DeliverableD3 - CORDIS · Project Number: FP7-619583 Project Title: Learn PAd Model-Based Social Learning for Public Administrations Deliverable Number: D3.1 Title of Deliverable:

FP7 ICT STREP Project

Deliverable D3.1

Domain Analysis of Business Pro-cesses in Public Administrations

http://www.learnpad.eu

LATEX template v. 0.5

Project Number : FP7-619583Project Title : Learn PAd

Model-Based Social Learning for Public Administrations

Deliverable Number : D3.1Title of Deliverable : Domain Analysis of Business Processes in Public Admin-

istrationsNature of Deliverable : DeliverableDissemination level : PublicLicence : Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 LicenseVersion : 4.0Contractual Delivery Date : 31 July 2014Actual Delivery Date : 31 July 2014Contributing WP : WP3Editor(s) : Alfonso Pierantonio (UDA)Author(s) : Knut Hinkelmann (FHNW), Vedran Hrgovcic (BOC), Al-

fonso Pierantonio (UDA), Gianni Rosa (UDA), Darius Silin-gas (NME), Barbara Thonssen (FHNW)

Reviewer(s) : Andrea Polini (UNICAM), Antonia Bertolino (CNR)

AbstractIn this document we identified the most relevant concepts related to the Learn PAd domain. To thisend, we analyzed a number of business processes from the Public Administration. The result ofsuch a stage consists on the one hand of a collection of identified concepts and artifacts, and on theother hand of an identification of the main difficulties in modeling business processes in the PublicAdministration. Therefore, the document analyzes also the modeling notations and the practices.This will conduct us to the meta-models to be defined and refined in the forthcoming months.

Keyword ListLearn PAd Domain Analysis, Modeling Notations, Enterprise Frameworks

Learn PAdFP7-619583 III

Learn PAdFP7-619583 IV

Document History

Version Changes Author(s)

0.1 Table of Content

Alfonso Pierantonio(UDA), Gianni Rosa(UDA), Vedran Hrgovcic(BOC), Knut Hinkel-mann (FHNW), FabioMancinelli (XWIKI),Darius Silingas(NME))

0.2 ToC Consolidation

Alfonso Pierantonio(UDA), Gianni Rosa(UDA), Vedran Hrgovcic(BOC), Knut Hinkel-mann (FHNW), FabioMancinelli (XWIKI),Darius Silingas(NME))

1.0 Preliminary draft

Knut Hinkelmann(FHNW), Alfonso Pieran-tonio (UDA), GianniRosa (UDA), DariusSilingas (NME), BarbaraThonssen (FHNW)

1.1 Switch to the LaTeX template Gianni Rosa (UDA)

2.0 Internal release


3.0 Candidate Final release


4.0 Final release


Learn PAdFP7-619583 V

Document Reviews

Release Date Ver. Reviewers Comments

ToC June 11,2014

0.2 N.A. N.A.

Draft July 10, 2014 1.1 N.A. N.A.

Internal July 19, 2014 2.0 Andrea PoliniComments in the review reportsavailable from the internal wiki

CandidateFinal July 24, 2014 3.0 Antonia Bertolino

Comments in the review reportsavailable from the internal wiki

Learn PAdFP7-619583 VI

Glossary, acronyms & abbreviations

Item DescriptionBMM Business Motivation ModelBP Business Process

BPMN Business Process Model and NotationBPDM Business Process Definition Meta-model

CM Competency ModelCMMN Case Management Model and NotationCRM Conceptual Reference ModelCSCL Computer Supported Collaborative LearningDDM Document (Data) ModelDM Decision Model

DMN Decision Model and NotationEMF Eclipse Modeling FrameworkKPI Key Performance Index

ITLET Information Technology for Learning, Education and TrainingLTSO Learning Technology Standards ObservatoryMDA Model-Driven ArchitectureMDE Model-Driven EngineeringMOF Meta Object FacilityOM Organization Model

OMG Object Management GroupTOGAF The Open Group Architecture Framework

UML Unified Modeling LanguageXMI XML Metadata Interchange

Learn PAdFP7-619583 VII

Learn PAdFP7-619583 VIII

Table Of Contents

List Of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

List Of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Structure of this deliverable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Public Administration Domain Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 Processes in the Public Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1.1 Knowledge-intensive processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 Domain Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3 The Considered Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3.1 Process P1: Family Reunion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3.2 Process P2: Grant Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3.3 Process P3: Bouncer registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4 Models for Supporting Learning Processes in Public Administrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.1 Models and Meta-models in MDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.2 Models in Learn PAd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3 Knowledge Management and Associated Learning Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.1 Knowledge Needed for Learning in the Context of Business Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2 Input for learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2.1 Input for individual learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4 Analysis of Modeling Languages and Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354.1 Process Logic: Structured Process and Case Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.2 Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.2.1 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.2.2 An Essential Subset of BPMN 2.0 for Modeling Public Administration Processes. . . . . . 38

4.2.3 Best Practices in Modeling Business Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.2.4 Extending BPMN and Integrating with Other Models and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.3 Modelling Case-based Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.4 Modelling Business Logic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.4.1 The Decision Model and Notation (DMN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.4.2 The Decision Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.5 Enterprise Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.5.1 Zachmann Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.5.2 TOGAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.5.3 ArchiMate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Learn PAdFP7-619583 IX

5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

6 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Learn PAdFP7-619583 X

List Of Tables

Table 2.1: Beneficiaries involved in the Family Reunion process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 2.2: Administrations involved in the Family Reunion process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 2.3: Beneficiaries involved in the Italian citizenship process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 2.4: Administrations involved in the grant Citizenship process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 4.1: Essential elements of BPMN 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 5.1: Identified modeling constructs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Learn PAdFP7-619583 XI

Learn PAdFP7-619583 XII

List Of Figures

Figure 2.1: Organizational behavior related organizational learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 2.2: The analysis process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 2.3: A high-level flow-chart of the reunion process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 2.4: Family reunion Business Process modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2.5: A high-level flow-chart of the citizenship process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 2.6: Grant Citizenship Business Process modelling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 2.7: A high-level flow-chart of bouncer registration process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 2.8: Bouncer Registration Business Process modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 2.9: Models conforming to a sample meta-model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 2.10: The four layers meta-modeling architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 2.11: Learn PAd platform overall representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 3.1: Exemplary Overview of Models Needed to Describe Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 3.2: Business Process ’Process Customer Application’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 3.3: Sub-Process ’Check Application Details’ represented in enhanced CMMN . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 3.4: Business Process ’Process Customer Application’ and opened Sub-Process ’CheckApplication Details’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 3.5: BMM Overview ([31], p. 12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 3.6: Example of Organisational Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 3.7: The ITLET Conceptual Reference Model for Competency Information and RelatedObjects ([20], p. 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 3.8: Document Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 3.9: Business Process for Creating and Updating Learner’s Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 3.10: Learner’s Profile ([8], p. 19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 3.11: Process for Individual Learning Off-Line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 3.12: Global Sub-Process for Assessing Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Learn PAdFP7-619583 XIII

Figure 3.13: Process for Individual Learning On-Line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 4.1: Different types of diagrams provided by BPMN 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 4.2: An example of a public process, which represents the interactions between a privatebusiness process and another process or participant. Only those activities that are used to com-municate to the other participant(s), plus the order of these activities, are included in the publicprocess. All other internal activities of the private business process are not shown in the publicprocess view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 4.3: An example of a private process that is internal to a specific organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 4.4: An example of choreography, which defines the expected behavior as a proceduralcontract between interacting participants. While a private process exists within a pool, a choreog-raphy exists between pools (or participants) and does not have a single control point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 4.5: An example of collaborative business process diagram, which represents multipleinteracting public processes that collaborate to achieve a specific goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 4.6: The essential subset of BPMN 2.0 elements for creating high-level private businessprocess models that are useful for communication, knowledge sharing, and learning purposes(based on practical consulting/training experience from NME). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 4.7: An example of a business process diagram with inconsistent naming, which indicatesmisuse of BPMN 2.0 elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 4.8: An example of refactored business process diagram with a consistent naming andproper use of BPMN 2.0 elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 4.9: An example of decomposing a complex business process diagram into several levelsof detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 4.10: An example of process model anti-pattern, where explicit inclusion of business rulesmake the business process model both complicated and fragile (typically business rules changemore frequently than the process flow). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 4.11: An appropriate business process model abstraction level, which gets rid of multiplegateways and represents only a task for making a decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 4.12: Design-time phase modeling and run-time phase planning [34]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 4.13: Plan Items in CMMN [34] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 4.14: Tasks in CMMN [34]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 4.15: Example of a Case Plan Model in CMMN [34] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 4.16: Aspects of process and decision modeling [38] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 4.17: Aspects of process and decision modeling [38] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Learn PAdFP7-619583 XIV

Figure 4.18: Decision Model diagram [56] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 4.19: Rule Family table in the context of a Decision Model diagram[56] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 4.20: Conceptual Model for EAD (excerpt from ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 provided by DSCI2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 4.21: Excerpt of an Enterprise Architecture based on Zachmanns EAF Matrix ([50]) . . . . . . . 52

Figure 4.22: Zachmann’s EAF Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 4.23: TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM) ([53]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 4.24: The TOGAF framework and the ArchiMate modeling language ([13]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 4.25: ArchiMate Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 4.26: Extended Conceptual Model ArchiMEO (based on ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 provided byDSCI 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 4.27: Basic Terms and Relations of Swiss e-Government Architecture (based on [9]) . . . . . . 57

Learn PAdFP7-619583 XV

Learn PAdFP7-619583 XVI

1 Introduction

The role of the Public Administration in advanced industrial societies is changing under the impact ofseveral factors including law and regulations modifications, societal globalization, corporate manage-ment, decentralization, political control, fast technology evolution and decreasing budgets. The resultingevolutionary pressure represents a challenge for Public Administration and administrators alike to con-stantly improve their service quality and adapt existing processes to the new emerging scenarios.

The aim of this project is to provide civil servants with a learning platform supporting both an infor-mative learning approach based on enriched business process (BP) models, and a procedural learningapproach based on simulation and monitoring (learning by doing). To this end, open-source commu-nities principles and cooperation spirit will be adopted: contents are produced by the community, andmeritocracy is naturally promoted, with leaders emerging because of their skill and expertise.

In the context of Learn PAd, WP3 aims at defining the meta-models for BP notations to be adoptedwithin the project. In particular, meta-modelling allows the construction of a collection of conceptswithin a certain domain formalized in a meta-model that describes the common properties of its in-stances according to the underlying semantics. The project provides different level of abstraction overBP specifications. Specific transformations will be defined in order to have informative specifications forthe learners and at the same time specifications containing sufficient information to permit simulationand monitoring. The meta-models have to be defined according to an iterative process consisting oftwo main steps: a) elicitation of new concepts from the considered domain to the meta-model; and b)validation of the formalization of the concepts by describing part of real systems. The outcome of thisiterative process will be a number of interrelated meta-models consisting of modeling constructs to beused for the specification and analysis of business processes in the domain of Public Administrations.

In this document, we present the first results of WP3 related to the following task (from the Learn PAdDoW):

– Task 3.1: Identify the objects and relationships that are needed to be modeled for the managementand learning of business processes. Find use cases that capture the most relevant informationthat is used while managing business processes in the domain of Public Administrations. In par-ticular, given the standard procedures that are followed by civil servants to manage businessprocesses, identify what are the elements and artefacts that should be modelled in the context ofLearn PAd . The identified elements and artefacts are aligned with existing (standard) meta mod-els and modeling languages for business process management, in particular the OMG standardsBPMN and BPDM, and their implementations and extensions in BPM and Enterprise Architecturemodelling tools like Adonis Enterprise Architect or Agilian (just to mention a few). In addition to theflow models, related meta-models covering additional views on business processes are analyzedlike the Choreography and Collaboration Meta Model of BPMN, the Case Management Modelingand Notation (CMMN), data and document meta-models, rule modeling languages (SBVR) andthe OMG Business Motivation models. Furthermore, approaches for modeling KPIs and relatingthem to business processes will be analyzed.

Therefore, the main purpose of this deliverable is to identify the objects and the possible relationshipsthat are needed to be modeled for the management and learning of business processes. To this end, anumber of business processes from the Public Administration have been identified and analyzed. This

Learn PAdFP7-619583 1

represented the starting point for an analysis which has been performed also considering complemen-tary descriptions which can roughly be summarized in the following concerns: business motivation,case, learning, knowledge, information, organization, and process. However, whereas today BPMNmodels are fairly often used in Public Administrations those additional meta-models are rarely availableyet since their creation is time consuming and requires specific modeling know-how. We further con-sidered, best practices and anti-patterns in modeling business processes in the Public Administration.The outcome of the analysis consists of a catalog of classified concepts organized according to theirhomogeneity and the concerns reported above.

1.1. Structure of this deliverable

The deliverable is organized as follows. In the next section, an in-depth analysis of the three businessprocess models from to the Italian Public Administration is provided. The outcome of such an anal-ysis consists in the identification of those recurrent concepts which are typically used for describingorganizational behaviors. In order to consider also the knowledge management Sect. 3 provides thediscussion of relevant related notations, such as the Business Motivation Model (BMM), the Organi-zation Model (OM), the Competency Model (CM), and the Document Model (DM). These models areimportant because they tend to complement the description of the organizational behavior given by theprocess models. In Sect. 4, a discussion about the Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN) isprovided since most of the time such kind of processes typically present knowledge intensive activities.How the different model types fit into a whole representing various aspects of an enterprise architectureis also detailed in Sect. 4. Moreover, a discussion on how business processes are typically used in thePublic Administration is also given by illustrating how current limitations affects the adoption of stan-dards like BPMN 2.0. The result of the overall investigation is enucleated in the discussion of Sect. 5where the most relevant concepts are arranged in a categorized catalog. Finally, conclusions are drawnin Sect. 6.


2 Public Administration Domain Analysis

The scope of this section is to better understand how Public Administrations make use of businessprocess modeling. To this end, besides a brief introduction to knowledge-intensive processes, threebusiness processes are taken into consideration and in-depth analyzed. Also, modeling techniquesare illustrated to introduce what are the modeling standards and techniques which will be necessary toadopt in the sequel of the project to formalize the concepts which will be elicited in this deliverable.

2.1. Processes in the Public Administration

The Public Administration is transforming its regulation framework in order to improve efficiency, effec-tiveness and economy management. Citizens are demanding better services, better security and betterdemocracy, while business demands less bureaucracy and more efficiency. In this kind of transforma-tion the role of processes is crucial, they are at the base of services delivery and they are based on theorganization structure. Consequently, process design, and more in general process management, iskey to success. Moreover, according to the European Interoperability Framework [4] and its adoptionsin the European member states, one of the main challenge in Public Administration (PA) is to cope withlarge collections of interconnected Business Processes (BPs).

