Enhancing Business Processes with Web 2.0 Features
Fadwa Yahya
1
, Khouloud Boukadi
1
, Zakaria Maamar
2
and Hanêne Ben Abdallah
3,1
1
Mir@cl Laboratory, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia
2
Zayed University, Dubai, U.A.E.
3
King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, K.S.A.
Keywords: Social Business Process, Web 2.0, BPMN, Domain-Specific Language.
Abstract: Web 2.0 aims to support human interactions and content creation by combining information from different
contributors. It can enhance business processes by improving communication, collaboration and exchange of
knowledge between various participants. These benefits led to the emergence of a new form of business
processes called Social Business Process (SBP). This paper provides for SBP modelling by proposing a
domain-specific language (DSL) based on an extension of the standard BPMN notation to model social
elements within an SBP. It is simple and yet generic thanks to the reduced number of extensions and its ability
to model SBP regardless of the used Web 2.0 technology. To show the applicability of the proposed notation,
we have implemented it within the BPMN2 modeller editor.
1 INTRODUCTION
Web 2.0 offers a range of new online services that
increase communication and collaboration inside and
outside enterprises (Schmidt and Nurcan, 2009). In
the literature, different studies discuss the impact of
Web 2.0 on Business Processes Management (BPM)
approaches in order to make them more agile (Bruno
et al., 2011). These studies have demonstrated the
ability of Web 2.0 to improve BPM approaches
(Schmidt and Nurcan, 2009) (Bruno et al., 2011)
(Schmidt and Nurcan, 2010).
In fact, Web 2.0 may enhance BPM via its four
principles: weak ties (Granovetter, 1973),
egalitarianism, social production (Benkler, 2006) and
service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). In
addition, Web 2.0 may also be used to enhance an
enterprise productivity by fostering collaboration and
knowledge sharing both among members of the same
team or among teams. Motivated by these advantages,
many enterprises are putting a lot of effort into
adopting Web 2.0 in their day-to-day operations.
These enterprises are referred to as Enterprise 2.0
(McAfee, 2006).
Enterprise 2.0 is characterized by the use of Web
2.0 technologies and applications to reach different
goals. Indeed, an enterprise may use Web 2.0 to
improve its visibility on search engines, to reduce the
cost of some services such as communication and to
improve the quality of its provided services especially
those related to customer satisfaction, etc. Web 2.0
may also be used to enhance transparency by
improving the availability of information and
knowledge across enterprises.
In order to reach its goal, an Enterprise 2.0 may
need to adapt its business processes to the new
context imposed by socialization. In this paper, we
focus on examining how a business process can be
adapted to become a Social Business Process (SBP).
That is, we outline the Web 2.0 features that can be
integrated in a business process to provide for the
Enterprise 2.0 context requirements. In addition, we
propose a modelling notation for SBP.
In terms of modelling, we adopted the "separation
of concern" principle where the business and social
aspects of an SBP can be modelled separately. To do
so, the business aspect may be represented using any
existing notation like the UML activity diagram
(OMG, 2011b) or the Business Process Model and
Notation (BPMN) (OMG, 2011a). However, the
social aspect should be modelled using a specialized
notation to ensure the clarity and modularity of the
business process model. The development of such a
notation requires a domain specific language (DSL)
that extends an existing Business Process Modelling
Language (BPML). In the literature, Brambilla et al.’s
extension to model SBPs consists of a set of
extensions and is strongly dependent on social
183
Yahya F., boukadi K., Maamar Z. and Ben Abdallah H..
Enhancing Business Processes with Web 2.0 Features.
DOI: 10.5220/0005526501830190
In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on e-Business (ICE-B-2015), pages 183-190
ISBN: 978-989-758-113-7
Copyright
c
 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

networks (Brambilla et al., 2012). Therefore, it allows
only the modelling of an SBP that uses a social
network as a Web 2.0 technology. To overcome this
limitation we propose a simple and yet generic
domain-specific language based on BPMN 2.0 [6],
the de facto standard for business process modelling.
The number of new extensions is kept to a minimum
and all of them are not biased towards any particular
Web 2.0 technology.
