The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-7154.htm

Business process modeling, Business

process
implementation, analysis, and management
tools
management: the case of business
process management tools
Behjat Zuhaira Received 25 June 2018
Revised 12 November 2018
Department of Computer Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, 8 May 2019
Islamabad, Pakistan, and 22 August 2019
26 November 2019
Naveed Ahmad 20 February 2020
6 July 2020
Department of Computer Science, Accepted 24 July 2020
National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – Significant numbers of business process management (BPM) projects fail. Their failure is
attributed toward many factors. Among them, low quality of BPM is one reason. Some of the tasks in BPM have
their roots in business process reengineering (BPR). The literature has cited many different critical success and
failure factors for quality BPM and BPR. Lack of software tools is one of the technology-oriented factors that
results in poor BPM and BPR. This paper aims to build a generic feature set offered by software tools for
process modeling their analysis implementation and management. It presents an objective analysis in
identifying weaknesses and strengths of these tools, primarily for BPM.
Design/methodology/approach – A method is proposed to evaluate the quality of process reengineering
and management delivered by software tools. It consists of four phases: feature extraction, tool selection, data
extraction and tool evaluation.
Findings – The data gathered is quantified to test research hypotheses, the results are statistically significant
and highlight multiple areas for future improvements. Moreover, the cluster visualizations created also help to
understand the strengths and weaknesses of BPM/BPR tools.
Research limitations/implications – Despite the research approach used, there is a chance of subjectivity
when it comes to evaluating different tools.
Practical implications – The paper includes implications for practitioners and researchers for choosing
appropriate software tool for process modeling, analysis, implementation and management, matching their
requirements with BPM and BPR. It also identifies features that are missing in these tools.
Originality/value – This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of BPM and supporting tools, relates them
to key stages of BPM life cycle and BPR methodologies. It also identifies various areas for further development
in these tools.
Keywords Business process management, Business process reengineering, Process improvement, BPM tools
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Businesses change every day. Technology is evolving that changes customer requirements
and, hence, the products. Internet and globalization have resulted in international contests
and race (Chang, 2016; Vom Brocke et al., 2016). Hence, continual business changes have
become a norm. To combat, companies go for business process management (BPM) (Jeston,
2014) and business process reengineering (BPR) (Kasemsap, 2015; Thompson et al., 2009).
BPM has gained significant attention. The concept of BPR has evolved into BPM, as literature
credits BPR principles as foundation of BPM (Chong, 2014; Hammer, 2015; Hy€otyl€ainen, 2014;
Paim et al., 2008).
BPR focuses on “radical obliteration” of business processes. However, recently a “revisionist” Business Process Management
Journal
or incremental concept of BPR has also been introduced in literature (Subramoniam et al., 2009). © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-7154
BPM is concerned with continuously improving and managing business processes holistically, DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-06-2018-0168
BPMJ which is guided by BPM principles (Chong, 2014; Kohlborn et al., 2014). BPM and BPR are
conceptually different; nevertheless, both deal with process change and improvement (Nteo,
2017; Puah and Tang, 2000; Smart et al., 2009). A BPM framework with emphasis on strategy
also includes activities similar to BPR activities, such as analysis of business process, their
design and modeling and implementation (Macedo de Morais et al., 2014). The extent of change
depends on the BPM or BPR approach. This paper only considers the fact that both initiatives
involve changes to the existing business processes, whether big or small.
Despite of several success stories (Chang, 2016), the number of failed BPM projects is also
high. It has been reported that 60 to 80% of such endeavors do not succeed (Chang, 2016;
Eftekhari and Akhavan, 2013; Iqbal et al., 2015; Shafiei and Hajiheydari, 2014; Trkman, 2010).
Process improvement projects, associated with BPM, often fail or are renounced before realizing
their promised value (Nwabueze, 2015). The literature attributes its failure toward several
different factors (Chong, 2014; Davenport, 2013; Hlupic et al., 2000; Nwabueze, 2015; OIMT, 2012;
Ozcelik, 2010; Thompson et al., 2009; Xiaosong et al., 2012). Among the sociocultural and technical
failure factors, lack of BPM tools that assess value of new processes before their enactment is the
only technology-oriented failure factor (Chong, 2014; Davenport, 2013; Hammer, 2015).
Since BPM is time-consuming and complicated (Ozcelik, 2010), tools are important and
help in quicker delivery. Unfortunately, they are not contributing to modeling and redesign
quality and, hence, to its success (Reijers et al., 2015). Different software tools, known as BPM
systems (BPMS) or BPM tools, have been developed. As organizations are not expert of
conducting BPM, they use such tools for redesigning and managing their business processes
(Chong, 2014; Hammer, 2015; Trkman, 2010).
It is needed to study BPMS and investigate into their BPM-related competencies. This
resulted in the formation of following two research questions.
RQ1. What are the requirements of quality BPM, as required by BPM tools?
RQ2. Do BPM tools, enablers of BPM, fulfill these requirements?
The remainder of the research is guided by these research questions. A brief review of the
literature on BPMS is discussed next. The section also discusses BPR tools, as they enable
redesign of business processes. Section 3 explains the method for conducting this research.
Section 4 elaborates on feature extraction from BPM and BPR life cycles. Different hypotheses
have also been formed for tool evaluation. Section 5 describes tool selection. Section 6 illustrates
the data, extracted from BPM tools. In Section 7, tools are evaluated by testing hypotheses and
results are presented, followed by the discussion in Section 8 and conclusion.

2. Literature review
IT industry plays a significant role in facilitating enterprise executives and BPM consultants
to redesign, improve and manage business processes (Davenport, 2013). Different software
systems and support tools have been designed and developed. They are considered as
enablers of BPM (Chong, 2014; Eftekhari and Akhavan, 2013; Sungau and Msanjila, 2012;
Tabrizi et al., 2012). A BPMS is a process management system or tool that assimilates
capabilities of software systems for workflow management, modeling, redesigning and
reengineering, process analysis, business intelligence, monitoring and measuring,
improvement, process enactment and enterprise application integration (Harmon, 2010).
This work also considers BPR tools as facilitators of business process improvement for
the following reasons: (1) BPM has its foundation on the concept of BPR (Chong, 2014;
Hammer, 2015); (2) “incremental BPR” is considered as an essential element of BPM
framework (Harmon, 2010; Shafiei and Hajiheydari, 2014); (3) the historical roadmap includes
BPR as one of the primary management notions to the development of BPMS (Ravesteyn and
Batenburg, 2010) and (4) although, BPM is based on the principle of continuity, the literature
also advocates benefits of radicalness in process design at certain points in time (Kohlborn Business
et al., 2014). A BPR tool is essentially a software system that supports a BPR life cycle, its process
methods and techniques to redesign and improve business processes effectively and in less
time (Zhou and Chen, 2010).
management
BPR tools are implicit in BPM and supporting tools, if not explicitly mentioned in this paper. tools

2.1 BPMS and BPR tools

There are hundreds of tools developed for business process management. Several investigations
have supported use of these tools for various reasons (Lim et al., 2014; Rigby, 2013). They are
broadly classified into graphics tools, organization modeling tools, business process modeling
tools, process simulation tools, statistics tools, business process monitoring tools, workflow
management systems, BPMS, BPR tools, unified modeling language (UML) tools, business
process modeling notation (BPMN) software, etc. (Harmon, 2015; Reijers et al., 2016). However, lack
of effective IT tools is one reason of why BPM and BPR efforts fail.
Even though a company’s choice of a tool should be based on its technical competency, it is
based on either of the following factors: random selection, word of mouth/reviews about a tool
or the consultant is familiar with the tool (Thompson et al., 2009). This is due to the difficulty
of figuring out technical soundness of a tool from a plethora of available tools (Bach et al.,
2013; Zhou and Chen, 2010).

2.2 Related studies on BPM/BPR tools

Gartner, Inc. regularly evaluates different BPM tools and demonstrates their magic quadrant.
The reports include evaluation criteria, but the evaluation of individual tools is not presented
(Howson et al., 2018). However, these reports are neither freely available nor do they reveal
detailed features of the tools. A study discusses findings on how BPM tools apply and utilize
problem-solving techniques in BPR, but it does not reveal the results of tool evaluation
(Xiaosong et al., 2012). Much of the work on BPM tools are mainly focused on explaining the
importance of IT tools for reengineering and process management success, presenting
overviews of tools, ascertaining critical success factors of tools’ implementation and
development and applying tools on case studies (Bertolini et al., 2014; Ravesteyn and
Batenburg, 2010; Ravesteyn and Versendaal, 2007).
There are a number of studies that have put forth different key requirements of BPM/BPR
tools. Some of them have also evaluated a few tools against the identified features (Table 1).
The table lists the studies in chronological order and mentions the identified features of
BPMS and supporting tools and their sub-features. The number besides authors’ names
shows the number of tools evaluated against the given features.
It has been observed that most of these works study only small number of tools and
mention their features/sub-features, without evaluating tools against them. The papers, which
did not study any tool, have recommended one or more features for these tools. Moreover, list
of features/sub-features have not been derived from BPM and BPR life cycles. Only Kettinger
et al. carried out a comprehensive study and evaluated 102 tools against features derived from
BPR life cycle. Nonetheless, the study is old and does not cater more updated and recent tools.