A business process in Public Administration can be regarded as a sequence of activities that theadministration executes in order to produce a service for the end user. It i) starts with receiving ofsome input (i.e. request, documentation), ii) continues with performing activities that add value (i.e.,checks) using resources (i.e., humans, information, structures), and iii) finally produces an output. Apublic process is oriented to provide to a customer (citizen, company, or other Public Administrations)an artifact that usually is referring to granting different permission, licenses and rights (for examplebuilding permission, business licenses, driving licenses, etc.). It is important to underline that

– the activities that the PA has to perform are strictly guided by rules that emphasize the recognitionof the legality and regularity of the administrative work; and

– a service provided by government can be fully carried out within an administration, may requireinformation held by other institutions, or may be provided in collaboration with other public institu-tions.

Therefore, a process of a Public Administration must comply with all regulations governing the subjectof the service. Designing a Business Process is itself a complex interdisciplinary and time consumingprocess that involves judgments based on domain knowledge and experience, due to the multifacetedand dynamic nature of organization.

2.1.1. Knowledge-intensive processes

Business processes in Public Administrations are mainly knowledge-intensive. Thus, civil servants areused to dealing with huge amounts of information: lessons learned in previous engagements, insightsfrom prior projects, notes for subsequent process steps are scattered among manifold knowledge con-tainers, from the personal memory, over paper, to different electronic systems. Such knowledge is


necessary on one hand for accomplishing the required tasks, and on the other hand to determine whatare the tasks to be executed in presence of uncertainty. Even if there are mechanisms to explicitly cap-ture and store bits and pieces of best practice, these are seldom used in a coordinated manner and, atbest, take into account document content, but not so much document context, i.e. neither the creationsituation nor the potential usage situation. On the other hand, business processes are a context-giving,structuring element prevalent in a company, often even formally modelled for some purpose such that itwould make sense to exploit the usage of business processes to organize knowledge archives. To thisend, it is of crucial relevance to be able to provide the user with contextually selected, task- and user-specific background knowledge. In particular, the civil servant should be able to access the requiredknowledge in an optimal manner. This can be achieved by coupling the process (formal or informal)description with the descriptive units about the kind of data and document type being considered by theprocess.

Ideally, the notion of context provided by the process permits users to know:

- what to do

- who does what

- what to do after the task

In such a way the users engaged in their daily work routines have not to spend much time and effort inknowledge and information management activities additional to their operative ones. This is even moreimportant in Public Administrations since explicit knowledge relevant for a specific task or decision isnormally spread over many different kinds of documents, forms, legislative texts, etc. The necessityto analyze the business process from a knowledge-management perspective is largely recognized (forinstance, see [15]). A basic assumption is the lack of knowledge about the process, although suchknowledge can be acquired. However, because of the tacit character of process knowledge, the mainsource is inevitably the organization’s own operations. Acquiring knowledge is first of all a questionof being active in the new environment rather than of collecting and analyzing information. Anotherassumption is that decisions and implementations concerning the process are made incrementally dueto the inherent uncertainty. Incrementalism can be seen as a management learning process in whichlearning by doing is the basic logic. Overall, the perceived risk is primarily a function of the level ofdomain knowledge acquired through ones own activities.

Knowledge is highly dependent on individuals and therefore difficult to transfer to other individualsand contexts: in essence, as mentioned by [21]:

“experience itself can never be transmitted, it produces a change — frequently a subtlechange — in individuals and cannot be separated from them”.

Consequently, the problems and opportunities intrinsic to a certain domain will be discovered primarilyby those who are working in that domain. Clearly, the most interesting aspect is to understand howorganizations learn and the learning impacts on organizational behavior as illustrated in Fig. 2.1, whereboth are mutually and continuously influenced.

2.2. Domain Analysis

The analysis consisted in selecting a number of processes from the Italian Public Administration. Foreach process the corresponding BPMN 2.0 [42] business process model has been considered and in-depth analyzed in order to discover, identify, and classify recurrent concepts, patterns and constructions.

In order to select the processes, we adopted the following criteria: a) the capability of accessingthe processes, b) accuracy and completeness, and finally c) the source of the processes. In essence,we needed processes which were available in their complete definition, without leaving any relevant


Figure 2.1: Organizational behavior related organizational learning

aspects out of the specification. In addition, the reliability of the source must have been assured: theprocesses are directly derived from the Italian Public Administration.

The outcome of this detailed examination is summarized in Sect. 6 and consists of a taxonomy ofgeneric and recurrent concepts relevant in the context of process-aware organizations. The analysishas been arranged around the iterative process depicted in Fig. 2.2 and consists of the following stages:

• Select Process A business process from the Italian Public Administration is considered from thefollowing list

a) family reunion,

b) grant citizenship, and finally

c) bouncer registration.

• Identify Relevant Concepts The most recurrent concepts are identified.

• Classify Concepts The identified concepts are classified in order to highlight their common as-pects.

• Refine Classification The classified concepts are added to the overall classification in case theirare not already considered; once finished next process is considered.

Figure 2.2: The analysis process


2.3. The Considered Processes

The analysis has been performed on three different processes on the Italian Public Administration,which are described in the sequel. The processes have been selected by consulting documents([10, 44]) and by interviewing people in the Universita degli Studi di Camerino ([11]). Both the authors ofthe mentioned documents and the interviewed people were analyzing different processes and the cor-responding organization at the Regione Marche and at other major Public Administrations (Prefectures,Ministry of Finance, Police, etc).

2.3.1. Process P1: Family Reunion

The integrity of the family is protected under international law. There is universal consensus that, asthe fundamental unit of society, the family is entitled to respect and protection1. A right to family unityis inherent in recognizing the family as a group unit; if members of the unit do not have a right to livetogether, there is not a family to respect or protect2. In accordance with these principles, in 1986 the firstimmigration legislation was promulgated in Italy as a result of the large number of applications submittedby foreigners in order to be reunite with their relatives. The law went through several changes beforethe current version. The latest changes have been made by the legislative decree of 3 October 2008,n. 160 and then by Law 94/2009 of 15 July 2009 (“Disposizioni in Materia di Sicurezza Pubblica”).

Several participants are involved in the delivery of this service. The beneficiaries are both the for-eigner, which applies for family reunion (or a patronage that acts on his/her behalf), and the familymember to be reunited as described in Table 2.1. Whereas the different administrations involved in theservice delivery are described in Table 2.2.

In order to support the process the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration of the Ministry ofInterior designed and deployed a “one stop shop” service for immigration, named SPI. The beneficiaryare allowed to electronically submit and verify their application by means of an information systemwhich is adopted by all the 106 Italian prefectures. The procedure outlined in Fig. 2.3 consists by theSPI activities as described in the following:

1The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, article 16(3), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966,article 23(1), and American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, article 17(1) each state that The family is the natural andfundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. European Social Charter, 1961, article16, With a view to ensuring the necessary conditions for the full development of the family, which is a fundamental unit ofsociety, the Contracting Parties undertake to promote the economic, legal and social protection of family life . African Charteron Human and Peoples Rights, 1981, article 18(1) The family shall be the natural unit and basis of society. It shall be protectedby the State which shall take care of its physical and moral health.

2Human Rights Committee, 39th Session, 1990, General Comment 19 on Article 23, paragraph 5.


Roles Actors Duties(B1) Foreign nationals resident in Italy He/she must have a residence permit for work, asylum,

study, religious reasons or family, or are already in pos-session of a residence permit, maintain or regain thefamily unit.

(B2) Foreign nationals He/she must fall in either of the following cases:

– the spouse not legally separated and older than18 years;

– the spouse or minor children also born out of wed-lock, unmarried, provided that the other parent, ifany, has given his consent;

– dependent children, if they can not provide fortheir needs in life for their health conditions thatlead to total disability;

– dependent parents who do not have other childrenin their country of origin or provenance, or par-ents over sixty-five, if other children are unable tosupport them for documented, serious health rea-sons.

Table 2.1: Beneficiaries involved in the Family Reunion process

Figure 2.3: A high-level flow-chart of the reunion process.


Roles Actors Duties(A1) Prefecture It is the main driver of the process, on behalf of the Department

for Civil Liberties and Immigration of the Ministry of Interior ac-cording to the geographical location of the applicant.

(A2) Police It is in charge of public security controls and they give opinionson the feasibility of the application.

(A3) Consulate or Embassy They are the Italian authorities abroad responsible for verifyingthe subjective requirements.

(A4) Ministry of Foreign Affairs It communicates the results of the procedure to the Italian au-thorities located in the state of the requesting beneficiary.

(A5) Ministry of Finance It holds the responsibility of releasing the fiscal code for theincoming relative.

Table 2.2: Administrations involved in the Family Reunion process

1) The BP starts with a reunion application done by beneficiaries living in Italy using a downloadablesoftware client freely available after registration.

2) The application is managed by the SPI and assigned to a prefecture that asks, for public safetyconstraints, to the Police Headquarters and then invites the beneficiary to the Prefecture in orderto check her/his status. Both the opinions from police and Prefecture may be cause of applicationrejection. Otherwise in case of acceptance the Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides the go-ahead(nulla osta).

3) After the release of the nulla-osta the relative that has to be reunited goes to the Italian consulateor embassy in her/his country, and proving some specific requirements asks or VISA in order tobe admitted in Italy.

4) Once in Italy the foreigner must go (within eight days) to the Prefecture in order to register his/herarrival in Italy, to receive the fiscal code, thanks to the interaction with the Ministry of Finance, andto finally obtain the residence permit.

In Fig. 2.4 a draw of Business Process is illustrated3.3For the sake of clarity, the figure can be displayed at full resolution from http://wiki.learnpad.eu/LearnPAdWiki/

bin/view/Deliverables/D3_1_Figures/


http://wiki.learnpad.eu/LearnPAdWiki/bin/view/Deliverables/D3_1_Figures/


Figure 2.4: Family reunion Business Process modelling

2.3.2. Process P2: Grant Citizenship

Citizenship is the status of a person recognised under the custom or law of a state that bestows on thatperson (called a citizen) the rights and the duties of citizenship. A person may have multiple citizenshipsand a person who does not have citizenship of any state is said to be stateless.

Grant citizenship is a service to be used by foreigners and stateless persons to ask for Italian citi-zenship. Several partecipants are involved in this service. The beneficiary is the foreigner, who appliesfor Italian citizenship as described in Table 2.3; the providers are the different Public Administrationsinvolved in the service delivery and are described in Table 2.4.


Figure 2.5: A high-level flow-chart of the citizenship process.


In order to support the process the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration of the Ministry ofInterior decided to develop an electronic system, named SICITT. The system manages requests anddocumentations for granting citizen-ship and satisfies the needs of the Ministry of Interior to obtainthe opinions by means other offices involved in the grant citizenship process. It is in use in all thePrefectures and in almost every police-headquarters.

The main steps of the BP are described in the following:

1) The process starts with a request done by the foreigner by ordinary mail or delivered by hand tothe Prefecture. The SICITT foresees that an employee uploads the request.

2) Document verification is the second step, and the following conditions could hold.

1) The prefecture asks to complete the documentation in the case some documents are miss-ing. Then the applicant has to produce and delivery the required documents to the Prefec-ture, otherwise the citizenship office begins the procedure for instance rejection.

2) The prefecture notifies a possible rejection of the request if some requirement are not sat-isfied. In 30 days the applicant has to solve such condition otherwise the request will beclassified as inadmissible.

3) On the other side when all the documents are provided and all the requirements are satisfied thefollowing steps are considered.

• The request is recorded in SICITT and it becomes visible to the police-headquarters thatchecks if there is any impediment, and then expresses an opinion. If the Prefecture does notreceive the police-headquarters opinion in 6 months, it solicits the office.

• Only after receiving the opinion of the police-headquarters, the Prefecture sends its opinionto the Ministry of Interior. At the same time the SICITT automatically sends a request forinformation to other offices: AISE, AISI, Ministry of Justice (criminal record), MAE and to thedepartment of the anti-crime police.

• Only after receiving all the opinions, the Ministry of Interior verifies the instance and it candecide to:

1) Ask for an integration of the documents;2) Start the procedure for the rejection of the instance;3) Confirm grant citizenship.

Any final decision is sent to the Prefecture that is in charge to notify the applicant about thedecision.

• In case of confirmation, the Prefecture asks to the municipality to call the applicant for theoath. Only after applicant sworn the process is closed.

In Fig. 2.6 a draw of Family Reunion process is illustrated4. . It shows by means of a well knownnotations of BPMN 2.0 syntax, the process flow. The process start with the user’s request and go on bythe interactions among the Public Administration offices and the response to the citizen.

4The figure can be displayed at full resolution from http://wiki.learnpad.eu/LearnPAdWiki/bin/view/Deliverables/D3_1_Figures/




Figure 2.6: Grant Citizenship Business Process modelling

2.3.3. Process P3: Bouncer registration

The bouncer is a person who work in the field of private security, usually prevent troublemakers frompremises open to the public.

In Italy, the legal basis for category bouncer is formalized in art.94 law July, 15 2009 (”Provisions re-garding public safety” 5) that introduced the possibility to employ staff that supervises the entertainmentactivities in order to secure the life of the bystander6. In Italy, the Ministry of Interior emitted the decreeof October, 6 2009 that formalizes specific requirements that all the Italian bouncers have to satisfy inorder to sign in the corresponding registry. Several participants are involved in the provisioning of sucha service. The beneficiaries are the managers of public place or vigilance institute that do the request,and the bouncer who will be registered in the list. The providers are the different Public Administrationsinvolved in the service delivery as following:

• Prefecture, on behalf of the Department of Public Security of the Ministry of Interior accordingto the geographical location of the place, has to receive the request and decides for granting orrejecting decree.

• The Police headquarters and several police departments such as Police anti-crime, General In-vestigation division and Special Operation (Italian acronym DIGOS) that give their opinions.

To guarantee the process the Department of Public Security of the Ministry of Interior is developing anapplication, named BTF, to electronically manage the requests of inscription in the bouncers registry.Up to now the BTF is going to be used by all the Prefectures and the police-headquarters, but it isexpected that in a second phase it will support a fully interactive service.

5Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana n. 170 July, 24 20096Art. 3 paragraph 7 law July, 15 2009, n. 94


1) The process starts with a request delivered by hand or by ordinary mail, from a manager of apublic place or of a vigilance institute, to the Prefecture in charge to manage it. The request issuccessively uploaded into the BTF manually by the PA employee.

2) The Prefecture proceeds with the documents verification, it may happen that the documentationis incomplete. In this case it asks for integration to the applicant.

3) When the documentation is complete, the Prefecture analyzes it and then waits for the opinionfrom the police-headquarters that has to come within two weeks. If the Prefecture does not receivethe opinion, it has to solicit the police-headquarters.

4) Before giving the opinion, the police-headquarters asks to other police offices, Police anti-crimeand DIGOS, for receiving more information about the bouncer.

5) After receiving all the opinions from all the police-headquarters, the Prefecture decides the in-stance. If it is positive the inscription in the list of bouncers is authorized, otherwise the request isrejected.

Figure 2.7: A high-level flow-chart of bouncer registration process.


In Fig. 2.8 a draw of Bouncer registration process is illustrated7.