The remainder of this paper is structured as
follows. In Section 2, we concentrate on the use of
Web 2.0 by today’s businesses. In Section 3, we focus
on the ability of Web 2.0 to enrich business processes
with social elements. In Section 4, we present
BPMN4Social including its meta-model and concrete
syntaxes. Section 5 illustrates the BPMN4Social
notation supported by its editor. Finally, Section 6
concludes the paper.
2 HOW COMPANIES ARE USING
WEB 2.0
In this section, we concentrate on how Web 2.0
applications may be used by enterprises.
2.1 Internal Social Business
Web 2.0 is used inside enterprises to improve
communication and collaboration using specialized
functionalities such as messaging, profiling,
commenting, etc. (Bennett, 2012). Many enterprises
have considered connecting their employees through
Web 2.0 applications. One of the most popular
examples is “Salesforce.com” which uses a social
network called “Chatter” to foster communication
and collaboration between employees (Bennett,
2012). Bennett has shown how enterprises can benefit
from social networking to simplify interactions with
employees of other departments (Bennett, 2012).
According to Bennett, social networks “turned the
company into a community, where people feel
connected despite geographic and functional
divides.” Fortino et al. pointed out that approximately
half (52%) of the enterprises, that embrace social
networking sites, use them in order to keep employees
connected (Fortino and Nayak, 2010). The same
authors propose an architecture that consists of four
forms of social communication inside the enterprise:
“professional networking”, “professional
communication”, “professional knowledge base” and
“professional collaboration”.
2.2 Social Business-to-Consumer
Web 2.0 aims at improving interactions between
enterprises and customers. In fact, different studies
have shown the role of Web 2.0 in improving these
interactions. According to some studies (Zhu and
Chen, 2012) (Paniagua and Sapena, 2014) (Jussila et
al., 2014) (Samuel, 2012), B2C marketing is the most
suitable area where Web 2.0 could be used. Aihua et
al. argue that using Web 2.0 sites, enterprises can
adopt a new advertising model that attracts and allows
interactions with different customers (Zhu and Chen,
2012). This new model can be put in place through
Facebook pages or a Twitter account, for example.
Furthermore, the use of Web 2.0 in marketing allows
enterprises to freely advertise products and collect
online customers’ feedback.
According to Paniagua in (Paniagua and Sapena,
2014) enterprises can benefit from social media to
improve their financial performance using three
social media resources: conversations, sharing and
presence. Each social media resource may be used by
one of the two proposed channels named “revealed
preferences” and “social marketing” to assess
financial performance (Paniagua and Sapena, 2014).
2.3 Business-to-Business and Web 2.0
According to Jussila et al., (Jussila et al., 2014), there
are many differences between the Business-to-
Business “B2B” and Business-to-Consumer “B2C”
in terms of complexity and exchanged products.
These differences affect the possibility to improve
B2B using social media in the same manner that B2C
is improved.
In this context, Jussila et al. highlight security
issues that need to be carefully considered when using
Web 2.0 in a B2B context. In fact, the authors state
that the dissatisfaction of customers or leakage of
critical information is fatal when combining social
media and B2B (Jussila et al., 2014). Nevertheless,
social media used in B2B improves communication
between different parties (Jussila et al., 2014).
The use of Web 2.0 in B2B was also considered
in the framework proposed by Paniagua in (Paniagua
and Sapena, 2014). This framework encompasses a
channel called “social capital channel” to represent
how social media affect intercompany relationships.
According to Michaelidou et al. in (Michaelidou et
al., 2011), social networking sites may be used to
develop and maintain relationships between B2B
firms. The authors claim that these media can help
B2B enterprises in different manners such as creating
direct relations with customers, increasing sales,
ICE-B2015-InternationalConferenceone-Business
184

identify new business opportunities, distributing and
collect content and reducing marketing budgets, etc.
In (Michaelidou et al., 2011), the authors mentioned
also some barriers that can slow the use of social
media in a B2B context. Indeed, the relevance of
these technologies depends on the application domain
and it requires some investments.
