Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

44 (2008) 842–853www.elsevier.com/locate/dss

Decision Support Systems

A case study on process modelling — Three questionsand three techniques

Olivier Glassey ⁎

Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration (IDHEAP), Switzerland

Received 1 February 2004; accepted 2 February 2007Available online 13 October 2007

Abstract

In this case study we compare three process modelling techniques in order to find common concepts and to identify significantdifferences. We base this comparison around three general questions:

• What are the objectives of the organisation?• Who is doing what with which resources?• How does the organisation work?

The answers to the third of these questions (“How does the organisation work?”) are quite similar for all three of the modellingtechniques we examine here. The main differences, at the modelling level, appear when considering the answers to the first two.© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Process modelling; Graphical representation; Description levels; Comparison

1. Introduction

Process modelling techniques are widely used in bothbusiness and academic organisations where research onprocess modelling or workflow management has beenconducted for several years ([25], [13] or [4]). Processmodelling requires workflow models, along with techni-ques for capturing and describing processes [18], withactivity-based workflow modelling (in which a workflowconsists of a partial or total set of ordered tasks, that is,partial or total sets of ordered operations, or descriptionsof human actions) amongst these techniques. In otherterms, a process model or view is an abstraction of an

⁎ IDHEAP, Route de la Maladiere 21, 1022 Lausanne, Switzerland.Tel.: +41 21 694 06 00; fax: +41 21 694 06 09.

E-mail address: oglassey@yahoo.fr.

0167-9236/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.dss.2007.10.004

implemented process [16]. We deliberately use the word“techniques,” as thesemodels can bemade up ofmethods,modelling languages or integrated software applications(some open and free, others proprietary and commercial).This variety of techniques can be somewhat confusing,and the choice of an adequate technique for a givenproject might be difficult.

Between 2001 and 2003 we participated in a Europeanresearch project on e-government (see Acknowledge-ment), whose main goal was to analyse processes inpublic administrations, and to design new, improvedprocesses for providing online electronic services. Thisresearch project, “An Integrated Platform for RealisingOnline One-stop Government (eGOV),” was realisedwithin the “Information Society and Technology” fifthframework. A consortium of eleven commercial compa-nies, public administrations, and academic partners

843O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

developed, deployed, and evaluated an on-line govern-mental portal which offered advanced features to thecitizens: personalisation, multilingualism, authentication,accessibility, etc. This platform was based on content andservice repositories (both at the national and local levels);a service creation environment was used to administratethe repositories. The project also include the developmentof a governmental mark-up language (GovML) todescribe public services and life events in order to search,locate, and retrieve governmental digital resources. Anumber of administrative services were created andprovided through platforms deployed in Austria, Greece,and Switzerland at the national and local levels. For moreon the integration of electronic services and XML-enabled repositories we recommend [24].

One of our tasks was to analyse and optimise theprocesses underlying these administrative services. [11]and [7] provide an excellent introduction on processanalysis and reengineering and on how these can be usedto improve organisational performance. Process model-ling tools and methods support capture, representation,organisation and storage of knowledge on the state of anorganisation. Indeed, process descriptions can be writtenin natural language, but formal process modelling withstandardised semantics provides a bridge between processanalysis and designmade by people, and technical processimplementation. Formal process models show, amongstothers, actions together with constraints on executionorder between them [20]. Descriptive models representthe current state of processes and prescriptive models areused to show how these processes could be optimised, i.e.how workflows could be better organised to reach givengoals. These goals can be strategic, organisational,notably in terms of collaboration, and operational.

In order to design and implement these electronicservices, we followed an approach inspired by [17] andwanted to create models of the actual system, of an idealsystem, and of the system to implement. In order todesign process models, i.e. a series of diagramscapturing the dynamics of a system [15], we needed touse a modelling technique. Partners with a technicalbackground were in favour of UML, those experiencedin organisational science supported OSSAD, and peoplecoming from the field of business process insisted onusing ADONIS:

- Adonis is a software tool for modelling operationalprocesses and it has its own proprietary modellingtechnique and description language. It is one of themany commercial methodologies that are tightlyintegrated with a modelling environment, such asAris Toolset (from IDS Scheer AG), Mega Process/

Mega Designer (from Mega International, Inc.) orBonapart (from Pikos GmbH). These tools are widelyused in large firms and public administrations.