Figure 2.8: Bouncer Registration Business Process modelling

2.4. Models for Supporting Learning Processes in Public Administrations

While the specification of business processes is usually done by means of standard notations, most ofthe processes in the Public Administration are knowledge-intensive. In order to increase transparencyand information tracing in this kind of processes, it is of crucial relevance making knowledge relevantin a given process explicit to better support the learner. Therefore, the Case Management Model andNotation (CMMN) [34] has been considered with some necessary adaptations in order to deal withpartiality of information and some intrinsic uncertainty. Another aspect which is relevant for the LearnPAd objectives is the necessity to consider business goals and success factors, which are usuallyrepresented in a motivation model. For the motivation model we build on the Business MotivationModel [37] (BMM). Also the way an organization is arranged and how this organizational structureis capable of enacting the process is another aspect which has been considered by means of theOrganisational Model and Competency Model. All these notations are taken into account in Sect. 3 andin Sect. 4. Since, modeling notations are usually given in terms of meta-models a brief introduction tometa-modeling and Model-Driven Engineering is given in the next section.

2.4.1. Models and Meta-models in MDE

Model-Driven Engineering [45] (MDE) refers to the systematic use of models as first class entitiesthroughout the software engineering life cycle. Model-driven approaches shift development focus fromthird generation programming language codes to models expressed in proper domain specific modelinglanguages. The objective is to increase productivity and reduce time to market by enabling the devel-opment of complex systems by means of models defined with concepts that are much less bound tothe underlying implementation technology and are much closer to the problem domain. This makes the

7The figure can be displayed at full resolution from http://wiki.learnpad.eu/LearnPAdWiki/bin/view/Deliverables/D3_1_Figures/




models easier to specify, understand, and maintain [47] helping the understanding of complex problemsand their potential solutions through abstractions.

The concept of Model Driven Engineering emerged as a generalization of the Model Driven Architec-ture (MDA) proposed by the Object Management Group (OMG) in 2001 [30] and it relies on a conceptualframework mainly consisting of model, meta-model, and model transformation.

Even though MDA and MDE rely on models that are considered “first class citizens”, there is nocommon agreement about what a model is. In [46] a model is defined as “a set of statements about asystem under study”. Bezivin and Gerbe in [1] define a model as “a simplification of a system built withan intended goal in mind. The model should be able to answer questions in place of the actual system”.According to Mellor et al. [27] a model “is a coherent set of formal elements describing something(e.g., a system, bank, phone, or train) built for some purpose that is amenable to a particular formof analysis” such as communication of ideas between people and machines, test case generation,transformation into an implementation, etc. The MDA guide [30] defines a model of a system as “adescription or specification of that system and its environment for some certain purposes. A model isoften presented as a combination of drawings and text. The text may be in a modeling language or in anatural language”. These formulations do not conflict but rather complement one another and representthe various aspects of the fundamental philosophical category of software. Models are generally usedin order to pursue the following purposes (amongst others):

• to record design decisions, models are generally existing prior to software and are used eitherto convey relevant information to the implementors or to be manipulated in tool chains; the out-come consists in both cases of artefacts, which can range from documentation and componentinterfaces to software skeletons or full-fledged systems. The process typically enriches subse-quent models with details which derive from the knowledge the manipulations rely on, regardlesswhether automated or manual;

• to analyze a system, highly abstract and incomplete models are verified possibly using a computerto analyze the system for the presence of desirable properties and the absence of undesirableones. This can be done in several ways, including formal (mathematical) analyses such as perfor-mance analysis based on queuing theory or safety-and-liveness property checking. The analysescan be performed before or after the system comes into existence depending on the needs.

Techniques and tools to support model-driven engineering nowadays reached a certain degree ofmaturity making it practical even in large-scale industrial applications. For a detailed discussion aboutthe use and meaning of models in MDE please refer to [2]. In MDE models are not considered as meredocumentation but precise artifacts that can be understood by computers and can be automaticallymanipulated. In this scenario meta-modeling plays a key role. It is intended as a common techniquefor defining the abstract syntax of models and the interrelationships between model elements. Meta-modeling can be seen as the construction of a collection of “concepts” (things, terms, etc.) within acertain domain. A model is an abstraction of phenomena in the real world, and a meta-model is yetanother abstraction, highlighting properties of the model itself. This model is said to conform to its meta-model like a program conforms to the grammar of the programming language in which it is written [2].For instance, Fig. 2.9.a depicts a sample meta-model containing the concepts and the relations properof graphs. In this respect, the meta-model contains the concept Node which represents a source and/ortarget of edges according to the relations between the Node and Edge metaclasses. In Fig. 2.9.b twosample models conforming to graph meta-models previous mentioned are reported.


(a) Graph Meta-model

(b) Graph models

Figure 2.9: Models conforming to a sample meta-model

OMG has introduced the four-level architecture illustrated in Fig. 2.10. At the bottom level, the M0layer is the real system. A model represents this system at level M1. This model conforms to its meta-model defined at level M2 and the meta-model itself conforms to the meta meta-model at level M3. Themeta meta-model conforms to itself. OMG has proposed Meta Object Facility (MOF) [35] as a standardfor specifying meta-models. For example, the Unified Modeling Language (UML) meta-model [33] isdefined in terms of MOF. A supporting standard of MOF is XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) [41], whichdefines an XML-based exchange format for models on the M3, M2, or M1 layer. This meta-modelingarchitecture is common to other technological spaces as discussed by Kurtev et al. in [23]. For example,the organization of programming languages and the relationships between XML documents and XMLschemas follow the same principles described above (see Fig. 2.10).

Figure 2.10: The four layers meta-modeling architecture

2.4.2. Models in Learn PAd

Figure 2.11 illustrates the overall representation of the Learn PAd platform where products and depen-dencies at the work package level are outlined. According to the Learn PAd DoW, WP3 will play a keyrole to define a model-based framework for specifying and managing rigorous models able to representin a homogeneous manner the whole lifecycle of the learning projects. In Fig. 2.11 we represent themain elements of the Learn PAd platform focusing on Business Meta-model analysis in order to performlearning activities and knowledge representation. Using such meta-models the Learn PAd platform willpermit, on the one side to model and document PA processes, on the other side to provide learningmaterial and to reason about learner, contents and KPI.

In this deliverable our aim is to analyze the domain-specific meta-models that are the glue artefactsfor all WP engaged in Learn PAd project. Our work consist to identifying the objects and relationshipsthat are needed to be modeled for the management and learning of business processes in order to


Figure 2.11: Learn PAd platform overall representation

capture the most relevant information that is used while managing business processes in the domain ofPublic Administrations. The identified elements and artefacts are aligned with existing (standard) metamodels and modeling languages for business process management, in particular the OMG standardsBPMN, BMM, Organizational Model and Enterprise Architecture modelling tools like Adonis EnterpriseArchitect. Furthermore, approaches for modeling KPIs and relating them to business processes will beanalyzed.

Such meta-models analysis has to be made according to an iterative process 2.2 of elicitation of newconcepts from the considered domain and the outcome will be a number of interrelated concepts ableto be used for the specification and analysis of business.

Specifically, standard notations for Business Modeling will be extended in order to directly supportsuch features. In addition, models can be organized using a multi-scale views with different levels ofabstraction. Thus, the base for teaching/learning the multiple aspects of the process rely on the datacontents over the multiple views, see examples in Sect. 3.

In next sections, a detailed discussion about the knowledge management and associated learningprocesses is provided. In particular, the knowledge needed for learning is presented in terms of model-ing notation in orthogonal description with respect to the business processes presented in this section.


Roles Actors Duties(B1) Foreign granted

citizenship by marriage(art. 5, law February, 51992 n. 91)

He/she must have the following requirements:

– the applicant, a foreign or stateless person, must be marriedto an Italian citizen and reside legally in Italy for at least 2years after the marriage;

– if the spouses reside abroad, the application may be madeafter three years from the date of marriage;

These terms are reduced by half in the presence of children bornor adopted by the spouses.

(B2) For residence in Italy(art. 9, law February, 51992 n.91)

He/she must fall in either of the following cases:

– the foreigner whose father or mother or one of the directancestors of the second degree were citizens by birth orwas born in the territory of the Italian Republic and, in bothcases, there is a legal resident for at least three years;

– at the foreigner adopted by an Italian citizen resident in Ital-ian territory at least five years after the adoption;

– the foreigner who has served, even abroad, for at least fiveyears in the employ of the Italian Republic;

– the citizen of a State UE if legally resident for at least fouryears in Italy;

– stateless and refugee who is a legal resident for at least fiveyears in Italy;

– the foreigner residing legally for at least 10 years in the Ital-ian territory.

(B3) Automatically acquired Minor children of a person who acquires or reacquires Italian citi-zenship, if lives with it, acquire automatically Italian citizenship

(B4) Election of citizenship The foreign born in Italy, who has resided legally without interrup-tion until she/his reach the age of majority, may indicate to electItalian citizenship within one year from this date.

Table 2.3: Beneficiaries involved in the Italian citizenship process


Roles Actors Duties(A1) Prefecture It is is the main actor and drives the process, receiving the re-

quest, checking the requirements and giving the opinion;(A2) Ministry of Interior It receives electronically the request and the documentation,

checks them, evaluates the instance and took the final decision;(A3) The Municipality It officiates to the new citizen sworn;(A4) Police headquarters,

Ministry of Justice andpublic security officessuch as InformationAgency and ExternalSecurity (AISE),Information Agencyand Internal Security(AISI)

They give their opinions on the application.

Table 2.4: Administrations involved in the grant Citizenship process



3 Knowledge Management and Associated Learn-ing Processes

According to Merriam Webster1 learning is ”the activity or process of gaining knowledge or skill bystudying, practicing, being taught, or experiencing something: the activity of someone who learns.”Weidong Pan et al. [43] differentiate between objectivist and constructivist learning. Whereas objectivisttheory for learning believes that knowledge can be transmitted to learners, constructivist theory deemsthat knowledge must be constructed individually. Hence, a learning system ”should provide learnerswith a wide range of services to assist and facilitate knowledge construction, rather than imposing aparticular learning method on them” ([43], p. 735). In Learn PAd we support constructivist learning byengaging learners in complex, authentic and collaborative learning activities, as suggested by [22].

Hernandez-Leo et al. ([16]) stress the importance of flexible, effective and customizable ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) activities on the one hand side and structured designs on theother hand side. Learn PAd covers both sides since the learning process is tightly coupled with the –at least partly – structured business process about which knowledge is to be acquired and at the sametime offering flexibility in the type of learning and way of collaboration. Hence, we need (meta) modelsto describe the learning processes, the business processes, business goals, critical success factors,performance indicators, roles, competencies, documents and data (application data, performance data,comment data etc.), and relations between these models. Figure 3.1 gives an exemplary overviewon these models; detailed descriptions are provided below. For some model types graphical represen-tation already exists, e.g. for process models, whereas for others graphical representations are to bedeveloped (e.g. for competencies).

3.1. Knowledge Needed for Learning in the Context of Business Processes

However, today prevailing in organizations be it enterprises or Public Administrations is the businessprocess model, often represented in BPMN as detailed in Section 2. Nevertheless, it isnt the only modelrelevant for describing enterprise architecture. Although often no standard is used for the description,e.g. for organization charts, no graphical representation is chosen, e.g. for defining an organizationsvision and mission this knowledge exists and is needed to run the business. Hence, in addition to theanalysis of the business process models illustrated in the previous section we introduce additional modeltypes to represent the aforementioned knowledge explicitly wherever possible based on standards andshow how the different models are interrelated and how the will be used for learning in Learn PAd.

1”Learning.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 18 June 2014. ¡http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learning.


Figure 3.1: Exemplary Overview of Models Needed to Describe Learning

Starting from the business process model, the central model depicted in Fig. 3.1 is the BusinessProcess Model (1, Business Process Model), represented in an extended BPMN 2.0. For modellingknowledge intensive (sub-)processes (2) the Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN 1.0) isused. KPIs are derived from business goals and critical success factors; hence a Business MotivationModel (3, BMM) is needed. Organisational units, roles and persons are modelled in an extra Organi-sation Model (4, Org. Model) to allow for more expressiveness than ’BPMN native’ pools and lanes. Inorder to support learning competencies are modelled and required by roles. The Competency Model(5) is for describing learners level of competencies, learning progress, etc. Finally a Document Model(6) is depicted, comprising application documents and data, learning reports etc. This is also an en-hancement to BPMN 2.0. Having an extra Document Model allows for better representing content, e.g.classifying documents, building document hierarchies, deter-mine dependencies etc.) In the followingsections details on the models, respectively on the meta models are provided.

(1) BP Model

To explain the general principles of supporting learning in Learn PAd a simple business process wasmodelled, as depicted in Fig. 3.2. The modelling language is BPMN 2.0 [42], extended by non-standardobject types, e.g. representing input and output (documents) of activity, roles and key performanceindicators. This is done to avoid ambiguity and to make process and business knowledge explicit inorder to provide transparency to the learner and to better support learning (cf. Sect. 3.2).


Figure 3.2: Business Process ’Process Customer Application’

The process ’Proof of customer application’ consists of 4 tasks. Three are depicted as ”simple”activities in BPMN 2.0 notation (’Check Customer Application’, ’Accept Application’ and ’Reject Appli-cation’); one is depicted as ad hoc sub process (’Check Application Details’). The ad hoc sub processis considered to be a knowledge intensive task (see Sect. 2.1).

Two information objects are depicted: ’Customer Application’ (input for ’Check Customer Application’and ’Check Application Details’) and ’Evaluation Report’ (output of ’Check Customer Application’ and’Check Application Details’ and input for ’Accept Application’ and ’Reject Application’).

After the first activity ’Check Customer Application’ a decision is taken whether further details of theapplication should be checked. If so the ad hoc sub process ’Check Application Details’ is called. Allactivities are optional and can be repeated until the end condition is met. In this example the ad hocprocess ends when a decision report is created (and submitted). Knowledge intensive (sub-) processesare of particular interest for learners since often they are demanding e.g. due to their discretionary tasks.Discretionary tasks are tasks that are available to users, to be applied in addition, to their discretion (cf.the next section on Case Management Models).

Figure 3.2 further depicts objects not explicitly modeled today: First, Key Performance Indicators(KPIs) are introduced. Although often not graphically represented in process models today KPIs arenecessary for assessing performance of activities and processes. We aim to make all relevant knowl-edge explicit and hence attached KPI to activities and to the process as a whole. For simplicity onlytime related KPIs are depicted. Evaluation of the process performance – and hence of the learner’sperformance – can be done based on these KPIs. KPIs are derived from a Business Motivation Model,as detailed in the BMM section below and depicted as target, e.g. ’execution time ≤ 1 h’, related toactivity ’Check Customer Application’.

Also depicted in Fig. 3.2 are the roles involved in an activity, e.g. ’Citizen Center Officer’, responsiblefor executing activity ’Check Customer Application’, depicted as tiny ’R Role Name’ below the activity.Using an explicit model, the Organisational Model, instead of lanes allows, as shown in the processmodels in Section 2, to model more details on roles, e.g. the kind of responsibility a role has in a certainactivity. Furthermore, ambiguity of pool and lane objects types is avoided.