3 COMBINING BUSINESS
PROCESSES AND WEB 2.0
In this section, we focus on the benefits and risks of
Web 2.0 usage within enterprises. Then we propose a
definition of the social business process.
3.1 Key Web 2.0 Features for
Improving BP
Web 2.0 provides a set of features that can be used to
enhance BP. These features are essentially
communication, collaboration, sharing, and
collecting knowledge (Turban et al., 2011).
 Communication: Web 2.0 improves
communication between various participants and
allows different forms of free communication
(e.g., multicast, broadcast, chat, and
videoconference) (Bennett, 2012) (Fortino and
Nayak, 2010) (Muntean et al., 2014) (Turban et
al., 2011). These forms may be used to upgrade
BP by improving the communication between its
executors. On the one hand, this Web 2.0 feature
may be used to maintain the synchronization
between different enterprises’ departments when
executing BPs (Fortino and Nayak, 2010). On the
other hand, the use of Web 2.0 can improve
communication with external parties such as
clients and partners in order to better satisfy them.
 Collaboration: The execution of collaborative
business activities is enhanced when Web 2.0
applications are used. Actually, there are
numerous available Web 2.0 applications which
may be used to foster collaboration among
participants (Bennett, 2012) (Fortino and Nayak,
2010) (Turban et al., 2011) (Weinberg et al.,
2013). These applications can be used to execute
collaborative activities inside the business
process. In fact, Web 2.0 allows business process
executors to work on the same artifact, if needed.
Web 2.0 may also be used to ameliorate the
collaboration between business actors and
external engineers to resolve some problems that
appear during BP execution.
 Sharing knowledge: Web 2.0 provides a set of
applications that enable knowledge sharing
between known and/or unknown actors (Bennett,
2012) (Fortino and Nayak, 2010) (Paniagua and
Sapena, 2014) (Turban et al., 2011) (Weinberg et
al., 2013). Social media and Wikis are examples
of Web 2.0 applications that are often used to
share content between participants. This ability of
sharing knowledge can be used to enhance BP by
promoting the exchange of user created content
either between internal or external actors. The
sharing-of-knowledge feature can improve
several processes such as the marketing ones by
facilitating advertisement exposure.
 Collecting knowledge: Each Web 2.0 application
offers its own services that allow the online
collection of knowledge (e.g., profiling and
commenting) (Bennett, 2012) (Paniagua and
Sapena, 2014) (Turban et al., 2011) (Weinberg et
al., 2013). Collecting knowledge may improve
business processes in different manners. For
example, it may improve the recruitment process
by the possibility of online evaluation of
candidate profiles as well as the selection of the
best ones. Thanks to this Web 2.0 feature, it is also
possible to online collect customers’ feedbacks on
enterprise services and products.
3.2 Risks of Combining Web 2.0 and
Business Processes
The improvement of business processes using Web
2.0 results in many changes that affect the business
process model and execution (Brambilla et al., 2012).
Hence, new social interactions and social activities
coexist with the traditional business process
components to form a SBP. This combination of
social and business elements inside the SBP may raise
some concerns.
In the literature, many studies focus on the
negative effects on enterprises of Web 2.0 use
(Turban et al., 2011) (Davidson and Yoran, 2007)
(Sophia van Zyl, 2009) (Braun and Esswein, 2013).
 Security Risks: Security is one of the most
important challenges that must be considered
when combining business processes and Web 2.0.
In the literature, there are many studies have
shown the impact of using Web 2.0 on enterprise
security (Turban et al., 2011) (Braun and Esswein,
2013). When we deal with security there are
different entities that may be affected such as data,
networks, devices, etc. (Davidson and Yoran,
2007).
EnhancingBusinessProcesseswithWeb2.0Features
185

 Decreasing Productivity: The combination of
Web 2.0 and BP may result on decreasing the
productivity of employees. Indeed, employees
may use Web 2.0 outside work and for personal
reason (Sophia van Zyl, 2009). These practices
could result in a loss of time and resources.
 Data analysis Problems: Combining Web 2.0 and
enterprise business processes can produce a large
volume of data which is difficult to analyze and
interpret. Indeed, the analysis of the data produced
by social media is a current research topic that is
not solved yet (Braun and Esswein, 2013).
