MODELLINGTECHNIQUES

KhadijaTemidayoKelani

ComparisonbetweenBPMN2.0andIDEF(0&3)

DissertationpresentedaspartialrequirementforobtainingtheMaster’sdegreeinInformationManagement

LOMBADAMGI

2018

Title:Modelling Techniques Subtitle:Comparison between BPMN2.0 and IDEF

Student Full name: Khadija Temidayo Kelani MGI

NOVAInformationManagementSchool

InstitutoSuperiordeEstatísticaeGestãodeInformaçãoUniversidadeNovadeLisboa

MODELLINGTECHNIQUES

by

KhadijaTemidayoKelani

DissertationpresentedaspartialrequirementforobtainingtheMaster’sdegreeinInformationManagement,withaspecializationinInformationSystemsandTechnologiesManagement

Advisor:VitorSantos

February,2018

i

DEDICATION

TomyParent,SistersandmyManfortheirunconditionalloveandmoralsupport

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am thankful to Almighty Allah for seeing this through for me. I would like to use thisopportunitytothankallthatsupportedmethroughmystudies.MyadvisorProfessorVitorSantos for his relentless effort towards completion ofmymaster’s thesis. His continuousideas,motivationandguidanceweremostlyhelpful.

Tomymanwhostoodbyme,encouragedandpushedmebeyondmylimitinachievingmygoal,Iamreallygrateful.

Lastly, my loving and adorable parent, I really appreciate your love and support. Yourconstant word of encouragements served as my moral compass. I am proud to be yourdaughterand Iamreallygrateful foryourrelentlesseffort towardsmeachievingmygoalsanddream.

iii

ABSTRACT

Understanding the full concepts ofmodelling techniques is what organizations lack thesedayswhich sometimes affects their decision in terms of choosing the tools tomodel andimplement their processes. This, however, is a challenge as organisations tend to choosetools based on current trend or what their competitors used to achieve profit. Otherresearchershavedonesimilaranalysis comparingmultiplemodelling languages to identifythestrengthandweaknessofeachofthelanguagesandtoenlightentheusers.

This study analysed both BPMN2.0 and IDEF (IDEF0 and IDEF3) and built a comparativematrix showing the strengths and weakness of each technique. Design Science Research(DSR) was used for the methodology that involved carrying out surveys and draftingquestionnaires.Theresultsgottenfromthesurveywasusedtovalidatethematrixtherebysuggesting recommendations with the hope of being useful to both academia andprofessionals.Indoingsofirst,therewastheneedtoestablishanunderstandingofeachtoolwhichincorporatestheframeworkandbreakdownstructure.

KEYWORDS

BusinessProcessManagement;BPMN;IDEF0;IDEF3;ModellingTechniques

iv

TOBESUBMITTEDRESULTSFROMTHISTHESIS

v

INDEX

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................1

1.1.Backgroundofthestudy......................................................................................1

1.2.Motivation&Justification....................................................................................2

1.3.StudyObjectives...................................................................................................3

2. Literaturereview.........................................................................................................4

2.1.ModellingTechniques..........................................................................................5

2.1.1.IDEFLanguage...............................................................................................5

2.1.2.BPMN2.0......................................................................................................10

3. Methodology.............................................................................................................14

3.1.DesignScienceResearch....................................................................................14

3.2.StrategyoftheResearch....................................................................................15

4. ProposaloftheFramework.......................................................................................16

4.1.TheFramework...................................................................................................16

4.2.Validation...........................................................................................................16

4.2.1.Survey..........................................................................................................16

4.3.DataAnalysis......................................................................................................16

4.3.1.Backgroundofrespondents........................................................................16

4.3.2.Usability.......................................................................................................17

4.3.3.Representation............................................................................................17

4.3.4.CommunicationandAlignment...................................................................17

4.3.5.Readability...................................................................................................18

4.3.6.Creativity.....................................................................................................18

5. Discussion..................................................................................................................20

6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................21

6.1.SummaryOftheworkandFindings...................................................................21

6.2.LimitationsoftheResearch................................................................................21

6.3.FutureWork.......................................................................................................21

7. Bibliography...............................................................................................................22

Annex.............................................................................................................................24

Annex1:OccurrenceFrequencyofBPMNConstructs..............................................24

Annex2:ComparativeMatrix....................................................................................25

Annex3:SurveyQuestionsandanswers(average)....................................................26

Annex4:ProposedComparativeMatrix...................................................................27

vi

INDEXOFFIGURES

Figure2.1:TypesofIDEFmethods(Šerifi,Dašić,Ječmenica,&Labović,2009)........................6Figure2.2:BasicIDEF0contextdiagram(IBM,2008)...............................................................7Figure2.3:Flowofarrowswiththebox(Menzel&Mayer,1998)............................................8Figure2.4:JoinandForkArrow(Menzel&Mayer,1998)........................................................9Figure2.5:BuildingblocksofanIDEF3process(Menzel&Mayer,1998)..............................10Figure2.6:AtypicalIDEF3process(CSOdessaCorp,2018)...................................................10Figure2.7:SummaryofBPMNNotations(Chinosi&Trombetta,2012).................................11Figure3.1:DesignScienceResearchCycle(Vaishnavi&Kuechler,2004)...............................14Figure4.1:TypesofOrganizations..........................................................................................17

vii

INDEXOFTABLES

Table2.1:DifferentArrowsandthefunctions..........................................................................8Table2.2:BPMN2.0elementsandthefunctions(Genon,Heymans,&Amyot,2010)...........12Table4.1:Summaryofresultsgotten.....................................................................................18

viii

LISTOFACRONYMSANDABBREVIATIONS

BPM BusinessProcessManagement

BPMN2.0 BusinessProcessModellingandNotation

BPMS BusinessProcessManagementSystem

DFD DataflowDiagram

DSR DesignScienceResearch

EPC Event-drivenProcessChain

ICAM IntegratedComputerAidedManufacturing

ICOMs Input,ControlOutputandMechanism

IDEF IntegrationDefinition

OMG ObjectManagementGroup

RAD RapidApplicationDevelopmentmodel

UML UnifiedModellingLanguage

1

1. INTRODUCTION

According to (Mojdeh, 2005), Business ProcessManagement is a series of processes andapplications designed to optimize the execution of business strategy. Business ProcessManagement(BPM)servesasabridgebetweeninformationsystemsandbusinesseswhichhelps in facilitating good communication, collaborationwith internal and external entitiesand improvesefficiency inanorganization.However,manyorganizations sometimes thinktheyhave full knowledgeor theyhave implemented the fulluseofBPMwithoutknowingthereismoretoit,thissometimespreventsthemfromachievingtheirgoals.

