Betz Stefanie

Capelleveen Guido Van

Frank Ulrich

Karagiannis Dimitris

Koschmider Agnes

Nolte Mario

Schoormann Thorsten

Schönthaler Frank

English

Crossref

Towards a Modeling Method for Business Process Oriented Organizational Life Cycle Assessment

Fritsch, Andreas

KITopen

Towards a Modeling Method for Business Process OrientedOrganizational Life Cycle AssessmentAndreas FritschInstitute AIFBKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruhe, Germanyandreas.fritsch@kit.eduABSTRACTOrganizations need to analyze and understand the social, envi-ronmental and economic impacts of their operations. SustainableBusiness Process Management techniques may provide the neces-sary visibility of organizational operations and impact hot-spots.However, existing approaches lack a rigorous and comprehensiveunderstanding of sustainability. This paper describes a doctoralresearch project with the goal to develop a modeling method forSustainable Business Process Management, that is based on lifecycle thinking and integrates Organizational Life Cycle Assess-ment concepts. A research agenda is described, as well as currentintermediary results and next steps.CCS CONCEPTS• Applied computing → Business process modeling; Enter-prise modeling.KEYWORDSSustainable Business Process Management, Modeling Methods, Or-ganizational Life Cycle AssessmentACM Reference Format:Andreas Fritsch. 2020. Towards a Modeling Method for Business Process Ori-ented Organizational Life Cycle Assessment. In 7th International Conferenceon ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S2020), June 21–26, 2020, Bristol, United King-dom. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3401335.34013601 MOTIVATION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVEConventional Business Process Management (BPM) provides con-cepts and tools to improve the economic performance of organi-zations [19]. However, to respond to the challenges of SustainableDevelopment, organizations need to find a balance between en-vironmental, economic and social considerations [5]. While BPMscholars have started to consider sustainability aspects (see e.g.[19], [4], [23]), a comprehensive modeling method for SustainableBPM is still missing. Moreover, existing efforts are largely con-strained to a limited sustainability perspective that, for example,takes only isolated indicators into account [4]. A limited sustainabil-ity perspective bears the risk of burden shifting, where a potentialICT4S2020, June 21–26, 2020, Bristol, United Kingdom© 2020 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Notfor redistribution. The definitive Version of Record was published in 7th InternationalConference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S2020), June 21–26, 2020, Bristol, UnitedKingdom, https://doi.org/10.1145/3401335.3401360.improvement in one indicator may provoke deterioration in an-other (e.g., trading a reduction in carbon emissions for increasedwater use). The same applies, if a sustainability analysis does onlyconsider business processes within one organization, as up- anddownstream emissions may take up more than 75% of the emissionsthat can be attributed to an organization [8].This paper describes a doctoral research project that addressesthis issue by developing a modeling method for Sustainable Busi-ness Process management, that is informed by Organizational LifeCycle Assessment (O-LCA). First, background on Sustainable BPMand O-LCA is given. Then, the concrete research approach is de-scribed and justified. The paper closes with an overview of existingpreliminary results and immediate next steps.2 BACKGROUND2.1 Business Process ModelingConventional Business Process Management (BPM) is concernedwith the economic performance of organizations by improvingbusiness processes in terms of cost, quality, time and flexibility[19]. The modeling of an organization’s business processes is aprerequisite for in-depth analysis and improvement measures, asit creates visibility of existing processes and allows for their (re-)design [21]. Various modeling languages, such as BPMN, EPC,and Petri Nets, are available and differ in terms of expressiveness,simplicity and formal analysis capabilities [14].A modeling method provides guidance for creating useful mod-els [22]. Karagiannis and Kühn [12] distinguish between modelinglanguage, procedure and mechanisms as components of a modelingmethod. The modeling language provides the elements that candescribe a model. The procedure describes steps for using the mod-eling language, while mechanisms provide additional functionalityto use and evaluate the created models. An example for a businessprocess modeling method is the Horus method [22]. It defines sev-eral phases for a modeling project from preparation to application,and different modeling facets (e.g. a strategy model, a key figuremodel, a process model) to provide an integrated view on businessprocesses and their organizational context.2.2 Organizational Life Cycle AssessmentOrganizational Life Cycle Assessment (O-LCA) is a multi-impactsustainability assessment approach for organizations [9, p. 19]. Itaims to