- OSSAD is an open and standard modelling methodfor organisations and information systems [6]. It wasdeveloped within a European research project and issupported by only one or two commercial softwaretools. Such public domain methods are not verycommon, the only comparable methodology isOPEN (Object-oriented Process, Environment andNotation), developed and maintained by a not-for-profit consortium [12].

- UML is a standardised graphical description lan-guage that can be used in the domain of processmodelling although it was specifically developed forinformation systems. UML is a de facto standard formodelling and there are plenty of software tools, bothcommercial and free, that integrate this notation.

As the schedule was very tight, project partnersdecided to use ADONIS without in-depth analysis, butwithin in our own research work we later realised adetailed survey of these three techniques. We did notconduct this study in order to choose the “best” tech-nique; we rather tried to find common concepts and toidentify major differences in order to provide a com-prehensive framework for process analysis and im-provement. We analysed the concepts, the models andthe application domains of Adonis, OSSAD and UMLand made a detailed comparison [10]. In addition to thisdetailed survey we globally examined the underlyingconcepts of three well-known and widely used model-ling methodologies with very different backgrounds:

- MOKA is a methodology for developing Knowledge-Based Engineering applications, in particular in thefields of aeronautical and automotive industries, and it isused for designing complex mechanical products [19].

- CommonKADS is a methodology supporting struc-tured knowledge engineering, developed within theEuropean ESPRIT IT Programme. It now is aEuropean de facto standard for knowledge analysisand knowledge-intensive system development, usedby many companies and universities [23].

- ARIS is a very successful method and toolset formodelling business process, used in many universi-ties throughout the world for research and teachingactivities [22].

Each method provides between four and six typesof models and although they are rather different wecompared these forms of representation in order to

844 O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

identify the “views” that we would use for our study onprocessmodelling.We decided to leave aside the technicallayer ofmodelling, for example the physical (geometrical)representation of a product in MOKA or the (software)implementation diagrams in UML. These modellingtechniques all provide a representation of reality:

- At the abstract level: functions of a product, missionsof an organisation, or tasks of a given piece of software.

- At the organisational level: structure of an organisa-tion and available resources, either technological orinformational.

- At the operational level: step-by-step description ofhow a product is manufactured or how a given resultis obtained.

In the following sections, we will study theserepresentation levels in process modelling by answeringthe following questions:

- What are the strategic goals of the organisation?- Who is doing what with which resources?- How does the organisation operate?

In this paper we will not present the software toolswe used, neither will we detail their respectivefunctionalities in terms of analysis, simulation, docu-mentation or code generation, neither will we look attechnical or financial aspects. We will specificallyfocus on representation concepts and categories ofdiagrams for business process modelling. However,readers will find below a brief summary of the threetechniques in terms of coverage, richness of represen-tation, and ease of use:

- The main focus of ADONIS is on business processmodelling; the graphical notation is very structuredbut not flexible; it is rather simple to use and fullyintegrated with the companion software tool.

- The goal of OSSAD is to support IT managementwithin organisations; it has a limited number of genericconcepts but these are not extensible; OSSAD is verysimple but lacks good tools for graphical representation.

- UML is mainly used in the field of informationsystems; it provides many concepts that are veryflexible and extensible, but it is rather complex for non-IT people; many tools integrate the UML notation.

2. Three modelling techniques

As stated above, we will not explain how to build amodel with Adonis, OSSAD or UML neither will we try

to describe all the underlying concepts and terminology.There are several complete reference books and articles(for example on UML see [2], on Adonis [14] and onOSSAD [3,8]) and users manuals ([1] for Adonis and [6]for OSSAD) that do so quite well. However we willshow that they are based on very different approachesand that they have quite different backgrounds, be-cause we believe it makes the comparison all the moreinteresting.