Inpastyears,organizationshaveusedbusinessprocesstoolsinautomatingtheirprocessestherebymakingtheirworkefficientandgeneratingvalueinthelongrun.Thesetoolshaveevolvedas timewentbyanewmodelling language/toolsemerged.Examplesofmodellinglanguages include UnifiedModelling Language (UML), Data flow diagram (DFD), BusinessProcess Modelling Notation (BPMN), Integration Definition (IDEF), Event-driven ProcessChain (EPC) etc. (Mojdeh, 2005) identified four Business processmanagement frameworkstepsnamely:Strategize,Plan(thesetwodefineswhattobedone);Monitor,Actandadjust(whichdefineshowitshouldbedone).

Modellingtoolscanbeclassifiedaccordingtothevolumeandnatureof informationtobecaptured. This has a direct correlation on the form and depth of performance analysiscarriedout(ABPMP_CBOK_Guide_English,2013).Forthepurposeofthisresearch,BPMN2.0andIDEF(IDEF0andIDEF3)willbeanalysedtodeterminethestrengthandweaknessofbothmodellingtechniqueswhichcanbeasourceofknowledgeforprofessionals(organizations)andacademia.

1.1. BACKGROUNDOFTHESTUDY

Over the years, modelling techniques evolved as new areas were explored for the solepurposeofmakingsureorganizationscanmaximizetheuseofthesetechniquesinachievingtheir objectives. According to (Mojdeh, 2005), executives have been able to identify,communicate andmonitor the key drivers that generate business value with the help ofbusinessprocesstools.Hence,thismadethingseasyforthem.

Organizations often choosemodelling tools based on popularity orwhat their competitorimplemented.However, they neither have a full knowledge of themodelling tool nor aretheyabletoselecttheonethatbestsuitstheirbusinessprocess.Thishasproventobecostlytoorganizationsnotonlyfinancially,butthereisanalmostequallossofman-hoursusedinthe implementation of the unsuitable technique and other associated costs (like lessproductivity,lowproductivityetc.).Forthisstudy,IDEF0,IDEF3,andBPMN2.0wereanalysedsidebyside.ThesethreemodellingtoolswerechosenbecauseIDEFtoolswerethefirstset

2

of modelling tools to be developed by the US air force and most of the present toolsincludingBPMN2.0wereadaptedfromit.Theanalysisistoidentifywhatchangedandwhythere has been a shift towards the use of BPMN2.0 in recent times. These tools will bebrieflydiscussedinthenextchapter.

1.2. MOTIVATION&JUSTIFICATION

The objective of this research is to analyse and understandwhy BPMN2.0 is givenmuchconcernandpriority in termsofusingmodelling languageoverother tools like IDEF0andIDEF3amongothers.Thethreemodellingtoolswereanalysedsidebysidetoidentifytheirstrengthandweakness.

Past research shows that each modelling technique can be used depending on thecomplexityoftheprocessandtherobustnessofthetechnique.However,consideringIDEFwas the firstmodelling technique first implemented andother techniqueswere basedonIDEFconcept, itcalls forre-evaluationwiththemostrecenttechnique,BPMN2.0.Previousanalysisdonebyseveralauthorssuchas (Pawlewski&Hoffa,2014)weredonewithothermodelling techniques. However, this study aims to focus solely on just IDEF0 & 3 andBPMN2.0. Thisgivesanopportunity todoadeepdiveanalysis that focusesonansweringthefollowingquestions:

1. DoesBPMN2.0implementorganizationsbusinessprocessesthewaytheylike? 2. Doorganizationsusethefullfunctionofthemodellingtoolimplemented? 3. Howwelldoesithelpimprovetheirbusiness?

However,theresultofthiscomparisoncanbeusedbyacademiaandprofessionalsto:

1. Have a better and wider knowledge of the modelling tools beforeimplementing/executing;

2. Minimizecost,timeandresourcesused; 3. Betterunderstandthetoolsframework.

3

1.3. STUDYOBJECTIVES

MainGoal

ThemaingoalofthisresearchistoanalyseandcomparethetwomainModellingtechniques;BPMN2.0andIDEFlanguage

SpecificObjectives

1. Describe themanagement framework of business process management thatencompassesBPMN2.0andIDEF;

2. Makeacomparativeanalysisofbothtools;3. Develop theassessmentmethod forevaluating thestrengthandweaknessof

bothtechniques;4. Choosetheselectioncriteriafortheimprovementmeasures;5. Identifytheconstraints,keymeasuresandmakepossiblerecommendations if

possible.

4

2. LITERATUREREVIEW

Variousanalysishasbeendoneinthepastondifferentmodellingtoolsgivingdifferentviewsandinsights.(Pawlewski&Hoffa,2014)didastudybycomparingtwomodellingtechniques(UMLandIDEF0)withresultsindicatingthatIDEF0emergedasthebest.IDEF0waschosenbecauseof itsusercapabilities intermsofconstructingandcomprehendingamodel,eventhough, UML was recognized for software development by IT specialist in designing ITsystems,IDEF0wasstillchosenasthebest.

IDEF0 comprises of four main activities which are Input, Output, Control and mechanism(Pawlewski&Hoffa,2014).UnlikeIDEF0,BPMN2.0hasover100constructattributeswhichare grouped into four elements such as;Flow objects, Connecting objects, Swimlanes and

Artefacts(ZurMuehlen&Recker,2008).Itwasalsonotedthatnotalloftheconstructsareusedonlythoseimportanttothebusinessanalyst.