3. The method
The literature on BPM tools consists of studies that compare different tools and their features.
However, these studies are insufficient both in terms of quantity and content to gauge the current
state of the industry. They show that there are hundreds of tools available with many different
features. Regrettably, none of them communicates if these tools contribute to quality BPM or not;
or how they can be improved for successful process reengineering and management.
 BPMJ

Table 1.

tools in literature
BPMS and supporting
Overview of features of
Paper (number of tools
studied) Features Sub-features

Bradley et al. (1995) (4) Tool capabilities Simulation, modeling, analysis, consultancy, process handling and developers/vendor identification
Tool hardware and Platform, operating system, software language, version, databases, knowledge shell, spreadsheets, other external links, object-
software oriented, client/server, system performance, alpha/beta/product, IDEF and installation process
Tool documentation Installation guide, user manual, worked example, demo, other documents, online help, easy-to-follow documents and learning curve for
the tool
User features Decision support system, user friendliness, easy to use, required level of expertise, graphical user interface and robust
Modeling capabilities Goal centered, timed petri-nets, roles, data flow, model integrity analysis, front end analysis, ease of model building, model flexibility,
level of detail and rapid model prototyping
Simulation capabilities Discrete/continuous, time, cost, distributions, animation and graphical capabilities
Analysis capabilities Reasoning, output analysis, BPR expertise, what-if analysis and backward/forward chaining
Kettinger et al. (1997) BPR methodologies Supported techniques for every stage of BPR life cycle
(102)
Yu and Wright (1997) Supported life cycle stage Strategy opportunity identification, conceptual modeling, requirements analysis, process design, process implementation, process
(12) operation and system change
Software features Visualization, computer platform, level of expertise required, static analysis, dynamic modeling, performance measurement, import/
export file types, database links, templates, supported methodologies and outputs/reports
Software modules None
Im et al. (1999) (3) Features and functions Visualization, modeling, compatibility and project management
Organizational factors Change of works and user support
Cost None
Learning effect None
Jansen-Vullers and Modeling capabilities Ease of model building, formal semantics/verification, workflow patterns, resources and data and level of detail
Netjes (2006) (6) Simulation capabilities Performance dimensions, distributions, animation and scenarios
Output analysis Statistics, format, what-if analysis and conclusion making support
capabilities
Shaw et al. (2007) (3) Process modeling Executable process model, formal model constructs, Formal modeling notation, ontological modeling grammar, model abstraction and
subject (business process) modeled
Software application Library of best practice business processes, graphical manipulation of configurations, automated change of application configurations,
links to communication systems, integrated project management and change control, software language and software formalism
Technical infrastructure Operating system and hardware
Ami and Sommer (2007) Features and qualities Graphical business process modeling, easiness of upgrading information related to business processes, analysis and reporting
(8) functions, connectivity to other applications, support for ERP systems, support for enterprise architecture frameworks, support for
standards, including XML, UML, BPMN and IDEF

Coding aspects

(continued )
Paper (number of tools
studied) Features Sub-features

Bosilj-Vuksic et al. Hardware and software Programming flexibility, access to source code, global variables, built-in functions and support of
(2007) (none) considerations programming concepts
Software compatibility Integration with: spreadsheet packages, statistical packages, DBMS, legacy applications and ERP, WFM,
BAM systems
User support Documentation/tutorial, consultancy, training, maintenance, demos and libraries
Financial and technical Pricing and total cost of ownership, frequency and comprehensiveness of update and portability
features
Pedigree Age, spread, vendor reputation and references
Modeling capabilities General features Required experience and education, learnability, user friendliness, model representativeness, formal logic
and simulation modeling approach
Modeling assistance Documentation, online help, modularity, model and data separation
Simulation capabilities Visual aspects Animation and its type, visual clock, quality and expressiveness and graphic library
Efficiency Robustness, level of detail, model reusability, model reliability, time scale, model chaining and queuing
Testability Logic checks, error messages, ease of debugging, trace files, step function, dynamic display and workflow
path display
Experimentation Warm-up period, breakpoints, speed adjustment, automatic run length and auto batch run
facilities
Statistical facilities Theoretical statistical distribution, user-defined distributions, random number streams, output data
analysis, quality of data analysis facility, distribution fitting and confidence interval
Input/output issues Input and output Input data reading from files, quality and understandable reports, user-defined output and periodic
capabilities simulation outputs
Analysis capabilities What-if analysis, conclusion-making and optimization
Patig et al. (2010a, b) Features and qualities Usability, modeling capabilities, software integration, report generation, alignment to standards, process execution, process
(none) monitoring, process simulation, language adaptability, correctness proofs, syntax checks and support for different standards/
notations
Wolf (2010) (none) Social features Collaborative technologies
Hahn et al. (2012) (none) Low maturity level Displaying process model, training, ITIL reference models, assigning roles and responsibilities to process models and simulation
Medium maturity level Hierarchical process relationships, process design collaboration, reporting, data extraction, ITIL, COBIT, risks modeling, simulation of
operational data, cost calculation, definition of key measures and process mining
High maturity level In-advance process simulation, animation of process simulation, real time data extraction, reporting of real time data, hierarchical
arrangement of key measures and definition of affection of measures
General functionality UML, BPMN, other modeling notations, XPDL, laying out elements of model, modeling, multiuser, user permissions, version control,
central database and data dictionary
Service and support Offline/phone support and vendor factors
Costs Client hardware, server hardware, license, support and training

(continued )
Business
process
management
tools
 BPMJ

Table 1.
Paper (number of tools
studied) Features Sub-features

Mendling et al. (2012) (4) Collaboration aspect Awareness, communication, coordination, group decision-making and team building
Margherita (2014) Process strategy Market and industry value drivers, business capabilities, people culture and values and company balanced scorecard
(none) Process model Value chain and system model, process models and simulation, stakeholders and process roles, business rules and governance
Process execution Collaboration/communication, workflows coordination, IT application development and process automation
Process performance KPI and performance monitoring, process control dashboard, flows and network analysis and business performance links
Organizational systems Project management, organizational design and enterprise innovation
Bider and Perjons (2015) Open source BPMS (13 XPDL and BPMN Flow routing, process designer, calendar, business rules, notifications and alerts, tasks allocation by roles,
(20) tools) work lists, task assignments and process/activity monitoring
WS-BPEL and BPMN Ease of installation, deploy assistance, support for multiple process versions, suspend/rollback process,
audit, reports, integration with different DBs and obtaining execution indicators
Proprietary BPMS (7 tools) OS modeler, web service integration, extensibility, BPMN 2 support, time to market, community activity, difficulty of installation
environment and available documents
Pereira and Freitas Simulation properties Context definition Starting time, duration, time unit, cost unit and replications
(2016) (5) Time consumption Transfer time, waiting time and processing time
Control Arrival rate and branch probabilities
Resources Capacity, allocation plan, unavailability and schedule
Costs Activity and resource
Priorities Interruptions and execution priority
Probability distribution Normal, triangular, uniform, beta, erlang and poisson
This work aims to study different BPMS and BPM-supporting tools to assess quality of Business
delivered BPM. The method of research consists of four phases: feature extraction, tool process
selection, data extraction and tool evaluation. Figure 1 shows research steps involved in each
phase and its inputs and outputs.
management
tools
3.1 Feature extraction
The intent of this phase is to extract different features that should be part of BPM and
supporting tools. Life cycles of BPM and BPR with their phases/stages are studied. The main
activity of this phase is the identification of key features of an IT tool for quality BPM.
Extracted features are named as “feature categories” of BPM and supporting tools.
Hypotheses were formed against every feature category. The important deliverables of this
phase are feature categories and research hypotheses.

3.2 Tool selection

The feature categories, output of the feature extraction phase, were used as criteria to select
various BPM and supporting tools. A list of 83 tools is formed as an output of this phase. This
list is used by data extraction phase.

3.3 Data extraction

Feature categories are broad; therefore, the list of tools is used to extract list of sub-features
against every feature category. The tools are studied to determine offered feature-sets under
each feature category. Feature categories refer to the extracted features from BPM and BPR
life cycles. Feature-set is the list of sub-features in each feature category. Feature-wise tool
data is obtained, showing absence or presence of sub-features in tools. The main outputs are
detailed features list and binary (absence/presence) data of tools.

3.4 Tool evaluation

The binary data of tools is converted to numeric data: tool scores and proportion data.
Hypotheses, formed in feature extraction phase, are statistically analyzed: Confidence-
interval estimate of population mean, test of hypotheses on the mean and analysis of variance
in feature categories.

4. Feature extraction
BPM and BPR life cycles were studied to identify all steps that are indispensable for quality
BPM and BPR. They were translated into different features that should be present in
every BPM and supporting tool. These features became the criteria for both tool selection and
tool evaluation.

Figure 1.
The method
BPMJ 4.1 BPM life cycle
The BPM life cycle entails phases for managing business processes. It outlines activities that
are part of BPM initiatives. Table 2 summarizes different phases of BPM life cycle, as found in
the literature. The purpose of studying BPM life cycles is to identify necessary activities and
phases that contribute to BPM projects.
The phases of BPM life cycle vary in terms of number and nomenclature. The generic
phases are:
(1) Process design and modeling: It includes modeling of as-is and to-be business
processes. This helps in understanding overall structure and requirements of the
modeled business processes.

Davenport and Short (1990) Process identification

Change levers identification
Development of process visions
Understanding of as-is processes
Designing and prototyping to-be processes
Van Der Aalst et al. (2003) Process design
System configuration
Process enactment
Diagnosis
Zur Muehlen and Ho (2005) Organizational analysis
Specification and modeling
Workflow modeling and implementation
Workflow execution
Warehousing/controlling/process mining
Business activity monitoring (BAM)
Netjes et al. (2006) Design
Configuration
Execution
Control
Diagnosis
Weske (2007) Design and analysis
Configuration
Enactment
Evaluations
Hallerbach et al. (2008) Modeling
Instantiation/selection
Execution
Optimization
Kannengiesser (2008) Process design
Process implementation
Process enactment
Process evaluation
Houy et al. (2010) Strategy development
Definition and modelling
Implementation
Execution
Monitoring and controlling
Optimization and improvement
Dumas et al. (2013) Process identification and discovery
Process analysis
Process redesign
Process implementation
Process monitoring and controlling
Macedo de Morais et al. (2014) Initial process planning and strategy
Association of Business Process Management Professionals (2009) Analysis of business processes
Segatto et al. (2013) Design and modeling of business processes
Table 2. Process implementation
Different BPM life Process monitoring and controlling
cycles Process refinement and planning review
 (2) Process evaluation or analysis: The process models are analyzed for strengths, Business
opportunities and weaknesses and are validated through different techniques. This process
may include process simulations too.
management
(3) Process redesign or reengineering or improvement: This phase is the longest, tools
expensive and critical for BPM success. The effectiveness of improvement depends
on the quality of last two phases. Gap analysis between as-is and to-be processes aid
in determining the motives and efforts of redesign/reengineering.
(4) Process implementation: The process is enacted through configured systems and
workflow is operationalized.
(5) Process monitoring and controlling: Quality is controlled. Implemented processes are
continuously monitored for their performance. The performance is measured and
control actions are taken accordingly.
Among BPM phases, major share of work has been done on process design, process
implementation and process analysis (Kohlborn et al., 2014). Paim et al. (2008) have classified
process management tasks into process design, day to day process management and tasks
for fostering learning. A tool that supports one or more generic phases is termed as “BPM and
supporting tool” in this paper.

