Automatic business process analysis and simulation based on DEMO

Enterprise Information Systems

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 365-381

  Barjis, J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN STEVENS POINT   (United States)

Author keywords

Business systems analysis; DEMO methodology; Design science; Enterprise information systems; Enterprise process modelling; Modelling technique; Process simulation; Requirements elicitation

Indexed keywords

EID: 46249122678     PISSN: 17517575     EISSN: 17517583     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17517570701646590     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Aalst, van der, W, Desel, J, and Oberweis, A. 1998. Business Process Management:Models, Techniques and Empirical Studies, New York:Springer-Verlag. Berlin/Heidelberg
2. Aalst and van der, WMP. 1996. Three good reasons for using a Petri-net-based workflow management system. Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Information and Process Integration in Enterprises. 1996. pp. 179–201.
3. Bider, I. 2005. Choosing approach to business process modelling—practical perspective, 34J. Concept. Mod. Publisher InConcept
4. Bollojy, N, and Leung, SSK. 2006. Assisting novice analysts in developing quality conceptual models with UML. Comm. ACM, 49 (7):108–112.
5. Carr, NG. 2003. IT doesn’t matter. Harv. Business Rev., 81 (5):41–49.
6. Dalal, NP, Kamath, M, Kolarik, WJ, and Sivaram, E. 2004. Toward an integrated framework for modelling enterprise processes. Comm. ACM, 47 (3):83–87.
7. Dehnert, J, and Aalst, WMP. 2004. van der, Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. Int. J. Coop. Inform. Syst., 13 (3):289–332.
8. Dietz, JLG. Business modelling for business redesign. roceedings of the 27th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. pp. 723–732. IEEE Computer Society Press. Los Alamitos
9. Dietz, JLG, and Barjis, J. June 1999. Supporting the DEMO methodology with a business oriented Petri net, June, 14–15. Germany:Proceedings of the 4th CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modelling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD). Heidelberg
10. Dietz, JLG. 2006a. Enterprise Ontology—Theory and Methodology, New York:Springer.
11. 2006b. Dietz, J.L.G., The deep structure of business processes. Special Issue:Two decades of the language-action perspective. Comm. ACM, 49 (5):59–64.
12. Dobing, B, and Parsons, J. 2006. How UML is used. Comm. ACM, 49 (5):109–113. May
13. Eichner, C, Fleischhack, H, Meyer, R, Schrimpf, U, and Stehno, C. 2005. Compositional semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams using Petri nets, 133–148. SDL Forum.
14. Eshuis, R. 2006. Symbolic model checking of UML activity diagram. ACM Trans. on Software Eng. & Methodol., 15 (1):1–38.
15. Hevner, AR, March, ST, Park, J, and Ram, A. 2004. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quart., 28 (1):75–105.
16. Lindland, O, Sindre, G, and Sølvberg, A. 1994. Understanding quality in conceptual modelling. IEEE Software, 11 (2):42–49.
17. Møller, C. 2007. Process innovation laboratory:A new approach to business process innovation based on enterprise information systems. Ent. Inform. Syst., 1 (1):113–128.
18. Moody, DL. 2004. “ Cognitive load effects on end user understanding of conceptual models:An experimental analysis. In ”. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3255, Berlin/Heidelberg.:Springer.
19. Robinson, AG, and Dilts. 1999. D.M., OR & ERP:A match for the new millennium?. OR/MS Today, 26:30–35.
20. Siau, K, and Cao, Q. 2001. Unified modelling language (UML)—a complexity analysis. J. Database Manage., 12 (1):26–34.
21. Siau, K, Erickson, J, and Lee, LY. 2005. Theoretical vs. practical complexity:The case of UML. J. Database Manage., 16:40–57.
22. Stamper, RK. 1994. “ Social norms in requirement analysis—an outline of MEASUR ”. In Requirements Engineering:Social and Technical Issues, Edited by:Jirotka, M., and Gorguen, J., London, UK:Academic Press Ltd.
23. Te’eni, D. 2001. A cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT. MIS Quart., 25 (2):251–312.
24. Winograd, T. 1997. “ The design of interaction ”. In Beyond Calculation. The Next 50 Years of Computing, Edited by:Denning, P., and Metcalfe, B., New York:Springer-Verlag.
25. Xu, L. 2007. Editorial:Inaugural issue. Ent. Inform. Syst., 1 (1):1–2.