Accordingto(ObjectManagementGroup(OMG),2011),BPMN2.0primarygoalistoprovideanotationthat iseasytounderstandtoallusers includingthebusinessanalysts, technicalusers, and end users as well. It serves as a means of communicating with both internalentities (business users and process implementers) and external entities (customers andsuppliers).

An analysis done by (Negi, Bansal,& Kanpur, 2009) in an attempt to identify amodellingtechnique(IDEF0, IDEF3,DFD,RAD,ActivityDiagram,EPCandBPMN)that ismostsuitablefor integration and automation of ERP systems showed that BPMN and EPC was able tocapture the four Process perspectives; Functional, Behavioural, Organizational andInformational perspectives. However, IDEF0 captured Functional perspectives butwas notable to do so with Behavioural (IDEF3 was also able to capture this although withlimitations).Organizationaland Informationalprocessperspectivehas limitationsfor IDEF0while it was not available for IDEF3. This, however, did not allow IDEF0 and IDEF3 to beconsideredasasuitabletechniquetobeusedforanalysis.

However, (Costin&Fox,2004) ina studyalso stated that IDEF0wasused forproducingafunctionmodelofaneworexistingsystemandIDEF3isatechniqueforproducingadynamicmodelof thesystem.Hence, thecombinationofboth techniquesbringsacomplementaryfeaturetobusinessprocessmodelling.TheyalsoproposedthatthehybridofbothIDEF0andIDEF3ismoremodularbygroupingthejoinsandsplitsofactivitiesintheformofinputandoutputtreesofconnectorswhichhasmoreadvantageoverstandardworkflowmodels.

Furthermore,astudydoneby(Cheng-Leong,LiPheng,&KengLeng,1999)onmanufacturingenterprisesystemchose IDEF0for its functionalitieswhichhappentobesuperior tomanyother functionalmodellingmethodologies in terms of simple graphics, conciseness, rigor,andprecisionwiththelevelofabstractionandseparationwithinanorganization.Although,IDEF3waslaterintroducedtocomplementIDEF0intermsofdescribingtheprocessbusiness

5

flowandaswelldescribethefunctionalities.ItwaslaterconcludedthattheuseofIDEF0andIDEF3isusefulintermsofintegrationandtimereduction.Thus,itcouldconfirmandsupportthedevelopmentoftheenterprisesystem.

Nevertheless,despitethegraphicalnotationofBPMN2.0ithasbeenseennottobeenoughtoproperlymodelchoreographies1butonlyinternalprocesses.AlthoughBPMN2.0givesthepossibility of representing a business process with different perspectives like individualprocessorthechoreographyview(Cortes-Cornax,Dupuy-Chessa,Rieu,&Mandran,2016).

Additionally, (ABPMP_CBOK_Guide_English, 2013) highlighted the disadvantages ofBPMN2.0andIDEFlanguagewhicharesummarizedbelow:

DisadvantagesofBPMNinclude:

▪ Training and experience is required to fully utilize the full set of symbolscorrectly

▪ ItisdifficulttoseerelationshipsamongmultiplelevelsofaprocessDisadvantagesofIDEFlanguageinclude:

▪ Implementationsareoftenvisuallyunappealing▪ Thenotationconsistsmainlyofboxesandarrowswhichappearclutteredand

busy.Althoughthereareadvantagestobothtoolswhichincludes:

▪ IDEFhasapreciseexpression,itiseasytouseandfollowlogicaldecompositionofmodellevels.Itcanbeusedforanylevelofactivitymodelling.

▪ BPMN2.0 has awidespread use and understandingwhich is used to identifyprocessconstraints.

2.1. MODELLINGTECHNIQUES

2.1.1. IDEFLanguage

Integration definition (IDEF) suite was developed by the US Airforce in 1970 for theirIntegrated Computer Aided Manufacturing (ICAM) program with the sole purpose ofincreasingmanufacturingprogramwiththehelpofcomputertechnology(Menzel&Mayer,1998).According to (Kim,Weston,Hodgson,& Lee, 2003), IDEFmodellingnotationsweredesignedtomodelentitiesinanenterpriseinordertohaveausefulabstractpictureofthedifferentviews(functionviewpointandinformationviewpoint).TheywentfurthertostatethatthemainpurposewastohavedifferentviewsoftheITsystemrequirement.Thenextsection will discuss IDEF0 and IDEF3 as they are more relevant to BPMN2.0 in terms ofprocess modelling. Figure 2.1 is a list of IDEF types and their brief description. Each one1Choreography(Cortes-Cornaxetal.,2016)defineditastheoveralldepictionofinteractionsbetweenvariousorganizationalunitsthatareinvolvedinacommonbusinessprocess.Itprovidesasimpleunderstanding,analysisandoptimizingcross-organizationalbusinessprocesses.

6

focuses on an aspect of modelling, that is, each captures an aspect of an organizationdifferently.

Figure2.1:TypesofIDEFmethods(Šerifi,Dašić,Ječmenica,&Labović,2009)

2.1.1.1. IDEF0

(Waissi,Demir,Humble,&Lev,2015)definedIDEF0asagraphicdescriptionofasystemthatis developed for a specific purpose and from a selected viewpoint. (Pawlewski & Hoffa,2014)alsodefinedIDEF0asadetailedgraphicalrepresentationofthehierarchicalstructureofasystemthatshowstherelationshipbetweenallthefunctionalelementsinasystem.Itisusedinshowinghigh-levelactivities(suchas;input,control,output,andmechanism)whichcan be further broken down into lower levels although it may require “branch control”(Aguilar-Savén, 2004). Originally referred to as System Analysis and Design Technique(SADT),IDEF0usesboxes,arrows,andtexttocommunicatetheprocedureforcarryingoutaprocess.Figure1.2showsasnapshotofabasicIDEF0contextdiagramofapurchaseorderwiththesyntaxshowinghowtheactivitiesofanorganizationaremodelled.