4.2 BPR life cycle

A BPR life cycle guides about the steps, stages and activities involved in carrying out BPR
that researchers believe can ensure its success. Different BPR life cycles were studied, as
found in literature. Table 3 outlines the stages of these life cycles. Each stage is a set of
activities to accomplish stage goal. The early work on developing BPR life cycles became the
baseline to the more recent research, which are mostly their modifications or adaptations.
Following stages are generic in all BPR life cycles: mapping/modeling of as-is and to-be
processes, their analysis, gap analysis between them and implementation.

4.3 Key features of an IT tool for quality BPM

BPM methods and IT are among the core elements of BPM. Their proficiencies include process
design and modeling, implementation, monitoring and controlling, process improvement and
program and project management (Rosemann and Vom Brocke, 2015). Similar capabilities have
been identified for BPM tools from BPM life cycle and BPR life cycle. They are verified and
validated from literature (Ciaghi et al., 2010; Ko, 2009; Patig et al., 2010a).
Design and Modeling: Both as-is and to-be business processes need to be designed and
modeled. It includes understanding a business process and collecting relevant information.
Various modeling techniques are available for the said purpose. Organizations are modeled too,
which helps in understanding a process within organizational context. A wide variety of design
and modeling options can make a tool more capable of making versatile, detailed and complete
process models. It can be hypothesized that existing BPM and supporting tools provide a
comprehensive list of features that allows thorough design and modeling of processes.
H1. BPM tools design and model business processes in detail and with completeness.
Analysis: Sufficiently detailed process model can be analyzed thoroughly to detect
bottlenecks and weaknesses. Without an appropriate analysis, it is difficult to redesign
and improve. There are two basic types of analysis: process analysis and gap analysis.
Process analysis helps in determining weaknesses within a process. Gap analysis measures
differences between as-is and to-be processes. It is an integral part of all improvement
initiatives. Without an accurate comparison of two processes, the gaps between them cannot
BPMJ Ref Kettinger et al. (1997)
Stages Target identification
As-is assessment
To-be design
To-be implementation
Monitor business process
Ref Brian Harrison and Pratt (1993)
Stages Determine requirements and
goals
Map and measure existing
process
Analyze and modify existing
process
Benchmarking
Design reengineered process
Implement reengineered process
Ref Archer and Bowker (1995)
Stages Vision
Identify current processes
Redesign processes
Implement processes
Ref Lie (2005)
Stages Preparation
Evaluate current situation
Map current situation
Map desired situation
Define problems
Establish solutions
Perform physical design
Implement solution
Evaluation
Ref Cheng et al. (2012)
Stages Process representation
Process evaluative
Process gap analysis
Process redesign
Process validation
Process implementation
Ref Hojati et al. (2015)
Stages Identify vision and strategy
Identify as-is processes
Documentation
Process analysis
Reengineer process
Implementation
Change management
Ref Rao et al. (2012)
Stages Understand
Identify business processes
Understand reengineering
environment
Table 3. Identify problems in process
Overview of BPR life
cycles in literature
Kettinger et al. (1997) Kettinger et al. (1997)
Customer engagement Define objectives
Process understanding Analyze processes
New process design Redesign processes
Process change Implement upgraded processes
Measure implemented
processes
Furey (1993) Manganelli and Klein (1995)
Set direction Preparation
Baseline and benchmark Identification
Create vision Vision
Launch project Technical and social design
Design improvements Transformation
Implement change
Continuous improvement
Ghanadbashi and Ramsin (2016), Guha et al. Bagaber et al. (2014)
(1993)
Envision Discovery
Initiate Preparation and assessment
Diagnose Solution and development
Redesign Transformation
Reconstruct
Monitor
Bertolini et al. (2011) Doomun and Vunka Jungum
(2008)
Define objectives Justification
Process mapping Modeling
Identify critical processes Simulation and testing
Define performance objectives Reengineering and
Work organization improvement
Process representations Performance analysis
Experimentation
New process start-up
New process management
Eftekhari and Akhavan (2013) Lei and Bin (2007)
Organization assessment Process analysis
BPR project implementation Modeling
Post-implementation support Model emulation
Evaluation optimization
Workflow model/dynamic
Adjustment
Model verifying/dynamic
optimization
Process execution/model
evaluation
Process monitoring/adjust
model
Underdown (1997) Motwani et al. (1998)
Develop vision and strategy Understanding
Create desired culture Initiating
Integrate and improve enterprise Programming
Develop technology solutions Transforming
Implementing
Evaluating
Abdi et al. (2011) Mayer and DeWitte (1999)
Recognize need Motivation
Thinking about old and new processes Justification
Designing and analyzing new process Planning
Defining details and communication Setting up
Designing new structure and systems As-is description and analysis
(continued )
 Modify process
Implement changes
Ref Covert (1997)
Stages Begin organizational change
Build reengineering
organization
Identify opportunities
Understand existing process
Reengineer process
Blueprint new business system
Perform transformation
Ref Davenport and Short (1990)
Stages Develop vision and objectives
Identify processes
Understand and measure
processes
Identify IT levers
Design and build prototype
Allocation of resources and planning for To-be design and validation Business
implementation Implementation
Maruşter and Van Beest (2009) Adesola and Baines (2005) process
Identify performance criteria Understand business needs management
Mine current processes Model and analyze process
Emulate current and planned models Redesign process tools
Compare simulations Implement new process
Identify predicted performance gains Assess new process
Review process
Muthu et al. (2006)
Prepare
Map and analyze as-is process
Design to-be processes
Implement reengineered processes
Improve continuously
Table 3.

be correctly identified (Zuhaira et al., 2017). It is assumed that tools have necessary features
that help in correct and exhaustive analysis of business process models.
H2. BPM tools provide appropriate features for analyzing business processes in detail.
Implementation: This feature assists easy implementation of to-be processes within
organization. A business process is deployed in a virtual setting to determine its effects.
Required changes are made before actual deployment of the process. That is, corrections are
identified early, which is crucial for successful BPR and BPM. The third hypothesis states:
H3. BPM tools provide features for convenient and correct implementation of to-be
processes.
Management and Administration: BPM tools should enable management and administration
of reengineered and implemented process. This feature should empower the management
team to supervise, monitor and control business processes and associated activities (such as
design, modeling, analysis and implementation), happening as part of BPM. It also focuses on
performance measurement of currently deployed business processes, ensuring resources,
schedules, finances and other constraints are being met. It is conjectured that BPM tools
include functionality for carrying out effective project and process management activities.
H4. BPM tools provide sufficient management and administrative features.
This work evaluates BPM tools against all feature categories, individually. Their collective
occurrence in a tool is gauged too. Hypotheses 1 to 4 (H1–H4) assess a tool’s capability for all
feature categories. Hypotheses 5 and 6 (H5, H6) assess a tool’s value for quality BPM by
considering all features together.
H5. BPM tools have sufficient features to support business process modeling, analysis,
implementation and management, collectively.
H6. BPM tools equally provide design and modeling, analysis, implementation and
management features.

5. Tool selection
To study their present status, 83 BPM and supporting tools were selected. Feature categories
obtained from BPM and BPR life cycles form criteria for tool selection. A tool comprising of
BPMJ one or more features was included to the pool (Appendix 1). This list contains variety of tools
ranging from very simple tools that provide very basic functionalities to much sophisticated
and specialized BPM software systems, academic/research tools, commercial products,
open-source and proprietary software.

6. Data extraction
The feature categories were too expansive and opaque to evaluate the tools. Therefore, all the
tools were explored, one by one, for the list of sub-features they offer under every feature
category. Since there was a variety in selected tools, two methods were employed for data
extraction: system analysis and document analysis. System analysis was done for non
proprietary tools that included installing, executing and using the tools to determine list of
accessible features. Document analysis was done on proprietary tools, which entailed study
of available documentations (manuals, guides, help materials and tutorials) of those tools.
The obtained sub-features are combined to make feature-sets. For example, sub-features from
“Design and Modeling” category make one feature-set. Sub-features from “Analysis category”
make another feature-set. Likewise, sub-features from other two feature categories form their
respective feature-sets. BPM tools data consists of four feature-sets for four different feature
categories. Feature-set of “Design and Modeling” comprised of 12 sub-features; feature-set of
“Analysis” included 17 sub-features and feature-sets of “Implementation” and “Management and
Administration” categories had 5 and 16 sub-features, respectively. Tables 5–8 show presence or
absence of sub-features in tools. A tool that does not support any sub-feature is not included in the
corresponding table.

6.1 Brief overview of the data extracted

The sub-features for “Design and Modeling” are widely-found in BPM tools, including
process modeling, form builder, workflow analyzer, process mapping, activity mapping,
enterprise modeling, use case diagrams, mind maps, etc. Business process modeling notation
(BPMN) is the industry standard for modeling business processes (Aagesen and Krogstie,
2015). However, it is not supported by all tools. The “Analysis” category mostly includes
static and dynamic simulations (step-by-step simulation, deterministic and probabilistic
simulation, animated simulations, Monte Carlo simulations, etc.) and analyzing charts
(control chart, pareto chart, pie chart, bar chart and histogram). The “Implementation”
category entails automatic process discovery, process debugging, business process execution
language (BPEL) and process deployment. A big pool of tools does not offer sub-features
under this category. BPM tools provide different sub-features for managing and
administering processes like business activity monitoring (BAM) (Friedenstab et al., 2012),
process life cycle management, resource management, process management and
administration, user management, quality management and more. Complete sub-features,
as found in tools, are provided in Table 4.