The little ingoing or outgoing arrow indicates documents relevant for an activity. For example ’Cus-tomer Application’ is input for the activity ’Check Customer Application’ and ’Acceptance Letter’ is output


of the activity ’Accept Application’. With this modelling, the documents in the BPMN would be superflu-ous. We additionally represent documents in BPMN here to make them more visible.

Figure 3.2 also shows information on the probability of paths, i.e. the probability that the sub-process’Check Application Details’ is to be executed is 80%, the probability for accepting an application is 70%.This information is used for analysis and simulation.

(2) CM Model

As shown in above today business process models do not explicitly deal with knowledge intensivetasks. A general approach is to model such an activity as a manual task (cf. the many manual tasksdepicted in the process models depicted in Section 2) and leave execution and completion of such atask to the user. Thus the user is not supported and his/her actions arent known to users, i.e. they cantbenefit from the experience gained in previous processes. For modelling knowledge intensive (sub-)processes the Case Management Model and Notation, CMMN V 1.0 [34] is used. For Learn PAd weenhance the CMMN by two object types: discretionary document and planning table for discretionarydocument. In Fig. 3.3 this is shown for task ’Report Result’ with the three discretionary documents’Guidelines’, ’Template’ and ’Former Reports’. Use of discretionary documents is equivalent to the useof discretionary tasks.

Figure 3.3: Sub-Process ’Check Application Details’ represented in enhanced CMMN

Reason for this enhancement again is making knowledge relevant in a business process explicitto better support the learner (increasing transparency and contextualize information provision). Fig-ure 3.3 depicts three tasks (according to CMMN represented by a rectangle shape with rounded cor-ners: ’Check tax information on customer’, ’Check customer’s domicile’ and ’Report results’. All taskshave entry criteria, depicted as diamonds, that determine at runtime if a task is to be executed ornot (entry criteria are shown as notes above the tasks). In addition Fig. 3.3 shows four discretionarytasks, depicted by a rectangle shape with dashed lines and rounded corners (’Check tax system’,’Ask tax officer’, ’Check directory information’ and ’Ask registration’). Discretionary tasks are tasksthat are available to user, to be applied in addition, to his/her discretion. The two object types, bywhich we enhanced CMMN, are depicted as black-and-white striped rectangle (to indicate availability


of discretionary documents) and rectangle with dashed lines and a document icon for representing thediscretionary documents.

Although not depicted in Fig. 3.3, KPIs can be defined for the sub-process and its tasks, too. Fig-ure 3.4 shows the business process ’Process Customer Application’ with its opened sub-process ’CheckApplication Details’.

Figure 3.4: Business Process ’Process Customer Application’ and opened Sub-Process ’CheckApplication Details’

(3) BMM

As shown in Fig. 3.2 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are defined for activities and for the processas a whole. KPIs are derived from business goals and success factors, represented in a motivationmodel. For the motivation model we build on the Business Motivation Model [31], in short BMM. Its coreconcepts are categorised into end, means, influencer, assessment and potential impact. Associationsto business process (business process model) and organisational unit (organisational model) are alsoindicated ([31], p.76). Since BMM is intended to determine strategic issues operational objects likeKPIs arent considered yet. Furthermore, up to now no graphical representation is available: the rela-tions as well as the graphical representation will be developed within Learn PAd. Particularly in PublicAdministrations BMM is rarely available. Since service delivery is determined by law explicit models arespared.

Figure 3.5 shows the BMM as defined by [31]. The recommended business vocabulary will be deter-mined in the Learn PAd ontology.


Figure 3.5: BMM Overview ([31], p. 12)

(4) Organisational Model

Most often organization models are represented in hierarchical charts. Also not explicitly mentioned insection 2 those charts are available in all Public Administrations and frequently presented to the publicon the web. Figure 3.6 depicts a simple example of an organisational model of the Public AdministrationA. Shown are two organisational units ’Citizen Center’ and ’Tax Office’. To provide the services of the’Citizen Center’ the role (R) ’City Center Officer’ is needed. In the example the role is as-signed totwo persons ’Charly Brown’ and ’Barnaby Dogs’. Persons may have additional roles, not related to anorganisational unit, like ’Business Expert’, ’Business Process Modeller’ and ’Business Novice’.

What is shown in Fig. 3.6 as notes related to the icons of users (information on job descriptions andlearner’s profile) will be replaced by specific object types of the Competency Model to be developed inLearn PAd (see the following section).

(5) Competency Model

In Public Administrations and enterprises alike, competencies are most often described within job de-scriptions but not defined in specific models. However, for modelling learning a competency model isnecessary. The Learn PAd Competency Model will be based on the framework the European Commit-tee for standardisation, CEN WS-LT LTSO (Learning Technology Standards Observatory)2 , driven by9 international institutions and organizations involved in the standardization of E-learning technologieswith about 200 experts.

The framework of competency data includes:

• Reusable (generic) definition of the competency2CEN WS-LT Learning Technology Standards Observatory. URL: http://www.cen-ltso.net/Main.aspx. Main contact: Uni-

versity of Vigo 36213 SPAIN.


Figure 3.6: Example of Organisational Model

• Context within which the competency is defined or that defines the competency

• Evidence of competency such as assessment results, time, date, method of evaluation

• Dimensions with regard to context (a person’s level of interest in a competency, the importanceor weight placed on a competency for a position) or evidence (proficiency level on one or morescales) ([8], p. 7).

Based on the above conceptual models CEN ([8], p. 7) identifies the main components of the com-petency problem space for which information models are important, namely:

• Competency definitionsthat should provide a standardised means for representing the key characteristics of educationaland work related competencies or goals

• Competency recordsthat hold context, evidence and dimension information with regard to an individual’s acquired anddesired competencies

• Job definitionsthat can be compiled by means of reuse of existing competency definitions.

As stated in the ISO/IEC TR 24763 technical report on information technology – learning, educa-tion and training ([20], p. vii), ”There are currently several existing and implemented models providingcompetency information related to learner knowledge, skills, capabilities, qualifications, performance,learning objectives, and other related objects.” ISO/IEC TR 24763 provides an information technologyfor learning, education and training (ITLET) Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) that comprises con-cepts (and their attributes), and relationships as depicted in Fig. 3.7. The Learn PAd competency model


and its relations to other models, e.g. the business process model or the organisation model will drawupon these definitions.

Figure 3.7: The ITLET Conceptual Reference Model for Competency Information and RelatedObjects ([20], p. 7)

(6) Document Model

Instead of using the BPMN 2.0 data object element for modeling information/documents used in aprocess, e.g. as input or output for an activity in Learn PAd we use a separate model, as explainedabove. This allows for defining a data object (and its meta data) once, and for adding more details, e.g.providing references to operative templates or guidelines. Figure 3.8 depicts an example of a documentmodel. The folder icon depicts a file or a document. Files and documents may be related and can bereferenced from other models as from a business process model.

In Sect. 3.1 we introduced knowledge, represented in several specific (meta) models, relevant forlearning. How this knowledge is used in learning, supported by the Learn PAd system is described inthe following section.

3.2. Input for learning

In Learn PAd we distinguish between three types of learning:

• individual learning off-line; the notion of this type of learning is of a ’try run’, e.g. a new employeemay learn how a process is executed in general

• navigating and exploring models and content, i.e. process and business logic

• performing a simulation


Figure 3.8: Document Model

• individual learning on-line; the notion of this type of learning is of learning by doing, e.g. acivil servant performs his/her daily work guided by the process model provided in the Learn PAdplatform (i.e. the Wiki)

• executing processes and retrieving process and business knowledge on run time

• commenting on the execution (on process and business logic)

• requesting changes (of process or business logic), e.g. correcting an error or improving s.th.


• performing changes, e.g. changing a document that is input for a task

• receiving recommendations from the Learn PAd system

• organisational learning; the notion of this type of learning is of benefiting from contribution ofothers

• sharing experiences with non-routine cases between individuals

• translating individual experiences into recommendations for model improvements (processand business models)

In the following input for learning of each type is described.

3.2.1. Input for individual learning

For individual learning - be it on-line or off-line - a learner’s profile is required. Figure 3.9 depicts thebusiness process for creating and updating a learner’s profile.

Figure 3.9: Business Process for Creating and Updating Learner’s Profile

A learner’s profile expresses competency data associated to a learner. The European Model forLearner Competencies ([8]) differs between required competencies (as defined for example in a jobdescription) and acquired competencies an individual gains through his/her participation in learning.Figure 3.10 gives an example of competency data accommodating elements and structures as definedby the European Committee For Standardization [8].

That is to say, that for each individual the required competencies, the actual level of competencyand the expected level of competency must be defined. We assume that in the context of Learn PAd,learning is always process related. Thus, in addition to a learner’s profile input for learning is also theprocesses, respectively the activities a learner is responsible for. This information can be derived fromthe organisational model, in which roles are assigned to the user (i.e. learner) and further the processesand activities a role is responsible for.


Figure 3.10: Learner’s Profile ([8], p. 19)

Individual learning off-line

Figure 3.11 depicts the general process of individual learning off-line, represented in BPMN. Sinceseveral types of simulation are possible, first activity after the learner starts the learning process is todetermine the desired simulation.

Figure 3.11: Process for Individual Learning Off-Line

After this, three activities are performed in parallel:


• Retrieve Process ModelWithin this activity all processes the learner is involved in are displayed; this is done - as explainedabove - based on the roles a user has. Since to each activity not only the role and its responsibilityis attached but also the kind of responsibility, e.g. responsible for execution, approving results,cooperation/ participation or information, according learning scenarios can be set up for simulation

• Retrieve Simulation DataAs information objects (e.g. an application form) are modeled in a separate document modelsimulation data can easily be linked.

• Retrieve Learner’s ProfileThe learner’s profile is retrieved to determine level of competency, learning goals etc. as detailedin the section above.

Next activity in the off-line learning process is to ’Set Up Simulation’. Within this activity the learnerselects the business process (or activity) in which he/she wants to improve his/her performance. Basedon the learner’s profile the actual and the required competencies determined. Based on the learner’scompetencies and responsibilities simulation data is selected. For example: if a novice has to check acustomer’s application for the first time, his/her responsibility is to approve the application and his/heracquired level of competency is low, simple application data will be selected for simulation. Whereas,if a learner has a higher level of acquired competency complex application data can be chosen. Forreporting the learning progress a performance record is created that is updated during the learningprocess until it ends.

Within the global sub-process ’Learning Assessment’ the learner’s performance is evaluated; inputis the learner’s profile and the performance record. Then an evaluation report is issued that builds thebasis for updating the learner’s profile as depicted in Fig. 3.12.

Evaluation of the learner’s performance is based on the process performance, i.e. is done based onthe KPIs defined for the process, respectively its activities.

For example:

• Is an activity performed within or below the given time?

• Is an ad hoc sub processes performed within or below the given time?

• Is the whole process performed within or below the given time?

Same evaluation can be done for other time related KPIs (e.g. waiting time, resting time), cost relatedKPIs (what employee at what costs executed the task) and must be done for quality related KPIs, e.g.customer satisfaction regarding his/her satisfaction with the application handling.

Figure 3.12: Global Sub-Process for Assessing Learning


Individual learning on-line

Figure 3.13 depicts the general process of individual learning on-line, represented in BPMN. Instead ofa simulation the real business process, respectively the activity a learner is responsible for, is started.Instead of simulation data real data is provided, e.g. data of a real customer application. The learner’sactions are monitored and reported in the performance record. During the execution learning is sup-ported, e.g. giving recommendations like:

• read guiding documents (e.g. guidelines for handling customer applications, legal regulations,cooperate governance guidelines or other cases)

• ask an expert (e.g. providing a list of colleagues that can be asked by phone, mail, etc.)

• selecting an activity (e.g. delegating the task to someone else).

Also in the on-line learning process learning is assessed (within the global sub-process ’LearningAssessment’) and an evaluation report is issued.

Again, evaluation of the learner’s performance is based on the process performance, i.e. is donebased on the KPIs defined for the process, respectively its activities.

Figure 3.13: Process for Individual Learning On-Line

Organisational Learning

Organisational learning is assumed if processes were improved (in order to gain monetary and non-monetary benefits). Input for organisational learning can be:

• collecting contributions (e.g. comments, actions etc.) to activities, analysing the contributions andtranslating individual experiences into recommendations for model improvements (process andbusiness models)

• direct improvements of business models made by the user while executing a task, e.g. informationobjects used in an activity can be changed (given the necessary authorisation)

• process instances that can be mined in order to create (semi-automatically) suggestions for im-provements


• shared experiences with non-routine cases between individuals may enable employees to performquicker.

In Sect. 3.2 we described the input for learning in Learn PAd. It was shown, that input for learningmainly comes from the business models, the process model, the document model, the organisationalmodel individualized based on a learner’s profile.


4 Analysis of Modeling Languages and Practices

4.1. Process Logic: Structured Process and Case Management

A business process can be defined as a set of related business activities that create outcome of valueto a customer. In many cases, this set of related business activities has a well-defined sequence, whichresults in clear primary (happy day) and alternative (rainy day) scenarios. Such processes are calledstructured processes. For specifying structured processes, Business Process Model and Notation [42]is widely used and considered to be a de facto standard. However, there are also a number of caseswhere the sequence of activities is not predefined and the performer decides based on the situation,his/her know-how, and existing guidance (policies and rules) when or whether a particular activity needsto be performed. Such processes are called ad hoc / unstructured processes. BPMN enables to definead hoc processes and its internal activities. BPMN does not provide means for modeling the flow of ac-tivities in unstructured processes, thus recently another modeling standard - Case Management Modeland Notation [34] has been proposed for that purpose. At the moment of writing this document, CMMNis a brand new modeling language, which is supported by only a few modeling environment and is notvery widely used. However, it is quickly gaining popularity and is likely to become a de facto standardfor modeling unstructured processes in the near future. In the following two sections, we will analyzepotential application of BPMN and CMMN for Learn PAd purposes (see simplified examples given inSect. 3), i.e. specifying Public Administration (PA) business processes, using this is specification as aknowledge asset and a learning instrument.

4.2. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN)

4.2.1. Overview

Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) is a standard modeling language maintained by ObjectManagement Management Group (OMG). The recent version of this standard is BPMN 2.0, which wasreleased in 2011 (BPMN 2.0 spec). BPMN is designed to enable a better collaboration of business andsoftware people. It provides a solid meta-model, which defines modeling constructs, their semanticsand data properties than can be used for developing executable process models. It also provides a richgraphical notation, which enables business people to design and analyze business processes using aflow chart type graphs. BPMN provides multiple diagrams, which are designed for use by the businessprocess modelers, see Fig. 4.1. Learn PAd aims to focus mostly on Process Diagrams that defineprivate processes used in Public Administration offices. However, since there are many cases wherespecific Public Administration processes span multiple participating organizations, Collaboration andChoreography Diagrams will also be considered for defining global collaborative processes.