7

Figure2.2:BasicIDEF0contextdiagram(IBM,2008)

2.1.1.2. HowIDEF0works

It’sagraphicalrepresentationwhichhastwoconstructsnamely:boxesandarrows.(Menzel&Mayer,1998) furtherdescribedhowtheprocessworks;which includes taking incertaininputsbyameansofsomemechanismthatiscontrolledinsomeformwhichthenproducesan output by transforming the input. It is represented by connecting the arrowheadspecificallytothebottom,leftsideortopofthebox.Likewise,thetailofthearrowcanonlybeconnectedtotherightsideoftheboxortotheheadofanotherarrowsegmentasshowninFigure2.3.

8

Figure2.3:Flowofarrowswiththebox(Menzel&Mayer,1998)

However, (Waissi et al., 2015) highlighted the different arrows and functions which aresummarizedin

Table2.1.

Table2.1:DifferentArrowsandthefunctions

Furthermore,IDEF0alsoconsistsofJoinsandFork.Accordingto(Menzel&Mayer,1998),ajoin demonstrates the recognition of a single ICOM which comes from different sourceswhichareusedtomergeICOMstogetherwhileaforkisusedtodecomposeorsplitajoinas

TypesofArrow Functions

ControlArrow

Conditions,rules,andconstraintsleviedonafunctionwhichincludesexternalfactorslikecompetition,policies,culture,laws,andregulationetc.

MechanismArrowItdefinesmeansandresources(e.g.workforce,finance,infrastructure,machinesandequipment)usedtoperformafunction.

CallArrow Itisusedinsharingandlinkingdetailswithinmodels

InputandOutput

Arrow

The input arrow takes in data to be processed and passed to theoutputarrow.

9

showninFigure2.4.However,arrowsoriginatingatoneboxandendingatanothershowtheresourceconnectionbetweentheindicatedfunctions.

Figure2.4:JoinandForkArrow(Menzel&Mayer,1998)

2.1.1.3. IDEF3

UnlikeIDEF0whichfocusesonhowtheactivitiesofanorganizationaredefinedandhowtheinputs, controls, andmechanisms such as products and resources are used in generatingoutputs, IDEF3 is a general-purpose language used to model enterprise processes wheretimeandthesequenceofeventsareimportant.Thatis,anIDEF3processplaceslessfocuson products and resources, rather emphasizing more on the general role of objects in asituation.Theseareexpressedasobject-statecomponentsusedformodellinghowobjectsundergoachangeinaprocess(Menzel&Mayer,1998).Simplyput,itisawayofdescribingthe time-basedbehaviour of systems andprovidesmeans of representing sequence (Kim,Weston,Hodgson,&Lee,2003).TherearetwotypesofdiagramsintheIDEF3standard.ThefirsttypeofdiagramisProcessFlowDescriptionDiagrams (PFDD),while the second type is calledObject State TransitionNetwork(OSTN)diagrams.ThebuildingblockofanIDEF3processincludesrectangularboxescalledUnitsofBehaviour(UOB)whichcarrynamesanduniquenumeric identifiers,arrows(links)whichdenotesthedirectionofflowofprocessexecutionandjunctionswhichsignifylogicalconstraintsimposedontheprocess.Figure2.5showstheunitsrequiredforanIDEF3processandFigure2.6showsanIDEF3processdiagram.

10

Figure2.5:BuildingblocksofanIDEF3process(Menzel&Mayer,1998)

Figure2.6:AtypicalIDEF3process(CSOdessaCorp,2018)

2.1.2. BPMN2.0

BPMN first originated in the field of process descriptions that can be modelled andprocessed by the Business process management system (BPMS) to create technical andbusiness-level models (Lambot, Slob, Van Bosch, Stockbroeckx, & Vanclooster, 2004).

11

BPMN2.0iswidelyusedintheU.S.especiallytheU.S.DepartmentofDefenceinwhichitisknown for its robust symbol set for modelling different aspects of business processes. Itdefines the relationships such as workflow and order precedence(ABPMP_CBOK_Guide_English,2013).Someofthekeyfeaturesidentifiedareasfollows:

▪ Over 100 total icons, organized into descriptive and analytic sets to meetdifferentuserneeds/requirements.

▪ Averyprecisenotationindicatingthebeginning,intermediateandendevents;activitiesandmessageflowetc.

However,mostoftheseiconsarenotoftenused.ANNEX1:OCCURRENCEFREQUENCYOFBPMN

CONSTRUCTSshowshowfrequenteachBPMNnotationsareusedandbywhom.SummaryofthemostcommonlyusednotationsisshowninFigure2.7.

Figure2.7:SummaryofBPMNNotations(Chinosi&Trombetta,2012)

12

For better understanding, Table 2.2 shows a summary of the notations grouped into fourelementsalongsidetheirfunctions.UnlikeIDEF0,BPMN2.0dealswithmorethanboxesandarrows are also known as activities. Each activity is triggered by an event which isrepresentedbyitsownnotationdependingonthetypeoftrigger.

Table2.2:BPMN2.0elementsandthefunctions(Genon,Heymans,&Amyot,2010)

BasicElementCategories Functions

FlowObjects

Flowobjectsareelementsusedinthedescriptionofmodels.Flowobjectsincludeeventswhicharerepresentedascircles,activitiesdenoteanactiontobecarriedandarerepresentedasrectangleswithroundedcornersandgatewaysarearrow-shapednotationswhichdepictcondition-basedpaths.

ConnectingObjects

Connectingobjectsareelementsusedinlinkingflowobjectstogether.Therearethreetypesofconnectingobjectviz:Sequenceflow,messageflowandassociation.Ontheotherhand,Sequenceflowsconsistofarrowswithsolidlinesanddescribetheorderinwhichactivitiesarecarriedout.Messageflowsarerepresentedbyarrowswithopencirclesononeendandapointededgeontheotherend.Whileassociationsaredottedlinesusedtoshowarelationshipbetweenflowsobjectsandartefacts.

SwimLanes

Swimlanesareelementsthatputactivitieswithinhorizontalandverticallanesbasedontheircategories.Theycanbeusedtodepictwhichprocessesareclassifiedtogetherbased

13

ontheiraffiliationsorroles.Therearetwotypesofswimlanes:pools,andlanes.

