Characterization and Tool Supported Selection of Business Process Modeling Methodologies

3 Characterization and Tool Supported Selection

Roland Kaschek1, Roman Pavlov2, Vladimir A. Shekhovtsov2, Sergiy Zlatkin1

1 Department of Information Systems, Massey University, New Zealand{S.Zlatkin,R.H.Kaschek}@massey.ac.nz

2 Department of Computer-Aided Management Systems, National Technical UniversityKPI” Kharkiv, Ukraine

[email protected]

3.1 Introduction

Business process modeling faces considerable complexities. There are various rea-sons for these complexities: conflicting modeling goals; the need for the processsimulation or automation by means of a workflow management systems [27], busi-ness process management systems ([22], [26]) or other process-aware informationsystems [9]; wide diversity of modeling stakeholders such as customers, owners,business analysts, system analysts, programmers, and testers.

One of these complexities is the problem of selection of an adequate modelingmethodology. In the process of choosing business process modeling methodology(BPMM) most suited for the particular task the responsible decision maker has toact under such conditions as incomplete knowledge, insufficient resources, compati-bility requirements, and lack of time. In this situation, responsible persons are oftentempted to reduce risk by choosing from the set of familiar methodologies.

The selection problem is further complicated because there are too many method-ologies to choose from. The set of currently available BPMMs includes proprietaryvendor-specific methodologies (e.g. WDL [12], etc.), de-facto standards created andpromoted by various standard bodies (such as UML Activity Diagrams by OMG[21], XPDL by Workflow Management Coalition [28], etc.), well accepted method-ologies for process modeling in the particular limited problem area (e.g. Petri Nets[3], Event-driven Process Chains [16], etc.). Usually, better-known BPMMs are

of Business Process Modeling Methodologies

W. Abramowicz and H.C. Mayr (eds.), Technologies for Business Information Systems, 25–37. © 2007 Springer.

25

“

recommendations regarding which methodology to use.During the last decade, large number of works focusing on methodology selec-

tion limited for particular problem domains has been published. In [17] and [18]Kaschek and Mayr proposed frameworks for comparing object-oriented modeling(OOM) tools and analysis methods. Using these frameworks, they built detailed char-acterization taxonomies aimed to accompany the process of selecting these tools andmethods. In our opinion, it is possible to apply the general approach to method se-lection from [18] for selecting BPMMs. We therefore use the basic principles of thisapproach as a basis for the selection framework described in our paper. Albertyn([8], [5], [4]) has introduced ontology for the particular class of business modelingprocesses (e-Processes) intended to aid the development of e-commerce informa-tion systems. This ontology provides two-level characteristics of e-Processes, scalesthereof, and a conceptual frame-work for quantitative assessment of e-Processes un-der comparison. Al-Humaidan and Rossiter [6] carried out similar research. Theirmethodologies taxonomy is intended to aid the development of workflow-orientedinformation systems. Mansar et.al. [19] proposed a strategy for selecting processredesign knowledge.

Some works also dealt with comparison of BPMMs. An obvious approach to useis pairwise comparisons of the admissible methodologies (e.g. [10] compares UMLand EPC, or [24] compares XPDL, BPML and BPEL4WS). Other approaches focuson one particular criterion. For example, van der Aalst et. al. identify a list of controlworkflow patterns [1] and analyze several BPMM regarding the aid they provide forusing these patterns [2]. Running a few steps forward, we suggest that our expertsrefer to workflow patterns when valuing behavioral perspective (see section 3.3.5).Mendling et. al. have compared how different BPMMs are interchanged betweentools and systems [20]. We refer experts to that work when valuing exchangeability(see section 3.3.6).

Apart from those isolated approaches, we are not aware of any general frame-work for selecting from a set of admissible BPMMs. In this paper we try to buildthe foundation of such a framework based on a method ranking approach combinedwith a case based approach (according to [18]). We will also justify each criterionintroduced in this framework, and describe the supporting software.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in the next section, we explainour selection method. In section 3.3, we introduce the criteria of our framework. Insection 3.4, we discuss the tool developed to support the approach. In section 3.5, wemake conclusions and discuss the directions for future research.

