Business Process Modeling

Method models are a technique that groups together related methods in a planned process. A process model is therefore a detailed protocol at the form level. A system is said to be an instantiation of a process model, which is a category level (Leopold, Smirnov and Mendling, p.37). Different applications use similar procedure methodology, and as a result, they have multiple instantiations. In comparison to the procedure itself, the process model is used to provide a prescription for how it can be done. The method model foresees how the process will unfold. The process model and design are developed for some goals as discussed below:

The descriptive objective of a business process model

The business process model here traces and tracks what happens in a process. The model here takes the form of an observer who is not part of the model (Solaimani and Bouwman, p. 661). The model checks how the processes are performed and also determines the areas that need to improve for better results, outcomes, and performance that link to the effective and efficient utilization of resources in an organization.

Prescriptive function of the business process model

The process model defines the desired process and how the activities and events within it are performed. The model here gives guidelines, behavior patterns, and rules that are followed to enhance the outcome that is associated with the model in question (Leopold, Smirnov and Mendling, p.37). The model has both flexible and stringent rules depending on demand and forces pushing the performers and users of the model.

Explanatory role of the business process model

An explanation is an elaboration that a person gives. Similarly, business process model elaborates the process rationale. Models do evaluate and explore some courses of action that are based on logical ideology (Leopold et al., p. 37). The models also explain how different processes link and how they satisfy the requirements raised by the user. The model goes further to explain where the reports are extracted consumption purposes. All the explanation linked to this model are predefined.

Activity labeling in Business Process Modelling

The definition of how the workflows sequentially linking from one to the other is termed as the activity. Activity labeling, therefore, is the course of action taken in a business process model where they are denoted by tasks that are linked showing the flow that emanates from one another (Mendling, Reijers and Recker, p. 470). Activity in a business process model may be made up of one task or have a number of them that are interlinked to have an outcome.

In denoting activities, they are preceded by an event. An event is an action that symbolizes the start of the activity. In Project management, an event marks the start of a new task while at the same time indicates completion of the prior task that was taking place before the next task. In Business process Modeling events are categorized by who took action, change in condition, time span expiry. Events do terminate, interrupt and also create processes within a model.

Activity labeling styles

After the above definition and explanation of it emanates that they are different ways with which activities are integrated into business process model. How the activities are labeled in a business process model is termed as Activity labeling styles that come in different forms as discussed below:

Verb-Object Style

Verb-object style in labeling is a labeling style where the verb starts and later followed by the object. The labeling style is trendy in SAP, and more than 60% of the patterns in SAP takes this form (Mendling, Reijers and Recker, p. 475). Understanding the labels is quite intuitive. Though the activity label may make sense within a business process model, at times, it may show grammatical errors. Grammatically language accepts the co-call zero derivation to make nouns. With that, the allowing Business process models to use suffixes on words may confuse as it holds that the word can be a noun or verb depending on its application.

For example; Process cost planning, Export license check and Measure Processing, all the first words herewith stated can take both verb and noun case at the same time making it hard for one to know whether it’s an object or a verb. As we progress, we can state that Measure Processing can be interpreted as the act of processing a metric measure thus making measure an object otherwise it can be taken as a verb. Consequently, the verb-object style holistically is dependent on what follows the first word to make it a verb-object style in activity labeling in business process modeling.

Action-Noun Style

In 34% of the activity labels, the action is grammatically captured as a noun. This noun can be either a gerund of the verb or a noun that is derived from a verb. While some labels following this style can be easily interpreted, there are more cases of grammatical ambiguity (Liu, Wu and Kumaran, p. 14-34). Consider, for instance, Notification Printing. Again, there are two potential interpretations: a notification is printed, or someone is notified of a printing job. Alternatively, the verb could just have been forgotten by the modeler. This interpretation is likely in cases where the action noun could also be an object, like an order which can be an action or an object. Therefore, the model reader might be tempted to infer the action by considering the context of the activity. Syntactically, the label could be easily extended with such semantically diverse verbs as the start, stop, or schedule. Using a verb-object style avoids the problem of inferring a verb.

Status Analysis Cash Position

Status Analysis Cash Position is an activity labeling activity that takes all the steps with which cash is generated. The activity labels the start of cash as a cash sale; Debtors pay or donations (Liu, Wu and Kumaran, p. 633). The label ensures that all the transactions that involve cash are booked and properly linked to the source in such a case, the label gives a notification as and when any deal requires money is undertaken. Status Analysis Cash Position, does not assume a stagnant phase but instead, it captures some items that disguise the use of cash at any one point.

