r e t t e l s w BPM Ne Volume 3, Issue 2 August, 2014
BPM 2014: One Month to Go This newsletter provides an update on the BPM 2014 program. BPM will take place in Haifa, Israel’s beautiful seaport on the Mediterranean. The program features 3 keynotes, 2 tutorials, 10 workshops, and presentations of 21
full research and industry papers, and 10 short papers. The organizers and chairs are closely monitoring the situation in Southern Israel and Gaza. We hope and expect that a firm cease-fire will be reached before the conference. The early
registration deadline has been extended until 15 August to give participants more time to register. Contact the BPM 2014 organizers if you have any concerns relating to registration and other arrangements ([email protected]
I n t e rv i e w w i t h J o s e p h S i fa k i s In this newsletter you will also find an interview with Turing Award winner Professor Joseph Sifakis on process modeling and verification and the relation between his work and BPM. Sifakis is well-known for his pioneering work in theoretical and practical aspects of concurrent systems specification and verification, notably in
the area of model-checking. In 2007 he received the Turing Award (the "Nobel Prize of computing") with Clarke and Emerson, for his contributions to model-checking. Although Joseph did not work on BPM himself, his techniques have been applied in the context of business process analysis (e.g. workflow verification).
S u rv e y B y t h e B P M 2 0 1 5 P ro g r a m C h a i r s BPM 2015 will take place in Innsbruck. Barbara Weber will be the general chair of this event. The event will be hosted by the University of Innsbruck. The Program Committee Chairs of BPM 2015 (Jan Recker, Matthias Weidlich, and Hamid Motahari) con-
ducted a survey with present and past attendees and submitters to the BPM conference. The survey was intended to search for possible points of improvement and to gather feedback on the general perception of the conference. The results are included in this newsletter.
BPM 2014 highlights BPM survey Joseph Sifakis BPM Roundtable “Procesje”: Fun with BPM News from the community
1 2 t h I n t e r n at i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e o n Bu s i n e s s P ro c e s s M a n ag e m e n t, 7 - 1 2 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 4 , H a i fa , I s r a e l BPM 2014 will take place in Haifa. Haifa is situated on the Carmel Mountain, overlooking the Haifa bay and the mountains of Galilee, and has panoramic views as well as beautiful sandy beaches. Haifa is also an industrial center, housing the R&D labs of international corporations. Israel's rich history and cultural heritage attracts millions of tourists each year, with sacred places to three religions. Some of these sites, such as Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee, are in the vicinity of Haifa. The conference will be held at the University of Haifa, whose beautiful campus is at the top of Mt. Carmel. Online registration can be done via: http://bpm2014.haifa.ac.il/practicaldetails/registration.
Given the recent developments in Southern Israel and Gaza, the organizers and chairs are closely following the situation and will update as things unfold. They urge participants, and in particular presenters in the main conference and the workshops, to contact them at [email protected]
with any concerns relating to registration and other arrangements. The following social events are planned:
A tour in the unique and spectacular Bahai Gardens
Workshops reception at IBM Haifa Research Lab
An evening on Haifa beach A Banquette and a tour in Rosh Hanikra - the spectacular limestone grottoes (or sea caves) situated on the Mediterranean water front.
BPM 2014 Program Highlights BPM 2014 will feature 3 keynotes by renowned experts: Rob High (IBM), Yuval Shahar (Ben Gurion University), and Keith Swenson (Fujitsu). There will be two tutorials one on “Describing Services through USDL” and one on “Flexible Business Process Modelling through the Dynamic Condition Response Graphs paradigm”. See http://bpm2014.haifa.ac.il for details.