In spite of the above-mentioned risks a lot of
companies are adopting Web 2.0 and trying to
socialize their business processes (Cerenkovs and
Kirikova, 2014). In the following sub-section we will
present a definition of the social business process.
3.3 Social Business Process Definition
The migration towards Enterprise 2.0 involves
different changes in every-day work and affects
various business entities such as business process and
security policy. The goal of these changes is to make
these entities more adequate to the new environment
and fit with the Web 2.0 applications which are used.
Certainly, the business process is one of the most
entities that are affected by socialization since it
encompasses the enterprise's activities. In the
literature, many studies focus on the benefits of the
use of Web 2.0 to improve business and where Web
2.0 may produce a benefit (Schmidt and Nurcan,
2009) (Badr and Maamar, 2009) (Erol et al., 2010).
As shown in Section 2 there are different forms of
business (internal business, B2B, or B2C) that can be
improved thanks to Web 2.0. These benefits
encourage many enterprises to combine their business
processes with Web 2. ; e.g., Salecforce.com adopted
some form of SBP.
Despite the importance of SBP to Enterprise 2.0,
there is no clear and consistent definition to this
concept up to now. Brambilla et al. consider the social
business process implementation as “Web
applications integrated with public or private Web
social networks.” (Brambilla et al., 2012).
Yet, without a concise definition of SBP, it is
difficult to explain how business processes and Web
2.0 can be combined together. What is an SBP? And
what is the added value of an SBP compared to
regular processes? To answer these questions, we
define an SBP as a business process that uses any
Web 2.0 technology or application to achieve the
enterprise’s business goals and to foster
communication, collaboration and exchange of
knowledge either among internal or with external
actors in everyday work. This type of process aims to
benefit from the advantages of social content made
available through Web 2.0 (e.g. profiling) and
consists of two types of elements, business elements
that do not require Web 2.0 use and social elements
that are accomplished through Web 2.0.
4 BPMN4Social
In this section, we will give an overview of
BPMN4Social, our DSL for social business process
modeling, and then we will discuss the meta-model of
BPMN4Social. Finally, we will introduce our
graphical editor for SBP modeling.
4.1 Overview
BPMN (OMG, 2011a) is the OMG standard for BPs
modelling. Its graphical concepts are organized into
four categories: objects flow (i.e., activities, events,
and gateways), connecting objects (i.e., sequence
flow, message flow, and association), swimlanes (i.e.,
pools and lanes) and artefacts (i.e., data object, group,
and annotation). The syntax of BPMN is extensible as
new markers that can be defined on the graphical
notation to model specific types of processes like
social processes. The specification of social concepts
inside SBP at design time was dealt with only in the
BPMN extension proposed by Brambilla et al.
(Brambilla et al., 2012). This extension allows the
modeling of SBP by means of various extensions of
BPMN elements. Three types of pool named internal
performer, internal observer and external observer
extend the BPMN pool. A BPMN task is extended by
several specific tasks such as commenting, invitation
to activity, voting, etc. A new social relationship link
and an invitation’s acceptance/rejection are examples
of specialized BPMN events. Last but not least, a
BPMN gateway is extended by two specialized
decisions, which are choices performed by users or
automatically. This extension is closely related to
social networks and allows the modeling of only
social business processes that use a social network as
Web 2.0 application. Brambilla et al. proposed a
technical framework that allows the design,
implementation, deployment, and monitoring of SBP.
In the implementation phase, the proposed framework
allows enterprises to implement social business
processes as Web applications combined with any
social network.
ICE-B2015-InternationalConferenceone-Business
186

Figure 1: BPMN4Social Meta-model.
To overcome the limitations of Brambilla’s
extension, we define BPMN4Social as a BPMN
extension for SBP modelling. This extension
distinguishes social elements from business ones and
represents social interactions in the SBP model. Our
aim is to provide a simple and yet generic notation
that can be used easily by business analysts and
independent from any Web 2.0 application. On the
one hand, to ensure the simplicity of the notation it is
important to reduce the number of new extensions.