3.2 The Selection Method

We propose a method for selecting from a set of admissible BPMMs those that arebest suited for a set of modeling cases. The method quantitatively assesses the admis-sible BPMM for each modeling case, aggregates the individual assessment outcomes,

accompanied with the instruction material, but it is very difficult to find and assess any

26 Roland Kaschek, Roman Pavlov, Vladimir A. Shekhovtsov, Sergiy Zlatkin

and then selects the BPMM that scores highest for the total. In this paper, however,we focus on obtaining the assessments of the admissible BPMMs.

We understand assessing” metaphorically as measuring, with a person obtainingthe data by following a heuristic procedure. Assessing therefore requires defininga quality and a respective scale such that each scale instance represents a specificcondition of the quality. The scale values can be figures and then each figure standsfor a particular multiple of a unit of the quality. The scale becomes then an orderedset, as it inherits the order of numbers. Alternatively, the scale values can be labelsof an arbitrary kind. Such a label being the score of a BPMM means that the BPMMmeets a condition that is associated with the label. The quality on which we focus inthis paper is the suitability of a BPMM for a modeling task.

We consider the quality of a BPMM to be multi-faceted, as is commonly donefor other complex entities such as software systems [13] or software processes [25].The purpose of a BPMM is to guide a number of individuals in modeling businessprocesses. A BPMM therefore must incorporate knowledge about how to model busi-ness processes. We group this knowledge into the following classes:

1. the modeling system, i.e. the suggested modeling notions, abstraction concepts,patterns, and anti-patterns;

2. the representation system, i.e. the suggested notation for representing businessprocess models;

3. the cost for producing the result, including the ability to forecast this cost andthe precision and cost of the forecast;

4. the domain of application, i.e. the domain regarding which the BPMM claimsto be useful;

5. the usability, i.e. the ability of BPMM to support multiple views (perspectives)of business processes;

6. the compatibility of the BPMM with other methodologies, and7. the maturity, i.e. its stability, theoretical foundation, tool support, documenta-

tion, etc.

Please note that in this paper we only consider the selection of a BPMM for amodeling task. Obviously, when focusing on a different task such as (1) implement-ing a business process with a workflow management system, or (2) using the BPMMuntil further notice for modeling all business processes, the BPMM suitable for thattask might may be different from the one most suitable for the task on which wefocus in this paper.

We consider the classes introduced above as characteristics of BPMMs. Scoringa BPMM with respect to these characteristics depends strongly on knowledge of thecharacteristics. We consider obtaining these scores to be a task requiring businessknowledge. It requires case-specific knowledge, which typically is available to busi-ness experts but not to method experts. Business experts, on the other the other hand,often would not have a sufficient knowledge of the existing methodologies and their

3 Characterization and Tool Supported Selection of Business Process 27

“

assessment and thus would have difficulties choosing a suitable methodology. Con-sequently, effective and efficient choice of the BPMM best suited for a set of cases,requires blending the knowledge of business experts and methodology experts. Wepropose achieving this by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [23].

AHP assessment follows a four-step procedure. First, the main objective is de-fined (which is select the best suited BPMM” in our case), followed by the method-ology step, business step, and decision-making step.

On the methodology step, we first complete the definition of the set of charac-teristics. Our characteristics form a two-level hierarchy (see section 3.3 for this). Wethen pick the alternatives, i.e. the admissible BPMMs. Together with the character-istics they build the complete hierarchy. Finally, the methodology experts assess theadmissible BPMMs by pairwise comparison in terms of the second-level criteria.

During the business step, the business experts rank the relative importance ofthe characteristics for the modeling case at hand. They first rank the top-level char-acteristics and then the second-level characteristics inside the particular branch ofhierarchy. For these rankings, the pairwise comparison technique is used as well.

During the decision-making step, the methodology expert knowledge and thebusiness expert knowledge are blended. To calculate the final priorities of the admis-sible BPMM, the ideal synthesis” AHP mode ([11], pp. 151-174) is used.

For further details on this method including its theoretical foundations, practicallimitations and ways to overcome them, examples of calculations and formulas, werefer the reader to our paper [15]]. In this paper, we also addressed and discussed thesolutions for two main problems of classic” AHP, namely (1) ensuring the consis-tency of the pairwise comparison matrix, and (2) avoiding rank reversals. We alsoused two case studies to demonstrate our approach in action.