compile and evaluate all "inputs, outputs, and potential envi-ronmental impacts of the activities associated with the organizationas a whole or portion thereof adopting a life cycle perspective" [10].In this context, taking a life cycle perspective means, that not onlyICT4S2020, June 21–26, 2020, Bristol, United Kingdom Andreas Fritschthe direct inputs and outputs are considered, but one strives toevaluate the full supply chain (beginning with extraction of rawmaterials that are used for the organization’s products and endingwith their final disposal or recycling). The corresponding ISO stan-dard [10] and guidelines [9] focus on the environmental dimensionof sustainability, however, an adaptation to social sustainabilityassessment is possible [15].2.3 Synopsis of O-LCA and BPMBPM scholars have started to take sustainability into considera-tion under the term "Green" or "Sustainable" BPM. While severalapproaches to adapt or extend existing modeling languages for Sus-tainable BPM exist [23], a comprehensive modeling method, thatguides users in taking a life cycle, multi-impact perspective is miss-ing. So far, one can observe a strong focus on the environmentaldimension of sustainability, singular indicators like energy use andcarbon emissions [4]. Often, it is assumed that improving one busi-ness process will lead to a more sustainable organization (see e.g.[24]), or that isolated interventions, like process automation or theuse of cloud computing will result in overall better environmentalperformance (see e.g. [20]). As laid out in the introduction section,this needs to be questioned, as without considering multiple im-pacts along the whole life cycle, an improvement for one indicatorin one process step, may well provoke degraded environmental (orsocial) performance somewhere else in the supply chain.Taking these observations into consideration, on the one hand,it appears necessary that future Sustainable BPM research learnsfrom environmental sciences [4]. O-LCA with its rigorous under-standing of sustainability and strong tradition [2] may provide auseful conceptual frame for such efforts. On the other hand, BPMmay provide the concepts and tools to support O-LCA practitionersin gaining insight into internal operations, which is a central goalof an O-LCA study [9, p. 31].3 RESEARCH APPROACH3.1 Research ObjectiveThe goal of the research project is to develop a modeling method forBusiness Process Oriented Organizational Life Cycle Assessment(POLCA). The two guiding principles are (1) business-process ori-entation and (2) life cycle perspective. Hereby, business-processorientation means, that the design leverages conventional BPMconcepts to provide visibility of business processes and analysiscapabilities. Taking a life cycle perspective means, that O-LCA pro-vides the conceptual frame for the understanding of sustainability.More specifically, the research project results in amodeling tool thatimplements a modeling language, procedure and supporting mech-anisms for sustainable business process modeling. The expectedutility for the users (Process Managers, Sustainability Consultants)encompass representation of knowledge regarding an organiza-tion’s sustainability performance, improved decision support, andmeans for communicating corporate social responsibility effortswith external stakeholders.3.2 Research AgendaThe need to find an appropriate balance between relevance andrigor, i.e. to solve problems of practitioners, while making theoret-ical contributions [25, p. 38], is especially important for researchin the field of Sustainable BPM [4]. Thus, the research agendatakes inspiration from appropriate research frameworks like AgileModeling Method Engineering [11] and Domain-Specific ModelingLanguage Design [6]. As practitioner collaboration is especiallyvaluable for future research in Sustainable BPM [4], principles andinsights from the related field of Action Design Research [25] areconsidered. It can be understood as an IT-dominant [25, p. 42],development centered [17] research project.Table 1: Research StagesStage Outcome MethodsDiagnosis Problem Descrip-tion(Systematic) LiteratureReviewDesign Concepts,Design Principles,Requirements,MetamodelsRequirements Analysis,Language SpecificationImplementation Modeling Tool Prototyping, SoftwareDevelopmentEvolution Refined ProblemDescription andRequirementsCase Study, SurveyTable 1 gives an overview of the different stages of the researchproject, following a structure proposed by [17]. In the diagnosisstage, the to-be-solved problem is described based on a (systematic)literature review. In the design stage, basic concepts, requirementsand metamodels are developed that are then implemented in amodeling tool. In the evolution stage, the previous outcomes areevaluated. The evaluation results inform further developments.Figure 1: IT-Dominant research schema (based on [25])As visualized in figure 1, these stages are not strictly sequentialand the research agenda encompasses two research cycles. The firstcycle results in an alpha version of the modeling tool, comprisingthe initial set of outcomes. The initial design is guided