Artefacts

Artefactsareelementsusedtoprovideadditionalinformationaboutmodelsorprocesses.Thethree(3)typesofartefactsaredataobjects,groupsandannotations.

14

3. METHODOLOGY

Thischapterexplainsthemethodologyusedforthestudyandhowitwasimplemented

3.1. DESIGNSCIENCERESEARCH

The methodology that was used for this study is design science research. (Vaishnavi &Kuechler, 2004) stated that design science research is an interesting way of solvingproblems,creatingtrueandnewknowledgeviaexistingknowledge.Furthermore,(Vaishnavi& Kuechler, 2004) used a model in Figure 3.1 to describe the processes involved whichfocusesonsolvingidentifiedproblemsandimprovingthem.

To cumulate existing knowledge and acquire new ideas from users in the field,questionnaires (survey), interviews and workshops can be used. One-on-one interviewsparticularly give room to ask specific questions that are directly related to the subject,likewise surveys. This gives better insight and innovations. For this study, a survey wascarried out to certain organizations and professionals in the field of study to collate theinformation needed and which was used to validate the comparison matrix that wasdeveloped.

Figure3.1:DesignScienceResearchCycle(Vaishnavi&Kuechler,2004)

15

The process started with problem identification and research, which lead to thedevelopmentofneworimprovedideasasshowninANNEX2:COMPARATIVEMATRIXandthenvalidationandconclusion.Thesestepswillbedetailedinthenextsection.

3.2. STRATEGYOFTHERESEARCH

Asseveralanalyseshavebeendoneinthepastonthedifferentmodellinglanguages,itwasimperative to analyse the first basis of the modelling language together with the mostpronouncedmodellingtechniquetoday.Todothis,adeepunderstandingofthestructureofthe tools and in-depth knowledge of how both languages are used was scrutinized. Pastarticles and research, discoveries and the DSR method as explained in 3.1 were used tocritically analyse both languages. From the methodology adopted, this research passedthroughthesestagesnamely:

1. ProblemIdentification/DerivationoftheMatrix2. Surveyforvalidation3. Analysisoftheresult4. Conclusion

Extensiveresearchwascarriedoutinothertobetterunderstandthekeyareasinmodellinganddesignofprocesses.Someofthekeyareaswhichwere identifiedwerethenclassifiedbased on Usability, Representation, Communication and Alignment, Readability andCreativity.Ultimately,thiscanalsobeusedtohighlightkeyareasthatorganizationsshouldconsiderinchoosingtools.Thesefive(5)mainareasarebrieflyexplainedbelow:

1. Usability:Thisexplainshowwelleitherofthetoolsunderreviewiseasytouseandcomprehend;

2. Representation:Iftheprocessesmodelledanddesignedareinlinewiththeactivitiesoftheorganization;

3. Communicationandalignment:Processesmodelledwitheitherofthetoolsareabletocommunicatefreelywitheachotherwithinorganization(s);

4. Readability:Howconvenientandeasyforthemtoreadthemodels5. Creativity:Howcreativeit istodesignthemodelsforeachlanguage(BPMN2.0and

IDEF0&3)ThesecategoriesweresummarizedinformofamatrixwiththeprosanddrawbacksforbothBPMN2.0 and IDEF (0 & 3) as shown in ANNEX 2: COMPARATIVE MATRIXwas validated bydistributingsurveystospecificprofessionalsinthefield.

16

4. PROPOSALOFTHEFRAMEWORK

4.1. THEFRAMEWORK

Based on the research and findings, there were some pros and drawbacks that wereidentifiedforbothtechniquesintermsofmodellinganddesign.Theseprosandconswerefurther examined based on key areas mentioned in 3.2 (i.e. Usability, Representation,Communication and Alignment, Readability and Creativity). These were derived based onresearchcarriedoutbyotherresearchersinthepastinanattempttoanalysetwoormoremodellingtechniques.

4.2. VALIDATION

4.2.1. Survey

Thesurveyisdividedintothree(3)distinctparts;thefirstpartintroducedwhatthesurveyisaboutwithnoquestionsasked.ItbrieflydescribesBPMN2.0andIDEF.Italsostatesthegoalandpurposethesurveyaimstoachieve.This istogiveabriefdescriptionandoverviewofthethesisforclarificationtotheaudience.Thesecondpartasksquestionsabouttheareaofspecializationandorganizationtowhichtherespondentbelongsto.Thiswasdoneinothertoascertainthebackgroundsofrespondentsandhowtheirresponsesgiverelevancetothestudy.Inthelightofthesecondpart,thelastpartwasmadeupofquestionsinaccordancewiththecomparativematrixdrawnupinANNEX2:COMPARATIVEMATRIX.Thequestionshaveoptionstoanswerwitha“scaleof1-5”where“scale1”isfor“totallydisagree”and“scale5”standsfor“totallyagree”.

Thepurposeofthequestionsistonotonlyvalidatethematrix,butalsotoshedlightontheresearchquestionsearlierdraftedin1.2.

4.3. DATAANALYSIS

4.3.1. Backgroundofrespondents

Ofallrespondents,66.7%wereacademicswithbaseknowledgeofthesubjectarea.OtherrespondentswereprofessionalsworkinginITandR&DasshowninFigure4.1.Respondentswere typically IT specialists, 50% of whom had between two to six years of modellingexperiencewithanyofthetools.16.7%hadoverten(10)years’experiencewhiletheresthadbetweensixtoeightyears.

17

Figure4.1:TypesofOrganizations

4.3.2. Usability

AllrespondentsagreedtotheeaseofuseofmodellingwithBPMN2.0notationswithoutfulltraining,whileonly33%canuse IDEF toolwithoutanyguidanceonhowtouse theboxesandarrows.HalfoftherespondentshaveneverusedamodellingtoolwithIDEF(0&3)whiletherestwillrequireauserguide.

