A Comparison of Flexible BPMN and CMMN in Practice: A Case Study on Component Release Processes
A. Zensen, J. Küster, in: IEEE (Ed.), 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), IEEE, 2018, pp. 105–114.
Download
Es wurde kein Volltext hochgeladen. Nur Publikationsnachweis!
Konferenzbeitrag
| Veröffentlicht
| Englisch
Autor*in
Zensen, André;
Küster, Jochen
herausgebende Körperschaft
IEEE
Abstract
The Object Management Group maintains two notations to model business processes, BPMN and CMMN. While the two follow different approaches, both offer structures to model flexible processes or parts thereof. This gives rise to the question which standard should be chosen to adequately model such processes. We compare BPMN with a focus on its ad-hoc sub-process with elements of CMMN case models along a practical case study. While BPMN offers a certain degree of flexibility, CMMN has several benefits but also drawbacks. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of both notations. To answer the question of which notation to use for modeling flexible processes, we derive simple guidelines to help in making an informed choice.
Erscheinungsjahr
Titel des Konferenzbandes
2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC)
Seite
105-114
Konferenz
2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC)
Konferenzort
Stockholm
Konferenzdatum
2018-10-16 – 2018-10-19
FH-PUB-ID
Zitieren
Zensen, André ; Küster, Jochen: A Comparison of Flexible BPMN and CMMN in Practice: A Case Study on Component Release Processes. In: IEEE (Hrsg.): 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC) : IEEE, 2018, S. 105–114
Zensen A, Küster J. A Comparison of Flexible BPMN and CMMN in Practice: A Case Study on Component Release Processes. In: IEEE, ed. 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC). IEEE; 2018:105-114. doi:10.1109/EDOC.2018.00023
Zensen, A., & Küster, J. (2018). A Comparison of Flexible BPMN and CMMN in Practice: A Case Study on Component Release Processes. In IEEE (Ed.), 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC) (pp. 105–114). Stockholm : IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2018.00023
@inproceedings{Zensen_Küster_2018, title={A Comparison of Flexible BPMN and CMMN in Practice: A Case Study on Component Release Processes}, DOI={10.1109/EDOC.2018.00023}, booktitle={2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC)}, publisher={IEEE}, author={Zensen, André and Küster, Jochen}, editor={IEEEEditor}, year={2018}, pages={105–114} }
Zensen, André, and Jochen Küster. “A Comparison of Flexible BPMN and CMMN in Practice: A Case Study on Component Release Processes.” In 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), edited by IEEE, 105–14. IEEE, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2018.00023.
A. Zensen and J. Küster, “A Comparison of Flexible BPMN and CMMN in Practice: A Case Study on Component Release Processes,” in 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), Stockholm , 2018, pp. 105–114.
Zensen, André, and Jochen Küster. “A Comparison of Flexible BPMN and CMMN in Practice: A Case Study on Component Release Processes.” 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), edited by IEEE, IEEE, 2018, pp. 105–14, doi:10.1109/EDOC.2018.00023.
Google Scholar