When a business process model concentrates on results, Status Analysis Cash Position captures everything that revolves around cash showing where the cash has been sourced and how the cash has been used in operation (Liu, Wu and Kumaran, p. 637). As at this point, Status Analysis Cash Position shows its weakness since it cannot work on its own since commands isolation is either made by noun-action or verb-action activity labeling.

DEUEV- Datenerfassungs- und Ubertragungsv ¨ erordnung

DEUEV is another activity labeling technique which is used to account in the Germans prepared the payroll section. For this type of activity labeling, all the suffixes and prefixes are used to indicate the nationality, the pay groups and all the operations leading to the pay. Any change in name or address triggers/ initiates some process. The activity labeling process is quite flexible where changes can be made after the process has been undertaken (Pajk, Štemberger and Kovačič, p. 2). Run-rerun task is availed in the label that allows changes to be made post the initial payroll run. For the application/ label, every data is transferable electronically with minor adjustments can be linked to the original file.

For example:

If the Human Resources department makes an error by lousy luck and runs the payroll, there is always a window to correct. If they notice that they have some errors, the label allows them to be able to adjust, the files and refresh the report by re-running after making the changes. Some errors that may have been identified as the process model was analyzed are Omission of employees, understated salaries, and wages among others. On correction these kinds of errors the label allows a re-run that will constitute the corrected status that is always exported and saved in an external memory for use elsewhere.

Jamsostek

Jamsostek is challenging to understand activity label prepared by the Indonesian social security. The label needs the particular and crystal clear context of information to avail an output. The application indicates everyone who is on pensionable terms and goes further calculating everybody’s pension (Pajk, Štemberger and Kovačič, p. 2). The label is quite sophisticated as it only works on particular items with no fail on prefix or suffixes. Jamsostek labels as attached to everyone needs more or less unique labeling and as such an output will be received otherwise any command given to it won’t have positive feedback. The label’s complexity arises from the fact that pension is the critical item to staff as they execute some it makes part of their income that is deducted before they receive their pay.

The importance of having activity labeling

As discussed above it is noted that this is a process of identifying whether the command given starts with a noun or a verb. Where it also states the various ways with which a command falls short of the real format in the application. That being the case and process developers still using the methodology, there are some benefits that are linked to use of the activity labeling exercise in a business process model:

To visualize – functions and processes

Activity labeling helps one to identify activities, tasks their start and completion. When an activity labeling functions take place, it helps outsiders be in apposition to be able to tell how the business process model is operating and responds to specific requests shared with them (Samaranayake, 515). As one can tell how the activities and tasks flow from the start to completion, it enables one to have a visual impression in the mind of how the activities are scheduled and also how they are executed. Additionally, Activity labeling facilitates the design developer to know what the command is in place as and when logic is analyzed graphically, therefore, giving visualization review and analysis is easy.

Determine the appropriate measure to determine success

Activity labeling gives the time span that is employed before a system responds. That means any activity schedule that leads to results have to be analyzed and their status was known. By labeling activities, one can determine the time span required for a specific task to be delivered. Therefore, activity labeling ensures that outcome or results are scheduled and are predetermined before they are executed (Samaranayake, p. 516). The exercise of labeling activities ensures that people engaging in using the component can tell as and when the results are expected and as such it gives an insight as and when they are supposed to reap benefits from the usage of the process. In conclusion under this subtopic, it is clear to state that activity labeling ensures that conformity to the results is linked to.

Compare the different simulations to circumscribe an optimal correction

Activity labeling has different ways of giving a command where at one time the command can start with a noun or in another time starting with a verb. The format in which a command takes gives distinct and unique results. Activity labeling is used to give different controls that lead to mixed results which are entirely different for one another (Safari, p. 35). As on comparison, activity labeling is used to simulate some case scenario where the outcome is different and with that leads to different outcome comparable to efficiency and effectiveness. On ironing out comparisons, the developer can tell which the best procedure should be adopted.

For example, while processing Invoices, an invoice can be initiated immediately an order is received and at the same time, an Invoice can be initiated when delivery of the order has taken place. That suggests that when activity labeling is used properly, it will be able to give this kind of case scenario where some decisions will be made to arrive at the point of optimal improvement and the like.

Select and implement the improvement

In business process modeling some ways of doing things are stated and analyzed as discussed above. All the activity flow and achievement, are laid down where all the problems facing each activity label stated and the best course of action listed alongside it. In the process of analyzing activity labeling and recommending the course of action, this improves on how things are done, and with that, it ensures improved systems are engaged.

