Ensuring Action: Identifying Unclear Actor Specifications in Textual Business Process Descriptions

Ulf Sanne, Hans Friedrich Witschel, Alessio Ferrari, Stefania Gnesi

Abstract

In many organisations, business process (BP) descriptions are available in the form of written procedures, or operational manuals. These documents are expressed in informal natural language, which is inherently open to different interpretations. Hence, the content of these documents might be incorrectly interpreted by those who have to put the process into practice. It is therefore important to identify language defects in written BP descriptions, to ensure that BPs are properly carried out. Among the potential defects, one of the most relevant for BPs is the absence of clear actors in action-related sentences. Indeed, an unclear actor might lead to a missing responsibility, and, in turn, to activities that are never performed. This paper aims at identifying unclear actors in BP descriptions expressed in natural language. To this end, we define an algorithm named ABIDE, which leverages rule-based natural language processing (NLP) techniques. We evaluate the algorithm on a manually annotated data-set of 20 real-world BP descriptions (1,029 sentences). ABIDE achieves a recall of 87\%, and a precision of 56\%. We consider these results promising. Improvements of the algorithm are also discussed in the paper.

References

  1. Agirre, E. and Edmonds, P. G. (2007). Word sense disambiguation: Algorithms and applications, volume 33. Springer Science & Business Media.
  2. Ambriola, V. and Gervasi, V. (2006). On the systematic analysis of natural language requirements with Circe. ASE, 13.
  3. Banerjee, S. and Pedersen, T. (2003). Extended gloss overlaps as a measure of semantic relatedness. In IJCAI, volume 3, pages 805-810.
  4. Berry, D. M. and Kamsties, E. (2005). The syntactically dangerous all and plural in specifications. IEEE Software, 22(1):55-57.
  5. Berry, D. M., Kamsties, E., and Krieger, M. M. (2003). From contract drafting to software specification: Linguistic sources of ambiguity.
  6. Chantree, F., Nuseibeh, B., Roeck, A. N. D., and Willis, A. (2006). Identifying nocuous ambiguities in natural language requirements. In Proc. of RE'06, pages 56- 65.
  7. Ciabuschi, F., Perna, A., and Snehota, I. (2012). Assembling resources when forming a new business. Journal of Business Research, 65(2):220-229.
  8. Cunningham, H. (2002). GATE, a general architecture for text engineering. Computers and the Humanities, 36(2):223-254.
  9. Cutts, M. (1996). The plain English guide. Oxford University Press.
  10. Gleich, B., Creighton, O., and Kof, L. (2010). Ambiguity detection: Towards a tool explaining ambiguity sources. In Proc. of REFSQ'10, volume 6182 of LNCS, pages 218-232. Springer.
  11. Gnesi, S., Lami, G., and Trentanni, G. (2005). An automatic tool for the analysis of natural language requirements. IJCSSE, 20(1).
  12. Ide, N. and Véronis, J. (1998). Introduction to the special issue on word sense disambiguation: the state of the art. Computational linguistics, 24(1):2-40.
  13. Kof, L. (2010). From requirements documents to system models: A tool for interactive semi-automatic translation. In Proc. of RE'10.
  14. Lee, Y. K. and Ng, H. T. (2002). An empirical evaluation of knowledge sources and learning algorithms for word sense disambiguation. In Proceedings of the ACL-02 conference on Empirical methods in natural language processing-Volume 10, pages 41-48. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  15. Leopold, H., Eid-Sabbagh, R.-H., Mendling, J., Azevedo, L. G., and Baia˜o, F. A. (2013). Detection of naming convention violations in process models for different languages. Decision Support Systems, 56:310-325.
  16. Leopold, H., Mendling, J., and Polyvyanyy, A. (2014). Supporting process model validation through natural language generation. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 40(8):818-840.
  17. Lind, H. and Lubera, M. (2009). Battle Management Language - An Implementation for a Military Scenario Editor.
  18. Morimoto, S. (2008). A survey of formal verification for business process modeling. In Computational Science-ICCS 2008 , pages 514-522. Springer.
  19. Navigli, R. (2009). Word sense disambiguation: a survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 41(2):10.
  20. Navigli, R. and Velardi, P. (2005). Structural semantic interconnections: a knowledge-based approach to word sense disambiguation. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 27(7):1075-1086.
  21. Nawrocki, J. R., Nedza, T., Ochodek, M., and Olek, L. (2006). Describing business processes with use cases. In 9th International Conference on Business Information Systems, BIS, pages 13-27.
  22. OMG (2011). Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN V 2.0).
  23. Ottensooser, A., Fekete, A., Reijers, H. A., Mendling, J., and Menictas, C. (2012). Making sense of business process descriptions: An experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3):596 - 606.
  24. Reijers, H. A. and Mendling, J. (2011). A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions on, 41(3):449-462.
  25. Schumann, R., Delafontaine, S., Taramarcaz, C., and Evéquoz, F. (2014). Effective Business process documentation in federal structures. In 44. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik, pages 1043-1057.
  26. Smith, B. and Erwin, J. (2005). Role & Responsibility Charting (RACI).
  27. Sommerville, I. (2007). Models for responsibility assignment, pages 165 - 186. Springer.
  28. Véronis, J. (2004). Hyperlex: lexical cartography for information retrieval. Computer Speech & Language, 18(3):223-252.
  29. Voinov, A. and Bousquet, F. (2010). Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(11):1268-1281.
  30. Williams, J. and Colomb, G. (1995). Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing. University of Chicago Press.
  31. Wilson, W. M., Rosenberg, L. H., and Hyatt, L. E. (1997). Automated analysis of requirement specifications. In Proc. of ICSE'97, pages 161-171.
  32. Yang, H., Roeck, A. N. D., Gervasi, V., Willis, A., and Nuseibeh, B. (2011). Analysing anaphoric ambiguity in natural language requirements. Requir. Eng., 16(3):163-189.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Sanne U., Witschel H., Ferrari A. and Gnesi S. (2016). Ensuring Action: Identifying Unclear Actor Specifications in Textual Business Process Descriptions . In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management - Volume 3: KMIS, (IC3K 2016) ISBN 978-989-758-203-5, pages 140-147. DOI: 10.5220/0006040301400147


in Bibtex Style

@conference{kmis16,
author={Ulf Sanne and Hans Friedrich Witschel and Alessio Ferrari and Stefania Gnesi},
title={Ensuring Action: Identifying Unclear Actor Specifications in Textual Business Process Descriptions},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management - Volume 3: KMIS, (IC3K 2016)},
year={2016},
pages={140-147},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006040301400147},
isbn={978-989-758-203-5},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management - Volume 3: KMIS, (IC3K 2016)
TI - Ensuring Action: Identifying Unclear Actor Specifications in Textual Business Process Descriptions
SN - 978-989-758-203-5
AU - Sanne U.
AU - Witschel H.
AU - Ferrari A.
AU - Gnesi S.
PY - 2016
SP - 140
EP - 147
DO - 10.5220/0006040301400147