On the other hand, to guarantee independence from
technology, we will not consider any particular Web
2.0 service when defining the extension.
BPMN4Social consists of three activities, three pools,
a data object, a gateway, and two new events. Each
new extension is identified by a set of additional
attributes. BPMN4Social is detailed in the next sub-
section.
4.2 Meta-model
The extensions introduced by BPMN4Social are
shown in Figure 1. In this figure, only the relevant
classes of the BPMN meta-model are shown in white.
The BPMN4Social classes are shown in gray:
 Social Internal Pool: This extension is used in
order to model internal departments of the
company that use Web 2.0.
 Social Customer Pool: This extension is used in
order to model the individual customers of the
company, in the case of B2C, who use Web 2.0.
 Social Community Pool: This extension is used
to model the partners of the company that use
Web 2.0.
Each new pool is characterized by two supplementary
attributes:
- Technology: It identifies the used Web 2.0
application.
- Type: It distinguishes between authenticated and
anonymous users.
 Communication Activity: It is used to model
communication activities such as the exchange of
messages between the various internal and
external actors.
 Collaboration Activity: It is used in order to
model the collaborative activities, such as joint
drafting activities, among the various internal and
external actors.
 Collecting Activity: It is used to model activities
that allow the collection of information and
knowledge using Web 2.0. Such an activity may
be used to collect customers’ feedback.
 Sharing Activity: It is used to model activities that
allow the sharing of information and knowledge
using Web 2.0. Such an activity may be used to
share knowledge with various actors whether
known or unknown in advance.
Each new activity is characterized by four additional
attributes:
- Technology: It identifies the Web 2. application
used to execute the social activity.
- Social Service: It describes the service provided
by the Web 2.0 application (e.g., messaging and
commenting) that permits the accomplishment of
the social activity.
- Input Data: It describes the data required to
accomplish the social activity.
- Output Data: It describes the data produced by the
social activity.
EnhancingBusinessProcesseswithWeb2.0Features
187

 Send Social Notification: It is used to notify an
actor to participate in a new social activity. The
sender of a social notification can invite the
receiver to execute some tasks. A social
notification is communicated through the used
social software.
 Receive Social Notification: It waits until a new
notification is received from a participant through
the used social software.
These two new notifications have two additional
attributes:
- Technology: It identifies the used Web 2.0
technology or application.
- Social service: It describes the service provided
by Web 2.0 that permits the reception or the
transmission of the notification.
 Social Data Object: We define a social data object
as an extension of the BPMN 2.0 data object to
model the data required or produced by social
activities. A social data object has two additional
attributes:
- Type: It identifies the type of social data
object. It may be for example a text, an image,
a video, etc.
- Criticality: It allows distinguishing between
critical data, which require setting up specific
security procedures, from general data.
 Social Decision: The social decision notation
allows the modeling of distributed decision made
by different actors through Web 2.0. A social
decision has three additional attributes:
- Technology: It identifies the Web 2.0
application used by the social business
process.
- Social Service: It describes the service
provided by the used Web 2.0 application that
permits distributed decision-making.
- Participant: It describes the different actors
that must be involved in the decision making
process. An actor may be internal (e.g.,
company employees) or external (e.g.,
customer and partner).
4.3 Graphical Editor
Table 1 shows our proposed concrete syntax for
BPMN4Social which defines a visual representation
for the proposed notations. This concrete syntax
hastwo advantages: It is simple to use thanks to the
few new notations that are added to the standard
BPMN; also, new concepts of BPMN4Social have a
different representation and as a result, they are
distinguished from other BPMN concepts. We
implemented a graphical editor supporting this syntax
as shown in Figure 2. This editor extends the open
source editor BPMN2.0 modeler. Each new notation
is created as a customization of a standard BPMN2
element. The attributes of each new concept are
accessible, like standard attributes, via the property
sheet once selected.
Table 1: Concrete syntax for BPMN4Social.