3.3 The BPMM characteristics

As mentioned above, the characteristics for BPMM evaluation are organized intoa two-level hierarchy. On the top level, there are general characteristics (BPMMknowledge classes) described in section 2: modeling system, representation system,cost, domain, usability, compatibility, and maturity. In this section, we de-scribe thesub-characteristics of these knowledge classes in detail.

3.3.1 Modeling system

We subdivide this general characteristic into the following sub-characteristics:

• Completeness, i.e. the degree to which the BPMM provides a means of expres-sion, such as modeling notions, abstraction concepts, patterns, and anti-patterns,

We use a terminology that is different from the original one used in [23].

1

1


“

“

“

that enables the business experts to effectively and efficiently solve modelingtasks within the domain of application of the BPMM. The corresponding ques-tion is does the BPMM provide a means of expression and guidance for effi-ciently modeling business processes belonging to the BPMM’s domain of appli-cation?”

• Redundancy, i.e. the ratio of the BPMM provides a means of expression thatcan be defined by the means of other such entities. The corresponding questionis what is the relative number of means of expression that can be defined usingother such means?”

• Concept quality, i.e. the ratio of ill-defined (ambiguous or unclear) means ofexpression of the BPMM. The corresponding question is what is the relativenumber of means of expression that are ambiguous or not clearly defined?”

• Concept adequacy, i.e. the suitability of the BPMM-suggested modeling systemfor modeling tasks within the BPMM’s domain of application. The correspond-ing question is how close to the common understanding of domain objects andconcepts are the BPMM means of expression?”

• Process nesting, i.e. the degree of support of model and process nesting for theparticular methodology. The corresponding question is which degree of businessprocess nesting is supported?” Complex process models can be split onto simplermodels that contain more specific routine activities or subprocesses.

3.3.2 Representation system

We subdivide this general characteristic into the following sub-characteristics.

• Readability, i.e. the simplicity and clarity of the particular notation, the levelof representation of the widely accepted business-oriented concepts. The corre-sponding question is how readable is the notation of the particular BPMM forpeople that are familiar with the method’s domain?”

• Granularity with the corresponding question how much detail in businessprocess descriptions is supported?” Some problems require very fine-graineddescriptions for the business activities; some can be used with more abstract,coarse-grained descriptions. For example, for business process re-engineering itwould be necessary to specify the exact way of sending the document, e.g. putthe document into an envelope”, put the stamp on the envelope”, send the enve-lope with the document via priority mail” (later on all of these could be replacede.g. with send the document via email”). For other problem areas, it would besufficient to use a coarser send the document” description.

• Learnability, with the corresponding question how steep is the learning curveof this BPMM?” Sometimes the users have no previous experience working withany BPMM in this case the simplicity of learning could have high relative meritfor them. On the other hand, experienced users (or users with more time andother resources) could treat other characteristics as more important.

29

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“ “

““

“

“

3 Characterization and Tool Supported Selection of Business Process

–

3.3.3 Cost

As mentioned above we include here:

• Ability to forecast precisely the cost of creating a model using a particularBPMM. This may include such items as hardware and software costs, humanresources involved, etc. The corresponding question is how precise are the costforecasts suggested by the BPMM?”

• Cost of the forecast, with the corresponding question how expensive is a costforecast as suggested by this BPMM?”

3.3.4 Domain of application

We subdivide this characteristic into the following sub-characteristics:

• Versatility, with the corresponding question how flexible is this BPMM, andwhat is its ability to cover different problem areas?”

• Suitability for the particular problem areas, with the corresponding questionhow well is this BPMM suited for a given problem area?” For this paper, we se-

lected three problem areas: real-time process modeling, web services interactionmodeling and the process modeling in the communication domain.

3.3.5 Usability

We subdivide this characteristic into the following sub-characteristics according to[14].

• Functional perspective, i.e. the estimation of the BPMM’s ability to de-scribeand store the general specification of the business process. The correspondingquestion is what is the quality and completeness of the general specification ofthe business processes implemented in this BPMM?” The most important part ofspecification with regard to this criterion is the goal of the process; other valuablecomponents are the process tasks, its general description, etc.

