THE BUSINESS PROCESS KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK

Janez Hrastnik, Jorge Cardoso

Department of Mathematics and Engineering, University of Madeira, 9050-390 Funchal, Portugal

Frank Kappe

Institute for Information Systems and Computer Media, Graz University of Technology, Austria

Keywords: Business process management, knowledge acquisition, information systems, semantic technologies.

Abstract: Organizations today are confronted with huge problems following and implementing their own business

process models. On the one hand, due to a lack of planning and requirements analysis, process models are

often unfeasible or difficult to execute in practice. On the other hand, process designers often ignore the

importance of studying the different roles and their perspectives on a business process when constructing a

process model. This leads to the deployment of process models that do not satisfy process stakeholders. This

paper addresses such problems and proposes a business process knowledge framework as a possible

solution. Our framework integrates three elements that we consider fundamental to model business

processes: stakeholders’ perspectives, knowledge types and views. We show how the business process

framework can contribute to the improvement of the process knowledge acquisition phase of process design,

and how it can support process knowledge communication to stakeholders.

1 INTRODUCTION

In spite of an abundance of approaches,

methodologies, models, and standards for business

process there is still a large gap between how

organizations wants to function, and what actually

happens in business process execution (BPM Study,

2006). Organizational practice and market analysis

reports (e.g. Strohmaier et al., 2005) point out

various reasons for the difficulties with which

organizations are confronted. In this paper we

propose a solution for two of them:

(a) “Inadequate” analysis of business processes

(e.g. the way process models are built): One of the

essential tasks in the contruction and adaptation of

process models when using the incremental

approach (Teng and Kettinger, 1995) is the process

analysis (Biazzo, 2000). This is a complex and time-

consuming task since the specific knowledge about

processes is distributed in the “heads” of its various

stakeholders (Habermann, 2001). On the other hand,

it can also be found in working practice,

documentation and supporting information systems.

Often, important parts of the relevant information

about business processes necessary for the analysis

do not even exist within organizations. If it is

available it is often not up-to-date, especially if it is

documented, often understood wrong or

contradictory. Different stakeholders, also those who

actively participate in processes, have different

views and convictions about “what is actually

happening” in the organization and in performed

processes. Frequently the people who have to

manage and execute processes do not participate in

the definition and maintenance of these processes. In

short, incomplete analysis and deficient

understanding of the organization lead to the

creation of unfeasible process models, whose

successful design and later implementation are

impeded from the beginning.

(b) “poor” communication of process

descriptions to stakeholders (e.g. too broad or too

narrow scope, level of abstraction, and “language”):

At the same time, even if process models are

feasible, they are, from different process

stakeholders’ points of view, hard to follow in

practice. The reason for this situation is that current

process models only represent a restricted number of

perspectives on the process (e.g. functional, data,

organizational). The process models are designed

and created mostly for one stakeholder using a

517

Hrastnik J., Cardoso J. and Kappe F. (2007).

THE BUSINESS PROCESS KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK.

In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - ISAS, pages 517-520

DOI: 10.5220/0002362205170520

 SciTePress

modeling language that is not always easily

understandable for other stakeholders. Therefore, the

models very often have an inappropriate scope and

level of abstraction. In short, process models that do

not take into account process stakeholders’

perspectives can hardly be expected to be executed

properly.

2 PROCESS KNOWLEDGE

Business process knowledge (knowledge about

business processes) is knowledge about the

motivation behind processes, reasons for their

existence, knowledge about process structure and

logic, the required resources for their execution, as

well as their interfaces, process environment,

capability, performance and documentation.

Business process knowledge can be seen as a part of

business process improvement knowledge (Hrastnik

et al., 2004), i.e. the knowledge required for process

improvement, which in addition to business process

knowledge also comprises knowledge about the

organization’s criteria (e.g. organizational goals),

knowledge about employees’ mental models

(Johnson-Laird, 1983), personal attitudes,

perceptions, awareness, understanding, motivation,

and commitments.

Business process knowledge is a critical input for

the process analysis process, where knowledge about

the “as-is” situation, the current version of “to-be”,

and the discrepancy between the two collected in the

knowledge acquisition phase. A new “to-be” model

is again required in the implementation and process

execution process.

Process knowledge is always available in

people’s heads. Examples include employees,

customers, suppliers, partners and other external

stakeholders. Process knowledge in people’s heads

differs strongly depending on its scope and its level

of abstraction. In many cases process knowledge is

also available in documented form as organization

manuals, quality system documentation, lessons

learned, best practices, and records of earlier process

improvement initiatives. Beyond that, further

relevant knowledge can often be won from

workflow management systems, ERP systems and

business process tools. External knowledge such as

industry benchmarks or best practices of other

enterprises can sometimes be procured on the market

and/or be obtained by participation in appropriate

initiatives.