3rd Workshop on Security in Business Processes (SBP'14)
4th International Workshop on Process Model Collections: Management and Reuse
The following 10 workshops will take place at BPM 2014:
7th International Workshop on Process-oriented Information Systems in Healthcare (ProHealth’14)
International Workshop on Business Processes in Collective Adaptive Systems (BPCAS'14) 3rd Workshop Data- & Artifactcentric BPM (DAB'14) 10th International Workshop on Business Process Intelligence (BPI'14)
2nd International Workshop on Business Process Management in the Cloud (BPMC'14)
3rd International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Process Visualization (TaProViz'14)
7th Workshop on Business Process Management and Social Software (BPS'14)
International Workshop on Decision Mining & Modeling for Business Processes (DeMiMoP’14)
But there is more:
A Doctoral Consortium, devoted to fresh PhD research in the BPM area
An exciting demo session hosted by IBM Haifa Research lab
A panel on the past and future of BPM research
An event in honor of Peter Dadam and his contribution to BPM
The 11th International Workshop on Web Services and Formal Methods
Moreover, the main conference track will feature presentations of 21 full research and industry papers, and 10 short papers. Hope to see you in Haifa!
tics, Massimiliano de Leoni, Wil van der Aalst and Marcus Dees
Ac c e p t e d pa p e r s Full research and industry papers
Chopping Down Trees vs. Sharpening the Axe – Balancing the Development of BPM Capabilities with Process Improvement, Martin Lehnert, Alexander Linhart and Maximilian Roeglinger Crowd-Based Mining of Reusable Process Model Patterns Carlos Rodriguez, Florian Daniel and Fabio Casati Behavioral Comparison of Process Models Based on Canonically Reduced Event Structures, Abel Armas-Cervantes, Paolo Baldan, Marlon Dumas and Luciano GarcíaBañuelos A Recommender System for Process Discovery, Joel Ribeiro, Josep Carmona, Mustafa Misir and Michele Sebag Monitoring Business Metaconstraints Based on LTL & LDL for Finite Traces, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Riccardo De Masellis, Marco Grasso, Fabrizio Maria Maggi and Marco Montali Beyond Tasks and Gateways: Discovering BPMN Models with Subprocesses, Boundary Events and Multi-Instance Markers, Raffaele Conforti, Marlon Dumas, Luciano García-Bañuelos and Marcello La Rosa Where did I go wrong? - Explaining errors in business process models, Niels Lohmann and Dirk Fahland Mining Resource-Scheduling Protocols, Arik Senderovich, Matthias Weidlich, Avigdor Gal and Avishai Mandelbaum User-Friendly Property Specification and Process Verification – a Case Study with Vehicle-Commissioning Processes, Richard Mrasek, Jutta Mülle, Michael Becker, Klemens Böhm and Christian Allmann A General Framework for Correlating Business Process Characteris-
Hierarchical Declarative Modelling with Refinement and Subprocesses, Søren Debois, Thomas Hildebrandt and Tijs Slaats
Dealing with Changes of TimeAware Processes, Andreas Lanz and Manfred Reichert
Discovering Target-Branched Declare Constraints, Claudio Di Ciccio, Fabrizio Maggi and Jan Mendling
Temporal Anomaly Detection in Business Processes, Andreas Rogge-Solti and Gjergji Kasneci Listen to me: Improving Process Model Matching through User Feedback, Christopher Klinkmüller, Ingo Weber, Henrik Leopold, Jan Mendling and Andre Ludwig
Implicit BPM: a Business Process Platform for Transparent Workflow Weaving, Ruben Mondejar, Pedro Garcia Lopez, Carles Pairot and Enric Brull
Analysis of Operational Data for Expertise Aware Staffing, Renuka Sindhgatta, Gaargi B. Dasgupta and Aditya Ghose
A genetic algorithm for process discovery guided by completeness, precision and simplicity, Borja Vázquez-Barreiros, Manuel Mucientes and Manuel Lama
From a family of state based PAIS to a configurable and parameterized business process architecture, Andreas Rulle and Juliane Siegeris
Constructs Competition Miner: Process Control-flow Discovery of BP-domain Constructs, David Redlich, Thomas Molka, Gordon Blair, Awais Rashid and Wasif Gilani