• Behavioral perspective, i.e. the estimation of the BPMM’s ability to supportelements describing the complex behavior of the business process (sequentialactions, synchronization, asynchronous execution, loops, exceptions etc.). Themost practical way of making this evaluation is to estimate the BPMM capa-bilities of implementing the common workflow patterns [1] via the followingquestion what is the level of implementation of the workflow patterns for thisBPMM?”

• Resource perspective, i.e. the estimation of the BPMM’s ability to describe andstore the resources of the business process: its inputs and outputs, its internal dataetc. The corresponding question is what is the quality and completeness of theresource descriptions implemented in this BPMM?”


“

“

“

“

“

“

“

• Organizational perspective, i.e. the estimation of the BPMM’s ability to de-scribe the participants of the business process (departments, people, systems etc.)and their roles. The corresponding question is what is the quality and complete-ness of the participant descriptions implemented in this BPMM?”

3.3.6 Compatibility

We subdivide this characteristic into the following sub-characteristics.

• Exchangeability, with the corresponding question how well can instantiationsof a given BPMM be exchanged between tools implementing the BPMM?” Thesurvey paper [20] can be useful for the comparison according to the criterionbased on this characteristic.

• Mappability, with the corresponding question how well can instantiations of agiven BPMM be mapped onto instantiations of other BPMM?”

3.3.7 Maturity

We subdivide this characteristic into the following sub-characteristics.

• Stability, with the corresponding question how stable (or well accepted) in theBPM community is this BPMM?” Stability can address the quality of the method,the time of its foundation, the reputation of its authors, etc.

• Theoretical foundation, i.e. the level of theoretical support for the particularBPMM, the ability of its basic concepts to be mathematically proved, its ana-lytical capabilities (for example, the ability of its models to be converted intosimulation models). The corresponding question is how satisfactory is the the-oretical foundation of a given BPMM?”

• Tool support, i.e. the presence and quality of the current software implementa-tion of the particular methodology. The corresponding question is what is thequality and availability of tools to implement a given BPMM?”

• Documentation, i.e. the availability and quality of the respective documentationfor the BPMM, its comprehensiveness and relative simplicity. Hence, the ques-tion is is the required documentation available and how comprehensive is it?”

3.4 BPMM Selector Tool

To support the heuristics presented in [15] and in this paper, the tool called BPMMSelector was implemented as web-based information system. Experts and all inter-ested users can access this system using any JavaScript-capable web browser. Fig. 1shows the high-level architecture of the tool.

BPMM Selector has extendable component architecture based on the .NETFramework (using ASP.NET features). All domain logic is implemented as ASP.NETweb services. All the expert values are stored in a database.

31

“

“

“

“

“

“

“


Fig. 1. BPMM Selector Architecture

Interaction of users with the BPMM Selector is performed via the set of views.These views form the presentation tier of the application. Every view is the separatemodule allowing the user to work with the particular kind of information. Currentlythese views are implemented as ASP.NET-powered pages with corresponding code-behind components. The views are developed using AJAX technology [7] that issupposed to enrich the user interaction. No page reloads are necessary in process ofthe user interaction with the view; all interactions are processed on the client sidewith JavaScript code.

Currently, there are the following views implemented for the BPMM Selector:criteria view, methodologies view, experts view, users view, and decision view.

Criteria view (Fig. 2) displays the expandable hierarchy of criteria. Users cannavigate through hierarchy and make necessary modifications. Every criterion is ac-companied with description.

Methodologies view (Fig. 3) displays information about BPM methodologiesthat are registered with BPMM Selector. It is possible to see further informationabout each BPMM from this view. This information is linked to the name of the par-ticular methodology in the list and contains the complete methodology descriptionand the list of external links.

Experts view (Fig. 4) is intended to be used by methodology experts. It displaysall their results of assessments of the admissible BPMMs by pairwise comparisonin terms of the second-level criteria registered into BPMM Selector and al-lows tomodify these values. As shown on Fig. 4, to simplify interaction it is possible to filterinformation of this view by criterion and expert.


Fig. 2. Criteria view

Fig. 3. Methodology view

Fig. 4. Expert view


Users view is intended to be used by business experts. They can browse andmodify their criteria preferences.

Decision view (Fig. 5) shows the final priorities of the BPM methodologies forthe supplied problem. These priorities form the selection recommendation.