2.1 Types of Business Process

Knowledge

Process models can be seen from different angles.

Several classifications of the parts of process

knowledge and process models have been proposed

in Curtis et al. (1992), Lonchamp (Lonchamp,

1993), Conradi et al. (Conradi et al., 1992), Benali et

al. (Benali et al., 1989), and Scheer (Scheer, 2000).

For the purpose of our business process framework,

we integrate and extend elements of these into the

following classification of business process

knowledge: Process logic covers knowledge about

process elements (processes, tasks) and their

connections, operators, and conditions. Process

information designates knowledge about inputs and

outputs of processes as well as about resources

needed for their execution. The process environment

consists of knowledge about the critical success

factors and possible obstacles of processes. Process

capacity usually contains quantitative statements

about process capacity as well as the measuring

system standing behind it (e.g. metrics, measurement

categories, measuring points, target values,

performance indicators). The process justification

gives answers to questions about the sense and

purpose of both the existence and the particular

characteristics of individual processes and their

underlying process logic.

2.2 Perspectives on Business Process

Knowledge

The distribution of competencies can, of course,

vary from organization to organization. In the

context of process management, however, several

roles can be differentiated according to which types

of knowledge are relevant to them: process owners

(on different levels), activity performers, process

designers, decision makers as well as internal and

external customers. Since the needs for different

process knowledge types are always similar,

independent of the process abstraction level

(organization, sub-processes, activities) (Zesar and

Mesaric, 1999), we can operate with the same

process roles on all levels of the process hierarchy. It

is important to note that one role can be assigned to

several persons, and one person can have several

roles.

ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

518

3 PROPOSAL FOR A BUSINESS

PROCESS KNOWLEDGE

FRAMEWORK

A framework integrating types and perspectives of

process knowledge can be further extended (Figure

4) to better cover process knowledge acquisition.

Each person can contribute different views: first of

all a subjective picture of the current condition (“as-

is”), secondly an understanding of how it should be

according to the organization (interpretation of the

official “to-be”) and thirdly a personal opinion of

how it should be. The comparison of those three

views can significant contributes to the better

understanding of the “as-is” situation and detection

of the improvement potential.

Process Owner

Process Designer

Internal/External Customer

Superior Decision Maker

rent “A

S IS”

descriptio

urrent “TO-BE

” u

erst

anding

Per

onal

opi

on, “ho

w shoul

d i

t be”

Views

Stakeholders Perspektives

Process Knowledge Types

roc

Log

Process Inform

atio

roc

Enviro

Proc

s Cap

city

Proces

Jus

ific

Activity Performer

Figure 1: Extended Process Knowledge Framework.

This framework can offer several kinds of

support: It helps to consider where certain types of

process knowledge are located or can be acquired,

which provides better orientation and can also

minimize work. It is also a good aid for identifying

alternatives and showing connections which are not

always obvious. Furthermore, it helps with

identifying sources of unexpected process

knowledge as well as those in need of more.

For example, in the case documented process

knowledge the different perspectives must be

correctly interpreted (e.g. a process manual should

describe how it should be according to the

organization, whereas workflow management

systems logs (van der Aalst and Weijters, 2004)

permit conclusions on the current situation). With

the help of the framework, it is easier to decide how

much of which knowledge can be acquired with

reasonable effort. Here criteria such as accessibility,

reliability and employees' willingness are important.

After the successful collection of relevant

knowledge, contrasting process roles with specific

process knowledge types helps with generating a

more feasible “to-be” model. Similarly, contrasting

other dimensions of the framework with each other

(e.g. process roles and specific views) can contribute

significantly to the comprehensiveness of the

identified improvement potential.

Finally, the communication stage is about

transferring knowledge about processes to the

employees in such a way that it is both understood

and accepted. Here the framework helps with

deciding what knowledge should be available to a

given person. For example, the special knowledge

needs of individual roles suggest the content of

different process knowledge types to different

extents and in different degrees of abstraction. The

extent as well as the degree of abstraction of the

content to be communicated in order to build up a

certain level of knowledge in a person depend upon

previous knowledge, in particular upon mental

models (as basis for understanding), which in turn

are often implied by people's roles.

The overall result is better employee knowledge

about better-designed business processes – a key

requirement for successful improvement of

processes.

4 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE

WORK

Knowledge about business processes is one of the

most important assets of a modern organization

today. The information about how an organization

works, achieves its business goals, satisfies its

customers’ requirements, and how agile the

company is in these respects is essential for its

various stakeholders on every level, inside and

outside of the organization. This knowledge is also

an irreplaceable resource for the introduction and

application of information systems, particularly for

process management and automation tools.

