML to be a notation of aid to
the modeling. Differently from this concept one observes the exposed
executability of the BPMN in relation to its unique module "How".
As for the qualitative and quantitative analyzes, we have
the authors Yilmaz and Stirna (2015), who affirm that the syntax and semantics
of EKD are not well defined formally and rigorously, being able to generate
models ambiguous and difficult to interpret, mainly in systems, and it is not
possible to verify the consistency and completeness of the model.
ARIS architecture, according to Ghatrei (2015), supports
the analysis (qualitative) when exposing the sequencing of entities of the
model; corroborating, therefore, with the results shown in table 05.
Finally, the control flow perspective (sequencing /
ordering of activities) is often the basis of business process modeling
architectures, as can be observed in BPMN, ARIS, UML (activity diagram). Other
views, such as resource orientation (modeling focused on equipment, systems,
organizational units, etc.) and the perspective of time and function (role /
activities) are less explored in the scientific literature. This fact makes it
possible to find expressive amounts of BPMN content and little material on EMI
or EKD.
5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, it was reflected the
reference architectures in business process modeling with the objective of
elucidating a conceptual comparative view that could sketch, through
comparative analysis provenient from relevant webibliomining research of the
subject, an understanding of the function of such architectures organizational
processes and their management environment.
Several reference architectures in process modeling have
been cited and theoretically based (with the webiblioming resource), from the
most important ones in the literature such as BPMN and UML to the least cited
as IEM, GERAM and EKD, a fact that corroborates the methodological weight of
the article and gives it scientific relevance.
It is concluded that the comparative analyzes shown
foster the conceptual view of the state of the art of the literature about the
architectures of business process modeling. Contributing, in this way, to
researchers in future studies within the theme.
The purpose of the present paper is that research should
be more aligned with the focus on the analysis of aspects, characteristics and
functionalities of the models and their direct relation with the organizational
processes.
Finally, as a limitation to the
research, it is cited the use of only one database, Web of Science, which
despite presenting dense and relevant content, may have left out of this paper
articles that would be enhancing the subject.
REFERENCES
AMBLER, S. W. (2004) The object primer: Agile model-driven
development with UML 2.0. Cambridge
University Press.
ABDMOULEH, A.; SPADONI, M.; VERNADAT, F. (2004) Distributed
client/server architecture for CIMOSA-based enterprise components. Computers in industry, v. 55, n. 3, p.
239-253.
AWADID, A.; NURCAN, S. (2016, June) Towards enhancing
business process modeling formalisms of EKD with consistency consideration. In Research Challenges in Information Science
(RCIS), 2016 IEEE Tenth International Conference on, p. 1-12.
BARAT, S.; KULKARNI, V.; CLARK, T.; BARN, B. (2016)
Enterprise modeling as a decision making aid: A systematic mapping study. In
IFIP Working Conference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, p. 289-298, Springer, Cham.
BERNUS, P.; NORAN, O.; MOLINA, A. (2015) Enterprise
architecture: Twenty years of the GERAM framework. Annual Reviews in Control, v. 39, p. 83-93.
BEVILACQUA, M.; MAZZUTO, G.; PACIAROTTI, C. (2014) A
combined IDEF0 and FMEA approach to healthcare management reengineering. International Journal of Procurement
Management, v. 8, n. 1-2, p. 25-43.
BOOCH, G.; RUMBAUGH, J.; JACOBSON, I. (2006) UML: guia do usuário. Elsevier Brasil.
BRAGHETTO, K. R.; FERREIRA, J. E.; VINCENT, J. M. (2011,
October) Performance evaluation of business processes through a formal
transformation to SAN. In European Performance Engineering Workshop, p. 42-56, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
BUBENKO, J. A.; PERSSON, A.; STIRNA, J. (2001) User guide
of the knowledge management approach using enterprise knowledge patterns.
Stockholm (Sweden), Department of
Computer and Systems Science, Royal Institute of Technology.
CHINOSI, M.; TROMBETTA, A. (2012) BPMN: An introduction to
the standard. Computer Standards &
Interfaces, v. 34, n. 1, p. 124-134.
CONFORTI, R.; DUMAS, M.; GARCÍA-BAÑUELOS, L.; LA ROSA, M.
(2016) BPMN miner: automated discovery of BPMN process models with hierarchical
structure. Information Systems, v.
56, p. 284-303.
COSÍO-LEÓN, M. A.; OJEDA-CARREÑO, D.; NIETO-HIPÓLITO, J.
I.; IBARRA-HERNÁNDEZ, J. A. (2018) The use of standards in embedded devices to
achieve end to end semantic interoperability on health systems. Computer Standards & Interfaces, n.
57, p. 68-73.
FOWLER, M. (2014) UML Essencial: um breve guia para
linguagem padrão. Bookman Editora.
GHATREI, S. (2015) ARIS Enterprise Architecture's Usage
Reviews. Lecture Notes on Software
Engineering, v. 3, n. 1, p. 57.
HAISJACKL, C.; SOFFER, P.; LIM, S. Y.; WEBER, B. (2018) How
do humans inspect BPMN models: an exploratory study. Software & Systems Modeling, v. 17, n. 2, p. 655-673.
JIN G.; JÄKEL F. W. (2018) Execution and evaluation of
enterprise models in IEM/MO 2 GO based on Petri net. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, v. 96, n. 9-12, p. 4517-4537.
