Artefact-oriented Business Process Modelling - An Ontological Dependency Approach

Yu-Chun Pan, Yinshan Tang, Stephen R. Gulliver


Business process modelling can help an organisation better understand and improve its business processes. Most business process modelling methods adopt a task- or activity-based approach to identifying business processes. Within our work, we use activity theory to categorise elements within organisations as being either human beings, activities or artefacts. Due to the direct relationship between these three elements, an artefact-oriented approach to organisation analysis emerges. Organisational semiotics highlights the ontological dependency between affordances within an organisation. We analyse the ontological dependency between organisational elements, and therefore produce the ontology chart for artefact-oriented business process modelling in order to clarify the relationship between the elements of an organisation. Furthermore, we adopt the techniques from semantic analysis and norm analysis, of organisational semiotics, to develop the artefact-oriented method for business process modelling. The proposed method provides a novel perspective for identifying and analysing business processes, as well as agents and artefacts, as the artefact-oriented perspective demonstrates the fundamental flow of an organisation. The modelling results enable an organisation to understand and model its processes from an artefact perspective, viewing an organisation as a network of artefacts. The information and practice captured and stored in artefact can also be shared and reused between organisations that produce similar artefacts.


  1. Aguilar-Savén, R. S. 2004. Business process modelling: Review and framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 90, 129-149.
  2. Barthelmess, P. & Anderson, K. M. 2002. A View of Software Development Environments Based on Activity Theory. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11, 13-37.
  3. Bhattacharya, K., Gerede, C., Hull, R., Liu, R. & Su, J. 2007. Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Business process management. Brisbane, Australia: Springer-Verlag.
  4. Bhattacharya, K., Hull, R. & Su, J. 2009. A data-centric design methodology for business processes. Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling, 503-531.
  5. Bonacin, R., Baranauskas, M. C. C. & Liu, K. 2004. From Ontology Charts to Class Diagrams: Semantic analysis aiding systems design. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Enterprise Informaiton Systems. Porto, Portugal.
  6. Cohn, D. & Hull, R. 2009. Business artifacts: A datacentric approach to modeling business operations and processes. Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering, 32.
  7. Douglass, B. P. 2000. Real-time UML : developing efficient objects for embedded systems, Reading, Mass. ; Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
  8. Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamaki-Gitai, R.-L. 1999. Perspectives on activity theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  9. Eriksson, H.-E. & Penker, M. 2000. Business Modeling With UML: Business Patterns at Work, New York, Wiley & Sons.
  10. Gane, C. & Sarson, T. 1977. Structured Systems Analysis : Tools and Techniques, N Y, Improved Systems Technologies.
  11. Gibson, J. J. 1986. The ecological approach to visual perception, Erlbaum.
  12. Hammer, M. & Champy, J. 1993. Re-engineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, New York, Harper Business.
  13. Holt, A. W., Ramsey, H. R. & Grimes, J. D. 1983. Coordination systems technology as a programming environment. Electrical Communication, 57, 307-314.
  14. Lakin, R., Capon, N. & Botten, N. 1996. BPR enabling software for the financial services industry. Management Services, 40, 18-20.
  15. Larkin, P. a. J. 2003. Government Business Process Analysis with Activity Theory. In: Whymark, G. (ed.) Transformational Tools for 21st Century Minds: National Conference 2003. Eveleigh, Australia: Knowledge Creation Press.
  16. Liu, K. 2000. Semiotics in Information System Engineering, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
  17. Liu, K. & Dix, A. 1997. Norm Governed Agents In CSCW. 1 st Int. Conference on Computational Semiotics. Paris.
  18. Norman, D. A. 1988. The psychology of everyday things, New York, Basic Books.
  19. Pan, Y.-C., Tang, Y. & Gulliver, S. 2012. A ComponentBased Method for Stakeholder Analysis. In: Liu, K. & Filipe, J. (eds.) The 4th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS 2012). Barcelona, Spain: SciTePress.
  20. Pan, Y.-C., Tang, Y. & Gulliver, S. 2013. Mutual Dependency Grid for Stakeholder Mapping: A Component-Based Approach to Supply Chain Participant Analysis. In: Liu, K., Li, W. & Gulliver, S. (eds.) The 14th International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations (ICISO 2013). Stockholm, Sweden: SciTePress.
  21. Phalp, K. & Shepperd, M. 2000. Quantitative analysis of static models of processes. Journal of Systems and Software, 52, 105-112.
  22. Rozycki, E., Keller, S. & Cybulski, J. 2012. Business process affordances through the lens of activity theory In: Lamp, J. (ed.) The 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2012). Geelong, Victoria ACIS.
  23. Salter, A. M. & Liu, K. (eds.) 2002. Using semantic analysis and norm analysis to model organisations, London, GB: Springer.
  24. Sapsford, R. J. & Jupp, V. 1996. Data collection and analysis, London, Sage in association with The Open University.
  25. Seddon, J. 2008. Systems thinking in the public sector : the failure of the reform regime - and the manifesto for a better way, Axminster, Triarchy.
  26. Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learning organization, New York, Doubleday.
  27. Stamper, R. 1985. Knowledge as Action: a logic of social norms and individual affordances. In: Gilbert, G. & Heath, C. (eds.) Social Action and Artificial Intelligence. Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower Press.
  28. Vos, J. F. J. & Achterkamp, M. C. 2006. Stakeholder identification in innovation projects: Going beyond classification. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9, 161-178.
  29. Yourdon, E. & Constantine, L. L. 1979. Structured design: fundamentals of a discipline of computer program and systems design, Englewood Cliffs; London, PrenticeHall.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Pan Y., Tang Y. and R. Gulliver S. (2013). Artefact-oriented Business Process Modelling - An Ontological Dependency Approach . In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8565-61-7, pages 223-230. DOI: 10.5220/0004398502230230

in Bibtex Style

author={Yu-Chun Pan and Yinshan Tang and Stephen R. Gulliver},
title={Artefact-oriented Business Process Modelling - An Ontological Dependency Approach},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - Artefact-oriented Business Process Modelling - An Ontological Dependency Approach
SN - 978-989-8565-61-7
AU - Pan Y.
AU - Tang Y.
AU - R. Gulliver S.
PY - 2013
SP - 223
EP - 230
DO - 10.5220/0004398502230230