Figure 4.1: Different types of diagrams provided by BPMN 2.0

BPMN provides businesses with the capability of understanding their internal business procedures ina graphical notation and enables communicating these procedures in a standard manner. BPMN fol-lows the tradition of flowcharting notations for readability and flexibility. In addition, the BPMN executionsemantics is fully formalized. This enables BPMN to combine readability, flexibility, and expandability.BPMN also provides business-to-business (B2B) process concepts, such as private, public and collab-orative processes and choreographies. Figures 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 provide illustrative examples ofprivate, public, collaborative and choreography views of the Public Administration process for grantingcitizenship, which was presented in the Sect. 2.

Figure 4.2: An example of a public process, which represents the interactions between a privatebusiness process and another process or participant. Only those activities that are used tocommunicate to the other participant(s), plus the order of these activities, are included in thepublic process. All other internal activities of the private business process are not shown in thepublic process view.


BPMN 2.0 also supports advanced modeling concepts, such as exception handling, transactions, andcompensation. Most of these advanced capabilities wont be used in Learn PAd, which focuses ona descriptive level of business process modeling oriented towards business people to enable a moreeffective communication and learning by a collaborative management of business process knowledge.

Figure 4.3: An example of a private process that is internal to a specific organization

Figure 4.4: An example of choreography, which defines the expected behavior as a procedu-ral contract between interacting participants. While a private process exists within a pool, achoreography exists between pools (or participants) and does not have a single control point.


Figure 4.5: An example of collaborative business process diagram, which represents multipleinteracting public processes that collaborate to achieve a specific goal

4.2.2. An Essential Subset of BPMN 2.0 for Modeling Public Administration Processes

BPMN 2.0 is a fairly rich and complex language, and it is unrealistic to expect that Public Administrationofficers or their customers will be able to learn and use the whole BPMN 2.0, which is defined in 538pages long specification document. A pareto rule suggests that 80% of process modeling problemscan be solved using 20% of BPMN capabilities. Thus for effective comprehension of business processmodels, it is necessary to define and adopt a small subset of essential BPMN 2.0 elements that enablespecifying Public Administration processes at a certain abstraction level. According to a famous quoteby Prof. George E. P. Box, all models are wrong, but some are useful. Learn PAd aims to describeprocesses at the abstraction level that is useful for learning purposes. Additional details about the pro-cess or its specific activity can be provided in textual descriptions that are contributed in a collaborativemanner over the time by the PA officers who are applying the process in practice.

BPMN 2.0 specification also recognizes the need for different levels of conformance for the modelingtools that claim to support BPMN 2.0. It defines Process Modeling Conformance and Process ExecutionConformance classes. In Learn PAd, the focus is on the Process Modeling Conformance level, whichhas the following 3 conformance subclasses defined:

– Descriptive, which is concerned with visible elements and attributes used in high-level modeling.It should be comfortable for business people and business analysts who have experience in usingflowcharting tools and techniques for visualizing and analyzing business processes;

– Analytic, which contains all of Descriptive and in total about half of the constructs in the full Pro-cess Modeling Conformance class. It is based on experience gathered in BPMN training andan analysis of user-patterns in the Department of Defense Architecture Framework and plannedstandardization for that framework. Both Descriptive and Analytic focus on visible elements and


a minimal subset of supporting attributes / elements that are stored in the model but typically arenot visible in diagrams;

– Common Executable, which focuses on what is needed for executable process models.

Learn PAd aims to focus on applying the modeling constructs that are included in the Analytic confor-mance level as defined by BPMN 2.0 specification. However, many Analytic conformance level elementsmight appear to be of little use in Learn PAd and some of Common Executable conformance level ele-ments might prove to be useful to specific Public Administration process models that are prepared forsimulating business processes for learning purposes.

While the official BPMN 2.0 conformance levels are oriented to modeling tool vendors, there are alsospecific practitioner initiatives in Public Administration domain, such as eCH [7] in Switzerland, whichpromotes a subset of BPMN for specifying eGovernment processes.

No Magic Europe (NME), one of Learn PAd partners, is active in training and consulting on adoptingBPMN 2.0 in various domains, including Public Administration (PA). NME recommends the followingessential subset of BPMN for modeling private business processes, see Fig. 4.6. This subset includesonly a few modeling constructs and is based on NME experience in training business people and PublicAdministration officers, one day is enough for learning the semantics of these BPMN elements andtheir notations as well as building initial skills for modeling business processes. The initial version of thesuggested subset of BPMN elements is presented in Fig. 4.6.

Figure 4.6: The essential subset of BPMN 2.0 elements for creating high-level private businessprocess models that are useful for communication, knowledge sharing, and learning purposes(based on practical consulting/training experience from NME)

The Table 4.1 provides brief descriptions of the essential elements of BPMN 2.0 recommended byNME plus several major concepts from global process modeling using collaborations and choreogra-phies, which might be needed in Learn PAd project. A more detailed explanation of BPMN elements,their notations, and semantics, is well explained and illustrated with examples in multiple books onBPMN [49, 14].

4.2.3. Best Practices in Modeling Business Processes

While the essential subset of BPMN 2.0 elements are relatively to comprehend and learn, it is muchmore difficult to gain effective modeling skills that are necessary to create good quality BPMN process


BPMN 2.0 Element DescriptionActivity A generic term for work that company performs in a process. An activity

can be atomic or non-atomic (compound).Task A generic term for work that company performs in a process. An activity

can be atomic or non-atomic (compound).Manual Task A task that is expected to be performed without the aid of any business

process execution engine or any application.User task A typical workflow Task where a human performer performs the Task with

the assistance of a software application and is scheduled through a tasklist manager of some sort.

Service Task A task that uses some sort of service, which could be a Web service oran automated application.

SubProcess A compound activity that is included within a process. It can be brokendown into a finer level of detail through a set of sub-activities.

Ad hoc SubProcess A process that contains a number of embedded inner activities and un-defined or incomplete sequence flows, which allows some flexibility inactivities ordering.

Call Activity A point in the process where a reusable global process or a global task isinvoked.

Looping Activity An activity that is repeated for a number of objects. It could be standard(single performer) or multiple instance (several performers).

Event Something that happens during the course of a process and affects theflow of the model. Events have a cause (trigger) or an impact (result).There are three types of Events, based on when they affect the flow: Start,Intermediate, and End. The most widely used event triggers are Messageand Timer.

Sequence Flow Relationship defining the sequential order in that activities will be per-formed in a business process.

Data Object Provide information about what activities require to be performed and/orwhat they produce.

Association Relationship that links activities and other BPMN elements with data ob-jects or text comments.

Gateway Relationship that links activities and other BPMN elements with data ob-jects or text comments.

Partecipant Represents a specific partner entity (e.g., a company) and/or a more gen-eral partner role (e.g., a buyer, seller, or manufacturer) that are involvedin a collaboration.

Pool Graphical representation of a participant in a CollaborationPerformer The resource that will perform or will be responsible for an Activity. The

performer can be specified in the form of a specific individual, a group, anorganization role or position, or an organization.

Lane A sub-partition within a process, sometimes within a pool. Lanes are usedto organize and categorize Activities.

Message The contents of a communication between two Participants.Message Flow Relationship indicating the flow of message between two participants that

are prepared to send and receive them.

Table 4.1: Essential elements of BPMN 2.0


models that are valuable for design, analysis, communication, and learning. It still takes a long journeyto increase the maturity of business process modeling practice. In practice, most business processdesigners and analysts do a lot of mistakes that make their BPMN models overly complex, difficult tounderstand and maintain. Therefore, it is important to understand the common mistakes in creatingBPMN process models, which we refer to as anti-patterns, and how to get rid of them by applyingbest practices. Darius Silingas et al. [48] provides valuable insights into refactoring BPMN modelsto increase their quality based on practical consulting experience in Public Administration, financial,telecommunication, software engineering and manufacturing domains. Learn PAd considers the qualityof BPMN models as a critical success factor for a collaborative learning based on business processmodels. Thus the ability to guide the modelers by automatically detecting anti-patterns and suggestinghow to fix them with the best practices is considered an important part of Learn PAd approach andplatform. We will discuss a few major business process quality concerns by reviewing anti-patterns andcorresponding best practices that will be considered in Learn PAd.

The first fundamental thing that needs to be reviewed is BPMN element names. It is quite typical thatmodelers use noun-based names for activities, while a common best practice is to form activity namesusing verb + noun format. Another common mistake is to name gateways with decision making workstatement (gateways do not perform work in BPMN!), while a common best practice is to keep gatewaysunnamed. In worst cases, modelers use different naming styles for BPMN elements of the same typein various diagrams. For an experienced business process modeler, solving naming conventions mayseem to be trivial. However, in practice we face inconsistent naming issues in almost every organizationthat adopts BPMN as a standard for specifying business processes. Thus for Public Administrationorganizations that are adopting BPMN as a standard, it is highly recommended to establish namingguidelines and perform regular review of BPMN models to ensure that these guidelines are followed.Learn PAd will attempt to provide generic guidelines for BPMN naming conventions and will explorepossibilities to automatically detect inconsistent naming cases. Figures 4.7 and 4.8 present an exampleof a business process diagram with inconsistent naming and a refactored version of this diagram, whichapplies consistent naming and uses BPMN elements properly.

Figure 4.7: An example of a business process diagram with inconsistent naming, which indi-cates misuse of BPMN 2.0 elements

The second anti-pattern is complex process diagrams. While BPMN supports modeling processesin multiple levels of detail, many practitioners are used to everything in one page style, which impairsoverview and makes it difficult to understand and analyze the process. Psychologists have determinedthat the best number of visual elements to focus on in one diagram is 7±2 [29]. In practice this rule is


Figure 4.8: An example of refactored business process diagram with a consistent naming andproper use of BPMN 2.0 elements

rarely followed - we have seen extreme cases of business process diagrams with up to 450 (!) tasks.Such large diagrams make it very difficult to analyze them and spot the issues the value of visualizationis lost. The key best practice, which enables getting rid of complex diagrams and keeping all theimportant information about business process, is using several layers of detail. In this way, a very large(and typically inconsistent!) business process diagram can be decomposed into a consistent processmodel structured in several levels of detail and multiple diagrams. For example, a business processwith three levels of detail following the rule of up to 10 activities in one level may maximum contain1000 tasks. Learn PAd will attempt to provide guidelines regarding appropriate complexity of businessprocess diagrams and automatically detect cases when these guidelines are not followed.

The third common anti-pattern is inappropriate choice of the abstraction level for the process model,which not only makes it complex but also shifts the focus of the process diagram to details that are eitherirrelevant from the perspective of the reader or is much better handled using different means. A classicexample is trying to model decision logic with gateways representing specific business rules, whichmakes a process model very fragile - the business rules typically change much faster that the processflow - and requires its frequent updates. Thus a recommended best practice is to separate processflow model from the rules and decision making model that could be handled using different languagessuch as Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules [36] and Decision Model and Notation[39]. Learn PAd will attempt to provide guidelines on choosing appropriate abstraction level whenmodeling business process in Public Administration domain and recommendations how to combineprocess model with rules, decisions, organization structure and other aspects that are important forlearning how to perform the business process in practice. Figures 4.10 and 4.11 provide example of aprocess diagram, which elaborates decision-making based on rule-based gateways and its refactoredversion where decision making is represented by a single business rules task


Figure 4.9: An example of decomposing a complex business process diagram into several levelsof detail

Figure 4.10: An example of process model anti-pattern, where explicit inclusion of businessrules make the business process model both complicated and fragile (typically business ruleschange more frequently than the process flow)


Figure 4.11: An appropriate business process model abstraction level, which gets rid of multiplegateways and represents only a task for making a decision

There will be additional anti-patterns and corresponding best practices that will be discovered andconsidered in Learn PAd project. The overall philosophy of Learn PAd is to provide guidelines on bestpractices for creating quality models and provided automate assessment of BPMN model quality, detectanti-patterns, and suggest refactoring leading towards process model quality improvements.

4.2.4. Extending BPMN and Integrating with Other Models and Resources

While BPMN is a great standard for modeling the flow of activities in a business process, it is a languagethat is limited to this aspect only, and it is not able to handle other aspects that are important whenperforming business processes in Public Administration domain.

However, the BPMN is an extendible language, which makes it possible to add custom properties toits elements such as logs of changes with provided reasoning, date of last audit, associate key per-formance indicators and the current performance values, distribution/sharing confidentiality level, etc.OMG recently standardized UML Profile for Business Process Modeling [40], which enables integratingBPMN models capturing process flows with UML models capturing data object properties and rela-tionships in UML-based modeling environments like MagicDraw. Additionally, the modeling tools canprovide custom ways to integrate BPMN models with models based on different meta-models such asUnified Modeling Language [32], Business Motivation Model [37], Semantics of Business Vocabularyand Business Rules [36], and Decision Model and Notation [38]. Learn PAd will attempt to identify themost typical cases how BPMN needs to extended to capture the information properties that are impor-tant for specifying PA business properties and learning how to perform the process in practice. It willalso explore custom ways to integrate business process models with information, rules, and motivationmodels to provide the complete context for performing business process (see the simplified examples inSect. 3). Since Learn PAd also envisions simulating business processes for learning purposes, this willalso require some integration of business process models with simulation configuration models such asBPSim [57].

4.3. Modelling Case-based Processes

Business processes in Public Administrations are typically well-structured. However, there are pro-cesses for which execution can vary depending on the specific situation and the skills of the worker.This is particularly true for processes which require human judgement.

• In the process of family reunion (Sect. 2.3.1), the opinions from police and prefecture may causeacceptance or rejection. The effort to form the opinion can vary depending on the experience


and skills of the person involved. Often the forming of an opinion requires intensive researchand investigation. There are several sources that can be accessed. Sometimes even a personalinspection might be necessary. On the other hand, such a deep investigation might sometimesnot be necessary if a similar case has occurred recently.

• In the process for granting citizenship (Sect. 2.3.2) several authorities have to give their opinionbased on which the Ministery of the Interior makes an decision. In particular the check of thepolice-headquarters if there is any impediment is dependent on the specific case, e.g.the historyof the applicant.

• The situation is similar for bouncer registration, where Police headquarters and several policedepartments such as Police anti-crime, General Investigation division and Special Operation givetheir opinions.

These examples show that the execution of processes might be determined by human judgment,the concrete situations, and external events. Because execution of case-based processes depends onhuman judgment, the knowledge of human worker is decisive. Therefore case-based processes are ofspecific relevance for learning.

Management of case-based processes is called Adaptive Case Management (ACM). In case man-agement, the flow of work cannot be expressed in detail by a diagramms like BPMN. This is why theObject Management Group (OMG) recently published CMMN, the Case Management Model and Nota-tion.

CMMN has not been used in Public Administration, because of its novelty. We nevertheless havea deeper look at CMMN, because this leads to concepts which are important to model case-basedprocesses.

CMMN has specific modeling elements which allow to model unstructured work. OMG decided tokeep CMMN and BPMN separate. Important difference between CMMN and BPMN is that CMMNsupports planning of tasks at run-time.