Modeling Concepts for Internal Controls in Business Processes – an Empirically Grounded Exten-
sion of BPMN, Martin Schultz and Michael Radloff Short papers
DRain: A Novel Framework for Q o R - dri ve n D y na m i c Da t a Intensive Analytics Processes, Aitor Murguzur, Johannes M. Schleicher, Hong-Linh Truong, Salvador Trujillo and Schahram Dustdar
Use Your Best Device! - Enabling Device Changes at Runtime, Dennis Bokermann, Christian Gerth and Gregor Engels
The Automated Discovery of Hybrid Processes, Fabrizio Maria Maggi, Tijs Slaats and Hajo A. Reijers
Declarative Process Model Mining: an Approach to Reduce Complexity by Preprocessing Event Logs, Pedro Richetti, Fernanda Baião and Flávia Santoro
Monitoring Framework for Process Discovery Based on Dynamic Context Hierarchy Associations, Mari Abe and Michiharu Kudo
SECPI: Searching for Explanations for Clustered Process Instances, Jochen De Weerdt and Seppe Vanden Broucke
Strategies for Specifying Flexible Human Behavior in InteractionIntensive Process Environments, Christoph Dorn, Schahram Dustdar and Leon Osterweil
Assessing the Need for Visibility of Business Processes, Enrico Graupner, Martin Berner, Alexander Maedche and Harshavardhan Jegadeesan
Predictive Task Monitoring for Business Processes, Cristina Cabanillas, Claudio Di Ciccio, Jan Mendling and Anne Baumgrass
Separating Execution and Data Management: A Key to BusinessProcess-as-a-Service (BPaaS), Yutian Sun, Jianwen Su and Jian Yang
See the BPM 2014 website for the full program.
Interview with Joseph Sifakis Professor Joseph Sifakis is a leading computer scientist, well-known for his pioneering work in theoretical and practical aspects of concurrent systems specification and verification, notably the area of model-checking. Joseph is a professor at EPFL and the founder of Verimag, a well-known research labora-
tory in the area of critical embedded systems. In 2007 he received the Turing Award (the "Nobel Prize of computing") with Clarke and Emerson, for his contributions to model-checking. Although Joseph did not work on BPM, many of the techniques developed for system analysis (e.g., model checking) have
been applied to the analysis of business processes and services. Joseph Sifakis and Wil van der Aalst were both invited to speak at a conference in Rehovot (Israel) to celebrate thirty years of statecharts and David Harel’s 26th birthday. Wil used this opportunity to interview Joseph.
Thanks for your willingness to share your views with the BPM community. You have been working with many well-know people like Amir Pnueli, Ed Clarke, and Thomas Henzinger. Moreover, in your role as director of Verimag you were also in close contact with many people in industry. Which individuals have influenced your work most? Joseph: Definitely, Amir Pnueli has been the most influential. In the autumn of 1983, I met Amir Pnueli for the first time at a workshop on “The Analysis of Concurrent Systems”, organized in Cambridge. This was the beginning of a continuous interaction and collaboration for more than 25 years. The collaboration concerned both theoretical research and applied research developed in the framework of European projects on system modelling and verification. We jointly organized with Ed Clar ke the Wo rksh op on the “Verification of Finite State Systems” in Grenoble in 1989. This workshop is considered as the first edition of the CAV Conference. Amir Pnueli opened my horizons and contributed to the visibility and recognition of our work at Verimag through his international network of connections and collaborations. He brought me into contact with leading researchers and teams working on timed and hybrid systems. One of them was Thomas Henzinger who visited my team in 1992. We have jointly developed the first symbolic verification techniques for timed and hybrid models. Over my career, I also had very interesting interactions with Robin Milner on process algebras as well as with Leslie Lamport on temporal logics. More recently, my work on system design has been influenced by people such as Ed-
ward Lee, Alberto Sangiovanni Vincentelli and Janos Sztipanovits.