7. Tool evaluation
The binary tool data (Tables 5–8) were converted to numeric data. Score for each tool was
calculated for every feature category; for example, DynaFlow has 3 sub-features out of 12 in
“Design and Modeling” feature category. Therefore, a score of 3 was assigned to this tool for
this category. This was done for all tools for all feature categories. Table 9 shows scores of
BPM tools against different feature categories.
Figure 2 shows frequencies of sub-features in all feature categories, i.e. frequently
employed sub-features in every category.
Design and modeling Implementation Management and
Business
category Analysis category category administration category process
management
Standard modeling Simulations Business process BAM
language (BPMN) Analyzing charts/ deployment Process life cycle tools
Drag and drop/graphical diagrams Process debugger management
editor Cost/time analysis BPEL generation Resource planning and
Process modeling Process model views Process discovery management
Form builder/workflows Activity costing/time Other techniques Process/model
Process/attribute Process optimization administration
visualization Process monitor Business rules management
Visual/process mapping Advanced analysis Document management
Activity/flow chart Prototyping Process management
mapping Reporting User management
Collaborative process Impact analysis Enterprise management
design Cause-effect analysis Project management
Process hierarchies What-if analysis Multi-tenant management
Configurable meta model Statistical analysis Change management
Organization modeling Gap analysis Quality management
Other/different diagrams Unknown techniques Dashboards
Other techniques Communication Table 4.
management List of sub-features for
Other techniques feature categories

Figure 3 illustrates tool-wise feature frequency data. All the four figures Figures 3(a–d)
demonstrate top 15 BPM tools in each category, which implement or provide these feature
categories. The results are normalized on the scale of 10. The degree of capability of BPM
tools for feature category can easily be comprehended from the illustration.

7.1 Confidence-interval (CI) estimate of population mean

Considering this numeric data to be a sample from the population of BPM tools, some basic
measures of central value were calculated for each feature category. Normal curve was fitted
to this sample to estimate the population’s mean, μ (Figure 4). Since, the variance (σ ) is
unknown; percentiles of the sampling distribution are used. So, a 95% confidence interval for
μ is calculated.
X þ t1 ðdf Þ psffiffiffiffi < μ < X  þ t 1 ðdf Þ psffiffiffiffi
2α 1−2 α
N N
Figure 4 shows estimate of μ for each feature category calculated using 95% CI. The estimate
of μ at 95% CI gave very low values of population means.
These numbers provide an estimate of population of BPM tools. Even if upper limits of
each of these feature categories are considered, it shows lack of sufficient features in all
feature categories.

7.2 Hypotheses testing

One tailed T-test statistic was used for testing H1–H5; while ANOVA (Analysis Of Variance)
was carried out to test H6.
7.2.1 Test of hypotheses on the mean. To test H1–H5, the measure of sufficiency of features
had to be determined. Two cases were taken into account. First, we assumed that measure of
tool sufficiency is the presence of at least 50% of sub-features in a tool. That is, BPM tools
should have at least 50% of the sub-features from the feature-sets of a particular feature
BPMJ

(BPMN)
Std. Modeling language

Editor
Drag and Drop / Graphical

Process Modeling

Form Builder / Workflows

Process / Attribute Visualization

Visual / Process Mapping

Activity / Flow Chart Mapping

Collaborative Process Design

Process Hierarchies

Configurable Meta Model

Organization Modeling

Different Diagrams
Intalio | BPMS     
Signavio Process Editor      
Effektif  
Roubroo    
Joget Workflow  
AccuProcess BPM    
Insight Maker   
DynaFlow: EZ Process   
Inubit for BPM   
Ultimus     
RunMyProcess    
BonitaSoft Suite           
Imixs Workflow 
ProcessMaker    
jBPM   
IBM BP Manager   
IBM Blueworks Live  
Sim4BPM  
Postoz    
Bizagi Process Modeler     
KAISHA-Tec Active Modeler     
Avantage
Oryx     
ARISalign     
Process Live     
VLPM   
RASP     
DECmodel   
ProcessWise     
GRADE   
ARIS       
Rational System Architect    
AllFusion 7      
Procap / Prosim        
ExtendSim/BPR  
Teamwork  
Pathmaker   
ProcessWorks    
SmartDraw   
QPR Suite        
Process Developer    
Graham Process Mapper  
Table 5. All Clear      
Features of BPM tools SIMUL8     
supporting “design and
modeling” (continued )
 Business

(BPMN)
Std. Modeling language

Editor
Drag and Drop / Graphical

Process Modeling

Form Builder / Workflows

Process / Attribute Visualization

Visual / Process Mapping

Activity / Flow Chart Mapping

Collaborative Process Design

Process Hierarchies

Configurable Meta Model

Organization Modeling

Different Diagrams
process
management
tools

Proforma       
ActionWorks       
multiDESK by
  
DIaLOGIKaGmbH
IBM Case Foundation 
Interstage BP Manager      
TeamWare Flow    
Fujitsu i-Flow   
Livelink Workflow  
Process Suite  
BMC Remedy Action

Request System
Bizagi BPM Suite        
COSA BPM Suite  
ViewStar Process Architect    
iThink    
Venism    
ConceptDraw PRO Business
     
Process Diagram
Sterling  
Process Model  
TaskMap  
Process Navigator  
Cameo Business Modeler     
iGrafx for Enterprise
    
Modeling
BusinessGenetics BP
 
Modelere
PROCESSpediaBPMS        
Pegasystems BPM Suite 
ProcessMate  
Edoras     
Monarch BPM    
KofaxTotalAgility 7.0      Table 5.

category to sufficiently provide that feature. Next, we assumed that measure of tool
sufficiency is the presence of at least 25% of sub-features in a tool.
50% Sub-features as Measure of Tool Sufficiency: With 50% of sub-features as
benchmark, minimum counts of sub-features obtained were 6, 8.5, 2.5, and 8 for “Design
and Modeling”, “Analysis”, “Implementation” and “Management and Administration”
feature categories respectively. This means that, for example, to test H1, μ ≥ 6 for “Design and
Modeling” (H0: μ ≥ 6; H1: μ < 6). This was done for Hypotheses 2–4, as shown in Table 10. The
mean for Hypothesis 5 would be sum of all the means for Hypotheses 1–4, i.e. 25 (H0: μ ≥ 25;
BPMJ

Simulation

Cost / Time Analysis

Process Model Views

Process Optimization

Process Monitor

Prototyping

Reporting

Impact Analysis

Cause-Effect Analysis

What-If Analysis

Statistical Analysis

Technique Unknown
Gap Analysis

Other
Analyzing Charts / Diagrams

Activity Costing/Time

Advanced Analysis
Intalio | BPMS 
Signavio    
AccuProcess   
DynaFlow 
Inubit   
Ultimus   
BonitaSoft Suite      Resource
Analysis
ProcessMaker  
jBPM  
Sim4BPM   
Postoz   
Savvion  
ActiveModeler 
Avantage
Oryx  
ARISalign 
VLPM  
DECmodel 
ProcessWise 
GRADE   
ARIS     
Rational System     
Architect
AllFusion 7    
Procap / Prosim    
ExtendSim/BPR      
Teamwork    Risk/complexity
SWOT, force
Pathmaker     field analysis
-

ProcessWorks     
SmartDraw  
QPR Suite  
Graham Process  
Mapper
All Clear   
SIMUL8      Speed
Analyzer
Proforma      SWOT
ActionWorks        Customer
satisfaction
variable,
Quality
multiDESK  
IBM Case Foundation   
Interstage BP     
Manager
Fujitsu i-Flow   
Livelink Workflow 
BMC Remedy Action   
Table 6. Track-It 
Features of BPM tools
supporting “analysis” (continued )
 Business

Simulation

Cost / Time Analysis

Process Model Views

Process Optimization

Process Monitor

Prototyping

Reporting

Impact Analysis

Cause-Effect Analysis

What-If Analysis

Statistical Analysis

Technique Unknown
Gap Analysis

Other
Analyzing Charts / Diagrams

Activity Costing/Time

Advanced Analysis
process
management
tools

COSA BPM  
ViewStar Process   
Architect
Bizagi BPM Suite  
Bizagi Process     Resource
Modeler analysis
Insight Maker     Goal Seek
Function
iThink   
Venism    
Sterling 
Process model    
TaskMap  
ProcessNavigator 
iGrafx      
BusinessGenetics BP   
Modeler
PROCESSpedia   
Pegasystems BPM   
ProcessMate   
Monarch BPM   
Kofax TotalAgility 7.0   Table 6.

