Characteristic and comparison of UML, BPMN and EPC based on process models of a training company

• Autorzy: Nizioł Marcin , Wiśniewski Piotr , Kluza Krzysztof , Ligęza Antoni

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15439/2021F139

• Konferencja: Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (16 ; 02-05.09.2021 ; online)
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We describe, characterize and compare three selected modeling notations of business processes: Unified Modeling Language, Business Process Model and Notation, as well as Event-Driven Process Chain. Using processes implemented in a~training company, the selected notations were discussed in detail. We compare various aspects, such as modeling notation origin, the number of graphical elements included. Moreover, notations were analyzed using the 4+1 architectural view model. Justified results of the survey conducted among employees of above-mentioned organization let us conclude that there exist notation differences. Both BPMN and EPC allow the process architects to prepare more precise and legible models than UML.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

business process management; BPMN; EPC; UML; process modeling

PL

zarządzanie procesami biznesowymi; BPMN; EPC; UML; modelowanie procesów

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Informatyczne
• Czasopismo: Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 26
• Strony: 193--200
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 48 poz., il.

Twórcy

autor

Nizioł Marcin

• AGH University of Science and Technology, al. A. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow

autor

Wiśniewski Piotr

• AGH University of Science and Technology, al. A. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow

autor

Kluza Krzysztof

• AGH University of Science and Technology, al. A. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow

autor

Ligęza Antoni

• AGH University of Science and Technology, al. A. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow

Bibliografia

• 1. P. Sli ̇z, “Robotization of business processes and the future of the labor market in poland-preliminary research,” Organization and Management, no. 2 (185), pp. 67-79, 2019.
• 2. R. Gabryelczyk, ARIS w modelowaniu procesów biznesu. Difin, 2006.
• 3. OMG, “Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) version 2.2. super-structure,” Object Management Group, Tech. Rep. formal/2009-02-02, February 2009.
• 4. J. Hunt, Guide to the Unified Process featuring UML, Java and Design Patterns. Springer, 2003.
• 5. M. Fowler, UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, 3rd ed. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2003.
• 6. D. Pilone and N. Pitman, UML 2.0 in a Nutshell. O’Reilly, 2005.
• 7. M. Owen and J. Raj, “BPMN and Business Process Management. Introduction to the new business process modeling standard.” OMG, Tech. Rep., 2006, www.bpmn.org.
• 8. N. Russell, W. M. P. van der Aalst, A. H. M. ter Hofstede, and P. Wohed, “On the suitability of UML 2.0 activity diagrams for business process modelling,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific conference on Conceptual modelling - Volume 53, ser. APCCM ’06. Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc., 2006, pp. 95-104.
• 9. D. Jäger, A. Schleicher, and B. Westfechtel, “Using uml for software process modeling,” in Software Engineering - ESEC/FSE ’99, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, O. Nierstrasz and M. Lemoine, Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1999, vol. 1687, pp. 91-108.
• 10. G. Engels, A. Förster, R. Heckel, and S. Thöne, “Process modeling using UML,” Process-Aware Information Systems, pp. 85-117, 2005.
• 11. M. Razavian and R. Khosravi, “Modeling variability in business process models using UML,” in Proceedings of the fifth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, 2008. ITNG 2008, 2008, pp. 82-87.
• 12. M. A. Kose and M. Ozkaya, “Towards extending uml’s activity diagram for the architectural modeling, analysis, and implementation,” in 2020 15th Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 639-648.
• 13. A. Derezińska and Ł. Zaremba, “Approaches to semantic mutation of behavioral state machines in model-driven software development,” in 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 863-866.
• 14. F. Hunka and J. Matula, “Towards paired transactions modeling,” in 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1153-1158
• 15. T. Gzik, “Modelowanie procesów biznesowych w UML,” Business Process Management Portal, 2018.
• 16. K. Kluza, P. Wiśniewski, K. Jobczyk, A. Lig ̨eza, and A. Suchenia (Mroczek), “Comparison of selected modeling notations for process, decision and system modeling,” in Proceedings of the 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems. IEEE, 2017, pp. 1095-1098.
• 17. M. Chinosi and A. Trombetta, “BPMN: An introduction to the standard,” Computer Standards & Interfaces, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 124-134, 2012.
• 18. P. Y. H. Wong and J. Gibbons, “Formalisations and applications of bpmn,” Science of Computer Programming, vol. 76, no. 8, pp. 633-650, 2011.
• 19. OMG, “Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN): Version 2.0 specification,” Object Management Group, Tech. Rep. formal/2011-01-03, January 2011.
• 20. S. Drejewicz, Zrozumieć BPMN modelowanie procesów biznesowych. Wydawnictwo Helion, 2012.
• 21. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), 2nd ed., Object Management Group, 12 2013, version 2.0.2 contains a minor change to Clause 15.
• 22. E. M. Sanfilippo, S. Borgo, and C. Masolo, “Events and activities: Is there an ontology behind BPMN?” in FOIS, 2014, pp. 147-156.
• 23. A. W. Scheer, Aris: Business Process Modeling, 3rd ed. Secaucus, NJ, USA: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 2000.
• 24. M. Rosemann and W. M. P. van der Aalst, “A configurable reference modelling language,” Information Systems, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1-23, 2007.
• 25. A. Amjad, F. Azam, M. W. Anwar, W. H. Butt, and M. Rashid, “Event-driven process chain for modeling and verification of business requirements-a systematic literature review,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 9027-9048, 2018.
• 26. D. M. Riehle, S. Jannaber, A. Karhof, O. Thomas, P. Delfmann, and J. Becker, “On the de-facto standard of event-driven process chains: How epc is defined in literature,” Modellierung 2016, 2016.
• 27. W. M. P. van der Aalst, “Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 639-650, 1999.
• 28. W. M. P. van der Aalst, J. Desel, and E. Kindler, “On the semantics of EPCs: A vicious circle,” in Proceedings of the EPK 2002: Business Process Management Using EPCs, Bonn, Trier, Germany, November 2002, pp. 71-80.
• 29. P. Pasamonik, “Modelowanie procesów biznesowych zorientowane na czynności,” Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Informatyki, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 102-116, 2010.
• 30. A.-W. Scheer, Architecture of integrated information systems: foundations of enterprise modelling. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
• 31. P. B. Kruchten, “The 4+ 1 view model of architecture,” IEEE software, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 42-50, 1995.
• 32. M. Cheung and J. Hidders, “Round-trip iterative business process modelling between bpa and bpms tools,” Business Process Management Journal, 2011.
• 33. W. Tscheschner, “Transformation from epc to bpmn,” Business Process Technology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 7-21, 2006.
• 34. O. Levina, “Assessing information loss in epc to bpmn business process model transformation,” in 2012 IEEE 16th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops. IEEE, 2012, pp. 51-55.
• 35. A. N. Khudori and T. A. Kurniawan, “Transforming epc aris markup language into bpmn metadata,” in 2019 International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology (SIET). IEEE, 2019, pp. 358-363.
• 36. J. Chanda, A. Kanjilal, S. Sengupta, and S. Bhattacharya, “Fam2bp: Transformation framework of uml behavioral elements into bpmn design element,” in International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology. Springer, 2011, pp. 70-79.
• 37. Y. Wautelet and S. Poelmans, “An integrated enterprise modeling framework using the rup/uml business use-case model and bpmn,” in IFIP Working Conference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling. Springer, 2017, pp. 299-315.
• 38. A. Kalnins and V. Vitolins, “Use of UML and model transformations for workflow process definitions,” arXiv preprint cs/0607044, 2006.
• 39. M. Argañaraz, A. Funes, and A. Dasso, “An mda approach to business process model transformations,” Electronic Journal of SADIO (EJS), vol. 9, pp. 24-48, 2010.
• 40. J. Pulgar and M. C. Bastarrica, “Transforming multi-role activities in software processes into business processes,” in International Conference on Business Process Management. Springer, 2016, pp. 372-383.
• 41. M. A. Cibran, “Translating BPMN models into UML activities,” in International Conference on Business Process Management. Springer, 2008, pp. 236-247.
• 42. N. Q. Bao, “A proposal for a method to translate BPMN model into UML activity diagram,” in 13th International Conference on Business Information Systems, 2010.
• 43. L. Aversano, C. Grasso, and M. Tortorella, “Managing the alignment between business processes and software systems,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 72, pp. 171-188, 2016.
• 44. K. Grolinger, M. A. Capretz, A. Cunha, and S. Tazi, “Integration of business process modeling and web services: a survey,” Service Oriented Computing and Applications, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 105-128, 2014.
• 45. P. Wiśniewski, K. Kluza, E. Kucharska, and A. Ligęza, “Spreadsheets as interoperability solution for business process representation,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 345, 2019.
• 46. K. Grigorova and K. Mironov, “Bridging the gap between different interfaces for business process modeling,” International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 2479-2482, 2015.
• 47. K. Grigorova and K. Mironov, “Conversion of business process models using workflow patterns,” in 2018 5th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT). IEEE, 2018, pp. 763-766.
• 48. A. N. Khudori and T. A. Kurniawan, “Business process model transformation techniques: A comprehensive survey,” Advanced Science Letters, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 8606-8612, 2018.

Uwagi

1. Track 3: Advances in Information Systems and Technology

2. Session: 27th Conference on Knowledge Acquisition and Management

3. Position papers