Understanding business process models : the costs and benefits of structuredness

Previous research has put forward a number of properties of business process models that have an impact on their understandability. Two such properties are compactness and(block-)structuredness. What has not been sufficiently appreciated at this point is that these desirable properties may be at odds with one another. This paper presents the results of a two-pronged study aimed at exploring the trade-off between compactness and structuredness of process models. The first prong of the study is a comparative analysis of the complexity of a set of unstructured process models from industrial practice and of their corresponding structured versions. The second prong is an experiment wherein a cohort of students was exposed to semantically equivalent unstructured and structured process models. The key finding is that structuredness is not an absolute desideratum vis-a-vis for process model understandability. Instead, subtle trade-offs between structuredness and other model properties are at play.

Towards a framework for business process standardization

Organizations increasingly seek to achieve operational excellence by standardizing business processes. Standardization initiatives may have different purposes, such as process streamlining, process automation, or even process outsourcing. However, standardization of processes is easier said than done. Standardization success depends on various factors, such as existent IT capabilities, available standard frameworks, market situation, and the processes’ nature, such as their level of routine or structuredness. This paper uncovers the complex nature and relative influence of process-internal and -environmental factors relevant to process standardization, by discussing three case studies from different industries. The findings are summarized in a set of initial conjectures about successful process standardization. This exploratory research is a first step towards uncovering the characteristics of successful process standardization efforts.

Unraveling unstructured process models

A BPMN model is well-structured if splits and joins are always paired into single-entry-single-exit blocks. Well-structuredness is often a desirable property as it promotes readability and makes models easier to analyze. However, many process models found in practice are not well-structured, and it is not always feasible or even desirable to restrict process modelers to produce only well-structured models. Also, not all processes can be captured as well-structured process models. An alternative to forcing modelers to produce well-structured models, is to automatically transform unstructured models into well-structured ones when needed and possible. This talk reviews existing results on automatic transformation of unstructured process models into structured ones.

Automated Discovery of Structured Process Models: Discover Structured vs. Discover and Structure

This paper addresses the problem of discovering business process models from event logs. Existing approaches to this problem strike various tradeoffs between accuracy and understandability of the discovered models. With respect to the second criterion, empirical studies have shown that block-structured process models are generally more understandable and less error-prone than unstructured ones. Accordingly, several automated process discovery methods generate block-structured models by construction. These approaches however intertwine the concern of producing accurate models with that of ensuring their structuredness, sometimes sacrificing the former to ensure the latter. In this paper we propose an alternative approach that separates these two concerns. Instead of directly discovering a structured process model, we first apply a well-known heuristic technique that discovers more accurate but sometimes unstructured (and even unsound) process models, and then transform the resulting model into a structured one. An experimental evaluation shows that our “discover and structure” approach outperforms traditional “discover structured” approaches with respect to a range of accuracy and complexity measures.

Using distributions as statistical evidence in well-structured and ill-structured problems

Research has suggested that understanding in well-structured settings often does not transfer to the everyday, less-structured problems encountered outside of school. Little is known, beyond anecdotal evidence, about how teachers' consideration of distributions as evidence in well-structured settings compares with their use in ill-structured problem contexts. A qualitative study of preservice secondary teachers examined their use of distributions as evidence in four tasks of varying complexity and ill-structuredness. Results suggest that teachers' incorporation of distributions in well-structured settings does not imply that they will be incorporated in less structured problems (and vice-versa). Implications for research and teaching are discussed.