H1: μ < 25). The values of different test parameters and t- and p-values for hypotheses are
given in Table 10.
For H1, p < α, which provides a significant result. H0 was rejected at 1% significance level.
It means that BPM tools do not provide at least 50% of the identified sub-features appropriate
for “Design and Modeling”. Similarly for H2–H5, p-values show highly significant results
(p << α), Ho from H2–H5.
25% Sub-features as Measure of Tool Sufficiency: The T-test was also run for 25% of sub-
features to show that a BPM tool may sufficiently support one or more feature categories if it
includes at least 25% of the sub-features. We obtained 3, 4.25, 1.25 and 4 sub-features from
“Design and Modeling”, “Analysis”, “Implementation” and “Management and
Administration” categories respectively. Test results are summarized in Table 11.
The test static for H1 showed that the experiential data did not conflict with H0 at 1%
significance level. The statistic result was not significant and there was not sufficient
evidence against H0. It may not be rejected. However, the test static for H2–H4 yielded t- and
p-values that gave extremely significant results (p << α) to reject H0 at 1% level of
significance. It showed that BPM tools do not provide at least 25% of sub-features from
“Analysis”, “Implementation” and “Management and Administration” feature categories.
Similarly, outcome of t-test for H5 was also extremely significant, rejecting H0 at α 5 1%.
Therefore, BPM tools do not offer enough features from all feature categories.
7.2.2 Analysis of variance in feature categories. The H6 corresponded to equal provision of
all feature categories in BPM and supporting tools. To test H6, ANOVA test was run
(Table 12) with H0: m1 5 m2 5 m3 5 m4 and H1: m1 ≠ m2 ≠ m3 ≠ m4, where m1 to m4 are means of
BPMJ

Business Process Deployment

Process Debugger

BPEL Generation

Process Discovery

Other
Intalio | BPMS 
Roubroo  
Joget Workflow 
AccuProcess 
Inubit  
ProcessMaker 
jBPM 
Postoz 
KAISHA-Tec Active Modeler

Avantage
Rational System Architect  
ExtendSim/BPR Power Development
QPR Suite 
ActionWorks  Libraries of process maps & templates
multiDESK 
Interstage BP Manager  
Fujitsu i-Flow Development Manager
OpenText Process Suite 
BMC Remedy Action 
COSA BPM   Process Integration

Table 7. Bizagi 
Features of BPM tools Venism 
supporting
“implementation” Kofax TotalAgility 7.0 

Hypotheses 1 to 4. At α 5 1%, F-value > critical value (3.782) and p < α. There was enough
evidence to reject H6 at α 5 1%. It can be said that BPM tools lack equal provision of feature
categories.

8. Discussion
The paper establishes the importance of software tools for executing BPM specifically, and also
BPR. However, it does not claim that these tools are solely responsible for their success or failure.
 Business

Business Activity Monitoring

Process Lifecycle Management

Resource Planning & Management

Process / Model Administration

Business Rules Management

Document Management

Process Management

User Management

Enterprise Management

Project Management

Multi-tenant Management

Change Management

Quality Management

Dashboards

Communication Management

Other
process
management
tools

Intalio | BPMS       
Signavio  
Effektif 
Roubroo  
Joget Workflow   
AccuProcess 
Governance Risk
DynaFlow   and Compliance
Management
Inubit      
RunMyProcess  
Ultimus   
BonitaSoft Suite      
Imixs Workflow  
ProcessMaker     
Task Form
jBPM 
Management
IBM BP Manager   
IBM Blueworks Live  
Sim4BPM 
Postoz 
Management &
Savvion
Admin Module
Oryx 
ARISalign 
VLPM   
RASP 
ProcessWise   
GRADE  
Database
ARIS  
Administration
Rational System System

Arch Management
AllFusion 7  
Procap / Prosim  
ExtendSim/BPR   
Teamwork      
Pathmaker 
ProcessWorks 
Meeting
SmartDraw  
Management
Distributed
QPR Suite        Repository Table 8.
Management Features of BPM tools
Process Developer  supporting
“management and
(continued ) administration”
BPMJ

Business Activity Monitoring

Process Lifecycle Management

Resource Planning & Management

Process / Model Administration

Business Rules Management

Document Management

Process Management

User Management

Enterprise Management

Project Management

Multi-tenant Management

Change Management

Quality Management

Dashboards

Communication Management

Other
Graham 
All Clear    
SIMUL8  
ActionWorks   
Database &
IBM Case
 Component
Foundation
Management
Interstage         
Task Manager,
Fujitsu i-Flow    development
manager
Livelink Workflow  
Data
OpenText Process management,

Suite Case
management
BMC Remedy Action  
Knowledge
management,
Track-It    Incident & Problem
management
COSA BPM   
ViewStar Process

Arch
BizagiBPM Suite      
Bizagi Process
  
Modeler
ConceptDraw PRO     
Financial
Sterling    
management
Process Model  
Cameo Business
    
Modeler
Governance, Risk,
iGrafx    compliance
management
BusinessGenetics BP

Modeler
PROCESSpedia    
ProcessMate    
Edoras   Idea management
File based
monitoring,
Monarch BPM     Combining
Content
management
Case
KofaxTotalAgility 7.0   
Table 8. management
 Design and
Business
modeling Analysis Implementation Management process
Tools Score Proportion Score Proportion Score Proportion Score Proportion management
IntaliojBPMS 5 0.42 1 0.06 1 0.2 7 0.44 tools
Signavio Process Editor 6 0.50 4 0.24 0 0 2 0.13
Effektif 2 0.17 0 0.00 0 0 1 0.06
Roubroo 4 0.33 0 0.00 2 0.4 2 0.13
Joget Workflow 2 0.17 0 0.00 1 0.2 3 0.19
AccuProcess Business 4 0.33 3 0.18 1 0.2 1 0.06
Process Modeler
Insight Maker 3 0.25 5 0.29 0 0 0 0.00
DynaFlow 3 0.25 1 0.06 0 0 3 0.19
Inubit 3 0.25 3 0.18 2 0.4 6 0.38
Ultimus 5 0.42 3 0.18 0 0 3 0.19
RunMyProcess 4 0.33 0 0.00 0 0 2 0.13
BonitaSoft Suite 11 0.92 6 0.35 0 0 6 0.38
Imixs Workflow 1 0.08 0 0.00 0 0 2 0.13
ProcessMaker 4 0.33 2 0.12 1 0.2 5 0.31
jBPM 3 0.25 2 0.12 1 0.2 2 0.13
IBM Business Process 3 0.25 0 0.00 0 0 3 0.19
Manager
IBM Blueworks Live 2 0.17 0 0.00 0 0 2 0.13
Sim4BPM 2 0.17 3 0.18 0 0 1 0.06
Postoz 4 0.33 3 0.18 1 0.2 1 0.06
Bizagi Process Modeler 5 0.42 5 0.29 0 0 3 0.19
KAISHA-Tec ActiveModeler 5 0.42 1 0.06 1 0.2 0 0.00
Avantage
Oryx 5 0.42 2 0.12 0 0 1 0.06
ARISalign 5 0.42 1 0.06 0 0 1 0.06
Process Live 5 0.42 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
VLPM 3 0.25 3 0.18 0 0 3 0.19
RASP 5 0.42 0 0.00 0 0 1 0.06
DECmodel 3 0.25 1 0.06 0 0 0 0.00
processWise 5 0.42 1 0.06 0 0 3 0.19
GRADE 3 0.25 3 0.18 0 0 2 0.13
ARIS 7 0.58 5 0.29 0 0 3 0.19
Rational System Architect 4 0.33 5 0.29 2 0.4 2 0.13
AllFusion 7 6 0.50 4 0.24 0 0 2 0.13
Procap/Prosim 8 0.67 4 0.24 0 0 2 0.13
ExtendSim/BPR 2 0.17 6 0.35 1 0.2 3 0.19
Teamwork 2 0.17 4 0.24 0 0 6 0.38
Pathmaker 3 0.25 5 0.29 0 0 1 0.06
ProcessWorks 4 0.33 5 0.29 0 0 1 0.06
SmartDraw 3 0.25 2 0.12 0 0 3 0.19
QPR Suite 8 0.67 2 0.12 1 0.2 7 0.44
Process Developer 4 0.33 0 0.00 0 0 1 0.06
Graham Process Mapping 2 0.17 2 0.12 0 0 1 0.06
Software
All Clear 6 0.50 3 0.18 0 0 4 0.25
SIMUL8 5 0.42 6 0.35 0 0 2 0.13
Proforma 7 0.58 6 0.35 0 0 0 0.00
ActionWorks™ Process 7 0.58 8 0.47 2 0.4 3 0.19
Builder
multiDESK 3 0.25 2 0.12 1 0.2 0 0.00
IBM Case Foundation 1 0.08 3 0.18 0 0 2 0.13
Interstage Business Process 6 0.50 5 0.29 2 0.4 9 0.56
Manager
TeamWARE Flow 4 0.33 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 Table 9.
Tool scores and
(continued ) proportion data
BPMJ Design and
modeling Analysis Implementation Management
Tools Score Proportion Score Proportion Score Proportion Score Proportion

Fujitsu i-Flow 3 0.25 3 0.18 1 0.2 4 0.25

Livelink Workflow 2 0.17 1 0.06 0 0 2 0.13
OpenText Process Suite 2 0.17 0 0.00 1 0.2 2 0.13
BMC Remedy Action Request 1 0.08 3 0.18 1 0.2 2 0.13
System
Bizagi BPM Suite 8 0.67 2 0.12 1 0.2 6 0.38
COSA BPM Suite 2 0.17 2 0.12 3 0.6 3 0.19
ViewStar Process Architect 4 0.33 3 0.18 0 0 1 0.06
iThink 4 0.33 3 0.18 0 0 0 0.00
Vensim 4 0.33 4 0.24 1 0.2 0 0.00
ConceptDraw PRO 6 0.50 0 0.00 0 0 5 0.31
Sterling 2 0.17 1 0.06 0 0 5 0.31
Process model 2 0.17 4 0.24 0 0 2 0.13
TaskMap 2 0.17 2 0.12 0 0 0 0.00
Process Navigator 2 0.17 1 0.06 0 0 0 0.00
Cameo® Business Modeler 5 0.42 0 0.00 0 0 5 0.31
Plugin
iGrafx 5 0.42 6 0.35 0 0 4 0.25
BusinessGenetics® Business 2 0.17 3 0.18 0 0 1 0.06
Process Modeler
PROCESSpedia BPMS 8 0.67 3 0.18 0 0 4 0.25
Pegasystems BPM Product 1 0.08 3 0.18 0 0 0 0.00
Suite
ProcessMate 2 0.17 3 0.18 0 0 4 0.25
Edoras 5 0.42 0 0.00 0 0 3 0.19
Monarch BPM 4 0.33 3 0.18 0 0 5 0.31
Kofax TotalAgility 7.0 5 0.42 3 0.18 1 0.2 4 0.25
METEOR 6 0.50 0 0.00 1 0.2 5 0.31
MS Visio 5 0.42 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
MS Word 4 0.33 2 0.12 0 0 0 0.00
TIBCO iProcess Suite 5 0.42 6 0.35 1 0.2 6 0.38
SemTalk 3 0.25 3 0.18 0 0 5 0.31
Activiti 6 0.50 3 0.18 2 0.4 6 0.38
CAM 6 0.50 6 0.35 0 0 2 0.13
Modelio 4 0.33 1 0.06 2 0.4 0 0.00
TIM Solutions 2 0.17 3 0.18 1 0.2 3 0.19
Savvion 0 0.00 2 0.12 0 0 1 0.06
Table 9. Track-It 0 0.00 1 0.06 0 0 4 0.25

Companies should invest in BPM/BPR capabilities, instead of tools or consultants only.