Adonis is both a modelling environment and aproprietary modelling technique integrated with thesoftware tool. It was developed by the Austriancompany Business Object Consulting (www.boc-eu.com), a spin-off of the Business Process ManagementSystems group of the University of Vienna. Adonis iswidely used in financial services and public adminis-trations, notably for process optimisation and documen-tation, for quality management or for ISO certifications.The standard version of Adonis supports three types ofmodels, but users can buy extension modules, offeringfor example IBM Lovem or UML support:

- Process maps: they give a general idea of process-es and sub-processes that take place within anorganisation.

- Working environment models: they show the struc-ture of an organisation in terms of units, responsibil-ities and roles, as well as resources.

- Operational process models: they follow a processfrom beginning to end, showing all the activitiesthat are to be done, actors that are responsible for adesignated activity and resources linked to the real-isation of an activity.

OSSAD (Office Systems Support and AnalysisDesign) is the result of a European research projectconducted from 1985 to 1989 within the ESPRIT(European Strategic Program for Research in Informa-tion Technology) program. The goal of this open andnon-proprietary method is to manage organisationalproblems induced by the massive introduction oftechnology in offices. OSSAD offers two levels ofmodelling and several types of diagrams or graphs:

- The abstract model shows the strategic goals of anorganisation in terms of functions (e.g. marketing,finance, production) and information packets thatcirculate between these functions (e.g. contracts,statistics). Functions can be decomposed intocascading sub-functions, as many as necessary todescribe a given organisation, a final node of sub-function being called an activity.

Table 1Adonis, OSSAD and UML models

Fig. 1. ADONIS process map.

845O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

- The descriptive model represents human means andtechnological resources used within an organisation.These are defined in terms of procedures (how torealise an activity) and operations (the steps that areto be followed to accomplish a procedure), as well asin terms of roles (who participates in a givenactivity), resources and tools. The descriptive levelconsists of three types of graphical formalisms:

o The activity-role matrix provides formal linksbetween activities and roles.

o The information circulation graphs describe thecommunication between roles (role diagram) andprocedures (procedure diagram).

o The operation diagram shows the chronologicalsequence of elementary operations accomplishedwithin a procedure.

UML (Unified Modeling Language) is an object-oriented graphical notation language that was developedand standardised byRational Software (www.rational.com)and the Object Management Group (www.omg.org). As itsname says, UMLwas born in 1997 out of the unification ofthree object modelling techniques: Booch, Object Model-ling Technique and Objectory (OOSE) Process. GradyBooch, James Rumbaugh and Ivar Jacobson were thefathers of these techniques and now all work for RationalSoftware. In a few years UML became a de-facto standardfor specifying, visualising, developing and documentingsoftware [2]. This language covers the different cycles ofsoftware engineering (analysis, conception and implemen-tation) with 9 types of diagrams:

- Use case diagrams represent the behaviour of asystem from the user's point of view.

- Class diagrams show the static structure of a system(classes and their relations) without temporalinformation, a class being an abstract representationof a set of similar elements.

- Object diagrams represent objects and their relations,an object being a particular element of a class.

- Sequence diagrams describe interactions betweenobjects along a temporal line.

- Collaboration diagrams represent interactionsbetween objects in a structural form. Sequenceand collaboration diagrams are called interactiondiagrams and they are isomorphic, i.e. it is possibleto transform one into another.

- State diagrams show the dynamic behaviour of anobject in terms of states, transitions and events.

- Activity diagrams describe the flows circulatingbetween activities within a system.

- Component diagrams show the physical implemen-tation of a system, in terms of software components.

- Deployment diagrams describe the configuration ofexecutables and related components.

For this work we selected use case, sequence,collaboration and activities diagrams because they arerelevant to process modelling.

3. Comparison of Adonis, OSSAD and UML

To summarise the previous section we could say thatAdonis, OSSAD and UML were created in different

Fig. 2. OSSAD abstract model.

846 O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

fields of research: business process (re-)engineering,office (re-)organisation and information system devel-opment. Furthermore they originated in differentmanners: commercial spin-off from an academicinstitute, European research project and fusion of threewell-known object-oriented methods with the support ofa software company. They nevertheless all have acommon goal: to offer a representation of reality atdifferent levels and from different points of view. Theyalso share a common idea: cascading models with“zooming” possibilities. Thus we think that comparingthem makes sense, however different they might seem,as long as we provide comparison “angles,” i.e. the threegeneral points of view mentioned in the introduction:

- What are the strategic goals of the organisation?- Who is doing what and which resources are

available?- How does the organisation operate?

