S-BPM concepts and terms too far out there?

I recently received a reviewer's comments on an S-BPM related paper that I would like to share.

The reviewer criticised that the terminology used in most S-BPM related papers is too specific for the general BPM community. He/she also suggested that when describing the S-BPM approach we should position it more closely among other approaches to BPM. Specifically the reviewer suggested Role-Activity Diagrams and UML collaboration diagrams as related approaches.

I think these comments are fair enough, and especially useful for S-BPM folks who want to reach a wider audience. What are your views about this? Have you had similar feedback? How can we be more successful in getting our message across?

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Institute of Innovative Process Management (I2PM) to add comments!

Join Institute of Innovative Process Management (I2PM)


  • Hi Udo,
    the target group of S-BPM methodology is not the BPM experts, it is the business user working in a business department.
    I hear from those people from customers and prospects that that look for expressions they understand and enables them to use S-BPM methodology and technology without spending big efforts in long preparation time.
    There for I think expressions like Role-Activity Diagrams and UML collaboration diagrams are not really helping. It is only for experts not for business people.
    But I agree it is necessary to discuss and improve the terminology.
  • Hi Udo,

    I think that the suggestion regarding positioning S-BPM more closely among other approaches should be discussed in more detail. For instance, Oppl and Rothschädl (2014) discuss suitable modelling languages for the scope of their work, whereas S-BPM was next to BPMN identified as one of the suitable languages according to their needs. Krogstie (2012) identifies S-BPM as modelling approach according to the actor and role perspective. According to this, S-BPM is replaceable with BPMN. Both sources compare modelling languages on a more abstract level, allowing readers to grasp the equalities and differences of BPM approaches. It is definitely worth including such a section as related work of each S-BPM-focused paper. This way we might also sharpen the added value of S-BPM among other BPM approaches (e.g., such as described in Section 5.7.6 Exception Handling in Fleischmann et al. (2012)).

    Best regards, Richard.

    Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C., Obermeier, S., & Brger, E. (2012). Subject-oriented business process management. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.

    Krogstie, J. (2012). Model-based development and evolution of information systems: A Quality Approach. Springer Science & Business Media.

    Oppl, S., & Rothschädl, T. (2014). Separation of concerns in model elicitation–role-based actor-driven business process modeling. In S-BPM ONE-Application Studies and Work in Progress (pp. 3-20). Springer International Publishing.
  • Hi Udo
    "Three Dimensions of Process Models Regarding their Execution".
  • i fully agree with the reviewer comment. I think the paper from Albert and Christian is a perfect approach to close the gap. In a project we use S-BPM methodology and model complete in BPMN. The model can directly transfer and execute in Tibco. Only a strong guidance is needed
    • Hi Anton,
      Which paper do you mean exactly?
This reply was deleted.

You want to publish news here?

Read more…