Moreover, the execution of such initiatives must be guided by principles of quality BPM and
BPR (Kohlborn et al., 2014). For answering aforementioned research questions, the paper has
proposed and followed a four-phased method.
(1) Feature extraction phase studied BPM life cycle and BPR life cycle to extract four key
feature categories of BPM tools. Research hypotheses were formed to test the tools.
(2) Based on them, 83 BPM tools were selected in the tool selection phase.
(3) The sub-features of every feature category were extracted from those tools and tool
binary data was obtained, as part of data extraction phase.
(4) Binary tool data was used for tool evaluation. Hypotheses were tested and results
obtained.
 Business
process
management
tools

Figure 2.
Feature histograms for
all feature categories

Management Implementation Analysis Design and Modelling

0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10

COSA BPM Suite

Interstage… BonitaSoft… ActionWork…
ActionWorks™…
QPR Suite Procap/… BonitaSoft…
Interstage…
Intalio|BPMS QPR Suite CAM
Rational…
Activiti Bizagi BPM… Extend/BPR
Activiti
inubit PROCESSpe… iGrafx
inubit
TIBCO… ARIS Proforma
Modelio
Bizagi BPM… Proforma SIMUL8
Roubroo
BonitaSoft… ActionWork… TIBCO…
Extend/BPR
Teamwork Signavio… ARIS
TIBCO iProcess…
ProcessMaker BPwin Bizagi…
Vensim
METEOR All Clear Insight Maker
AccuProcess…
Monarch BPM Interstage… Interstage…

SemTalk BMC Remedy… ConceptDra… Pathmaker Figure 3.

Tool wise score for
Fujitsu i-Flow
Sterling METEOR ProcessWorks each feature category
Kofax… (Top 15 tools)
Cameo®… Activiti Rational…
BPMJ

Figure 4.
Confidence interval
estimate of population
mean of all feature
categories

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5

Ho μ≥6 μ ≥ 8.5 μ ≥ 2.5 μ≥8 μ ≥ 25

H1 μ<6 μ < 8.5 μ < 2.5 μ<8 μ < 25
Critical 2.378 2.378 2.378 2.378 2.378
value
A 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Df 82 82 82 82 82

X 3.9639 2.5301 0.4337 2.5542 9.4819
S 2.0269 1.9527 0.7018 2.0616 4.4704
t-value (t) 9.1519 27.8526 26.8237 24.0658 31.6250
p value(p) 1.7949e-14 1.4563e-43 2.3584e-42 6.3885e-39 1.0498e-47
Table 10. Significance Significant Extremely Extremely Extremely Extremely
T-test for 50% sub- significant significant significant significant
features Result Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject

8.1 Revisiting hypotheses

Hypotheses 1 to 4 cater individual feature categories and assume that BPM tools provide
sufficient sub-features for them. Hypothesis 5 caters all feature categories collectively and
their sufficient provision in tools. Two benchmarks were formed to measure tool sufficiency:
50% sub-features and 25% sub-features. H1–H5 were statistically analyzed for both
benchmarks, using t-test. The results demonstrate that BPM tools lack in providing sufficient
features against design and modeling, analysis, implementation and management and
administration of business processes. However, the tools offer sufficient number of features
for design and modeling, if the measure of feature sufficiency is 25%.
Hypothesis 6 measures collective provision of all feature categories, which has been tested
using ANOVA test. The test result shows that BPM tools do not provide all feature categories
equally. That is, individual tools are not specialized for carrying out quality BPM and BPR.
One or more tools together may support all feature categories.
 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5
Business
process
Ho μ≥3 μ ≥ 4.25 μ ≥ 1.25 μ≥4 μ ≥ 12.5 management
H1 μ<3 μ < 4.25 μ < 1.25 μ<4 μ < 12.5
Critical 2.378 2.378 2.378 2.378 2.378 tools
value
A 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Df 82 82 82 82 82

X 3.9639 2.5301 0.4337 2.5542 9.4819
S 2.0269 1.9527 0.7018 2.0616 4.4704
T 4.3322 8.0241 10.5965 6.3892 6.1507
P 1 6.2593e-12 5.0034e-17 9.5322e-09 2.6826e-08
Significance Not Extremely Extremely Extremely Extremely
significant significant significant significant significant
Result May not Reject null Reject null Reject null Reject null Table 11.
reject null hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis T-test for 25% sub-
hypothesis features

Sum of squares df Mean square F-value p

Category means 2.7117 3 0.9039 46.3378 5.4215e-25

Within 6.3982 328 0.0195 Table 12.
Total 9.1099 331 ANOVA test

8.2 Answering research questions

The first research question (RQ1) has been answered by studying different steps in BPM life
cycle and various BPR lifecycles. Four major requirements have been identified for quality
BPM and BPR, which must also be part of software tools. They are termed as feature
categories that include design and modeling, analysis, implementation and management and
administration.
The RQ2 focused on evaluation of BPM and supporting tools to gauge (1) what sub-features
are present in them against every category and (2) how sufficiently they support their respective
feature category. Table 4 includes lists of sub-features for every category. The measure of
sufficiency has been tested using statistical methods, results of which have been summarized in
section 8.2. The results of the statistics showed that BPM and supporting tools lack essential
features to carry out proper reengineering and management of business processes.

8.3 State of BPM tools

Cluster figures (Figures 5–8) show an overall state of BPM tools in each feature category. The
area covered by a sub-feature shows number of tools that support it. The overlapping areas
(density) of two or more sub-features show number of tools that support them together.
It has also been observed that the tools do not sufficiently support the BPM principle of
involvement, such as collaborative design efforts, interactive feedback sessions and
brainstorming. BPMN should be retained in all tools as a common process language for
supporting the principle of joint understanding. All tools must include simple to sophisticated
process modeling capabilities, by introducing different ways such as coloring, labeling,
storyboarding, etc. (Kohlborn et al., 2014). Modeling can be classified as process models for
understanding (simplistic view) and models for redesign (detailed view). Further research is
needed on BPM tools that would focus on individual feature categories for their refinement.
Each feature category must be guided by some factors for quality BPM. Based on these
factors, ways to improve efficacy of tools must be devised.
BPMJ

Figure 5.
Design and modeling
cluster

Figure 6.
Analysis cluster
 Business
process
management
tools

Figure 7.
Implementation cluster

Figure 8.
Management and
administration cluster

9. Conclusion
Many software tools support BPM and related activities; however, lack of them has been
identified among failure factors of quality BPM and BPR initiatives. This paper uncovers
problems related to these tools by conducting a comprehensive tool evaluation. Four feature
categories are identified that are deemed essential for such tools: design and modeling,
BPMJ analysis, implementation and management and administration. Results, obtained from tool
evaluation, showed that BPM and supporting tools do not provide sufficient support to
quality BPM. They do not cater imperative features of process reengineering and process
management amply. A set of total 50 sub-features, identified as a part of this research, is a
unique list, which is built through an iterative process of feature extraction and tool selection.
These sub-features can become a benchmark for future tool evaluations. However, more work
would be required to refine them, both in terms of quantity and quality for successful BPM.
The paper does not aim at providing a list of tools that guarantee quality BPM nor does it
provide a method to determine if a tool is “good” or “bad”. It highlights list of features that
should be part of tools providing either one or more BPM requirements (feature categories).
Based on the feature lists, the paper attempts to determine the extent to which different tools
support BPM. As enablers of BPM, it is imperative to gauge strengths and weaknesses of
these tools in order to facilitate organizations in tool selection. Different organizations may
have different BPM requirements, such a study would benefit them to select an appropriate
tool. Moreover, new tools may unveil, or existing tools may evolve over the time. Therefore, it
is important to regularly update list of features and relevant studies to evaluate BPM and
supporting tools based on those features.
This study provides a benchmark for state-of-the-art BPM tools by giving basic feature
categories and corresponding feature sets. The insight on these basic requirements may
guide the development of better tools. The tools, which are not receiving much appreciation,
may be evolved using the mentioned criteria. The detailed analysis of existing features may
help organizations in gauging BPM tools according to their specific requirements, resulting in
the selection of an appropriate tool. Future studies may involve ranking of these features
based on their usefulness. New features in every category may also be identified.