Our comparison shares the common goal we iden-tified for these techniques, as we want to study them atdifferent levels and from different points of view. Theseare categorised formally below:

- Abstract level: strategy-centred- Structural level: organisation-based- Operational level: scenario-based (i.e. based on

sequences of elementary operations or activities)

Fig. 3. OSSAD zoo

Table 1 shows the classification of the different typesof models or diagrams that we used in this work.OSSAD activity-role matrices (ARM) create formal linkbetween the abstract and the structural representations,therefore they are shown at the border of these twolevels.

For this comparison we use a simple example ofbusiness registration:

- The general idea is to create a new business.- Basically, at the organisational level, an entrepre-

neur, some type of public administration office anda notary are involved in this process.

- The procedure to follow in order to register abusiness, along with specific requirements, isdefined by law.

In order to illustrate the different graphical conceptswe will provide examples for most models, but we willnot explain in details the graphical notation as we thinkthese examples are relatively straightforward and easy tounderstand.

3.1. Abstract representation

Process maps in Adonis, abstract models in OSSADand use cases in UML have a common goal, modellingthe objectives or the functions of an organisation. Theyare however relatively dissimilar in their conception anddo not show the same type of information.

Adonis process maps (Fig. 1) only show processes ingeneral terms. Their graphical semantics is basically the

Fig. 4. UML use case.

med process.

Fig. 5. UML detailed use case.

Fig. 6. ADONIS working environment model.

847O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

same as a bullet-list in a word-processor, with the additionof zooming capabilities: one can click on a process tosee sub-processes or operational process models.

OSSAD also shows processes or functions, but itadds the idea of information packets and graphicallyshows the circulation of information packets betweenprocesses (Fig. 2). Moreover this technique integratesthe concept of external processes (or entities), whichallows the representation of the interactions of anorganisation with its environment. A process can bedecomposed into sub-processes (Fig. 3) and sub-processes that are not decomposed are called activitiesin OSSAD.

Although the terminology is different, we think thatUML use cases are equivalent to processes in Adonis orin OSSAD. They can also be decomposed with severallevels of zoom (Figs. 4 and 5). The UML concept ofactor is furthermore very similar to the external processin OSSAD, apart from the graphical representation.However there is a big difference between UML andOSSAD: where the former only shows simple associa-tions between actors and uses cases, the latter specifieswhat type of information circulates between the pro-cesses. This appears very clearly when one comparesFigs. 2 and 4 or Figs. 3 and 5.

To conclude this overview on the abstract level, let uspoint out that the concept of process is present in thethree techniques: Adonis uses it as is, OSSAD makes adifference between internal and external processes andadds the idea of information packets circulation, UMLrelates processes and actors. From a modelling pointof view, we think that Adonis models do not really bringany added value whereas UML and OSSAD integratemore representation semantics. The most detailedmethod is OSSAD, as it can show exactly the sameinformation as UML and adds the representation ofinformation circulation. In our opinion these differencesare only logical: OSSAD is organisation-centred and itwas intended for offices where the “raw material” isinformation, while UML was developed for softwareengineering with a focus on data and messages ex-changed between classes of objects and it is not nec-essary to represent these at the abstract level.

3.2. Structural representation

The most notable differences between Adonis,OSSAD and UML are found at this level and we willgo over them below. Again we believe they can beexplained with the initial conception and applicationdomains of these techniques:

- UML was not designed for representing thestructure or the hierarchy of an organisation, withthe direct consequence that it does not make adifference between physical actors and the rolesthat they are assigned within an organisation.

- Adonis and OSSAD are specialised processmodelling techniques, thus they integrate therepresentation of the structure of an organisationand differentiate physical and conceptual actorsfrom their roles or responsibilities. Fig. 6 showssuch an organisational chart, with units, workersand roles attributed to workers. This was made withAdonis and we will not show the OSSADequivalent, which is similar (only the graphicalsymbols are different). This type of model can beuseful to describe an organisation and its structuresbut it is not directly in relation with processmodelling. Anyway, if needed it would be possibleto develop UML class models showing the

Fig. 7. OSSAD role model.