Fig. 5. Decision view showing the selection recommendation

The business logic of the application is comprised with the computational part.This part was developed as a separate module connected to both the database andthe presentation layer. The external interface of this module is implemented as a webservice. It allows us to provide the computational resource to other systems (businesspartners) where similar assessment routines are required.

The interface of the computational part is intended to be used by business part-ners falling into three categories. The first category includes other BP-related orprocess-aware systems where the selection of BPMM is required. In this case, theweb service input consists of the list of alternatives considered by the business ex-perts and their values for the criteria importance. The BPMM Selector provides thecriteria and the assessments of the methodology experts. The second category in-cludes arbitrary systems where AHP-based decision-making is needed. In this case,the web service input consists of the complete criteria hierarchy, solution alterna-tives, methodology expert values, and business experts’ values. The third categoryincludes the systems (particularly future versions of the BPMM Selector) that usethe collected information (the set of BPMM, the set of criteria, and the assessmentvalues) to make decisions based on the methods different from AHP. In this case, theweb service transfers the collected information into other computational module.

The data access tier of the application consists of the routines intended to simplifythe database interaction. Currently, BPMM Selector uses Microsoft SQL Server asthe database engine, but this tier hides all the database-specific code from the othertiers of the application, therefore it is possible to easily switch to other databaseserver at any time.


3.5 Conclusions and future work

In this paper, we have described the architecture and implementation of the BPMMSelector tool supporting the process of selecting among business process modelingmethodologies. The tool applies specific version of the AHP for select-ing the bestbusiness process modeling methodology for a given modeling task based on criteriaobtained from the two-level hierarchical list of BPMM charac-teristics. To obtain theselection recommendation, BPMM Selector uses blended expert knowledge fromboth methodology experts and business experts. All the information necessary formaking a selection is registered with BPMM Selector using Web-based interface.

The first direction for the future work is related to the fact that the current no-tion of expert needs to be significantly extended. We need to create the directory ofexperts where every expert is accompanied with some properties (affiliation, area ofcompetence etc). Users should be able to filter experts according to the values ofthe parameters (for example, all experts from the particular university) and performcalculation with the subset of the expert pool.

Filtering experts according to the values of parameters is the simplest exampleof choosing the subset of experts. More advanced solution seems to be applying theAHP to the process of selecting the experts. Both these selecting/filtering techniquescan be used together so the user can choose one or the other.

The second direction is to implement the internal XML representation of thedata, which can be used to perform data exchange between different components ofthe system. Since the values are organized in a hierarchy, XML appears to be thebest choice of format for their transfer. XQuery expressions can be used to performqueries to the data.

Other directions for the future work are as follows: (1) attracting methodologyexperts to populate the Expert Values database, (2) applying the heuristics and thetool in a number of fully realistic case studies, and (3) comparing the BPMM se-lection method described in this paper with rule-based selection methods as well ascase-based selection methods.

References

1. van der Aalst, W.M.P.; ter Hofstede, A.H.M.; Kiepuszewski, B.; Barrios, A.P.: WorkflowPatterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases. Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 5-51, 2003.

2. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Standard Evaluation, URL: http://is.tm.tue.nl/research/patterns/standards.htm (last accessed 07/01/06), last edited 2005.

3. Van der Aalst, W.M.P.; van Hee, K.: Workflow management: Models, Methods, and Sys-tems, The MIT Press, 2002.

4. Albertyn, F.: Ontology for the Selection of e-Processes, Web Information Systems Engi-neering WISE 2005 Workshops, LNCS 3807 Springer, pp. 1-10, 2005.


–

5. Albertyn, F.; Kaschek, R.: E-process selection; In Kotsis G., Bressan S., Taniar D.,Ibrahim I. K. (Eds.) The Sixth International Conference on Information Management andWeb-based Application & Services, Austrian Computer Society, [email protected] Vol. 183,pp. 143-152, 2004.

6. Al-Humaidan, F.; B.N. Rossiter, B.N.: A Taxonomy and Evaluation for Systems Analy-sis Methodologies in a Workflow Context: Structured Systems Analysis Design Method(SSADM), Unified Modelling Language (UML), Unified Process, Soft Systems Method-ology (SSM) and Organisation Process Modelling, CS-TR: 751, Department of Comput-ing Science, University of Newcastle, 2001.

