Search results

Medical diagnosis and treatment processes exhibit a high degree of variability, as during the process execution, healthcare professionals can decide on additional steps, change the execution order or skip a task. Process models can help to document and to discuss such processes. However, depicting variability in graphical process models using standardized languages, such as Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), can lead to large and complicated diagrams that medical staff who do not have formal training in modeling languages have difficulty understanding. This study proposes a pattern-based process visualization that medical doctors can understand without extensive training. The process descriptions using this pattern-based visualization can later be transformed into formal business process models in languages such as BPMN.

The authors derived patterns for expressing variability in healthcare processes from the literature and medical guidelines. Then, the authors evaluated and revised these patterns based on interviews with physicians in a Danish hospital.

A set of business process variability patterns was proposed to express situations with variability in hospital treatment and diagnosis processes. The interviewed medical doctors could translate the patterns into their daily work practice, and the patterns were used to model a hospital process.

When communicating with medical personnel, the patterns can be used as building blocks for documenting and discussing variable processes.

The patterns can reduce complexity in process visualization. This study provides the first validation of these patterns in a hospital.

Patterns have proven to be useful for documenting general reusable solutions to a commonly occurring problem. In recent years, several different business process management (BPM)-related patterns have been published. Despite the large number of publications on this subject, there is no work that provides a comprehensive overview and categorization of the published business process model patterns. The purpose of this paper is to close this gap by providing a taxonomy of patterns as well as a classification of 89 research works.

The authors analyzed 280 research articles following a structured iterative procedure inspired by the method for taxonomy development from Nickerson et al. (2013). Using deductive and inductive reasoning processes embedded in concurrent as well as joint research activities, the authors created a taxonomy of patterns as well as a classification of 89 research works.

In general, the findings extend the current understanding of BPM patterns. The authors identify pattern categories that are highly populated with research works as well as categories that have received far less attention such as risk and security, the ecological perspective and process architecture. Further, the analysis shows that there is not yet an overarching pattern language for business process model patterns. The insights can be used as starting point for developing such a pattern language.

Up to now, no comprehensive pattern taxonomy and research classification exists. The taxonomy and classification are useful for searching pattern works which is also supported by an accompanying website complementing the work. In regard to future research and publications on patterns, the authors derive recommendations regarding the content and structure of pattern publications.

The purpose of this paper is to present a new heuristic approach for finding errors and possible improvements in business process models.

First, the paper translates the information that is included in a model into a set of Prolog facts. It then searches for patterns which are related to a violation of the soundness property or bad modeling style or otherwise gives rise to the assumption that the model should be improved. To validate this approach, the paper analyzes a repository of almost 1,000 business process models. For this purpose, three different model‐checkers that explore the state space of all possible executions of a model are used. The result of these tools are compared with the results given by this heuristic approach.

The paper finds that the heuristic approach identifies violations of the soundness property almost as accurate as model‐checkers. However, other than these tools, the approach never ran into state space explosion problems. Furthermore, this heuristic approach can also detect patterns for bad modeling style which can help to improve the quality of models.

Heuristic checks can run in the background while the modeler works on the model. In this way, feedback about possible modeling errors can be provided instantly. This feedback can be used to correct possible problems immediately.

Current Prolog‐based validation tools check mainly for syntactical correctness and consistency requirements. This approach adds one more perspective by also detecting control‐flow errors (like deadlocks) and even pragmatic issues.

The development of Research Management and Administration (RMA) in Europe is strongly connected with the development of the Science and Technology (S&T) policy of the European Union (EU). These policies were the result of a continuous debate between the member states and the European Commission and European Parliament.

Although there is no data on the early development of RMA, there are some publications on the history of the development of the S&T policy in Europe: the excellent publication ‘A History of European Union Research Policy’ by Luca Guzzetti (Guzzetti, 1995). Guzzetti’s book investigates the history of EU research policies from 1948 up to the preparation of the Fourth Framework Programme (FP) (1994–1998).

The RMA aspects are constructed mainly by oral history complemented with some written sources. The history shows a gradual development of the profession unevenly spread in time and European geography. This has mainly with the EU enlargement in the same period, when new member states were connected to the FP. The profession started with a few colleagues’ way back in the eighties of the last century as financial people were dealing with the first European financial reporting up to the present day where RMA is becoming a field of work attracting many new colleagues.