References
Aagesen, G. and Krogstie, J. (2015), “BPMN 2.0 for modeling business processes”, Handbook on
Business Process Management, Vol. 1, Springer, pp. 219-250.
Abdelgader, M.Z. (2012), Workflow Management Systems-Comparison Study BizAgi vs, Sudan
University of Science and Technology, Joget.
Abdi, N., Zarei, B., Vaisy, J. and Parvin, B. (2011), “Innovation models and business process redesign”,
International Business and Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 147-152.
Adesola, S. and Baines, T. (2005), “Developing and evaluating a methodology for business process
improvement”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Al-Fedaghi, S. (2017), Business Process Modeling: Blueprinting, International Journal of Computer
Science and Information SecurityVol. 15 No. 3, pp. 286-291.
Ami, T. and Sommer, R. (2007), “Comparison and evaluation of business process modelling and
management tools”, International Journal of Services and Standards, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 249-261.
Araujo, M.D.R., Borges, M. and Rodrıguez, J.F.J. (1999), Supporting Software Processes with
Groupware, Segundo Encontro de Computacion, Hidalgo (state of Mexico).
Archer, R. and Bowker, P. (1995), “BPR consulting: an evaluation of the methods employed”, Business
Process Re-engineering and Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 28-46.
Association of Business Process Management Professionals, A (2009), Guide to the Business Process
Management Common Body of Knowledge (BPM CBOK®): ABPMP BPM CBOK®-[version
2.0-second Release], Association of Business Process Management Professionals (ABPMP
International).
Aversano, L. and Tortorella, M. (2012), “Assessing workflow ability of ERP and WfM systems for
implementing business processes”, Information Systems Reengineering for Modern Business
Systems: ERP, Supply Chain and E-Commerce Management Solutions Chapter 7, IGI Global,
 pp. 127-145, available at: https://www.igi-global.com/book/information-systems-reengineering- Business
modern-business/58284.
€
process
Bach, V., Brecht, L., Hess, T. and Osterle, H. (2013), Enabling Systematic Business Change: Integrated
Methods and Software Tools for Business Process Redesign, ViewegþTeubner Verlag, Springer.
management
Bagaber, A., Abdullah, S.N.H.S., Miskon, S. and Mohammed, Z. (2014), Comparison of Business Process
tools
Reengineering Methodologies for Small Medium Enterprises, Paper Presented at the 1st
International Conference of Recent Trends in Information and Communication Technologies.
Bertolini, M., Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F.E. and Giacchetta, G. (2011), “Business process re-
engineering in healthcare management: a case study”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 42-66.
Bertolini, M., Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F.E. and Postacchini, L. (2014), “Business process
reengineering of drugs storage and distribution: a case study”, International Journal of
Procurement Management, Vol. 8 Nos 1-2, pp. 44-65.
Bider, I. and Perjons, E. (2015), “Design science in action: developing a modeling technique for eliciting
requirements on business process management (BPM) tools”, Software and Systems Modeling,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 1159-1188.
Blechar, M.J. and Sinur, J. (2007), Magic Quadrant for Business Process Analysis Tools, Gartner RAS
Core Research Note, Gartner, 148777.
Bochon, I., Ivens, V. and Nagel, R. (2015), “Challenges of cloud business process management”, Cloud
Computing for Logistics, Springer, Cham, pp. 119-139.
Bosilj-Vuksic, V., Ceric, V. and Hlupic, V. (2007), “Criteria for the evaluation of business process
simulation tools”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, Vol. 2,
pp. 73-88.
Bradley, P., Browne, J., Jackson, S. and Jagdev, H. (1995), “Business process re-engineering (BPR)—a
study of the software tools currently available”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 25, pp. 309-330.
Brian Harrison, D. and Pratt, M.D. (1993), “A methodology for reengineering businesses”, Planning
Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 6-11.
Cass, A.G., Sutton, S.M. Jr and Osterweil, L.J. (2003), Formalizing Rework in Software Processes, Paper
Presented at the European Workshop on Software Process Technology.
Camarinha-Matos, L.M. and Lima, C. (1999), “Coordination and configuration requirements in a virtual
enterprise”, Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, Springer, Springer, Boston, MA.
Chang, J.F. (2016), Business Process Management Systems: Strategy and Implementation, CRC Press,
Auerbach Publications, New York, NY.
Cheng, M.Y., Peng, H.S., Huang, C.M. and Chen, C.H. (2012), “KM-oriented business process
reengineering for construction firms”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 21, pp. 32-45.
Chong, S. (2014), “Business process management for SMEs: an exploratory study of implementation
factors for the Australian wine industry”, Journal of Information Systems and Small Business,
Vol. 1 Nos 1-2, pp. 41-58.
Ciaghi, A., Villafiorita, A. and Mattioli, A. (2009), VLPM: A Tool to Support BPR in Public Administration,
Paper Presented at the Digital Society, 2009. ICDS’09. Third International Conference on.
Ciaghi, A., Villafiorita, A., Weldemariam, K., Mattioli, A. and Phan, Q.-S. (2010), “Supporting public
administration with an integrated BPR environment”, International Conference on e-
Infrastructure and e-Services for Developing Countries, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 50-59.
Cochran, W.J. and King, S.A. (1993), Using Symbolic Modeling in Business Re-engineering, Paper
Presented at the Simulation Conference Proceedings, 1993, Winter.
Corporation, S., “Use pathMaker to reengineer business processes”, PathMaker, available at: http://
www.skymark.com/pathmaker/uses/reengine.asp (accessed 18 July 2013).
Covert, M. (1997), Successfully Performing Business Process Re-engineering, Vol. 201, Visible Systems
Corporation.
BPMJ Craggs, S. (2011), Comparing BPM from Pegasystems, IBM and TIBCO, Lustratus Research, available
at: http://lustratus. com/product/comparing-bpm-from-pegasystems-ibm-and-tibco.
Cumberlidge, M. (2007), Business Process Management with JBoss JBPM, Packt Publishing.
Da Silva, P.T., Wermersch, H.H., Teixeira, L.F. and Porto Filho, M.R. (2009), System for the Operational
Activation of Banking ATMm Networks and Method for the Management of Banking ATM
Equipment Network, U.S. Patent Application, Nos 12-499, p. 371, Filed March 18, 2010.
Davenport, T.H. (2013), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology,
Harvard Business Press, Boston.
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990), The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and
Business Process Redesign, IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 46-60.
Desfray, P. (2011), Using OMG Standards with TOGAF. SOFTEAM–Modeliosoft, SOFTEAM–
Modeliosoft–OMG Information Day, France, October 2011, available at: www.modeliosoft.com.
Doomun, R. and Vunka Jungum, N. (2008), “Business process modelling, simulation and re-
engineering: call centres”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 838-848.
Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J. and Reijers, H.A. (2013), Business Process Management, Vol. 1,
Springer, Berlin.
Eftekhari, N. and Akhavan, P. (2013), “Developing a comprehensive methodology for BPR projects by
employing IT tools”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-29.
Fanning, K. and Centers, D.P. (2013), “Intelligent business process management: hype or reality?”,
Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 9-14.
Ferme, V. and Ivanchikj, A. (2016), “A container-centric methodology for benchmarking workflow
management systems”, Proceedings of CLOSER.
Fischer, L. (2010), BPMN 2.0 Handbook First Edition: Foreword by Bruce Silver, Vol. 1, Future
Strategies.
Fortmann-Roe, S. (2014), “Insight Maker: a general-purpose tool for web-based modeling and
simulation”, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, Vol. 47, pp. 28-45.
Fraternali, P., Brambilla, M. and Vaca, C. (2011), “A model-driven approach to social BPM
applications”, Social BPM: Work, Planning and Collaboration Under the Impact of Social
Technology, Future Strategies, Florida, pp. 95112.
Friedenstab, J.P., Janiesch, C., Matzner, M. and Muller, O. (2012), Extending BPMN for Business
Activity Monitoring, Paper Presented at the System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii
International Conference on.
Furey, T.R. (1993), “A six-step guide to process re-engineering”, Planning Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 20-23.
Galatescu, A. and Greceanu, T. (2003), Ontologies Supporting Business Process Re-engineering, Paper
Presented at the Enterprise Information systems IV.
Ghanadbashi, S. and Ramsin, R. (2016), “Towards a method engineering approach for business
process reengineering”, IET Software, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 27-44.
Guha, S., Kettinger, W.J. and Teng, J.T. (1993), “Business process reengineering: building a
comprehensive methodology”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 13-22.
Hahn, C., Winkler, T.J., Friedrich, F., Tamm, G. and Petruch, K. (2012), “How to choose the right BPM
tool: a maturity-centric decision framework with a case evaluation in the European market”,
EMISA 2012–Der Mensch im Zentrum der Modellierung.
Haller, A., Marmolowski, M., Gaaloul, W., Oren, E., Sapkota, B. and Hauswirth, M. (2009), “From
workflow models to executable web service interfaces”, Paper Presented at the Web Services,
2009. ICWS 2009. IEEE International Conference on.
Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T. and Reichert, M. (2008), “Managing Process Variants in the Process Life
Cycle”, CTIT Technical Report Series Supplement/TR-CTIT-07-87, No. 2007, Centre for
Telematics and Information Technology.
Hamling, J. (2016), A Comparative Study of Open Source Workflow Management Systems, Southern Business
Connecticut State University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
process
Hammer, M. (2015), “What is business process management?”, Handbook on Business Process
Management, Vol. 1, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 3-16.
management
Harmon, P. (2010), “The scope and evolution of business process management”, Handbook on Business
tools
Process Management, Vol. 1, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 37-81.
Harmon, P. (2015), The State of Business Process Management 2016, BPTrends website, available at:
http://www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/uploads/2015-BPT-Survey-Report.pdf.
Hlupic, V., Choudrie, J. and Patel, N. (2000), “Business process re-engineering (BPR): the REBUS
approach”, Cognition, Technology and Work, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 89-96.
Hlupic, V. and Vuksic, V.B. (2004), “Business process modelling using SIMUL8”, Paper presented at the
European Simulation Symposium: Simulation in Industry (16; 2004).
uller-Laue, S., Schubert, P., G€ode, B. and Thurow, K. (2013), “Visual simulation for the BPM-
Holzm€
based process automation”, Paper Presented at the International Conference on Business