7. Asleson, R.; Schutta, N., Foundations of Ajax, Apress, 2006.8. Albertyn, F.; Zlatkin, S.: The Process of Developing a Business Processes Assembler, in

Anatoly E. Doroshenko and Terry A. Halpin and Stephen W. Liddle and Heinrich C. Mayr(eds.): Proceedings of ISTA 2004 Conference, LNI P-48, pp. 165-176, GI, 2004.

9. Dumas, M.; van der Aalst, W.M.P.; ter Hofstede, A.: Process-Aware Information Systems:Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology, Wiley, 2005.

10. Ferdian: A Comparison of Event-driven Process Chains and UML Activity Diagramfor Denoting Business Processes, Project Work, Technical University Hamburg-Harburg,2001.

11. Forman, E.H.; Selly, M.A., Decision By Objectives, World Scientific Press, 2001.12. Groiss Informatics: System Administration, Dokumentversion 6.1.1, URL:

http://www.groiss.com (last accessed 07/01/06), 2003.13. Ghezzi, C.; Jazyeri, M.; Mandrioli, D.: Software Qualities and Principles. Chapter 101 of

Tucker, A. B.: Computer Science Handbook Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2nd ed. 2004.14. Jablonski, S.; Bussler, C.: Workflow Management: Modeling Concepts, Architecture and

Implementation, International Thompson Computer Press, 1996.15. Kaschek, R.; Pavlov, R.; Shekhovtsov, V.; Zlatkin, S.: Towards Selecting Among Business

Process Modeling Methodologies. In Witold Abramowicz and Heinrich C. Mayr (eds.:)Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Business Information Systems, BIS 2006,LNI-85, pp. 28-46, GI, 2006.

16. Keller, G.; Nuttgens, M.; Scheer, A.-W.: Semantische Prozeßmodellierung auf derGrundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozeßketten (EPK)”, in: Scheer, A.-W. (Hrsg.):Veroffentlichungen des Instituts fur Wirtschaftsinformatik, Heft 89, Saarbrucken 1992.

17. Kaschek, R., Mayr, H.C. A characterization of OOA tools. Proceedings of the FourthInternational Symposium on Assessment of Software Tools (SAST ’96), pp. 59-67, 1996.

18. Kaschek, R., Mayr, H.C. Characteristics of Object Oriented Modeling Methods. EMISAForum, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 10-39, 1998.

19. Mansar, S.L.; Reijers, H.A.; Ounnar, F.: BPR Implementation: a Decision-Making Strat-egy, Proceedings of the Workshop on Business Process Design 2005.

20. Mendling, J.; Neumann, G.; Nuttgens, M.: A Comparison of XML Interchange Formatsfor Business Process Modelling. In: F. Feltz, A. Oberweis, B. Otjacques, eds.: Proc. ofEMISA 2004 Informationssysteme im E-Business und E-Government”, Luxembourg,Luxembourg, LNI, vo. 56, pages 129-140, 2004.

21. Object Management Group, OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version2.0, URL: http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm (last accessed07/01/06), March 2003.

22. Ould, M.: Business Process Management: A Rigorous Approach, BCS, Meghan-KifferPress, 2005.


“

“

23. Saaty T.L.: Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning,Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications, 1990.

24. Shapiro, R.: A Technical Comparison of XPDL, BPML and BPEL4WS, Cape Vision,2002.

25. Sommerville, I.: Software Process Models. Chapter 102 of Tucker, A. B.: Computer Sci-ence Handbook Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2nd ed., 2004.

26. Smith, H.; Fingar, P.: Business Process Management: The Third Wave, Meghan-KifferPress, 2002.

27. Workflow Management Coalition Terminology and Glossary, Document Num-berWFMC-TC-1011, URL: http://www.wfmc.org (last accessed 07/01/06), 1999.

28. Workflow Management Coalition: Process Definition Interface - XML Process DefinitionLanguage, Document Number WFMC-TC-1025, Version 2.00, URL: http://ww.wfmc.org(last accessed 07/01/06), 2005.


Characterization and Tool Supported Selection of Business Process Modeling Methodologies

Documents

Transcript of Characterization and Tool Supported Selection of Business Process Modeling Methodologies