4.3.3. Representation

Inresponsetoquestionsaskedwithregardstothesuitabilityof thegraphicalnotationsofbothtools infullyrenderingtheuser'smodel,allrespondentsagreedthattheyareabletofullydepict their activitiesusingBPMN2.0. It isworthyofnote,however, thathalfof therespondents agreed to a lesser degree than the others. In the same vein, approximately82.7% of respondents agreed that they have full knowledge of BPMN 2.0. On the hand,approximately83%answeredneutrallywhenaskedaboutIDEF'sabilityinrepresentingandmodellingtheiractivitieswhiletheothers(16.7%)agreedtoIDEFmodellingprocesseswithfullrepresentationofallactivities.16.7%ofrespondentsdisagreedwiththequestionaskingif the 6 sub-function restriction prevents them from being able to represent all theiractivitiesusingIDEFtoolsandotherswereneutralintheiranswer.

4.3.4. CommunicationandAlignment

Respondents were asked if BPMN 2.0 allows communication and alignment of activitieswithin processes and approximately 83% agreed while others completely. Whereas, thesamecouldn’tbesaidforIDEFas16.7%disagreed,50%wereneutral,16.7%agreedandthe

18

restcompletelyagreed.Furthermore,respondents’answerstothecombinationofbothIDEF0&3was66.7%wasneutral,16.7%agreedtothiswhileotherscompletelyagreed.

4.3.5. Readability

Intermsofreadability,allrespondentsagreedtoBPMN2.0processmodelbeingeasytoreadand understand while 66.7% disagreed to lack of training to understand the processmodelledandtheotherswereneutraltotheidea.Ontheotherhand,respondentanswersto IDEF being easy to read were 16.7% disagreed, 66.7% were neutral while the othersslightlyagreed.

4.3.6. Creativity

Respondentsansweredneutrallywhenasked if thecombinationofboth IDEF0&3 leavesroomforcreativity.Nevertheless,16.7%totallydisagreedwithlackofcreativityduetouseof boxes and arrows, 33.3% slightly disagreed and the rest were neutral. As regards tocreativity with BPMN 2.0, 33.3% were neutral, 33.3% slightly agreed while 33.3% totallyagreed.Inspiteofthat,16.7%totallydisagreedwithmisinterpretationofBPMN2.0creativeprocesses modelled, 33.3% slightly disagreed, 33.3% were neutral while others slightlyagreedtotheidea.

SummaryoftheresultsforquestionsaskedtorespondentsisshowninTable4.1.

Table4.1:Summaryofresultsgotten

Scale

Key areas/Questions

Totally Disagree

(1)

Slightly Disagree

(2)

Neutral

(3)

Slightly Agree

(4)

Totally Agree

(5) Representation

Q1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%

Q2 0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 16.7% Q3 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Q4 16.7% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Communication and Alignment

Q1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 16.7%

19

Q2 16.7% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% 16.7%

Q3 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% Readability

Q1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Q2 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Q3 0.0% 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% 0.0% Creativity

Q1 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

% 0.0% 0.0%

Q2 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% Q3 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Q4 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0%

20

5. DISCUSSION

Usingthemethodologystatedinchapter3,thissectiongivesfurtherdiscussionandinsightinto the data collated. In other to have an exact validation of the matrix drawn up, thesurveywassenttoexpertsinthefieldofstudywithexperienceandknowledgeofbothtools.

From the results gotten it was seen that despite the simplicity of IDEF 0 & 3with fewernotations as compared to BPMN2.0, it can be concluded that BPMN 2.0 is easy to usewithoutfulltraining.However,thisdoesnotmeanbasictrainingshouldnottakeplacefirst.Furthermore, it can be concluded based on results gotten from the survey (100% ofrespondents) that the notations in BPMN2.0 have no restriction or limitations, instead itenhances the usability and representation of processes. Additionally, this improves theabilitytoreadprocessesmodelledwithBPMN2.0notationssincenofulltrainingisneededtounderstandanduseit.

However,thesamecouldnotbesaidforIDEF0&3as83%oftherespondentswereneutralaboutitsrepresentationalthoughsomerespondentsagreedtoitssimplicity.Lowusabilityofthelanguageaccordingtotheresultgottenhinderstherepresentationoftheprocessaslowusagecanleadtounderutilisationandmisinterpretationfromboththeuserandthereader.Despite its non-complex structure/notation unlike BPMN 2.0, reading complex processesmodelled could be challenging due to the enormous information shown and differentvariationsofarrowsused.This canbe seen in thematrixwhich16.7%agreed to. Just likeBPMN2.0,usingIDEFrequiresbasictrainingandunderstandingforproperutilization.

Nevertheless, BPMN2.0 robustness makes it fit for creative modelling irrespective of theprocesscomplexityascomparedtoIDEF0&3(which100%ofrespondentswereneutraltoitscreativity).However, itscreativitycanbemisinterpretedbythosewithnobasicknowledgeof BPMN 2.0 and its notations. This creativity gives room for a full communication ofprocesseswithinandoutsideorganisations,freeflowofinformationwhicharealignedwithactivitiesinvolved.WithregardstoIDEF,almostthesamecanbeachievedifbothIDEF0&3arecombined.

Based on the foregoing, there were few variations to the matrix earlier drawn up. Thishoweverbroughtuptheneedtomakecertainchangestotheearliermatrix.Thisconclusionisbasedonresponsesfromthesurveysentandpastresearch.ThiscanbeseeninANNEX4:PROPOSEDCOMPARATIVEMATRIX

21

6. CONCLUSION

6.1. SUMMARYOFTHEWORKANDFINDINGS

Havingawell-definedprocessseemstobethecommonpracticeinorganisations.However,implementing processes using the right set of tools is likewise important to deliver aworkableprocess thatcanhelporganisationsachieve its strategicobjectives.Thiscanalsoincreaseproductivity,efficiencyandqualityofserviceamongteamsorintheorganizationasawhole.

This study used design science research as discussed in 3.1 to analyse the perceivedadvantage that BPMN2.0 may over other tools like IDEF0 and IDEF3. It also sought toestablish the strengths and weaknesses of each tool by analysing them side by side. Acomparative matrix was built to illustrate this, and a survey was carried out to askprofessionalsandorganizationsthatusethesetoolsabouttheirexperiencemodellingwiththem.The resultof this surveywas finallyused tovalidate the comparativematrixearlierdrawn. This ultimately led to themodificationof thematrix as seen inANNEX 4: PROPOSEDCOMPARATIVEMATRIX.