BPMN
element
Social extension Notation
Pool
Social Internal Pool
Social Customer Pool
Social Community
Pool
task
Communication
Activity
Collaboration Activity
Collecting Activity
Sharing Activity
event
Send social
notification
Receive social
notification
Data object Social data object
gateway Social decision
5 EXAMPLE
To illustrate the use of our graphical editor and the
benefits of the proposed extension, we consider an
online course planning business process. In such a
business process, the audience is a critical factor as it
should be taken into account at the different stages of
the preparation of the course. First of all, the company
must maximize the learners number to secure better
profit. Consequently, an advertisement phase is requi-
ICE-B2015-InternationalConferenceone-Business
188

Figure 2: Online course planning process modelled with BPMN4Social.
red at the beginning of the project. Secondly, it is
important to customize the learning process
according to the audience in terms of goals, content,
structure, etc. Therefore, the company must know the
audience's learning skills, their jobs and capabilities
to access online courses, etc. Finally, the company
experts must focus on the course content, which plays
a critical role in how the audience learns the material.
During the development of the course, the experts
must collaboratively focus on how the course should
be organized. However, without using Web 2.0
applications, this process may become difficult due to
challenges such as advertisement costs, difficulty to
collect learning requirements, etc. The use of Web 2.0
applications may simplify this process in different
manners. For example, the advertisement phase may
be freely accomplished using a social network. In
fact, social media are considered as a suitable tool for
advertisement. Then, the company can collect online
learners’ feedback using Web 2.0. Finally, the set of
available Web 2.0 collaborative-writing tools may
play an import role in order to simplify the course
development task.
This example shows how a business process can
be improved using Web 2.0 in terms of
advertisement, online feedback collection and
collaborative execution of some tasks. This example
shows also the limitations of the extensions proposed
by Brambilla et al. which do not provide any specific
notation for modeling knowledge collection and
collaboration activities. These two social activities
are very important since one of the major
contributions of Web 2.0 is that it facilitates
collaboration and online knowledge collection. If this
process had to be modelled using a standard modeling
language like BPMN, the distinction between social
and regular interactions would not be clearly
illustrated. Nevertheless, by using our graphical
editor, the model will be clear and developers can
easily distinguish these interactions and activities
thanks to the new notations. Figure 2 shows the
process of planning an online course modelled via the
use of BPMN4Social.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Web 2.0 enhances business processes with new
functionalities that improve the exchange of
knowledge and information between various business
actors. Thus, new communication forms between
enterprises and stakeholders are created. In fact,
several studies have shown the added value of Web
2.0 practices inside the enterprise like the
improvement of enterprise productivity thanks to
collaboration between actors. The combination of
business and Web 2.0 leads to several changes in BP
and thus SBPs are rolled out. SBPs differ from
traditional ones as they are enriched by new social
features like commenting, sharing, etc. to allow
executors to accomplish some internal tasks or to
interact with either internal or external parties using
Web 2.0 applications. These new social elements
must be represented explicitly; therefore, it is
important to use a specific notation during the
modeling stage.
In this paper, we developed an extension to the
BPMN notation towards modeling SBP. The
proposed DSL consists of extending the BPMN visual
language for process design with new notations like
communication and collaboration activities, which
express social interactions between actors. These new
notations are defined as a customization of the
standard BPMN notation. This extension is
characterized by its simplicity and independence
EnhancingBusinessProcesseswithWeb2.0Features
189

from Web 2.0 technology. Our graphical editor is
implemented as an extension of BPMN2 modeler.
As a future endeavor, we plan to implement an
automatic code generator that generates an executable
code from the social business process model. The
generator development will benefit from model
transformations a la MDA.
REFERENCES
Badr, Y., Maamar, Z., 2009. Can Enterprises Capitalize on
Their Social Networks?. In Cutter IT Journal, 22(10),
p.10.
Benkler, Y., 2006. The wealth of networks: How social
production transforms markets and freedom. In Yale
University Press.
Bennett, S., 2012. The benefits of communicating and
collaborating in a real-time enterprise social network.
In Professional Communication Conference (IPCC),
2012 IEEE International. IEEE, pp. 1–4.
Brambilla, M., Fraternali, P., Vaca Ruiz, C.K., 2012.