According to [34], a case has two distinct phases, the design-time phase and the run-time phase.The case model is created during the design-time phase. It includes tasks which are always part ofpre-defined segments in the case model. In addition to tasks there are Discretionary Tasks which areavailable to the case worker, to be applied in addition, to his/her discretion. The discretionary tasks arespecific for CMMN and not available in BPMN.

In the run-time phase, case workers execute the plan, particularly by performing tasks as planned.Case workers can decide at run-time to execute discretionary tasks. Figure 4.14 describes these con-cepts.

Figure 4.12: Design-time phase modeling and run-time phase planning [34]

A Case consists of a Case Plan Model, a Case File Model, and a set of case Roles. The completebehavior model of a Case is captured in a Case Plan Model. There are four types of Plan Items(Figure 4.13):


• tasks: units of work

• plan fragments / stages: container of Plan Items (somehow comparable to suprocesses)

• event listners: something that happens during the course of a case; correspond to catching eventsin BPMN

• milestones: achievable target, defined to enable evaluation of progress of the Case.

Figure 4.13: Plan Items in CMMN [34]

A task in CMMN is a unit of work as in BPMN. There are three types of tasks in CMMN:

• Human Tasks: performed by a case worker; can be

• Blocking: the task is waiting until the work associated with the task is completed

• Non-Blocking: the task is not waiting for the work to complete but completes immediatelyupon instantiation

• Process Tasks: can be used to call a Business Process

• Case Tasks: can be used to call another Case

Tasks are depicted by rectangle shape with rounded corners (cf. activities/tasks in BPMN). All kindsof tasks can be discretionary. A discretionary task is depicted with dashed lines.

Figure 4.14: Tasks in CMMN [34]

Figure 4.15 shows a Case Plan Model with all types of Plan Items. In addition to the Plan ItemsFig. 4.15 shows two kinds of elements: Sentries and Planning Tables. These two elements allow tomodel the control flow and planning of cases.

The diamonds which are placed on the border of Plan Items are called Sentries. Sentries define thecriteria according to which the Plan Items are enabled (or entered) and terminated (or exited). A Sentrywatches out for important situations to occur which influence the further proceedings of a Case.

A Sentry is a combination of an event and/or a condition. An On-Part specifies the event that servesas trigger. The If-Part specifies a condition, as expression that evaluates over the Case File. When theevent is received, the condition might be applied to evaluate whether the event has effect or not. If allOn-Parts of a Sentry have occurred, and its If-Part (if existent) evaluates to true, the Sentry is satisfied.A Sentry that is satisfied triggers the Plan Item that refers to it.

Planning tables are an equivalent to Sentries but for discretionary tasks. With planning tables it ispossible to make Discretionary Items dynamically applicable for planning. Applicability Rules are usedto specify, whether a Discretionary tasks is applicable (eligible, available) for planning. If the condition


Figure 4.15: Example of a Case Plan Model in CMMN [34]

of an Applicability Rule evaluates to true, then the TableItem is applicable for planning. During planningonly Discretionary Items, for which the Applicability Rule evaluates to true, must be shown to the CaseWorker

All information, or references to information, that is required as context for managing a Case, isdefined by a Case File. A Case File consists of Case File Items. A Case File Item is depicted by aDocument shape.

4.4. Modelling Business Logic

Many public processes are oriented to make decisions, typically for granting different permissions, li-censes and rights (for example building permission, business licenses, driving licenses, etc.). Theprocesses described in Sect. 2.1 are typical for these class of processes. They include decision aboutfamily reunion, granting citizienship or registraion of bouncer.

It is important to underline that the activities of Public Administrations are strictly guided by rules thatemphasize the recognition of the legality and regularity of the administrative work. A business processof a Public Administration must comply with all regulations governing the subject of the service. This isparticularly true for decisions. It has to be ensured that decision are made in line with the regulationsand that decision are consistent in order to avoid arbitrariness. In Public Administrations, however,explicit knowledge relevant for a specific task or decision is normally spread over many different kindsof documents, forms, or legislative texts.

Decision making is an important aspect for learning in order to make sure that all workers are awareof current decision rules and to allow for adaptation and improvement of decision making. This can beachieved by making the decision rules explicit and accessible to all relevant parties.

The Decision Model from von Halle and Goldberg [56] and the recently published Decision Model andNotation DMN [38] are rigorous and technology-independent models of business logic that are simpleto create, interpret, modify, and automate. They include important concepts that need to be taken intoaccount for learning of business logic in public processes.


4.4.1. The Decision Model and Notation (DMN)

The purpose of DMN is to provide the constructs that are needed to model decisions, so that organi-zational decision-making can be readily depicted in diagrams, accurately defined by business analysts,and (optionally) automated [38].

Figure 4.16 shows how a decision model can be related to a business process. In this figure thedecision logic is represented in DMN.

Figure 4.16: Aspects of process and decision modeling [38]

Figure 4.17 shows the DMN constructs. The Decision Requirements model represents decision,business knowledge models and knowledge sources.

The business knowledge can be represented as a decision table which is a formal representation ofdecision logic. Each row in the decision table corresponds to a single decision rule. The decision logiccan alternatively be represented in the script language FELL.

4.4.2. The Decision Model

The Decision Model was developed by Barbara von Halle and Larry Goldberg [56]. It is a template forperceiving, organizing, and managing the business logic behind a business decision. A Decision Model


Figure 4.17: Aspects of process and decision modeling [38]

has two different kinds of diagrams: The Decision Model Diagram and the Rule Family Table.The Decision Model Diagram represents the entire business decision by giving an overview of the

rule family tables and how they interact (Fig. 4.18).A Rule Family Table corresponds to a Decision Table. Each row of a Rule Family Table represents a

single rule (Figure 4.19).

4.5. Enterprise Architecture

Basically, there are two different notions of enterprise architecture. One perception is as a high level ab-straction (of reality) with the purpose of reducing complexity and increasing stakeholder’s understandingand communication (amongst others by [3, 5, 60]). According to [5] the most dominant problem, statedin scientific as well as in popular science on enterprise management, is complexity and how it can bemanaged. The other, more recent notion of enterprise architecture focuses on integration for exampleby [59, 18, 55].

The ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 standard provides a conceptual model of Architecture Description. The


Figure 4.18: Decision Model diagram [56]

Figure 4.19: Rule Family table in the context of a Decision Model diagram[56]


standard emphasizes that a system-of-interest (which could be an enterprise, a system of systems, aproduct line, a service, a subsystem, or software) has an architecture even if that architecture is notwritten down ([6]). Hence, work on enterprise architecture clearly distinguishes between enterprisearchitecture and enterprise architecture descriptions. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 standard provides a con-ceptual model of the terms and concepts belonging to Architecture Description, partially depicted inFig. 4.20.

Figure 4.20: Conceptual Model for EAD (excerpt from ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 provided by DSCI2012)

The various model types introduced in the previous sections can be considered as parts of an enter-prise architecture description. They do not exist for itself but are part of a whole. An enterprise archi-tecture provides the structure for classifying the model types and show their relations. Zachman [60]for example provides a matrix of perspectives and aspects (cf. Sect. 4.5.1) but gives no advice on howthe structure should be filled, i.e. how the enterprise architecture description should look alike. Hence,intersections of perspectives and aspects can be represented in models of various model types, like adata model or a process model. Those model types can in turn be represented in various languages. Asshown above OMG has developed various specialized modeling languages. Figure 6.1 gives an exam-ple of how Zachmanns Enterprise Architecture Framework could be implemented. In the center is theprocess model depicted, represented in an enhanced BPMN as described above). In the same row, leftand right to the process model, its context is shown: the document model and the organizational model.Looking at the other models depicted in the same column shows different representations of the sameprocess, starting from an overview in the most upper row down to implementation as web-services anduser-interface. What model types are needed is defined by the viewpoint that is taken. Viewpointsdefine abstractions on the set of models representing the enterprise architecture, each aimed at a par-ticular type of stakeholder and addressing a particular set of concerns [54]. One viewpoint in Learn PAdis the learner the sets of models addressing learning where introduced in Sect. 3.


Figure 4.21: Excerpt of an Enterprise Architecture based on Zachmanns EAF Matrix ([50])

Defining an enterprise architecture and creating an architecture description is not a trivial task.Hence, over time many frameworks were developed for help. According to the ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010standard An architecture framework establishes a common practice for creating, interpreting, analyzingand using architecture descriptions within a particular domain of application or stakeholder community([6]). A ”Framework is a logical structure for classifying and organizing complex information” ([12]).There is a huge variety of [12] and [26] points out, to date more than 50 frameworks are available. Inhis compendium he gives a detailed description of 34 EAF, based on clearly structured and well definedcriteria. For Learn PAd two frameworks are of particular interest:

– the Zachmann Framework, because it is according to [26] widespread with approximate marketshare amounts between 22% and 25% and builds the basis for many other frameworks and

– the Open Group Architecture Framework TOGAF (The Open Group, 2011) due to its strong federalroots.

4.5.1. Zachmann Framework

The framework has been developed by John A. Zachmann and described first in 1987. Today anextended version, co-authored with Johan F. Sowa, is available ([50]). Although all relevant informationis subscribable and freely available on Zachmanns web-site the most famous publication is the EAFmatrix as depicted in Fig. 4.22.


Figure 4.22: Zachmann’s EAF Matrix

The framework provides different views and representations of an enterprise and a classificationscheme for organising the several aspects and perspectives of the enterprise. As shown in Fig. 4.22these views are arranged into a two dimensional matrix. Rows depict different perspectives of the rolea stakeholder may take (named planner, owner, designer, builder and subcontractor), and columns rep-resent the various aspects that should be considered. They are different abstractions from or differentways to describe the real world ([50]). The aspects (columns) are named based on the fundamentalsof communication. The interrogatives What (data), How (function), When (time), Who (people), Where(network), and Why (motivation) build the basis for the concise description of complex ideas ([60]).

Intersections of perspectives and aspects can be represented in models of various model types, likea data model or a process model. Those model types can in turn be represented in various languages.A process for example can be modeled in the BPMN (OMG, 2011) or with a mark-up language for EventDriven Process Chains ([28]).

4.5.2. TOGAF

TOGAF was first published in 1995, based on the US Department of Defense Technical ArchitectureFramework for Information Management (TAFIM). From this foundation, The Open Group ArchitectureForum has developed successive versions of TOGAF; the latest is V 9.1 (The Open Group, 2011).TOGAF is widespread in Public Administrations ([25]). In Switzerland for example TOGAF is bindingstandard for the definition of the target architecture that builds the basis for the development of informa-tion infrastructure of Public Administrations ([19]).

The current version of TOGAF consists of the following main components:


– An Architecture Capability Framework addressing the organisation, processes, skills, roles andresponsibilities. .

– The Architecture Development Method (ADM). This part is the core of TOGAF; it gives a step-by-step approach for developing an enterprise architecture. ADM consists of eight phases. Inphase A, the objectives and responsible persons are identified. In phases B to D, the desiredstate of the business-, information systems- and technology- architecture are specified. PhaseE describes needed transformations to achieve a desired state. Phase E develops the detailedimplementation and migration plan which is monitored in phase G. Finally a change managementprocess in phase H collects requirements and ascendancies serving as foundation for the nextcycle ([53]).

Figure 4.23: TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM) ([53]).

– The Architecture Content Framework considers an overall enterprise architecture composed offour interrelated architectures: Business Architecture, Data Architecture, Application Architectureand Technology (IT) Architecture. The individual architectures are described in detail and relationsamong them are defined.

– The Enterprise Continuum and Tools is a model for structuring a virtual repository and comprisesof various reference models to show the development from a foundational to an enterprise specificarchitecture.

The TOGAF framework can be combined with ArchiMate modeling language, both standards providesby the OMG. According to ([13]) ArchiMate is fully complementary to the content as specified in theTOGAF standard. The ArchiMate standard can be used to describe all aspects of the EA in a coherentway, while tailoring the content for a specific audience.


Figure 4.24: The TOGAF framework and the ArchiMate modeling language ([13])

4.5.3. ArchiMate

ArchiMate as a standard modelling language for describing enterprise architecture and is comple-mented by some considerations regarding language extension mechanisms, analysis, and method-ological support ([53]). Since 2008 ArchiMate has served as an open standard by the Open Groupand in 2009 ArchiMate (1.0) became a technical standard ([53]). In 2012 ArchiMate 2.0 ([54]) anupwards-compatible evolution from ArchiMate 1.0 was published, which added new features and inte-grated usage feedback.

The ArchiMate language aims to support enterprise architects in describing, analyzing and visualizingthe relationships among business domains in an unambiguous way. It is thought of as complementary toTOGAF in the way that the structure of the ArchiMate language neatly corresponds with the three mainarchitectures as addressed in the TOGAF ADM, namely Business Architecture, Information SystemsArchitecture and Technology Architecture (cf. Figure 4.24). ArchiMate provides a graphical representa-tion of its language elements based on UML class diagram but customized and limited to a small set ofmodelling constructs in the interest of simplicity of learning and use. That notation is widely acceptedand thus supported by several tools, amongst others by the Enterprise Architect 1 and Agilian 2.

Figure 4.25: ArchiMate Structure

Figure 4.25 depicts the general structure of ArchiMate represented in a cube. ArchiMate consist ofthree aspects (passive, behaviour, active). 3 and three perspectives (business, application and technol-ogy, called layers); in addition two views (external and internal) are considered ([54]) Starting from fivecore concepts for each aspect on a not explicitly specified Top Layer, concepts on each lower layer arespecialized together with their relations. Like the concepts, relations are kept generic: composition, ag-gregation, association, and specialization (taken from UML 2.0) plus access, assignment, composition,flow, triggering and used by ([54]).

1Enterprise Architecture is UML team-based modeling environment with visual tools for business modeling, systems engi-neering and enterprise architecture. URL: http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/

2Agilian is a modeling environment supporting business process modeling, enterprise architecture and software develop-ment. URL: http://www.visual-paradigm.com

3These three aspects active structure, behavior, and passive structure have been inspired by natural language, where a


Since the ArchiMate core language contains only the basic concepts and relationships that serve gen-eral enterprise architecture modelling purposes, the language is designed to allow for extensions andspecialisations ([54]). The possibility of extending and refining ArchiMate is particularly important be-cause of the heterogeneity of models present in an enterprise, with varying degrees of maturity and thedifficulty to determine their interrelations and the need to do so ([24]). Based on ArchiMate is the Enter-prise Ontology ArchiMEO ([17]). With their approach Hinkelmann et al. aim to close the research gapbetween Enterprise Architecture Description and Enterprise Ontologies by modelling ArchiMate as anontology in a formal representation language (RDF(S) / OWL) and providing necessary enhancements(and adaptions) for its use on operational level. Learn PAd will draw upon these results. Figure 4.26depicts the extended conceptual model ArchiMEO based on the ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010. [51] describe thetop down approach for determine enterprise architecture in Public Administrations (PA). Main focus is onspecifying processes (the HOW aspect of the Zachmann framework) suggesting decomposing the ser-vices, PAs are obliged to provide, into business processes. Since PAs services are determined by lawthe suggested approach is well feasible. The Swiss association, defining standards for e-Governmentin Switzerland shares this notion in their standard for describing and documenting tasks, services, pro-cesses, and access structures of the Public Administration in Switzerland as depicted in Fig. 4.27,drawing upon the work of [58].