What are the real-world industry problems that you encountered during your career that inspired you most? Joseph: I have always been concerned with the application of my results. I have considered that collaboration with industry and contact with real-life problems can be a source of inspiration. All our work on model-checking at
Verimag was motivated by industrial applications, in particular the verification of communication protocols, in the framework of a collaboration with France Telecom. I have also learned a lot being involved in projects on critical system design, through collaborations with companies such as Airbus, Thales and Astrium. Over the past ten years, my team has tightly collaborated with STMicroelectronics in projects on embedded systems design, in par-
ticular to develop a rigorous system design flow leading from application software to correct-byconstruction implementations.
In the BPM community many people are using Petri nets for modeling processes and analyzing them. Also notations like BPMN and UML use token-based semantics. I believe you visited Carl Adam Petri several times in the 1970-ties and as I PhD student I used your work on performance evaluation using Petri nets (e.g., Petri nets with time in places). Can you tell a bit about your experiences with Carl Adam? Joseph: In 1974, I met Carl Adam Petri and then visited him and his colleagues in Bonn several times. I was really impressed by his erudition and his vision. But I could not really understand why “true concurrency” was such a big idea. In contrast to the prevailing approach, I considered in my papers that Petri nets are merely transition systems.
Why did you shift from performance evaluation to verification in the early 1980-ties? Joseph: In 1977, I definitely left Petri nets for program semantics and verification. Dijkstra’s papers and books had a deep influence on my work. Certainly Petri nets are a foundational model for concurrent systems, but not expressive enough for modeling real-life systems. I wanted to deal with real software and systems.
In recent years the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) became very popular in the BPM domain. Most of the vendors are now supporting some dialect of BPMN and various BPM researchers have developed verification techniques for BPMN-like notations. What do you think of languages like BPMN? Have you applied your verification techniques on BPMN models? Joseph: I am not very familiar with BPMN. I understand that this is a domain-specific graphical notation for specifying business processes.
As such, it can be very useful for supporting business process management, for both technical users and business users. I think, a key issue for all domain-specific languages is how to establish a rigorous connection with the underlying constructs of execution languages. This is still a problem. BPEL is a language hard to formalize and some of its constructs are very intricate.
It seems that few computer scientists are working on both embedded systems and information system. However, in both areas the modeling, analysis, and realization of complex dynamic behavior is a key issue. Why are these worlds so separated? Is it the human dimension? Joseph: This separation is easy to understand. For embedded systems we do care about the interaction between application software and the underlying execution platform. Resource management, real-time aspects and time predictability become very important. Currently, information systems design is not so much concerned with these aspects. It focuses mainly on platformindependent behavior. Performance is sought after implementation, by tuning experimentally system parameters. I believe that there the convergence between the two areas is inevitable, especially when the internet of things will become a reality.
The application of model checking has been in many ways been a success story. However, today's mainstream information systems develop and evolve organically. Often it is impossible to verify systems because of their fuzzy context. At the same time we are collecting lots of information on running systems. How is this going to influence the field? Will model checking become less relevant? Joseph: My point of view about verification and its relevance have drastically changed over the past fifteen years. Of course, model-checking has been and still is a success. It is widely used for hardware verification and the verification of abstractions of complex software. Most useful techniques are algorithmic, e.g. modelchecking, static analysis, abstract interpretation. They are all applicable to global models and they all suffer from wellknown complexity limitations. Attempts to develop modular (compositional) verification techniques, have failed. Another additional obstacle is formalization of requirements. If we know how to formalize global generic properties by using logics e.g. deadlock-freedom, liveness or fairness, the logical formalization of security or performance properties seems to be more problematic. My opinion is that verification is a stopgap until other alternatives for achieving correctness work. It is a “specialty” of Computing – no other scientific discipline gives it such a prominent place. A discipline lacks a proper scientific tradition if predictability
devices by applying control-based techniques. The application of such techniques makes sense only if data analysis is fast enough and the resulting computational overhead is compensated by commensurable gains in quality control. I believe that currently we are very far from achieving this.
