مدل سازی فرآیند یکپارچه :ارزیابی هستی شناختی

Process modeling has gained prominence in the information systems modeling area due to its focus on business processes and its usefulness in such business improvement methodologies as Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering, and Workflow Management. However, process modeling techniques are not without their criticisms [13]. This paper proposes and uses the Bunge-Wand-Weber (BWW) representation model to analyze the five views — process, data, function, organization and output — provided in the Architecture of Integrated Information Systems (ARIS) popularized by Scheer [39, 40, 41]. The BWW representation model attempts to provide a theoretical base on which to evaluate and thus contribute to the improvement of information systems modeling techniques. The analysis conducted in this paper prompts some propositions. It confirms that the process view alone is not sufficient to model all the real-world constructs required. Some other symbols or views are needed to overcome these deficiencies. However, even when considering all five views in combination, problems may arise in representing all potentially required business rules, specifying the scope and boundaries of the system under consideration, and employing a “top-down” approach to analysis and design. Further work from this study will involve the operationalization of these propositions and their empirical testing in the field.

Methodological issues surrounding information systems development - the analysis, design, construction and implementation tasks - have long been central to the interest of information systemsprofessionals, practitioners and researchers alike. Hirschheim et al. [21], Hirschheim et al. [22], and, mostrecently, Iivari et al. [23] and Mylopoulos [29] have reviewed rigorously many methodologies and theirunderlying philosophies as applied to information systems development. Researchers in informationsystems development have for years lamented the fact that little theoretical guidance only has beenprovided to practitioners on several areas involved in IS development [2, 151. Consequently,methodologies, techniques, and grammars have proliferated over time [25, 30]+. This situation hascontributed to what Banville and Landry [3] describe as the “fragmented adhocracy” of the state oftheoretical development in the IS discipline. By contrast, Benbasat and Weber [6, p. 3981 implore the IScommunity to “not mix up the notions of the core of the IS discipline and the body of knowledge for the IS discipline”. Moreover, Benbasat and Weber [6] go on to advocate that diversity (adhocracy) clearly has itsplace in IS research but not as an excuse for shirking the fundamental responsibility of a community tobuild its own theories to account for those core phenomena that differentiate the IS discipline from otherdisciplines.In an attempt to address this situation, Wand and Weber [47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 531 have developedand refined a set of models that specify what they believe are a set of core phenomena for the IS discipline.These models are based on an ontology defined by Bunge [7] and are referred to as the Bunge-Wand-Weber (BWW) models. These models, in particular their representation model, provide a theoretical basison which information systems modeling grammars and the scripts prepared using such grammars can beevaluated. As Weber [54] argues, this evaluative aspect of the models persists irrespective of thephilosophical assumptions under which the models are applied. His and Wand’s central concern is with thegoodness of the representation of the perception of that portion of the real world that is being modeled.Various researchers have demonstrated the applicability and usefulness of these models in relation to suchgrammars as data flow diagrams, entity-relationship diagrams, object-oriented schemas, the relational model, NIAM, and structured grammars in CASE tools [ 17, 32, 44,46, 48,52, 53, 54, 551. Using a similarapproach to these researchers, this paper extends the analysis into the area of integrated process modeling.Accordingly, this work is restricted to the BWW theoretical base and it does not include other bases suchas those articulated in Iivari et al.‘s [23] paradigmatic framework viz., epistemology, researchmethodology, and ethics of research.For many years now, there has been an increased recognition in information systems modeling of thedynamic behavior of organizations. Process modeling has been embraced as an appropriate approach todescribe the behavior and as a mechanism by which many of the related concerns with the traditionalmodeling grammars can be overcome [lo]. Moreover, process modeling focuses on understanding theunderlying business processes which many IS professionals believe is fundamental to the successfulimplementation of technology-based change in organizations [13]. As Becker et al. [5, p. 8211 explain,“process models are . . . images of the logical and temporal order of functions performed on a processobject. They are the foundation for the operationalization of process-oriented approaches”.The popularity of concentrating on business processes through process modeling has been fuelled overthe last ten years by the prominence of such organizational improvement approaches as Total QualityManagement (TQM), Time-based Management, Business Process Reengineering (BPR), and Value-based Performance Measurement (VBPM). Furthermore, the rapid worldwide take-up over the last five years ofEnterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software such as SAP R/3 or BaanERP that rely heavily on referenceprocess models to describe the software functionality and to guide and document implementation has addedsignificantly to the interest and perceived usefulness of process modeling. In particular in conjunction withthe success of software specific reference models [9, 14, 281, integrated process modeling that providesvarious views of the process to users has received much attention. However, process modeling is notwithout its critics who point to such deficiencies as an emphasis on the “hard” factors (who, what, when,and where) to the detriment of the “soft” factors (norms, beliefs, and motives) in the examination and modeling of the business processes [ 131.The aim then of this study is to analyze as an example the integrated process modeling grammar withinthe ARIS framework popularized by Scheer [39, 40, 411 using the BWW theory base to determine theability of this grammar to provide “good representations of the perceptions” of business analysts.Accordingly, this work is motivated by several factors. First, through such an analysis, potentialweaknesses of integrated process modeling grammars can be identified. Such an analysis can thenpotentially contribute to the theoretical development of integrated process modeling. Second, the results ofthe analyses in this paper may be useful to the implementers and users of comprehensive process-basedsoftware systems such as SAP RI3 or BaanERP. SAP has stated that in subsequent versions of its product itintends the implementation/customization process to be driven directly by modifications made to therelevant reference process models supplied in the product. In BaanERP it is already possible to derive fromthe tailored reference model the information necessary for system customization and authorization [45]. Insuch a situation, potential weaknesses in integrated process modeling identified in this analysis may give useful information to the implementers of such software systems. Third, this study provides an opportunityto extend the existing work on the application of the BWW models. To date, these models have in the mainbeen applied to “traditional” information systems analysis and design (ISAD) grammars. This paperextends their application into the dynamic area of process modeling. Fourth, this study will add to thedevelopment of the BWW models by extending their application to a different modeling environment. Bysuch a further application, the robustness of the BWW ontological constructs can be examined. Finally, theimplications of the analyses can be articulated as hypotheses and empirically tested with a base of integrated process modeling users. The results of such a step will contribute also to the development of theBWW models and integrated process modeling.Consequently, this paper proceeds in the following manner. First, some background on the developmentof the BWW models and their application in related work is given. This section is followed by anintroduction to integrated process modeling. Included in this section is a discussion of why Scheer’s 139, 40, 411 Architecture of Integrated Information Systems (ARIS) was selected as theintegrated processodeling grammar for analysis. The next section presents the analysis of Scheer’s grammar. The analyticalmethodology is explained using the process view of the integrated modeling grammars as an example.Following this work, an initial set of propositions based on the implications of the analysis is presented.Finally, some conclusions and intended directions for further research are sketched.

