Contextual representations for enterprise model application (C.R.E.M.A.)

MODELSWARD 2015 - 3rd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 483-489

  Wintrich, Nikolaus ^a   Meißner, Malte ^a  

^a FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND DESIGN TECHNOLOGY IPK   (Germany)

Author keywords

Assistant; Business process models; Complexity; Contextual perspectives; Enterprise models; IEM; Process; Users

Indexed keywords

PROCESSING; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY MANAGEMENT; VISUALIZATION;

ASSISTANT; BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; COMPLEXITY; CONTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVES; ENTERPRISE MODELS; USERS;

SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 84939542115     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.5220/0005243804830489     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. BARC, 2013. Steigende Komplexität als Hauptherausforderung von Performance-Management-Anwendungen. URL: http://www.find software.de/Fachinfo/Steigende-Komplexitaet-als-Hauptherausforderung-von-Performance-Management-Anwendungen.html [Stand 2014-07-31].
2. BearingPoint, 2012. Business Process Management-Studie 2012: Stärkung der pro zessorientierung im Unternehmen durch nachhaltige Optimierung der Prozess-und IT-Landschaft. URL: http://www.bearing point.com/de-de/7-5990/business-processmanagement-studie-2012-white-paper/.
3. Bobrik, R., 2008. Konfigurierbare Visualisierung komplexer Prozessmodelle. 1. Aufl. München: Dr. Hut. (Informatik).
4. Gering, P., 2012. Analyse zur Anwendung von kontextuellen Sichten eines modellbasierten Prozessassistenten im Rahmen der Unternehmensmodellierung anhand eines Anwendungsfalls aus der Luftfahrtindustrie. Studienarbeit. Technische Universität Berlin.
5. Harmon, P., Wolf, C., 2014. The State of Business Process Managment 2014. URL: http://www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/uploads/BPTrends-State-of-BPMSurvey-Report.pdf [Stand 2014-07-31].
6. Hipp, M., Mutschler, B., Reichert, M., 2011. on the Context-aware, Personalized Delivery of Process Information: Viewpoints, Problems, and Requirements. In 6th Int'l Conf. on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES'11), Industrial Track, 390-397.
7. Hipp, M., Mutschler, B., Reichert, M., 2012. Navigating in Process Model Collections: a New Approach Inspired by Google Earth. in Aalst, Wil, u.a. (Hg.): Business Process Management Workshops. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), 87-98.
8. Hipp, M. et.al., 2013. a Framework for the Intelligent Delivery and User-Adequate Visualization of Process Information. In 28th Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC'13): ACM Press, 1383-1390.
9. Hipp, M., et.al., 2014. Enabling a User-Friendly Visualization of Business Process Models. in. 3rd Int'l Workshop on Theory and Applications of Process Visualization (TaProViz'14), BPM 2014 Workshops.
10. Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P., 2012. Understanding Understandability of Conceptual Models-What Are We Actually Talking about?. in Hutchison, David, u.a. (Hg.): Conceptual Modeling. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 64-77.
11. Jochem, R., Knothe, T., Wintrich, N., 2012. Enforcing front-loading in engineering processes through product-process integration. in Enterprise Interoperability V. Guildford, Surrey: Springer London, 71-80.
12. Kolb, J., Reichert, M., 2013. Data flow abstractions and adaptations through updatable process views. in Shin, Sung Y. & Maldonado, José C. (Hg.): the 28th Annual ACM Symposium, 1447.
13. La Rosa, M., et. al., 2011. Managing Process Model Complexity via Concrete Syntax Modifications. in Industrial Informatics, IEEE Transactions on 7(2), 255-265.
14. Malinova, M., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J., 2014. Automatic Extraction of Process Categories from Process Model Collections. in Lohmann, Niels, Song, Minseok & Wohed, Petia (Hg.): Business Process Management Workshops. Cham: Springer International Publishing. (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), 430-441.
15. Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Cardoso, J., 2007. What Makes Process Models Understandable? in Alonso, Gustavo, Dadam, Peter & Rosemann, Michael (Hg.): Business Process Management. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 48-63.
16. Munkhbadarch-Dietrich, M., 2012. Entwicklung eines Clients zur Bereitstellung kontextueller Sichten von Unternehmensmodellen anhand eines Anwendungsfalls im Maschinenbau. Diplomarbeit. Technische Universität Berlin.
17. Reijers, H., Mendling, J., 2008. Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects. in Dumas, Marlon, Reichert, Manfred & Shan, Ming-Chien (Hg.): Business Process Management. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 20-35.
18. Saidani, O., Nurcan, S., 2014. Business Process Modeling: a Multi-perspective Approach Integrating Variability. in van der Aalst, Wil, u.a. (Hg.): Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), 169-183.
19. Santorum, M., Front, a, Rieu, D., 2014. ISEAsy: a Social Business Process Management Platform. in Lohmann, Niels, Song, Minseok & Wohed, Petia (Hg.): Business Process Management Workshops. Cham: Springer International Publishing. (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), 125-137.
20. Schwermer, M., 1998. Modellierungsvorgehen zur Planung von Geschäftsprozessen. Berlin: IPK (Berichte aus dem Produktionstechnischen Zentrum Berlin).
21. Vernadat, F.B., 2002. Enterprise modeling and integration (EMI): current status and research perspectives. in Annual Review in Control 26: 15-25.