Current process management practices reveal

problems regarding process knowledge (e.g. the

process owner doesn’t know the skills of the activity

performer, management is not familiar with the

flexibility of organizational processes, Best

Practices/Benchmarks are not accessible or are

unknown). Organizations have to deal with

distributed, undocumented, contradictory,

THE BUSINESS PROCESS KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK

519

misunderstood, and often inaccessible process

knowledge. The consequences are higher costs,

poorer performance and quality, unfulfilled

requirements and, in the end, unsatisfied internal and

external customers.

Therefore it is important that knowledge about

business processes is properly described or modeled,

and that it is maintained. Only in that way can it be

better acquired, analyzed, communicated, applied

and continuously improved.

The business process knowledge framework is a

tool that can support the management of process

knowledge in various aspects. This paper has

presented two of them. One is business process

knowledge acquisition and analysis, where the

framework helps organizations benefit from

heterogeneous process knowledge sources and from

different perspectives instead of seeing them as a

burden. The other is process knowledge

communication, where the framework can be of

assistance in communicating knowledge about

business processes to stakeholders in a fashion

tailored to their different roles within or outside the

organization.

Regarding future work, the most suitable way to

deploy our framework is through semantic

technologies. The four main reasons that make

semantic technologies suitable for our framework

are (Noy and McGuinness, 2001): (1) to share a

common understanding of the structure of

information among people or software (this way, the

model can be understood by humans and

computers); (2) to enable reuse of already specified

domain knowledge; (3) to make domain assumptions

explicit (concepts defined in the model have a well-

defined and unambiguous meaning); (4) analysis of

domain knowledge is possible once a declarative

specification of the terms is available. Combining

the advantages of semantic technologies with the

business process knowledge framework will make

organizations' efforts to improve their business

processes much more effective.

REFERENCES

Benali, K., Boudjlida N., Charoy, F., Derniame, J.C.,

Godart, C., Griths, P., Gruhn, V., Oquendo, F., 1989.

Presentation of the ALF project. In Proceedings

Conference software development environments and

factories, CRIN - 89-R-188. Berlin.

Biazzo, S., 2000. Approaches to Business Process

Analysis: a Review. In Business Process Management

Journal. MCB University Press, Vol. 6 No. 2, 99-112

Conradi, R., Fernstrom, C., Fuggeta, A., Snowdon, B.,

1992. Towards a Reference Framework for Process

Concepts, In Proceedings of the Second European

Workshop on Software Process Technology,

Trondheim, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 635,

Springer-Verlag, London

Curtis, B., Kellner, M. I., and Over, J. 1992. Process

modeling. In Communication of the ACM, Vol. 35,

No. 9, 75-90.

Habermann, F., 2001. Management von

Geschäftsprozesswissen : IT-basierte Systeme und

Architektur. DUV, Wiesbaden

Hrastnik, J., Rollett, H., Strohmaier, M., 2004.

Heterogenes Wissen über Prozesse als Grundlage für

die Geschäftsprozessverbesserung. In: Prozesswissen

als Erfolgsfaktor. Hrsg.: Engelhardt, Corinna/Hall,

Karl/Ortner, Johann. Wiesbaden: Gabler, 37-60

IDS Scheer AG, Pierre Audoin Consultants GmbH, 2006.

BPM Study 2006. Business Process Report 2006 -

Eine repräsentative Umfrage unter 150 IT-

Entscheidern, BPM Study 2006. IDS Scheer AG,

Pierre Audoin Consultants GmbH.

Johnson-Laird, P. N., 1983. Mental Models: Towards a

Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and

Consciousness. Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press.

Scheer, A.-W. 2000. ARIS - Business Process

Frameworks. Springer-Verlag. Berlin 3rd edition

Strohmaier, M., Farmer, J., Lindstaedt, S., 2005. The Gap

Between Information Technology and Quality

Management - A Trend-Survey of Quality Managers

in Austria and Germany, Trend-Survey .Know-Center

- Austria's Competence Center for Knowledge

Management. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from

http://www.know-center.tugraz.at/content/download/

725/4123/file/QualityCosts_Survey_Revised.pdf

Lonchamp, J., 1993. A Structured Conceptual and

Terminological Framework for Software Process

Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International

Conference on the Software Process - Continuous

Software Process Improvement. Berlin, Germany

Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L., 2001. Ontology

Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First

Ontology. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from

http://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_deve

lopment/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html

Teng, J. T. and Kettinger, W. J., 1995. Business process

redesign an information architecture: exploring the

relationships. SIGMIS Database 26, 1 (Feb. 1995), 30-

42. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/206476.206481

van der Aalst, W. M. and Weijters, A. J., 2004. Process

mining: a research agenda. In Comput. Ind. Vol.53,

Num. 3, 231-244.

Zesar, K.D., Mesaric, G., 1999. A Process-Oriented

Quality Management Model for Software Developing

Cooperation Networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th

European Conference on Software Quality

ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

520