The goal of Enterprise Architecture (description) is to provide a holistic view on enterprise knowl-edge on different aspects supporting different views of the various stakeholders. According to [51, 1]Enterprise Architecture is generally defined as the set of descriptive representations (i.e. models) thatare relevant for describing an Enterprise such that it can be produced to managements requirements(quality) and maintained over the period of its useful life (change). Hence, a requirement is to representthe models in human adequate way, e.g. by graphical representation but at the same time having a

sentence has a subject (active structure), a verb (behavior), and an object (passive structure). ([52])

Figure 4.26: Extended Conceptual Model ArchiMEO (based on ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 provided byDSCI 2012)


Figure 4.27: Basic Terms and Relations of Swiss e-Government Architecture (based on [9])

representation that is machine processable ([18] et al.). Both requirements will be addressed in LearnPAd.



5 Discussion

In this section, we summarize the results obtained by analyzing a) three business processes in thedomain of the Italian Public Administration; and b) a number of relevant modeling notations. In particular,we started with an in-depth analysis of the three business process models described in Sect. 2.3, i.e.,the family reunion, the grant citizenship, and finally the bouncer registration. Such an investigationhas been of paramount relevance since permitted the identification of a number of concepts which arerecurrent in the specification of such kind of processes and have therefore been collected togetherto form an initial formulation of a catalog. The considered concepts are typically used for describingorganizational behavior. In order to support in an integrated manner the modelling of those activities inthe business process that are associated with the creation and application of knowledge, we proceededthen by analyzing in Sect. 3 a number of relevant notations, i.e.,

• the Business Motivation Model (BMM),

• the Organization Model (OM),

• the Competency Model (CM), and

• the Document Model (DM).

These models complement the description of the organizational behavior given by the business pro-cess models. In addition, cross-linking correspondences between modeling concepts are provided withconsequent overall consistency constraints. Moreover, since this kind of processes typically presentknowledge intensive (sub-)processes, the Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN) has beenconsidered as well. The most important concepts identified in these models have been again identified,described, and in turn added to the previously collected concepts.

An important stage of the analysis consisted in discussing how business processes are typicallyused in the Public Administration in Sect. 2. To this end, the BPMN modeling language has beentaken into account. BPMN is a broad notation defined to provide a process modelling notation thatcould be easily understood by all business stakeholders. However, when using this notation within thePublic Administration, some limitations may occur as discussed in Sect. 4.2.2. In addition, the typicalanti-patterns and best practices in modeling business processes have been also considered. This lastpart of the analysis somehow complemented and refined the work done in Sect. 2.3 on the consideredprocesses.

While identifying the concepts we also characterized them by means of high-level concerns in orderto cluster concepts devoted to homogenous purposes. For instance, decision task is a concept whichtypically occurs in knowledge-related management, therefore we assigned it to the knowledge concern;in certain cases a concept might belong to more than one concern, as decision logic which is in both theknowledge and learning concern. Belonging to multiple concerns is nothing else that a correspondencebetween the same concept across several aspects or viewpoints. The concerns which have been takeninto consideration are described as follows

business motivation any aspect related to the qualitative or quantitative description ofwhat has to be achieved and how the achievements can be measured to assess theperformance.


case anything permitting the description of discretionary information and the enactment ofdiscretionary activities including conditions denoting their admissibility and wellformed-ness.

information anything denoting documents and data or reference to them consumed or pro-duced during the enactment of a process activity.

knowledge this concern is fundamentally related to most of the aspects of Learn PAd whichconsiders learning and working strongly intertwined (“learning while doing“) due to thebeneficial impact of the organizational learning over the organizational behavior. Thiscan happen in several way, but basically the knowledge acquired while doing can thenbe used for training civil servant before serving real requests.

learning any aspects which enables and facilitates the learning process in Public Adminis-trations, engaging workers in a holistic learning, collaborative and assessment experi-ence.

organization anything related to knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected by business ac-tors in order to achieve a business goal.

process anything related to the description of structured or unstructured collection of re-lated activities or tasks that are carried out to accomplish the intended objectives of anorganization; the concepts proper to this concern are related at different extent to thedescription of the activities necessary to the description of such procedure.

Such concerns are partly related to requirement dimensions given in the Learn PAd D1.1 deliverable,where similar viewpoints are given. However, the scope of such dimensions is somewhat different asthe various aspects are given with an orthogonal perspective by considering the learning, technical,and meta-modeling platforms.

Finally, we are able to formulate the complete catalog of concepts, with their description, and as-sociated concerns. Interestingly, a number of concepts seem to be peculiar to specific concerns, butothers seem to be more ubiquitous or with a broader scope, which suggests that while certain con-cepts can be instantiated in different concerns (e.g., tasks in case and process), others represents thetrait-d’union between different notations (e.g., roles in process and organization), which consequentlyrequires the formulation of constraints or well-formedness rules when they will be formalized in somemodeling notations, like a meta-model.

The complete catalog is given in a tabular form in alphabetical order to ease its consultation andcomprehension as follows

Concept Description Concerns(Business) Actor A business actor is defined as an organizational en-

tity that is capable of performing behavior. A businessactor may be assigned to one or more business roles(source: Open Group, 2012, p. 15); A business actorcan be a legal entity, an organization unit or a person

process,organization

(Enterprise) ArchitectureDescription

Architecture Description is an artifact that expressesan Architecture. Architects and other system stake-holders use Architecture Descriptions to understand,analyze and compare Architectures, and often asblueprints for planning and construction (source:DSCI, 2012)

organization,process,case


(LET) Institution Any institution delivering learning, education or training(LET) services, whether they be formal or non-formal(source: ISO/IEC, 2011, p. 3); in Learn PAd Institutionis considered any Legal Entity or Organization Unit thatit is of importance of any kind for learning. For exam-ple: the Organisation Unit that is Process Owner.

organization,learning

Activity A generic term for work that company performs ina process. An activity can be atomic or non-atomic(compound).

process,case

Ad hoc SubProcess A process that contains a number of embedded inneractivities and undefined or incomplete sequence flows,which allows some flexibility in activities ordering.

process,case

Applicability Rules Applicability Rules are used to specify, whether aDiscretionary tasks is applicable. Only DiscretionaryItems, for which the Applicability Rule evaluates totrue, must be shown to the Case Worker. They arepart of CMMN. But independent of the modeling lan-guage, the rules are relevant because they guide thehuman worker and avoid the application of irrelevanttasks.

case,process

Aspect The aspects (columns in the Zachmann framework)are named based on the fundamentals of communi-cation. The interrogatives What (data), How (func-tion), When (time), Who (people), Where (network),and Why (motivation) build the basis for the concisedescription of complex ideas (source: Zachman, 2008)

organization

Assessment Assessment expresses a logical connection (i.e., facttype) between Influencers and the Ends and/ or Meansof the business plans. In this way, an Assessment in-dicates which Influencers are relevant to which Endsand/or Means (source: Open Group, 2012, p. 46)

businessmotivation,learning

Assessment Process Assessment Process describes how the assessmentof learning is done, e.g. by simulation, tests, processperformance (source: ISO/IEC, 2011)

learning

Association Relationship that links activities and other BPMN ele-ments with data objects or text comments.

process

Business Logic Knowledge used in processes for executing tasks.Learning business knowledge mainly increases the ef-fectivity of business processes by improving the resultsof a process.

knowledge

Business Policies In general, Business Policies exist to govern; that is,control, guide, and shape the Strategies and Tactics.They define what can be done and what must not bedone, and may indicate how, or set limits on how, itshould be done (source: Open Group, 2012, p. 13)

organization,businessmotivation

Business Process A set of related business activities that produce out-come of value to a customer

process,case


Business Rules Business Rules provide the leverage needed for build-ing effective, adaptable business solutions and sys-tems (source: Open Group, 2012, p. 9). BusinessRules are derived from Business Policies

businessmotivation,process,case

Choreography A definition of the expected behavior, basically aprocedural contract, between interacting participants.While a normal private process exists within a pool,a choreography exists between pools (or participants)and does not have a single controlling body.

process

Collaborative BusinessProcess

Represents multiple interacting public processes thatcollaborate to achieve a specific goal.

process,case

Competency A statement that describes the required knowledge,skills, and behaviors of a person to successfully per-form a task. An observable or measurable ability ofan actor to perform a necessary action(s) in a givencontext(s) to achieve a specific outcome(s) (source:ISO/IEC, 2011, p. 3)

organization,learning

Course of Action A Course of Action defines what has to be done, nothow well it has to be done. Measures of performanceare defined in Objectives that are supported by theCourses of Action (source: OMG, 2010, p. 13)

businessmotivation

Criteria and method To describe how Competencies are evaluated as wellas how Competencies are acquired the concepts Eval-uation, Assessment Process and Criteria and methodare used (source: ISO/IEC, 2011, p. 37)

learning

Data Object Provide information about what activities require to beperformed and/or what they produce.

process

Decision The execution of processes might be determined byhuman judgment, concrete situations, and externalevents.

process,case,learning

Decision Logic A special kind of Business Logic consisting of rules formaking decisions. Management, adaptation and reuseof decision rules are important for learning knowledgeof processes

knowledge,learning

Decision Table A representation of Decision Logic. In the DecisionModel the Decision Table are calles Rule Family Table.

knowledge

Decision Task A decision task is a knowledge-intensive task in whichsome decision is made. Decision tasks are based ondecision logic.

knowledge

Directives Directives keep the enterprise on course and movingtoward its Desired Results. Because of their integralrole in guiding Courses of Action, Directives are in-cluded in the set of Means concepts (source: OpenGroup, 2012, p. 9)

process,businessmotivation

Discretionary Document Discretionary Documents are available to the caseworker; they can be accessed his/her discretion. Dis-cretionary documents are not part of CMMN, but theywere identified during this analysis.

case,process,learning


Discretionary Task Discretionary Tasks are available to the case worker;they can be applied to his/her discretion. The namecomes from CMMN. In Public Administration they typ-ically occur in decision processes. The execution ofthese tasks depends on human judgment. Thereforethey are relevant for learning.

case,process

End Ends are about what an enterprise wants to be. In theBusiness Motivation Model, Ends are categorized asVision and Desired Results, and Desired Results asGoals and Objectives (source: OMG, 2010, p. 12)

businessmotivation

Enterprise Architecture Enterprise architecture (EA) is a discipline for proac-tively and holistically leading enterprise responsesto disruptive forces by identifying and analyzing theexecution of change toward desired business vi-sion and outcomes (source: http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/enterprise-architecture-ea/)


Enterprise ArchitectureDescription Language

Enterprise Architecture Description Language is thelanguage in which an Enterprise Architecture is de-scribed

organization

Enterprise ArchitectureFramework

An architecture framework establishes a commonpractice for creating, interpreting, analyzing and usingarchitecture descriptions within a particular domain ofapplication or stakeholder community (source: DSCI,2012).

organization

Enterprise Ontology A formal representation of an Enterprise ArchitectureDescription that is machine executable and also cog-nitively adequate for humans

organization

Environment Environment determines location, duration, date andtime, equipment etc. shapes of a (learning) action(source: ISO/IEC, 2011)

organization

Event Something that happens during the course of a pro-cess and affects the flow of the model. Events have acause (trigger) or an impact (result). There are threetypes of Events, based on when they affect the flow:Start, Intermediate, and End. The most widely usedevent triggers are Message and Timer.

process

Gateway Controls the divergence and convergence of sequenceflows in a process. It will determine branching, forking,merging, and joining of paths. Internal markers willindicate the type of behavior control.

process

Goal A Goal tends to be longer term, and defined qualita-tively rather than quantitatively. It should be narrow -focused enough that Objectives can be defined for it(source: OMG, 2010, p. 12)

businessmotivation


Individual off-line Learning the notion of this type of learning is of a ’try run’, e.g. anew employee may learn how a process is executed ingeneral navigating and exploring models and content,i.e. process and business logic performing a simula-tion of a business process

learning

Individual on-line Learning ”the notion of this type of learning is of learning by do-ing, e.g. a civil servant performs her daily work guidedby the process model provided in the Learn PAd plat-form (i.e. the wiki)”

learning

Influencer Influencer (external and internal) affects the organiza-tion’s ability to employ its Means or achieve its Ends(source: Open Group, 2012, p. 46)

businessmotivation

Input (document & data) It is possible to reference documents or data from adocument or data model, which are used as input forthe realization of a process activity

process,learning,information

Knowledge object knowledge objects represent the explicit knowledge ei-ther required in a specific business process or describ-ing it for further reference. Knowledge objects facilitateand leverage knowledge creation and sharing activitiesby providing humans with the information they need.They facilitate the knowledge transfer from person toperson or from information to person and are used tosearch, organize and disseminate knowledge content.Knowledge objects serve as input for tasks and KMtasks in the business process model and they are pro-duced as output of KM tasks. They enable the cogni-tive interoperability between the organizational behav-ior and the organizational learning (cfr. Fig. 2.1).

knowledge

Knowledge source In Public Administrations, explicit knowledge relevantfor a specific task or decision is normally spread overmany different kinds of documents, forms, or legisla-tive texts. Knowledge sources can also be people withspecific expertise, skills or experiences.

knowledge

Lane A sub-partition within a process, sometimes within apool. Lanes are used to organize and categorize Ac-tivities.

process

Learner’s Profile A learners profile expresses competency data associ-ated to a learner (source: European Committee ForStandardization 2005)

learning,organization

Means Means are about what an enterprise has decided to doin order to become what it wants to be (source: OMG,2010, p. 13)

businessmotivation

Message The contents of a communication between two Partic-ipants.

process,information

Message Flow Relationship indicating the flow of message betweentwo participants that are prepared to send and receivethem.

process,information


Objective An Objective is a step along the way towards a Goal.It must have an end date, and criteria to determinewhether it has been reached or not. Objectives pro-vide the basis for measuring whether progress is beingmade towards Goals.

businessmotivation,process,learning

Organization Unit Although BMM does not elaborate organizationalstructures (it is outside the scope of the model) theirimportance is recognized. Organization Unit is a sub-concept of Business Actor.


Organizational Learning ”the notion of this type of learning is of benefitingfrom contribution of others like sharing experienceswith non-routine cases between individuals or trans-lating individual experiences into recommendations formodel improvements (process and business models)”

learning,organization,businessmotivation

Outcome Outcome is the observable and measurable resultof (learning) actions; the Outcome concept could bedivided into sub-concepts like Knowledge Acquired,Skills Obtained, and Attitude about the use of thoseskills (source: ISO/IEC, 2011, p. 8)

learning

Output (document & data) It is possible to reference documents or data from adocument or data model, which are used as output forthe realization of a process activity

process,learning,information

Participant Represents a specific partner entity (e.g., a company)and/or a more general partner role (e.g., a buyer,seller, or manufacturer) that are involved in a collab-oration.

process,organization,case

Performance Indicator (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a quantitative orqualitative measurement, or any other criterion, bywhich the performance, efficiency, achievement, etc ofa person or organization can be assessed, often bycomparison with an agreed standard or target. A per-formance indicator is related to criteria determining ob-jectives.

process,learning

Performer The resource that will perform or will be responsible foran Activity. The performer can be specified in the formof a specific individual, a group, an organization role orposition, or an organization.