We are now in Rehovot. Later this year BPM 2014 will be in Haifa. Relative to its population, Israel has been remarkably successful in computer science (Amir Pnueli, David Harel, Michael Rabin, Adi Shamir, Shafi Goldwasser, etc.). Why do you think Israeli computer scientists are so successful?
can be achieved only through verification. We should study techniques that guarantee correctnessby-construction. This is a key direction of my research program for more than ten years, and I would like to say that we have already obtained very interesting results in the BIP project. We can guarantee by construction certain properties such as state invariants and deadlock-freedom. The techniques are scalable and do not suffer from state explosion limitations.
Whereas database technology has become an integral part of any information system, workflow and BPM technology are mostly used for modeling and analysis and not for developing information systems. Can you explain why there is no widely used standard software for implementing "processes"? Joseph: The key issue is to develop design flows that lead from specifications to code generation and implementation. Currently, there is a gap between modeling/analysis and implementation. Models are not used for implementation purposes and that’s really a pity especially if a lot of effort is spent for
their validation. As I said, we should develop techniques that translate model specifications into executable languages from which code can be generated. This may involve some technical difficulties, especially if specifications are high level e.g. declarative.
What is your vision on the development of computer science as a discipline also considering new developments such as Big Data, Cloud, and the Internet of Things? Joseph: The Internet of Things is the grand challenge. Currently this is merely a vision that is not technically substantiated. It will not be reached unless we make significant progress in many areas including the convergence toward a unified network infrastructure that is secure, safe and predictable. In particular, time predictability and responsiveness are very important for ensuring controllability and trustworthy interaction between devices. The Cloud provides the Intelligence responsible for driving the behavior of the nodes of the Internet of Things. Thus, it plays a central role in its hierarchical organization. It receives huge quantities of information provided by the networked devices and users. The information is eventually analyzed using data analytics techniques. Commands are sent to the
Joseph: Having closely followed the evolution of the country, I am impressed but not really surprised by the success of Israel in Communication and Information Sciences and Technologies. I think scientific success should not be dissociated from technological achievements and innovation. This is the result of a continuous and lengthy process involving high quality education, basic research, technology transfer, strong take-up industry, investment and risk capital. Innovation and technology is not the privilege of economic giants. Ideas, creative workforce, the capability to transform them into hightech products and services count more that physical resources, oil, rough materials, etc. Israel has built its development and supremacy on immaterial economy. This was a very clairvoyant choice.
Joseph, thanks for this wonderful interview! Wil van der Aalst
2 n d E u ro p e a n B P M Ro u n d Ta b l e i n L i e c h t e n s t e i n The second European BPM Round Table took place on May, 15th, 2014 at the University of Liechtenstein in Vaduz. Over 160 people participated in this wonderful event featuring speakers from all over Europe. The first European BPM Round Table was organized in Eindhoven in 2012. The idea of a BPM Round Table at a European Level emerged from several local BPM Round Tables that were established in Europe in the last years. Currently there are 21 national BPM
round tables in Europe, see www.bpmroundtable.eu for more information and to join this intiative. The theme of the second European BPM Round Table was “Business Process Management – Driving Innovation in a Digital World”. The roundtable was organized by Jan vom Brocke, Theresa Schmiedel, and Nadine Reuter. See bpm-roundtable2014.eu for slides, videos and more information on the event.
Survey on BPM Conference Impressions by Jan Recker, Matthias Weidlich, and Hamid Motahari
In May/June 2014, the Program Committee Chairs of BPM 2015 conducted a survey with present and past attendees and submitters to the BPM conference to gather feedback on the general perception of the conference. The survey is available at http://survey.qut.edu.au/ f/180586/6bb1/. In particular, the survey included questions about the reputation of the conference, the reasons why survey participants submitted papers, whether they plan to submit to BPM 2015, and soliciting input on a number of suggested changes and additions to the conduct of the conference series. 144 members of the community responded, including 80 academics, 48 research students, 9 research practitioners and corporate scientists and 7 BPM practitioners. The respondents came from various research fields. In particular, 49% of respondents reported that their research field is Information Systems (IS), followed by Computer Science (30%) and Software Engineering (14%). We note, firstly, that we only captured the primary research field affiliation as
Figure 1. Distribution of survey respondents by primary research field interpreted by the participants. It may well be that participants feel they belong to many disciplines (e.g., Information Systems and Computer Science). Secondly, we note that we made a dedicated effort to increase
survey participation from IS community to gather their feedback. Even though this may have skewed the results somewhat, the survey respondents’ distribution shows that the BPM community is
Figure 2. Top three reasons to attend BPM conference, by research field
Figure 3. Bottom three reasons to attend BPM conference, by research field both large and diverse (see Figure 1).