848 O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

structure of an organisation although they werenever intended to be used in that way.

The working environment model is the only Adonismodel that allows structural representation. Yet we haveto add that in the Adonis tool it is possible to assign rolesor physical actors to a given elementary activity withinan operational process model and to visualise all theseassignations in a recapitulating table. However OSSADand UML offer specific models in order to show “Whodoes what?” The OSSAD role model (Fig. 7) and theUML collaboration diagram (Fig. 8) present some

Fig. 8. UML collabo

similarities: the former shows the circulation ofinformation resources between roles and the latterdescribes the exchange of messages between actorsunder a structural form. Yet in UML collaborationdiagrams it is possible to number the messages inchronological order and thus there is the possibility togive temporal information that does not exist in OSSADrole models.

The procedure model of OSSAD (Fig. 9) provides alink between the abstract and the operational levels, aseach procedure represents an activity from the abstractmodel and an operation model must be linked to a

ration diagram.

Fig. 9. OSSAD procedure model.

849O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

procedure. Moreover an information packet of theabstract level is formally made of one or severalinformation resources in role or procedure models.

In UML there is no formal link between the abstractand operational levels, however there is a semantic link:a sequence diagram (Fig. 10) should be the represen-tation of the scenario defined for a given use case.Detailed explanations on use cases and scenarios can befound in [9].

It is interesting to note that procedure and rolemodels are linked in OSSAD: they must show the sameinformation resources, with the emphasis on circulationbetween procedures in one case and between actors inthe other case. This symmetry can also be found inUML, as we already mention that sequence andcollaboration diagrams are isomorphic, one with atemporal focus and the other with a structural one.

OSSAD is the only technique that provides a modelin order to establish a formal connexion between thethree levels: the activity-role matrix (Fig. 11) defines

Fig. 10. UML seque

which roles are responsible for a given activity andeach activity of the abstract model is represented by aprocedure at the structural level and detailed in anoperation model at the descriptive level. In other wordsan activity at the abstract level (the finest level ofdecomposition) is mapped onto a procedure at thedescriptive level, i.e. a sequence of operations carriedout by given roles. There may be several activity-rolematrices, as there may be many ways of carrying out agiven procedure and as the same activity may be carriedout by different roles. These activity-role matrices provevery useful for reorganisation, as they show differentways of undertaking a procedure and potentially allowthe definition of more efficient procedures. As we wroteabove, the Adonis software allows its users to assignroles to elementary activities, but this is not formalisedin terms of methodology and cannot be used for suchreorganisation purposes. On the other hand, such amatrix would not make much sense in UML, where theactors are already integrated at the abstract level.

3.3. Operational representation

In our opinion, the representation of control andinformation flows is clearly identical in Adonis, OSSADand UML. At this level, each process is viewed astransforming as set of inputs, modelled by incomingflows, into outputs or outgoing flows [15]. Indeed thesame concepts are used, even if some graphical symbolsdiffer:

- Elementary activities or operations are performed ina chronological manner.

- Swimlanes show which actors or roles are respon-sible for elementary activities or operations.

- Conditions, parallel operation and start/stop pointsare used to control the execution flow of the ele-mentary activities or operations.

nce diagram.

850 O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

- Information resources or tools are linked to ele-mentary activities or operations.

As operational process models (Adonis), operationmodel (OSSAD) and activity diagrams (UML) are verysimilar; we only show one example here: the executionflow for a business registration (Fig. 12). Still, there area few differences, both in terms of semantics and ofgraphical representation:

- Adonis differentiates roles and physical actors,OSSAD only takes roles into account and UMLdoes not make any formal difference between thesetwo concepts.

- Adonis provides many predefined symbols forresources (document, file, database, mobile re-source, financial resource, computer, etc.), withUML one can model any type of resources asclasses of objects, and OSSAD only uses threepredefined concepts: information resources, docu-ments and tools.