by literatureon business process modeling and O-LCA. The alpha version isevaluated formatively with potential end-users like sustainabilityTowards a Modeling Method for Business Process Oriented Organizational Life Cycle Assessment ICT4S2020, June 21–26, 2020, Bristol, United Kingdomconsultants and BPM managers. The learnings from this evalua-tion are formalized to adapt the design principles and to guidethe development of a beta version of the modeling tool. Finally,the beta version is subject to a summative evaluation. Appropriateevaluation methods may be case studies or surveys [26].4 RESULTS TO DATE4.1 Previous WorkThe author has previously worked on modeling languages for sus-tainability ([1], [18]), contributed to the conception of LCA tech-nologies [3], and the development of a social LCA analysis tool (seehttps://fairtronics.org). These efforts can be seen as a pre-alpha cy-cle of the research project and gained insights flow into the designof the POLCA-method.4.2 Current StateThe doctoral research project is currently in the alpha cycle of theoutlined research schema. The design of the alpha version of thePOLCA-method is guided by the following design principles:Multi-facet Modeling Business process modeling methodslike Horus provide multiple modeling facets to express, forexample, the interlinkages between dynamic and static or-ganizational structures. Based on the goal of the POLCA-method to support sustainability assessment and manage-ment, it should support the modeling of relevant facets likebusiness processes (which activities have the highest im-pact?), organizational structure (who is responsible?), andgoals (to track the continuous improvement of sustainabilityperformance).Life Cycle Thinking The modeling method should by designguide the user in taking a life cycle perspective and providethe possibility to collect multiple indicators and model thelife cycle of an organization.Two-Layered Structure Existing business process modelinglanguages have different strengths and weaknesses, and de-sign requirements like expressiveness, simplicity and formalanalysis capability may be in conflict. For conventional BPM,Koschmider et al. [13] have proposed a two-layered struc-ture, where a presentation layer is designed for cognitiveeffectiveness [16] and geared towards the needs of a specificuser group. This presentation layer is thenmapped to a lowerlayer that may leverage the advantages of formal modelinglanguages like Petri Nets. Furthermore, Petri Nets appear asan appropriate link between BPM and LCA, as they havebeen used in both disciplines (see [14], [7]).The author has developed a web-based software prototype thatexemplifies the idea of a POLCA modeling tool based on the abovedesign principles. The current functionalities of this prototype en-compass the collection of activities and formulation of sustainabilitygoals with respect to indicators. To conclude the alpha cycle, theauthor is working on a systematic literature review to strengthenand elaborate the initial problem description. Subsequently, the con-cepts, requirements and metamodels are formalized and an initialmodeling tool prototype will be extended accordingly.5 CONCLUSION AND FURTHERWORKThis paper describes a research agenda for the development ofa sustainable business process modeling method. It strives for anappropriate balance of rigor and relevance, by following establishedresearch methods and integrating practitioners. Immediate nextsteps are• Conducting a tertiary study in the field of sustainable BPM.Several systematic literature reviews and mapping studies(e.g. [4], [23]) have been published, and may inform a mod-eling language design.• Extension of the alpha version of the POLCA modeling toolas a basis for a first formative evaluation.The results of the formative evaluation will then inform a seconddevelopment cycle that results in a beta version of the POLCAmodeling tool.REFERENCES[1] Stefanie Betz, Andreas Fritsch, and Andreas Oberweis. 2017. TracyML - AModeling Language for Social Impacts of Product Life Cycles. In Proceedings ofthe ER Forum 2017. Valencia, Spain, 193–206. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1979/paper-03.pdf[2] Anders Bjørn, Mikołaj Owsianiak, Christine Molin, and Michael Z. Hauschild.2018. LCA History. In Life Cycle Assessment. Springer International Publishing,Cham, Switzerland, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_3[3] Guido Van Capelleveen, Johanna Pohl, Andreas Fritsch, and Daniel Schien. 2018.The Footprint of Things: A hybrid approach towards the collection , storageand distribution of life cycle inventory data. In 5th International Conference onInformation and Communication Technology for Sustainability. Toronto, Canada,350–364.[4] Dries Couckuyt and Amy Van Looy. 2019. Green BPM as a Business-OrientedDiscipline: A Systematic Mapping Study and Research Agenda. Sustainability 11,15 (2019), 4200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154200[5] John Elkington. 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottomline of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management (1998), 37–51.