KARIM, S.; LIAWATIMENA, S.; TRISETYARSO, A.; ABBAS, B. S.;
SUPARTA, W. (2017) Automating functional and structural software size
measurement based on XML structure of UML sequence diagram. In Cybernetics and
Computational Intelligence (CyberneticsCom), 2017 IEEE International Conference, p. 24-28.
LAKHOUA, M. N.; RAHMOUNI, M. (2011) Investigation of the
methods of the enterprise modeling. African Journal of Business Management, v.
5, n. 16, p. 6845.
LARMAN, C. (2002) Utilizando UML e padrões. Bookman Editora.
LATIFFIANTI, E.; SISWANTO, N.; WIRATNO, S. E.; SAPUTRA, Y.
A. (2017) CIMOSA process classification for business process mapping in
non-manufacturing firms: A case study. In AIP
Conference Proceedings, v. 1902, n. 1, p. 020-040, AIP Publishing.
MENDLING, J.; RECKER, J.; REIJERS, H. A.; LEOPOLD, H.
(2018) An Empirical Review of the Connection Between Model Viewer
Characteristics and the Comprehension of Conceptual Process Models. Information Systems Frontiers, p.
1-25.
MOURA, P.; BORGES, R.; MOTA, A. (2003) Experimenting formal
methods through UML. In Proceedings of the Brazilian
Workshop on Formal Methods.
NADEZDA, Y.; FORESTI, G. L.; MICHELONI, C. (2017) An ADAS Design based on IoT V2X
Communications to Improve Safety.
PANAYIOTOU, N. A.; STAVROU, V. P.; GAYIALIS, S. P. (2017)
The application of a business process modeling architecture in the supply chain
of a manufacturing company: A case study. In Operational Research in Business and Economics, p. 1-16, Springer,
Cham.
PESSINI, T.; SANTANDER, V. F. A.; DA SILVA, I. F.; DE
ANDRADE, S. C.; SCHEMBERGER, E. E. (2017) BP2UC: De Processos de Negócios
Modelados com BPMN Simplificado para Casos de Uso UML. Revista Eletrônica Científica Inovação e Tecnologia, v. 1, n. 15,
p. 2.
ROMERO, D.; VERNADAT, F. (2016) Enterprise information
systems state of the art: Past, present and future trends. Computers in Industry, n. 79, p. 3-13.
ROSA, M. L.; VAN DER AALST, W. M.; DUMAS, M.; MILANI, F. P.
(2017) Business process variability modeling: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v. 50, n. 1, p. 2.
SANTOS, F. M. D. (2012) Análise de conteúdo: a visão de Laurence Bardin.
ŠERIFI, V.; DAŠIĆ, P.; DAŠIĆ, J. (2008) Functional and
information model of expert specialization using IDEF standard. Journal of Modelling and Optimization in
the Machines Building Fields (MOCM), v. 14, n. 2, p. 268-279.
STIRNA, J.; PERSSON, A. (2009) Anti-patterns as a means of
focusing on critical quality aspects in enterprise modeling. In Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems
Modeling, p. 407-418, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
SYCHENKO, V.; MIRONOV, D.; BIAŁOŃ, A. (2017)
Structural–functional model of maintenance and repair of the traction
substations equipment. TTS Technika
Transportu Szynowego, 24.
TBAISHAT, D. (2017) Business process modelling using ARIS:
process architecture. Library Management,
v. 38, n. 2/3, p. 88-107.
TENIENTE, E.; WEIDLICH, M. (Eds.) (2018) Business Process
Management Workshops: BPM 2017 International Workshops, Barcelona, Spain,
September 10-11, Revised Papers, v. 308, Springer.
VAN DER AALST, W. M. (2011) Process Discovery: An Introduction.
In Process Mining, p. 125-156, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg.
VAN DER AALST, W. M.; ROSA, M.; SANTORO, F. M. (2016)
Business process management. Business
& Information Systems Engineering, v. 58, n. 1, p. 1.
VERNADAT, F. B. (2003) Enterprise modelling and
integration. In Enterprise Inter-and Intra-Organizational Integration, p.
25-33, Springer, Boston, MA.
WEICHHART, G.; STARY, C.; VERNADAT, F. (2017) Enterprise
modelling for interoperable and knowledge-based enterprises. International Journal of Production
Research, p. 1-23.
YAN H.; PIETER V. G.; MEMBER, IEEE, KAYMAK U.; IEEE, XUDONG
L.; LEI J.; CHOO C.; HENDRIKUS H. M. K.; HUILONG D. (2018) Aligning event logs
to task-time matrix clinical pathways in BPMN for variance analysis. IEEE journal of biomedical and health
informatics, v. 22, n. 2, p. 311-317.
YILMAZ, N.; STIRNA, J. (2015) Factors influencing
productization of enterprise modeling: a qualitative inquiry into the
scandinavian strand of methods and tools. In IFIP Working Conference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, p.
193-208, Springer, Cham.
YU, X.; GU, P.; LIU, X.; SUN, L.; QIAN, D.; GUO, Y. (2017)
Modeling technology of virtual assembly system based on UML. In Electronics, Communication and Aerospace
Technology (ICECA), 2017 International conference of IEEE, v. 2, p.
722-726.
ZUR MUEHLEN, M.; RECKER, J. (2013) How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering, p. 429-443, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.