This paper has analyzed the event-driven process chain popularized by Scheer using the BWW theorybase to determine the ability of this grammar to provide a “good representation of the perceptions” ofbusiness analysts. Through such an analysis, it has identified some areas where potential contributions canbe made to the theoretical development of integrated process modeling. Moreover, this study has extendedthe existing work on the application of the BWW models. To date, these models have in the main beenapplied to “traditional” ISAD grammars. This paper has extended their application into the area of processmodeling. Results of the analyses in this work have drawn into question the robustness of certain BWW ontological constructs e.g., conceivable state space, law@1 state space, conceivable event space, andlawful event space. The implications of the analysis with regard to the process view in isolation and the fiveviews in combination have been articulated as a set of propositions. In further work, it is intended tooperationalize these propositions into a set of hypotheses that can be tested in the field against a matureintegrated process modeling user base.Moreover, each of the remaining views can be examined individually and propositions with regard to completeness and clarity can be derived. For example, in the output view, the same symbol is used torepresent a specific product catalogue (thing) and material outputs/inputs (class). This situation is anexample of construct overload. Weber 1541 would predict that users of that view would be confused and theclarity of meaning would be undermined. Future work will also focus on the completion of this ontologicalanalysis for the other four views. Furthermore, extensions of the analysis to the ARIS Toolset will beperformed. Thus, it will be possible to distinguish between the ontological evaluation of a modelinggrammar and the ontological evaluation of its implementation.