[6] Ulrich Frank. 2013. Domain-specific modeling languages: Requirements analysisand design guidelines. In Domain Engineering: Product Lines, Languages, andConceptual Models. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36654-3_6[7] Reinout Heijungs and Sangwon Suh. 2002. The Computational Structure of LifeCycle Assessment. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands.[8] Y. Anny Huang, Christopher L. Weber, and H. Scott Matthews. 2009. Cate-gorization of Scope 3 Emissions for Streamlined Enterprise Carbon Footprint-ing. Environmental Science and Technology 43, 22 (2009), 8509–8515. https://doi.org/10.1021/es901643a[9] Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme, and Society forEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2015. Guidance on Organizational LifeCycle Assessment. UNEP, Paris, France. http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/o-lca{_}24.4.15-web.pdf[10] International Organization for Standardization. 2014. ISO/TS 14072: Environ-mental management - Life cycle assessment- Requirements and guidelines forOrganizational Life Cycle Assessment.[11] Dimitris Karagiannis. 2015. Agile Modeling Method Engineering. In Proceedingsof the 19th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics. 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2801948.2802040[12] Dimitris Karagiannis and Harald Kühn. 2002. Metamodelling Platforms. In Pro-ceedings of the Third International Conference EC-Web. Aix-en-Provence, France,182–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45705-4_19[13] Agnes Koschmider, TimmCaporale, Michael Fellmann, Jonas Lehner, andAndreasOberweis. 2015. Business Process Modeling Support by Depictive and DescriptiveDiagrams. In Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures. 15–29.[14] Agnes Koschmider, Andreas Oberweis, and Wolffried Stucky. 2018. A Petrinet-based View on the Business Process Life-Cycle. Enterprise Modelling andInformation Systems Architectures (EMISAJ) 13 (2018), 47–55.[15] Julia Martínez-Blanco, Annekatrin Lehmann, Ya-Ju Chang, and MatthiasFinkbeiner. 2015. Social organizational LCA (SOLCA)—a new approach forimplementing social LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 20,11 (2015), 1586–1599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0960-1[16] Daniel Moody. 2009. The physics of notations: Toward a scientific basis forconstructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions onSoftware Engineering 35, 6 (2009), 756–779.ICT4S2020, June 21–26, 2020, Bristol, United Kingdom Andreas Fritsch[17] Matthew T. Mullarkey and Alan R. Hevner. 2019. An elaborated action designresearch process model. European Journal of Information Systems 28, 1 (2019),6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1451811[18] Mario Nolte, Monika Kaczmarek-Heß, Andreas Fritsch, and Stefanie Betz. 2019.A Hierarchy of DSMLs in Support of Product Life-Cycle Assessment. 14thInternational Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (2019), 1433–1447.[19] Alexander Nowak and Frank Leymann. 2013. Green Business Process Patterns –Part II (Short Paper). In 6th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computingand Applications. IEEE, 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1109/SOCA.2013.11[20] Alexander Nowak, Frank Leymann, Daniel Schleicher, David Schumm, and Se-bastian Wagner. 2011. Green Business Process Patterns. In Proceedings of the 18thConference on Pattern Languages of Programs. ACM Press, New York, New York,USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2578903.2579144[21] Michael Rosemann. 2006. Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. BusinessProcess Management Journal 12 (2006), 249–254. Issue 2.[22] Frank Schönthaler, Gottfried Vossen, Andreas Oberweis, and Thomas Karle. 2012.The Horus Method. In Business Processes for Business Communities. Springer,Berlin, Heidelberg, 61–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24791-0_4[23] Thorsten Schoormann, Dennis Behrens, and Ralf Knackstedt. 2017. Sustainabilityin Business Process Models: A Taxonomy-Driven Approach to Synthesize Knowl-edge and Structure the Field. In Proceedings of the Thirty Eighth InternationalConference on Information Systems.[24] Stefan Seidel, Jan vom Brocke, and Jan C Recker. 2011. Call for action: investi-gating the role of business process management in green IS. Sprouts: WorkingPapers on Information Systems 11, 4 (2011).[25] Maung K. Sein, Ola Hendridsson, Sandeep Purao, Matti Rossi, and Rikard Lind-gren. 2011. Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly 35, 1 (2011), 47–56.[26] John Venable, Jan Pries-Heje, and Richard Baskerville. 2012. A comprehensiveframework for evaluation in design science research. In International Conferenceon Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. Las Vegas, NV,USA, 423—-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_31

https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000120283/82441274

Towards a Modeling Method for Business Process Oriented Organizational Life Cycle Assessment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

KITopen