6.2. LIMITATIONSOFTHERESEARCH

There were few challenges while carrying out this research which included getting moreprofessionals in the area of both languages. This includes professionals like the processengineers and analysts togetherwithCIOs andCTOs. Theseprofessionals have full insightandexperiencewithdifferentmodellingtoolsacrossvariousdepartmentsinanorganisation.This, however, can give full insight based on their technical know-how on howwell eachmodellinglanguage/techniquecanbeutilizedintermsofthekeyareasearlierstated.

6.3. FUTUREWORK

For future use, a deepdive analysis could be done in different sectors of an organisationwith both tools. This could give in-depth insight into the key areas ofmodelling togetherwith the capability of both tools. Additionally, futureworkwill benefit from havingmorecontributionsfromprofessionalsandresearcherswithexperienceusingbothtools.

22

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABPMP_CBOK_Guide_English.(2013)(1stEditio).AssociationofBusinessProcessManagementProfessionals.Retrievedfromhttp://www.abpmp.org/.

Aguilar-Savén,R.S.(2004).Businessprocessmodelling:Reviewandframework.InternationalJournalofProductionEconomics,90(2),129–149.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00102-6

Cheng-Leong,A.,LiPheng,K.,&KengLeng,G.R.(1999).IDEF*:Acomprehensivemodellingmethodologyforthedevelopmentofmanufacturingenterprisesystems.InternationalJournalofProductionResearch,37(17),3839–3858.https://doi.org/10.1080/002075499189790

Chinosi,M.,&Trombetta,A.(2012).BPMN:Anintroductiontothestandard.ComputerStandards

andInterfaces,34(1),124–134.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2011.06.002

Cortes-Cornax,M.,Dupuy-Chessa,S.,Rieu,D.,&Mandran,N.(2016).EvaluatingtheappropriatenessoftheBPMN2.0standardformodelingservicechoreographies:usinganextendedqualityframework.SoftwareandSystemsModeling,15(1),219–255.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-014-0398-0

Costin,B.,&Fox,C.(2004).HybridIDEF0/IDEF3ModellingofBusinessProcesses :Syntax,SemanticsandExpressiveness.InRomanian-AustrianWorkshoponComputer-AidedVerificationof

InformationSystems:APracticalIndustry-OrientedApproach(pp.20–22).

Kim,C.H.,Weston,R.H.,Hodgson,A.,&Lee,K.H.(2003).ThecomplementaryuseofIDEFandUMLmodellingapproaches.ComputersinIndustry,50(1),35–56.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(02)00145-8

Lambot,S.,Slob,E.C.,VanBosch,I.Den,Stockbroeckx,B.,&Vanclooster,M.(2004).Modelingofground-penetratingradarforaccuratecharacterizationofsubsurfaceelectricproperties.IEEETransactionsonGeoscienceandRemoteSensing,42(11),2555–2568.https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2004.834800

Menzel,C.,&Mayer,R.J.(1998).TheIDEFfamilyoflanguages.HandbookonArchitecturesofInformationSystems,209–241.https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-26661-5_10

Mojdeh,S.(2005).Technology-enabledBusinessPerformanceManagement:Concept,Framework,andTechnology.Proceedingsofthe3rdInternationalManagementConference,1–9.Retrievedfromhttp://www.irpds.com/FileEssay/modiriat-86-11-26-c-sy14.pdf

Negi,T.,Bansal,V.,&Kanpur,I.(2009).AnalysisofBusinessProcessModelingTechniquestoModelInformationalProcessPerspective.

ObjectManagementGroup(OMG).(2011).BusinessProcessModelandNotation(BPMN)Version2.0.Business,50(January),170.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-008-0096-z

Pawlewski,P.,&Hoffa,P.(2014).LANGUAGESOFPROCESSMODELING,4(3),221–229.

Šerifi,V.,Dašić,P.,Ječmenica,R.,&Labović,D.(2009).Functionalandinformationmodelingof

23

productionusingIDEFmethods.StrojniskiVestnik/JournalofMechanicalEngineering,55(2),131–140.

Vaishnavi,V.,&Kuechler,B.(2004).DesignScienceResearchinInformationSystemsOverviewofDesignScienceResearch.Ais,45.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8

Waissi,G.R.,Demir,M.,Humble,J.E.,&Lev,B.(2015).AutomationofstrategyusingIDEF0-Aproofofconcept.OperationsResearchPerspectives,2,106–113.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2015.05.001

ZurMuehlen,M.,&Recker,J.(2008).HowMuchLanguageIsEnough?TheoreticalandPracticalUseoftheBusinessProcessModelingNotation.In20thInternationalConferenceonAdvancedInformationSystemsEngineering(Vol.5074,pp.465–479).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_35

24

ANNEX

Annex1:OccurrenceFrequencyofBPMNConstructs

25

Annex2:ComparativeMatrix

ISSUES

BPMN2.0

IDEF(0&3)

USABILITY

PROS:Easytouseasanexpertifallnotationsandfunctionalitiesarewellknown

PROS:Veryeasytouseasitdealswithjustboxesandarrows

DRAWBACKS:There'sneedfortrainingasitmightbedifficulttouseatfirstglanceduetothenumerousnotations

DRAWBACKS:Thereisneedtounderstandtheconceptsofthearrowsandboxes

REPRESENTATION

PROS:Dependingontheorganizationanditsfunctionalities,BPMN2.0tendstorepresentandmodelalmostallaspects

PROS:Dependingonthebusinessunitandorganization,IDEFcanmodeltheprocesseswithfulldetails

DRAWBACKS:Duetothenumerousnotations,usingthewrongnotationwillrepresentadifferentprocessoractivity.