spondents stated for attending the BPM conference are:
Overall, 46% of respondents stated that they intend to submit a paper to BPM 2015, and a further 42% were unsure at this stage. By research field, the strongest submission intentions were from software engineering (60%) and computer science (55%). Researchers from Information Systems were mostly unsure (45%), so were management and organizational scientists (50% and 33%, respectively, reportedly will not submit) – albeit the absolute number of respondents these two fields were much lower.
the reputation of the conference in the community,
the opportunity to connect to fellow BPM colleagues, and
the possibility to get fasttracked to Elsevier’s “Information Systems” journal.
The top three reasons the re-
By contrast, panel discussions, BPM tutorials and the availability of different paper formats were rated as significantly lower priority reasons for attending BPM. Figure 2 shows reported scores for the top three reasons on a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 7 (important)
by research fields of the respondents, and Figure 3 shows the reported scores for the bottom three reasons. Looking at ways in which the BPM conference series could be made even more attractive to the community, Table 1 lists the suggestions that were rated particularly high or low. A top journal fast-track opportunity was particularly of interest to the software engineering and information systems community. The top-rated recommendation of computer scientists was to increase the recognition of the BPM conference as a top publication outlet. We interpret this data as
Table 1: Recommendations for improvements to the BPM conference series
3 most highly rated recommendations
3 lowest rated recommendations
Provide a fast-track opportunity to a topranked journal (e.g., AIS Top-8, IEEE or ACM). Increase the recognition of the BPM conference as a publication outlet in the institutions and wider community. Select cost-effective locations for the conference.
Publish papers in proceedings without assignment of copyright. Add alternative workshops to the conference. Allow research-in-progress papers without full publication in the proceedings.
ISSUE 2/2014 highlighting the relevance of journal fast-tracks to the community and the question whether more targeted journal venues with high esteem to different communities could be found. A possible way would be to have special issues appear in a different journal each year. Finally, choosing a costeffective location was particularly highly rated by the management and organizational science members. Finally, the survey also elicited open feedback from the respondents, which provided additional deep insights into standing and motivation of the BPM community. Selected comments, ranging from critical, suggestive to supportive categories, are listed in Table 2. Based on the results of this survey, as Chairs of BPM 2015 we are planning to implement the following suggestions and changes:
While maintaining an interest in the core BPM theory and practice as the heart of the conference, we plan to expand the topic areas, for which BPM 2015 will be soliciting submissions, into a broader scope that includes interdisciplinary research involving processes, and also puts more emphasis on emerging areas of BPM, as its own topic area, to encourage broader linkage between the state of the art (academia) and the state of the practice (industry) in the BPM space. We will expand our outreach to other areas of interdisciplinary research by inviting PC members who are doing research in closely related areas but have not necessarily been at the core of the BPM field.
sions with the rest of the organizing committee, in particular the Industry Chairs, to introduce changes to stimulate industry participation and input to the conference beyond an industry paper track.
We also are contemplating several other minor changes to the structure of the program committee and the reviewing process, in an effort to maintain the high quality standards the community is expecting from BPM 2015 and also welcoming novel and original research to the community.
Finally, in order to support firsttime-submitters to BPM, we intend to offer an early feedback round in which PC members can comment on potential submissions before the actual deadline.
Together with the General Chair, we have ongoing discus-
Table 2: Comments by participants
Why or why not submit to BPM
The reputation of the conference
The focus is increasingly on journal papers, not conference papers. The acceptance rate is too low and the accepted papers are not of high quality. The conference is missing what is happening in industry. What is important
The conference is not ranked in most institutions or countries. The overall visibility in the wider community is low. The feedback in the review process is hard but of high quality. Variations to the conference
Feedback is provided from esteemed and reputable BPM scholars, for papers and junior researchers. Conference locations allow for attendance by most. Providing awards (e.g., for best student papers).