Person Person describes real employee-users of the tool. Ifthe business process model is enacted, persons areplaying the roles that have been modelled. Person is asub-concept of Business Actor.

organization,learning,process,case

Perspective A role, i.e. a stakeholder (named planner, owner, de-signer, builder and subcontractor) may take on differ-ent perspective (rows in the Zachmann Framework) onan Enterprise Architecture

organization

Pool Graphical representation of a participant in a Collabo-ration.

process


Private Business Process A business process that is internal to a specific organi-zation. Synonyms: workflow, orchestration of services.

process,case

Process Logic Knowledge about a process, in particular the processflow and the resources assigned to a process. Learn-ing of process logic typically increases the efficiency ofa process.

process,knowledge

Public Business Process Represents the interactions between a private busi-ness process and another process or participant. Onlythose activities that are used to communicate to theother participant(s), plus the order of these activities,are included in the public process. All other internal ac-tivities of the private business process are not shownin the public process view.

process,case

Role tasks and KM tasks are assigned to roles during themodelling of the business process. They describetheentity that is responsible for the realisation of the task.There are different responsibilities, e.g. responsible forexecution, accountable for profing results, collabora-tion etc.


Sentry Sentries are the counterpart of gateways in CMMN.They define the criteria according to which the PlanItems are enabled and terminated. A Sentry is a com-bination of an event and/or a condition. An On-Partspecifies the event that serves as trigger. The If-Partspecifies a condition. Sentries are used in CMMN in-stead of gateways. Learning rules of Sentries allowsto improve the execution of cases.

case

Sequence Flow Relationship defining the sequential order in that activ-ities will be performed in a business process.

process

SubProcess A compound activity that is included within a process.It can be broken down into a finer level of detail througha set of sub-activities.

process,case

Task An atomic activity within a process flow. A task is usedwhen the work in the process cannot be broken downto a finer level of detail. Generally, an end-user and/orapplications are used to perform the task when it isexecuted.

process,case

View A view is defined as a part of an architecture descrip-tion that addresses a set of related concerns and isaddressed to a set of stakeholders. A view is specifiedby means of a viewpoint, which prescribes the con-cepts, models, analysis techniques, and visualizationsthat are provided by the view. Simply put, a view iswhat you see and a viewpoint is where you are lookingfrom (source: The Open Group 2012, p. 74)

organization


Viewpoint Viewpoints are a means to focus on particular aspectsof the architecture. These aspects are determined bythe concerns of a stakeholder with whom communica-tion takes place (source: The Open Group 2012, p.74)

organization

Vision In the Business Motivation Model, Ends are catego-rized as Vision and Desired Results, and Desired Re-sults as Goals and Objectives (source: Open Group,2012, p. 12)

businessmotivation

Table 5.1: Identified modeling constructs



6 Conclusions

In this document, we presented first results of WP3 related to the analysis of the domain of businessprocesses in the Public Administration in order to identify the objects and relationships that are neededto be modeled for the related knowledge and learning management. In Sect. 2, we introduced threeprocesses in the Public Administration from which we gained insight into the domain. The outcomefrom this domain analysis has been twofold:

a) we identified elements and artifacts that are to be represented (cf. Table 5.1 in Sect. 5) and

b) we showed the complexity of PA processes and experienced the limitation of existing models torepresent such complexity, that is: representing process and business logic in tables, UML flow-chart diagrams and BPMN 2.0 models.

In Sect. 3 we drew upon these findings and analysed the knowledge needed to perform businessprocesses and hence, learning in PAs on a general basis. We used a consistent but simplified ex-ample to identify the process related meta models, like Case Management Model, Business MotivationModel, Organization Model and Document Model and focussed if ever possible on existing standards(e.g. provided by OMG or ISO). Since in Learn PAd learning is always considered in the context ofimproving business (process) results we also showed how the process related models are intertwinedwith learning, respectively provide input for learning.

In Sect. 4 we analysed several modelling languages and practices. We broadened the view onbusiness process modelling having a look on Enterprise Architecture. As depicted in Fig. 4.21 anEnterprise Architecture provides a logical setting for classifying and organizing the various models thatwill be used in Learn PAd.

We briefly introduced two frameworks supporting the creation of Enterprise Architecture descriptions:Zachmann and TOGAF. The first because of its widespread use the second because of its strongfederal roots. We also checked on ArchiMATE, a standard modelling language for describing enterprisearchitecture and gave an outlook on the possibility of an ontological representation of an EA, drawingupon the enterprise ontology ArchiMEO. In the second part of Sect. 4, we elaborated on the mainmeta-models for process modelling: BPMN 2.0 and CMMN. Finally, in Sect. 5 we discussed concernswe identified and those concepts, expressing these concerns. We will elaborate on this in our furtherwork.

Among the main outcomes from Task 3.1 of WP3, a catalogue of categorized concepts used by PublicAdministrations to manage both the business and associated learning processes has been derived.The catalogue is presented according to different dimensions, called concerns. This permitted a cleardistinction among the modeling conceptual entities according to the different stakeholders’ perspectives.In addition, it has been possible to clarify the correspondences among the different concerns due toconcepts belonging to more than one view.

Such a result will be used in the forthcoming activities to develop a collection of EMF/Ecore1 meta-models that will provide the possibility to express the previously identified elements. The developmentprocess of such meta-models will be iterative and will comprise modeling activities needed to assessthe expressiveness of the developed meta-models. In addition, unforeseen requirements will be also

1http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/


identified in order to augment and refine the modeling notation to better accommodate and supportlearning-related aspects.


Bibliography

[1] J. Bezivin and O. Gerbe. Towards a Precise Definition of the OMG/MDA Framework. In AutomatedSoftware Engineering (ASE 2001), pages 273–282, Los Alamitos CA, 2001. IEEE Computer Soci-ety.

[2] Jean Bezivin. On the unification power of models. Software & Systems Modeling, 4(2):171–188,2005.

[3] David Chen, Guy Doumeingts, and Francois Vernadat. Architectures for enterprise integration andinteroperability : Past , present and future. Computers in Industry, 59:647–659, 2008.

[4] European Commission. European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Towards Interoperability forEuropean Public Services, 2011.

[5] Jan L. G. Dietz and Jan A. P. Hoogervorst. Enterprise ontology in enterprise engineering. In SAC’08 Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing, 2008.

[6] DSCI. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 Website, 2012.

[7] eCH. Geschftsprozesse grafisch darstellen (BPMN). Technical report, eCH E-Government Stan-dards, 2011.

[8] European Committee For Standardization. A European Model for Learner Competencies. 2005.

[9] Fachgruppe Geschaftsprozesse. eCH-0138 Rahmenkonzept zur Beschreibung und Dokumenta-tion von Aufgaben, Leistungen , Prozessen und Zugangsstrukturen der offentlichen Verwaltungder Schweiz, 2012.

[10] Damiano Falcioni. Modeling and Verification of Business Processes for the Public Administration.PhD thesis, School of Science and Technology, Universita degli Studi di Camerino.

[11] Damiano Falcioni, Andrea Polini, Alberto Polzonetti, and Barbara Re. Improving PA BusinessProcesses through Modeling, Analysis, and Reengineering. In Electronic Government, pages 78–89. Springer, 2012.

[12] FEAF. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, 1999.

[13] Henry Franken, Sven van Dijk, and Bas van Gils. Three Best Practices for Success-ful Implementation of Enterprise Architecture Using the TOGAF Framework and theArchiMate Modeling Language, 2013. http://blog.opengroup.org/2013/02/08/three-best-practices-for-successful-implementation-of-enterprise-\architecture-using-the-togaf-framework-and-the-archimate-modeling-language/,retrieved 9.7.2014.

[14] Jakob Freund and Bernd Rucker. Real-Life BPMN: Using BPMN 2.0 to Analyze, Improve, andAutomate Processes in Your Company. Createspace Independent, 2012.


http://blog.opengroup.org/2013/02/08/three-best-practices-for-successful-implementation-of-enterprise-\architecture-using-the-togaf-framework-and-the-archimate-modeling-language/



[15] P. Heisig. Process modelling for knowledge management. In 12th International Conference onKnowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, 2000. Juan-les-Pins, French Riviera.

[16] D. Hernandez-Leo, J.I. Asensio-Perez, Y. Dimitriadis, M.L. Bote-lorenzo, I.M. Jorrın-Abellan, andE.D. Villasclaras-Fernandez. Reusing IMS-LD Formalized Best Practices in Collaborative LearningStructuring. Advanced Technology for Learning, 2(3):223–232, 2005.

[17] Knut Hinkelmann, Andreas Martin, Simon Nikles, and Barbara Thonssen. ArchiMEO: Represent-ing and Enhancing ArchiMate in RDFS 3.0. Submitted to Enterprise Modelling and InformationSystems Architecture, 2013.

[18] Knut Hinkelmann, Emanuela Merelli, and Barbara Thonssen. The Role of Content and Context inEnterprise Repositories. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Advanced Enter-prise Architecture and Repositories - AER 2010, 2010.

[19] Informatikstrategieorgan Bund ISB. Leitfaden E-Government, 2009.

[20] ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC TR 24763 Information technology Learning, education and training ConceptualReference Model forCompetency Information and Related Objects. Technical report, ISO/IEC,2011.

[21] Jan Johanson and Jan-Erik Vahlne. The internationalization process of the firm - a model of knowl-edge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of international businessstudies, pages 23–32, 1977.

[22] David H. Jonassen. Constructivist learning environments on the web: engaging students in mean-ingful learning. In The Educational Technology Conference and Exhibition, 1999.

[23] Ivan Kurtev, Jean Bezivin, and Mehmet Aksit. Technological spaces: An initial appraisal. 2002.

[24] Marc Lankhorst. ArchiMate Language Primer. Technical report, 2004.

[25] Katja Liimatainen, Martin Hoffman, and Heikkila Jukka. Overview of Enterprise Architecture workin 15 countries. Finnish Enterprise Architecture Research Project. Technical report, Ministry ofFinance, Helsinki, 2007.

[26] Dirk Matthes. Enterprise Architecture Frameworks Kompendium. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011.

[27] S. J. Mellor, A. N. Clark, and T. Futagami. Guest Editors’ Introduction: Model-Driven Development.IEEE Software, 20(5):14–18, 2003.

[28] Jan Mendling and Markus Nuttgens. Event-driven-process-chain-markup-language (EPML): An-forderungen zur Definition eines XML-Schemas fur Ereignisgesteuerte Prozessketten (EPK). InProceedings of the 1st GI-workshop on business process management with event-driven processchains (EPK 2002), pages 87–93, Trier, Germany, 2002.

[29] George A. Miller. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity forprocessing information. Psychological review 63.2, 1956.

[30] Object Management Group (OMG). MDA Guide version 1.0.1, 2003. OMG Document: omg/2003-06-01.

[31] OMG. Business Motivation Model, 2010.

[32] OMG. Unified Modeling Language (UML). Technical report, Object Management Group OMG,2011.

[33] OMG. Unified Modeling Language (UML) v.2.4.1, 2011.


[34] OMG. Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN), V 1.0. Technical report, Object Manage-ment Group OMG, December 2013.

[35] OMG. OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification v2.4.1, 2013.

[36] OMG. Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR). Technical report, ObjectManagement Group OMG, 2013.

[37] OMG. Business Motivation Model (BMM). Technical report, Object Management Group OMG,2014.

[38] OMG. Decision Model and Notation 1.0 Beta. Technical Report January, Object ManagementGroup OMG, 2014.

[39] OMG. Decision Model and Notation (DMN). Technical report, Object Management Group OMG,2014.

[40] OMG. UML Profile for BPMN Processes. Technical report, Object Management Group OMG,2014.

[41] OMG. XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) v.2.4.2, 2014.

[42] Business Process Model OMG. Notation (BPMN) 2.0. Object Management Group: Needham, MA,2494:34, 2011.

[43] Weidong Pan and Igor Hawryszkiewycz. A method of defining learning processes. In Beyond the21st ASCILITE Conference, pages 734–742, 2004.

[44] Barbara Petrini. Modelling and Analysis of Public Administration Processes. Master’s thesis, Uni-versita degli Studi di Camerino, Italy, 2010.

[45] Douglas C. Schmidt. Guest Editor’s Introduction: Model-Driven Engineering. Computer, 39(2):25–31, 2006.

[46] Ed Seidewitz. What Models Mean. IEEE Software, 20(5):26–32, September/October 2003.

[47] B. Selic. The Pragmatics of Model-driven Development. IEEE Software, 20(5):19–25, 2003.

[48] Darius Silingas and Edita Mileviciene. Refactoring BPMN Models: From Bad Smells to Best Prac-tices and. BPMN 2.0 Handbook Second Edition: Methods, Concepts, Case Studies and Standardsin Business Process Management Notation, page 125, 2011.

[49] Bruce Silver. BPMN Method And Style, With BPMN Implementer’s Guide: A Structured ApproachFor Business Process Modeling And Implementation Using BPMN 2.0. 2011.

[50] J F Sowa and John A. Zachman. Extending and formalizing the framework for information systemsarchitecture. IBM Systems Journal, 31(3):590 – 616, 1992.

[51] K Tarabanis and V Peristeras. Towards an Enterprise Architecture for Public Administrations: ATop Down Approach, 2000.

[52] The Open Group. ArchiMate 1.0 Specification. Technical Report 5, The Open Group, 2009.

[53] The Open Group. TOGAF 9 V91., 2011.

[54] The Open Group. ArchiMate 2.0 Specification, 2012. http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/.


http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/

http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/

[55] Katariina Valtonen, Sirpa Mantynen, Mauri Leppanen, and Mirja Pulkkinen. Enterprise ArchitectureDescriptions for Enhancing Local Government Transformation and Coherency Management. 2011IEEE 15th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, pages360–369, 2011.

[56] Barbara von Halle and Larry Goldberg. The Decision Model: A Business Logic Framework LinkingBusiness and Technology. CRC Press Auerbach Publications, 2010.

[57] WfMC. BPSim: Business Process Simulation Specification. Technical report, 2012.

[58] M. Wimmer and R. Traunmuller. One-Stop Government Portale: Erfahrungen aus dem EU-ProjekteGOV. One-Stop Government Portale: Erfahrungen aus dem EU-Projekt eGOV, 2005.

[59] R. Woitsch, D. Karagiannis, D. Plexousakis, and K. Hinkelmann. Business and IT alignment: theIT-Socket. Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik, 126(7):308–321, 2009.

[60] John A. Zachman. The Zachman Framework For Enterprise Architecture. A Primer For EnterpriseEngineering And Manufacturing, 2012.