DRAWBACKS:There'srestrictionof6sub-functionsoneveryfunctionmodelled(withIDEF0)

COMMUNICATION

ANDALIGNMENT

PROS:ProcessesmodelledallowsfreeflowofcommunicationbothwithinandoutsidetheOrganizationwhichalignswiththebusinessstrategy

PROS:Itsupportscommunicationandbreaksdowneverylevelinahierarchicalform

DRAWBACKS:Itisabitdifficulttocaptureandmanagecollaborativebusinessprocesses(i.e.cross-organizationalprocesses)whichmakesithardtocommunicate

DRAWBACKS:There'sneedingtocombinebothIDEF0andIDEF3tobeabletomodeltheprocessesaccuratelyinacommunicativeway.

READABILITY

PROS:Dependingonwhoviewsit,itiseasytoread,attractiveandunderstand

PROS:It'sveryeasytoreadandunderstandduetothefullinformationprovided

DRAWBACKS:Withoutadequatetraining,itmightbedifficulttounderstandandgraspwhatthemodelrepresents

DRAWBACKS:Thesightofthearrowsandalltheinformationcanbecumbersomeatfirstsighttherebymakingitlessattractivetoread

CREATIVITY

PROS:Themanynotationsmakeroomforcreativitythatcanbepleasingtotheeyes

PROS:ThishappenswhencombiningmorethanoneaspectofIDEF

DRAWBACKS:Itcanbemisinterpreted

DRAWBACKS:There'snotmuchcreativityhereasit'sjustboxesandarrows

26

Annex3:SurveyQuestionsandanswers(average)

Section SurveyQuestion AverageResponse

Background

1.TypeofOrganization University,R&D,ITCompany

2.AreaofSpeciality InformationSystems3.Howlonghaveyouusedanyofthemodellinglanguagesabove? 2-6years

Usability

1.ItiseasyformetouseamodellingtoolwithBPMN2.0notationswithoutfulltraining 5.00

2.IcanuseIDEFtoolwithoutanyguidanceonhowtousetheboxesandarrowswhilemodellinganddesigning

2.00

Representation

1.ModellingwithaBPMN2.0toolclearlyshowsalltheactivitiesasitisinmyorganization 4.50

2.Icanmodeltheactivities/processesintheunit/organizationindetailwithIDEFLanguage 2.67

3.Idon'thavefullknowledgeoftheBPMN2.0notations,hence,Iamnotabletorepresenttheactivitiesproperly

1.33

4.The6-sub-functionrestrictionpreventsmefromshowingalltheactivitieswhileusingIDEF 2.67

Communicationand

Alignment

1.Processesoractivitiesthatinvolveexternal(outside)organizationsarewelldesigned(withBPMN2.0tool),andithaseffectivecommunicationandfreeflowofinformation.

4.20

2.It'sbettertodothiswithIDEFbecauseitbreaksdowneverylevelinahierarchicalway 2.50

3.It'sbettertocombine2oftheIDEFsubtypes,thatis,IDEF0andIDEF3toachieveanaccuratemodel 2.30

Readability

1.It'seasytoreadandunderstandaprocessmodeldesignedwithaBPMN2.0tool 5.00

2.Idon'thavefulltraining/knowledge;therefore,Iamnotabletofullyunderstandwhatthemodelrepresents.

1.67

3.It’seasytoread/understandtheprocesses,theinformationandtheflowofarrowsmodelledwithIDEF

3.00

Creativity

1.IcandesigninacreativewaywhenIcombinemorethanoneIDEFsub-typetogether 3.00

2.There'snotmuchcreativitybecauseit'sjustboxesandarrows 2.33

3.DesigningwithBPMN2.0toolisverycreativewiththenotations 4.00

27

4.Itissometimesmisinterpretedbyotherswhodon'tknowalltheBPMN2.0notationsverywell 2.50

Annex4:ProposedComparativeMatrix

ISSUES

BPMN2.0

IDEF(0&3)

USABILITY PROS:Easytouseasanexpertifallnotationsandfunctionalitiesarewellknown

PROS:Slightlyeasytouseasitdealswithjustboxesandarrows

DRAWBACKS:BasictrainingorknowledgeofBPMisrequired

DRAWBACKS:Thereisneedtounderstandtheconceptsofthearrowsandboxes

REPRESENTATION PROS:Dependingontheorganizationanditsfunctionalities,BPMN2.0tendstorepresentandmodelalmostallaspects

PROS:Dependingonthebusinessunitandorganization,IDEFcanmodeltheprocessestosomeextent

DRAWBACKS:Duetothenumerousnotations,usingthewrongnotationwillrepresentadifferentprocessoractivity.

DRAWBACKS:There'slittleornorestrictionof6sub-functionsoneveryfunctionmodelled(withIDEF0)dependingonthecomplexityoftheprocess.

COMMUNICATION

ANDALIGNMENT PROS:ProcessesmodelledallowsfreeflowofcommunicationbothwithinandoutsidetheOrganizationwhichalignswiththebusinessstrategy

PROS:Itsupportscommunicationtocertainextentandbreaksdowneverylevelinahierarchicalform

DRAWBACKS:Itisabitdifficulttocaptureandmanagecollaborativebusinessprocesses(i.e.cross-organizationalprocesses)whichmakesithardtocommunicate

DRAWBACKS:BothIDEF0&3canbeusedseparately.However,foraccurateandprecisecommunication,there’sneedingtocombinebothIDEF0andIDEF3tobeabletomodeltheprocessesaccuratelyinacommunicativeway.

READABILITY PROS:Regardlessofwhoviewsit,itiseasytoread,attractiveandunderstand

PROS:It'sveryeasytoreadandunderstandduetothefullinformationprovided

DRAWBACKS:Basictrainingisonlyrequiredtofullyunderstandandgraspcomplexprocess.

DRAWBACKS:Thesightofthearrowsandalltheinformationcanbecumbersomeatfirstsighttherebymakingitlessattractivetoread

CREATIVITY PROS:Themanynotationsmake PROS:Thishappenswhen

28

roomforcreativitythatcanbepleasingtotheeyes

combiningmorethanoneaspectofIDEF

DRAWBACKS:Itcanbemisinterpreted

DRAWBACKS:There'snotmuchcreativityhereasit'sjustboxesandarrows