Combining social web and BPM for improving
enterprise performances: the BPM4People approach to
social BPM. In Proceedings of the 21st international
conference companion on World Wide Web. ACM, pp.
223–226.
Braun, R., Esswein, W., 2013. Towards a
Conceptualization of Corporate Risks in Online Social
Networks: A Literature Based Overview of Risks. In
Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference
(EDOC), 2013 17th IEEE International, pp.267–274.
Bruno, G., Dengler, F., Jennings, B., Khalaf, R., Nurcan,
S., Prilla, M., Sarini, M., Schmidt, R., Silva, R., 2011.
Key challenges for enabling agile BPM with social
software. In Journal of Software Maintenance and
Evolution: Research and Practice, 23(4), pp.297–326.
Cerenkovs, R., Kirikova, M., 2014. Supporting
Introduction of Social Interaction in Business
Processes. In Perspectives in Business Informatics
Research. Springer, pp. 187–201.
Davidson, M.A., Yoran, E., 2007. Enterprise security for
web 2.0. Computer, 40(11), pp.117–119.
Erol, S., Granitzer, M., Happ, S., Jantunen, S., Jennings, B.,
Johannesson, P., Koschmider, A., Nurcan, S., Rossi, D.,
Schmidt, R., 2010. Combining BPM and social
software: contradiction or chance? In Journal of
Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and
Practice, 22(67), pp.449–476.
Fortino, A., Nayak, A., 2010. An architecture for applying
social networking to business. In Applications and
Technology Conference (LISAT), 2010 Long Island
Systems. IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Granovetter, M.S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. In
American journal of sociology, pp.1360–1380.
Jussila, J.J., Kärkkäinen, H., Aramo-Immonen, H., 2014.
Social media utilization in business-to-business
relationships of technology industry firms. In
Computers in Human Behavior, 30, pp.606–613.
McAfee, A.P., 2006. Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent
collaboration. In MIT Sloan management review, 47(3),
pp.21–28.
Michaelidou, N., Siamagka, N.T., Christodoulides, G.,
2011. Usage, barriers and measurement of social media
marketing: An exploratory investigation of small and
medium B2B brands. In Industrial Marketing
Management, 40(7), pp.1153–1159.
Muntean, M., Cabău, L.G., Rînciog, V., 2014. Social
Business Intelligence: A New Perspective for Decision
Makers. In Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
124, pp.562–567.
OMG 2011a. Business Process Model and Notation
(BPMN), Version 2.0. Available at: http://www.omg.
org/spec/BPMN/2.0/.
OMG 2011b. UML 2.4.1. Available at:
http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/.
Paniagua, J., Sapena, J., 2014. Business performance and
social media: Love or hate? In Business Horizons,
57(6), pp.719–728.
Samuel, S., 2012. Embracing the social media revolution.
In Practice, 34(1), pp.48–51.
Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., 2010. Augmenting bpm with
social software. In Business Process Management
Workshops. Springer, pp. 201–206.
Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., 2009. BPM and social software.
Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 17
LNBIP, pp.649–658.
Sophia van Zyl, A., 2009. The impact of Social Networking
2.0 on organisations. In The Electronic Library, 27(6),
pp.906–918.
Turban, E., Bolloju, N., Liang, T.-P., 2011. Enterprise
social networking: opportunities, adoption, and risk
mitigation. In Journal of Organizational Computing
and Electronic Commerce, 21(3), pp.202–220.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2008. Service-dominant logic:
continuing the evolution. In Journal of the Academy of
marketing Science, 36(1), pp.1–10.
Weinberg, B. D., Ruyter, K. D., Dellarocas, C., Buck, M.,
Keeling, D. I., 2013. Destination social business:
Exploring an organization’s journey with social media,
collaborative community and expressive individuality.
In Journal of interactive marketing, 27(4), pp.299–310.
Zhu, A., Chen, X., 2012. A Review of Social Media and
Social Business. In Multimedia Information
Networking and Security (MINES), 2012 Fourth
International Conference on. pp. 353–357.
ICE-B2015-InternationalConferenceone-Business
190