For example: when raising an invoice, some errors may be measured and linked to the way the invoices are raised. If a model that has a specific route of doing things are prone to errors, the developer5 may assign a different route of the same it will ensure that the errors are eliminated and with that, it will provide implementation takes place, and improved performance takes the day.

Control the process models

Activity modeling takes the stages of how a task is carried out and how the results are to be received. In the process where the activity labeling structure is completely raised and conforms to the ideal performance, a standard way of doing things is arrived at (Samaranayake, 515). The standard gauge of performance dictates how the results and how the business is to be undertaken and as such, this acts as a control mechanism of how things are done using the system in question.

For Example: While using SAP, the user is supposed to requisition money first and then expense. If a staff uses his own money and later expenses the system, fails to recognize the expense since it has to start from requisition as you head to expense but not the other way round. If such a case happens, it suggests that the user to requisition the amounts of money and then expense even if it will be based on the amount spent.

The above shows that activity labeling assists in controlling any eventuality that can be raised in a normal operational day.

It revamps the means from scratch for better results

Activity labeling is a tool that helps business modelers to be able to tell where modifications are to be conducted. Inactivity labeling process, some areas in a model are taken to be too weak to support a task, and at the same time, some tasks may be omitted in a process. The activity labeling process takes a hand in explaining this further to have it sorted out. As such, an activity labeling ensures understanding of different commands on how they sit and where they sit. By having the commands sitting differently in the process, it provides that at any one point of query investigation on a control can be easily traced to a particular control.

For example: when raising an invoice and trouble is shot from there, there is no need to investigate the whole system since activity labeling has already demarcated the section that covers invoice raising.

Demerits of Activity labeling styles

As discussed above, most of the merits articulated to activity labeling have been covered and as such the disadvantages have also been reviewed and discussed below:

The ambiguity of the styles:

The styles in consideration state that they are either Verb-Noun Activity labeling style or Noun-Action activity labeling technique (Safari, p. 35). In grammatical naming, there are cases where a verb is converted to a noun by use of suffixes. In this case, the Verb-Noun activity labeling becomes too much confusion since the use of an additional suffix it changes the meaning entirely. Having stated that, this becomes a disadvantage to people who are trying to learn the activity labels style are.

The usefulness of an activity label

From some studies taken, the perception that users have is that the activity labels do not have any impacting delivering performance (Samaranayake, 515). They state that other than the confusion brought on board nothing much is derived from the use of the activity labeling techniques. Activity labeling is highly involved in changing the way a system does things, but it does not reduce the workload or motivate the employees. The statement of that means with or without activity labeling, employees would still perform, and such activity labeling only comes to confuse the task performance.

References

Janiesch, C., Matzner, M. and Müller, O. (2012). Beyond process monitoring: a proof‐of‐concept of event‐driven business activity management. Business Process Management Journal, 18(4), pp.625-643.

Leopold, H., Eid-Sabbagh, R., Mendling, J., Azevedo, L. and Baião, F. (2013). Detection of Naming Convention Violations in Process Models for Different Languages (Extended Abstract). EMISA FORUM, 33(2), pp.37-37.

Leopold, H., Smirnov, S. and Mendling, J. (2012). On the refactoring of activity labels in business process models. Information Systems, 37(5), pp.443-459.

Liu, R., Wu, F. and Kumaran, S. (2010). Transforming Activity-Centric Business Process Models into Information-Centric Models for SOA Solutions. Journal of Database Management, 21(4), pp.14-34.

Mendling, J., Recker, J. and Reijers, H. (2010). On the Usage of Labels and Icons in Business Process Modeling. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design, 1(2), pp.40-58.

Mendling, J., Reijers, H. and Recker, J. (2010). Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations. Information Systems, 35(4), pp.467-482.

Pajk, D., Štemberger, M. and Kovačič, A. (2010). The Use of Reference Models in Business Process Renovation. Business Systems Research, 1(1-2).

Safari, A. (2016). An Effective Practical Approach for Business Process Modeling and Simulation in Service Industries. Knowledge and Process Management, 23(1), pp.31-45.

Samaranayake, P. (2009). Business process integration, automation, and optimization in ERP. Business Process Management Journal, 15(4), pp.504-526.

Solaimani, S. and Bouwman, H. (2012). A framework for the alignment of business model and business processes. Business Process Management Journal, 18(4), pp.655-679.