This parallelism is not surprising, for the represen-tation of a chronological sequence of elementaryoperations and of resources has a low level ofabstraction and must therefore be close to reality,without much of a margin of interpretation. Thesemodels are directly inspired from flowcharts and arefound in many other techniques based on Petri netrepresentation (see [5] for more on modelling systemswith Petri nets).

Fig. 11. OSSAD activ

4. Conclusion

Up to this point we used rather freely some termssuch as operation or activity, role or actor, etc. Wewanted the readers to get a general picture and not to beconfused with identical terms that have different mean-ings in Adonis, OSSAD or UML. Nevertheless, thesetechniques formally link given terms and concepts. Wegrouped them in Table 2 in order to provide a syntheticview of terms and concepts.

This table allows us to make a transition towards ourconclusions: with a simple look one can realise thatOSSAD provides more concepts, especially at theabstract level. Looking back at Table 1, one can alsosee that OSSAD has more models than UML andAdonis. Of course, more does not automatically meanbetter and we announced in the introduction that ourwork was not intended in order to choose the “best”technique. We will only try to determine whichtechnique might be more adapted in given situations.

Let us briefly summarise the characteristics ofAdonis, OSSAD and UML. At the operational level,they are equivalent and can be used indifferently. At thestructural level there is a difference between the pairAdonis–OSSAD, the business process and organisationoriented methods, and UML, from the informationsystems field. The choice of one technique would thenbe dependent of the domain to be modelled. If it is ahierarchical organisation where persons can havedifferent roles within the execution of process,OSSAD provides more precise semantics and a better

ity–role matrix.

Fig. 12. UML activity diagram.

851O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

integration with the abstract level, whereas UML mightprovide a somehow “blurry” representation of reality.However the latter is probably more flexible and wouldbe adapted for ad-hoc or virtual type of organisations.Last, at the abstract level we should say that Adonisprocess maps are almost too “abstract” to be of any use.This is not inevitably a weakness, as it might not benecessary to represent graphically the strategic goals ofan organisation in order to develop a good processmodel. Adonis is quite good to model the structure of anorganisation and especially the available resources, andin some cases this might be more important than havinga good abstract image. UML use cases do a very goodjob to that regard, while OSSAD concepts of informa-tion packets might be a bit confusing for those that arenot used to this technique.

As a global conclusion, we will give our generalappreciations on these techniques:

- Adonis is a good and complete integrated tool forprocess modelling, however it lacks some concep-tual hindsight: that is not a problem when it used forsimulation or analysis, but in our opinion that is adrawback for reengineering projects.

- OSSAD is probably the most complete techniqueand its models are very well connected with eachother. On the other hand it is not widely spread andthere are only two tools that support it.

- UML is the most generic and flexible technique andthere are plenty of tools and resources available onthe market. The flexibility of UML can sometimesbe a disadvantage, as it does not formalise some

Table 2Adonis, OSSAD and UML terminology

852 O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

concepts used in process modelling, which can causelosses of information or lead to the creationincomplete models. It is recommended to supportconceptual, logical and physical design phases forinformation systems [21].

Acknowledgement

This work would not have been possible withoutthe support of Prof. Jean-Loup Chappelet and waspartly realised within the research project “eGOV:An Integrated Platform for Realising Online One-stop e-Government,” funded by the IST Programmeof the European Commission (Contract Number IST-2000-28471, complete references available at: www.egov-project.org/).

References

[1] BOC, Formation de base à Adonis, Training Manual, BusinessObject Consulting, Austria, 2002.

[2] G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, The Unified ModelingLanguage User Guide, Addison-Wesley, MA, 1999.

[3] J.L. Chappelet, J.J. Snella, Un langage pour l'organisation:l'approche OSSAD, 3rd EdnPresses Polytechniques et Universi-taires Romandes, Lausanne, 2004.

[4] J.E. Cook, A.L. Wolf, Discovering models of software processform event-data, ACM Transactions on Software Engineeringand Methodology, 1998.

[5] L.A. Cortes, P. Eles, Z. Peng, Modeling and formal verification ofembedded systems based on a Petri net representation, Journal ofSystem Architecture 49 (2003).

[6] C-Log, Tutorial OSS@D Process Design, C-Log International,Geneva, 2001.