Make journal fast-track opportunities competitive and rewarding.
How submissions should be handled Maintaining different topic areas is attractive. Switching to a double-blind reviewing process. Select reviewers that have methodological expertise rather than domain expertise. Open up the conference to other types of research (e.g., behavioral studies). Limit number of submissions per author.
Provide travel grants and cheap accommodation for some groups. Include “meet the expert” sessions or speeddating opportunities. Improving the community Actively address and connect to other communities. Invite researchers from other fields. Make access to tools, demos and data obligatory. Create a well-known journal specific to BPM. Market to practitioner outlets.
Procesje: Another playful view on BPM Inspired by the “daily astonishment in the BPM world”, an anonymous Dutch BPM practitioner started to make ‘procesjes’ (little processes) to reflect on BPM trends in a playful manner. This
page shows some example ‘procesjes’. If you want to see more funny BPM posts, please visit Procesje.nl or follow @Procesje (occasionally also in English) on twitter.
"Procesje" reports on the irrational behavior of organizations and people thus putting BPM technology in perspective.
Special Issue of BISE on BPM Use Cases Business Process Management (BPM) efforts resulted in a plethora of approaches, methods and tools to support the design, analysis, improvement, enactment and management of operational business processes. As the BPM discipline is maturing, there is a need to provide more structure and show "how, where, and when" BPM can be used. An example of an attempt to structure the BPM discipline is the collection of twenty BPM Use Cases, also discussed at
BPM 2013. Although the initial BPM Use Cases triggered insightful discussions, they are just a starting point for systematically identifying, clarifying, and organizing BPM requirements. Moreover, many alternative approaches to rigorously structure the BPM discipline can be envisioned. Therefore, a special issue of the BISE (Business & Information Systems Engineering) journal will be devoted to original contributions structuring the BPM discipline. The special issue will
be edited by Wil van der Aalst, Marcello La Rosa, and Flávia Maria Santoro. Please submit papers for the sections BISE – Research Paper and BISE – BPM Use Cases via the journal’s online submission system: http://www.editorialmanager.co m/buis/. Contact the editors at BPM 2014 for more information.
PUBLISHED BY THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE BPM CONFERENCE SERIES Wil van der Aalst (chair), Boualem Benatallah, Jörg Desel, Marlon Dumas, Schahram Dustdar, Michael zur Muehlen, and Mathias Weske.
For contributions and comments, contact the Editor (Wil van der Aalst), WWW: vdaalst.com, E-mail: [email protected]
The goal of this newsletter is to further strengthen the BPM community that has been formed over the last decade. The
newsletter appears twice per year. Input for the next newsletter is welcome (e.g. activities related to the BPM conference, interviews, contests, new datasets, tools, etc.).
Events and Activities of the Community conference in Haifa. A Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on process mining will start in October 2014. The title is Process Mining: Data Science in Action and the course will be hosted by Coursera.
Springer's Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing series provides the possibility to turn excellent PhD theses on BPM topics into published monographs. See the call for exceptional theses which also describes the requirements. BPM 2015 will take place at the University of Innsbruck in the center of Innsbruck. Innsbruck is the capital city of the federal state of Tyrol in western Austria. Barbara Weber will be the general chair of this event. The call for papers will be distributed at the BPM
Remember to upload information to the BPM Tool Database if there is new software that you would like to share with the community. Currently 50 BPM Tools are registered. See http://bpmconference.org/bpt-resourcemanagement/.
The IEEE Task Force on Process Mining will have its annual meeting at the end of the 10th International Workshop on Business Process Intelligence (BPI'14) also organized by the Task Force. The goal of this Task Force is to promote the research, development, education and understanding of process mining. See http://www.win.tue.nl/ieeetfpm/ for more information.