[7] T.H. Davenport, Process Innovation: Reengineering Workthrough Information Technology, Harvard Business SchoolPress, 1993.

[8] P. Dumas, G. Charbonnel, La Méthode OSSAD, pour maîtriserles technologies de l'information, Les Editions d'Organisation,Paris, 1990.

[9] O. Glassey, One-stop Government Prototype based on Use Casesand Scenarios, in: R. Traunmüller, K. Lenk (Eds.), ElectronicGovernment, First International Conference EGOV 2002, Aix-en-Provence, France, September 2–5, 2002, Springer Verlag,Berlin, 2002, LNCS 2456.

[10] O. Glassey, J.L. Chappelet, Comparaison de trois techniques demodélisation de processus: ADONIS, OSSAD et UML, Workingpaper, IDHEAP, Lausanne, 2002.

[11] M. Hammer, Beyond Reengineering: How the Process-centeredOrganization is Changing Our Work and Our Lives, HarperBusi-ness, 1997.

[12] B. Henderson-Sellers, T. Simons, H. Younessi, The OPENToolbox of Techniques, Addison-Wesley, MA, 1998.

[13] J. Herbst, D. Karagiannis, Integrating machine learning andworkflow management to support acquisition and adaptation ofworkflow models, International Journal of Intelligent Systems inAccounting, Finance and Management 9 (2000).

[14] S. Junginger, H. Kühn, R. Strobl, D. Karagiannis, EinGeschäftsprozessmaganement-Werkzeug der nächsten Genera-tion — ADONIS: Konzeption und Anwendungen, Wirtschaft-sinformatik 42 (5) (2000).

[15] J. Lee, G.M. Wyner, Defining specialization for dataflowdiagrams, Information Systems 28 (2003).

[16] D.R. Liu, M. Shen, Business-to-business workflow interopera-tion based on a process-view, Decision Support System 38 (2004)399–419.

[17] D.A. Marca, C.L. McGowan, SADT Structured Analysis andDesign Technique, McGraw-Hill, 1987.

[18] G. Mentzas, C. Halaris, S. Kavadias, Modelling businessprocesses with workflow systems: an evaluation of alternativeapproaches, International Journal of Information Management 21(2001).

853O. Glassey / Decision Support Systems 44 (2008) 842–853

[19] MML Working Group, MOKA User Guide — MOKAModelling Language Core Definition (MOKA Project —ESPRIT 25418, Deliverable D1.3, available at: http://web1.eng.coventry.ac.uk/moka/mml.htm, 2000).

[20] S.S. Pinter, M. Golani, Discovering workflow models fromactivities’ lifespans, Computer Industry 53 (2004).

[21] N. Prat, J. Akoka, I. Comyn-Wattiau, A UML-based datawarehouse design method, Decision Support System 42 (2006)1449–1473.

[22] A.W. Scheer, ARIS — Modellierungsmethoden, Metamodelle,Anwendungen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.

[23] G. Schreiber, H. Akkermans, A. Anjewierden, R. de Hoog, N.Shadbolt, W. Van de Velde, B.Wielinga, Knowledge Engineeringand Management: The CommonKADS Methodology, MITPress, Cambridge, MA, 2000.

[24] S. Swamynathan, A. Kannana, T.V. Geethaa, Composite eventmonitoring in XML repositories using generic rule framework forproviding reactive e-services, Decision Support System 42(2006) 79–88.

[25] D. Wastell, P. White, P. Kawalek, A methodology for businessprocess re-design: experiences and issues, Journal of StrategicInformation Systems vol. 3 (1) (1994).

During the research phase of this case study, Olivier Glassey held asenior research post at the Swiss Graduate School of PublicAdministration in Lausanne. He was subsequently awarded a fellow-ship post at the Swiss National Science Foundation, and was a visitingresearcher at the Fraunhofer Institute for Open CommunicationsSystems (FOKUS) in Berlin, where he was a member of theCompetence Centre for Electronic Applications in Government(ELAN). Olivier Glassey holds a PhD in Business InformationSystems from the University of Lausanne and an Entrepreneurshipdiploma from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne.Today, he provides consultancy and training in knowledge manage-ment, and in the composite domain of process modelling andknowledge management.