Informatics Research.
Hojati, S., Paydar, M. and Mashreghi, H. (2015), “Organizational reengineering for relief agencies
based on BPR methodology”, Environment Conservation Journal, Special Edition, Vol. 16,
pp. 613-622.
Hoover, S.V. and Kratkiewicz, G.L. (1994), “The design of DECmodel for Windows”, Digital Technical
Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 50-50.
Houy, C., Fettke, P. and Loos, P. (2010), “Empirical research in business process management–analysis
of an emerging field of research”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 619-661.
Howson, C., Sallam, R., Richardson, J., Tapadinhas, J., Doine, C. and Woodward, A. (2018), “Magic
quadrant for analytics and business intelligence platforms”, Gartner Group February, p. 26,
Retrieved August 16, 2018.
Hy€otyl€ainen, T. (2014), Steps to Improved Firm Performance with Business Process Management:
Adding Business Value with Business Process Management and its Systems, Dissertation
Tampere University, Springer Gabler, Tampere.
Im, I., El Sawy, O.A. and Hars, A. (1999), “Competence and impact of tools for BPR”, Information and
Management, Vol. 36, pp. 301-311.
Iqbal, N., Nadeem, W. and Zaheer, A. (2015), “Impact of BPR critical success factors on inter-
organizational functions: an empirical study”, The Business and Management Review, Vol. 6
No. 1, p. 152.
Jambor-sadeghi, K. (2017), “Software with improved view of a business process”, US Patent, Vol. 20,
p. 170, 091, 679.
Jansen-Vullers, M. and Netjes, M. (2006), Business process Simulation–A Tool Survey, Paper presented
at the Workshop and Tutorial on Practical Use of Coloured Petri Nets and the CPN Tools,
Aarhus, Denmark.
Jeston, J. and Johan, N. (2014), Business Process Management, Routledge.
Kalnins, A. (2004), “Business modelling. Languages and tools”, Progress in Industrial Mathematics at
ECMI 2002, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 41-52.
Kannengiesser, U. (2008), “Subsuming the BPM life cycle in an ontological framework of designing”,
Advances in Enterprise Engineering I, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 31-45.
Kasemsap, K. (2015), The Role of Business Process Reengineering in the Modern Business World
Achieving Enterprise Agility through Innovative Software Development, IGI Global, pp. 87-114.
Kettinger, W.J., Teng, J.T. and Guha, S. (1997), “Business process change: a study of methodologies,
techniques, and tools”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 55-80.
BPMJ Keyes, J. (2016), Implementing the IT Balanced Scorecard: Aligning IT with Corporate Strategy, CRC
Press, Auerbach Publications, Taylor & Francis Group.
Khalaf, R., Subramanian, R., Mikalsen, T., Duftler, M., Diament, J. and Silva-Lepe, I. (2009), “Enabling
community participation for workflows through extensibility and sharing”, Paper presented at
the International Conference on Business Process Management.
Khan, S., Yufeng, L. and Ahmad, A. (2009), “Analysing complex behaviour of hydrological systems
through a system dynamics approach”, Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol. 24 No. 12,
pp. 1363-1372.
Ko, R.K. (2009), “A computer scientist’s introductory guide to business process management (BPM)”,
Crossroads, Vol. 15 No. 4, p. 4.
Kohlborn, T., Mueller, O., Poeppelbuss, J., Roeglinger, M., Vom Brocke, J., Schmiedel, T., Recker, J., Trkman, P.,
Mertens, W. and Viaene, S. (2014), “Ten principles of good business process management”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 530-548.
La Ferla, B. (2003), “Mapping the way to process improvement”, Engineering Management, Vol. 13
No. 6, pp. 16-17.
Laguna, M. and Marklund, J. (2013), Business Process Modeling, Simulation and Design, CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group.
Le Clair, C. and Miers, D. (2011), The Forrester Wave™: Dynamic Case Management, Q1 2011, Report,
Forrester Research, January 2011.
Lei, C. and Bin, L. (2007), A Workflow Model Supporting Dynamic BPR, Paper presented at the Grid and
Cooperative Computing, 2007. GCC 2007. Sixth International Conference on.
Lie, J. (2005), “A comparison of BPR methodologies using NIMSAD framework”, Medium
Econometrische Toepassingen, No. 4, pp. 32-36.
Lim, A.J., Village, J., Salustri, F.A. and Neumann, W.P. (2014), “Process mapping as a tool for
participative integration of human factors into work system design”, European Journal of
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 273-290.
Liu, H., Lembaret, Y., Clin, D. and Bourey, J.-P. (2011), Comparison between Collaborative Business
Process Tools, Paper Presented at the Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), 2011
Fifth International Conference on.
LTD, O.E.P. (2012), Monarch BPM. 10, available at: www.monarchbpm.com, https://www.
businessprocessincubator.com/content/monarch-bpm-home/.
Macedo de Morais, R., Kazan, S., In^es Dallavalle de Padua, S. and Lucirton Costa, A. (2014), “An
analysis of BPM lifecycles: from a literature review to a framework proposal”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 412-432.
Maklakov, S. (2003), Modeling Business-Processes with all Fusion Process Modeler, Dialogue Myths,
Moscow.
Manganelli, R.L. and Klein, M.M. (1995), “The reengineering handbook: a step-by-step guide to
business transformation”, Journal for Healthcare Quality, Vol. 17 No. 2, p. 37.
Margherita, A. (2014), “Business process management system and activities: two integrative
definitions to build an operational body of knowledge”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 20, pp. 642-662.
Maurer, F., Dellen, B., Bendeck, F., Goldmann, S., Holz, H., Kotting, B. and Schaaf, M. (2000), “Merging
project planning and web enabled dynamic workflow technologies”, IEEE Internet Computing,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 65-74.
Mayer, R.J. and DeWitte, P.S. (1999), “Delivering results: evolving BPR from art to engineering”,
Business Process Engineering, Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 83-129.
Meyer, A., Pufahl, L., Fahland, D. and Weske, M. (2013), “Modeling and enacting complex data
dependencies in business processes”, Business Process Management, Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 171-186.
McIntosh, C. (2009), Self Correcting Schedule, California State University, Chico. Business
Mendling, J., Recker, J.C. and Wolf, J. (2012), Collaboration Features in Current BPM Tools, Paper process
Presented at the EMISA Forum.
management
Meng, J., Su, S.Y., Lam, H., Helal, A., Xian, J., Liu, X. and Yang, S. (2006), “DynaFlow: a dynamic inter- tools
organisational workflow management system”, International Journal of Business Process
Integration and Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 101-115.
Milanovic, N., Milic, B. and Malek, M. (2008), Modeling Business Process Availability, Paper Presented
at the Services-Part I, 2008. IEEE Congress on.
Mohan, C. (1998), Recent Trends in Workflow Management Products, Standards and Research,
Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 396-409.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A., Jiang, J. and Youssef, M. (1998), “Business process reengineering: a theoretical
framework and an integrated model”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 18 Nos 9-10, pp. 964-977.
Mulye, R. (2005), METEOR-S Process Design and Development Tool, Doctoral dissertation, University
of Georgia.
Muthu, S., Whitman, L. and Cheraghi, S.H. (2006), “Business process reengineering: a consolidated
methodology”, Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 4 th Annual International Conference
on Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications, and Practice, 1999 US Department of the
Interior-Enterprise Architecture.
Maruşter, L. and van Beest, N.R. (2009), “Redesigning business processes: a methodology based on
simulation and process mining techniques”, Knowledge and Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 3, p. 267.
Netjes, M., Reijers, H.A. and van der Aalst, W.M. (2006), “Supporting the BPM life-cycle with FileNet”,
Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the CAiSE.
Ng, A.T.S., Sy, C. and Li, J. (2011), “A system dynamics model of Singapore healthcare affordability”,
Paper Presented at the Simulation Conference (WSC), Proceedings of the 2011 Winter.
Noakes, C. (2005), Transportation Simulation Ontime in iGrafx Software, Paper Presented at the
Proceedings of the 2005 Waste Management Conference, Tucson, Arizona.
Nteo, M. (2017), An Investigation of Business Process Maturity: A Case Study in a South African
Parastatal, Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Town.
Nwabueze, U. (2015), “The systematic and successful implementation of reengineering in healthcare”,
Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2.
OIMT, O.O.I.M.T. (2012), Business Process Re-engineering, Hawaii, available at: www.oimt.hawaii.gov.
Ozcelik, Y. (2010), “Do business process reengineering projects payoff? Evidence from the United
States”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 7-13.
Paim, R., Mansur Caulliraux, H. and Cardoso, R. (2008), “Process management tasks: a conceptual and
practical view”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 694-723.
Patig, S., Casanova-Brito, V. and V€ogeli, B. (2010a), “IT requirements of business process management
in practice–an empirical study”, International Conference on Business Process Management,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 13-28.
Patig, S., Casanova-Brito, V. and V€ogeli, B. (2010b), “IT requirements of business process management
in practice–an empirical study”, Paper Presented at the International Conference on Business
Process Management.
Pavalkis, S. (2011), Requirements Interchange Format (ReqIF) Importer, No Magic, available at: http://
www.nomagic.com/images/products/cameo_requirements_modeler_plugin/files/Requirements_
Interchange_Format_ReqIF_Importer.pdf.
Pereira, J.L. and Freitas, A.P. (2016), “Simulation of BPMN process models: current BPM tools
capabilities”, New Advances in Information Systems and Technologies, Springer, Cham,
pp. 557-566.
BPMJ Prager, M., Klımek, F. and R
uzicka, J. (2009), “GeoWeb services orchestration based on BPEL or
BPMN”, Proceedings from GIS Ostrava.
Puah, K.P. and Tang, K.N. (2000), Business Process Management, a Consolidation of BPR and TQM,
Paper Presented at the Management of Innovation and Technology, 2000. ICMIT 2000.
Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on.
Rademakers, T. (2012), Activiti in Action: Executable Business Processes in BPMN 2.0, Manning
Publications Co, 2012, Shelter Island, NY.
Rao, L., Mansingh, G. and Osei-Bryson, K.M. (2012), “Building ontology based knowledge maps to
assist business process re-engineering”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 577-589.
Ravesteyn, P. and Batenburg, R. (2010), “Surveying the critical success factors of BPM-systems
implementation”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 492-507.
Ravesteyn, P. and Versendaal, J. (2007), “Success factors of business process management systems
implementation”, ACIS 2007 Proceedings, p. 60.
Recker, J.C. (2006), “Process modeling in the 21st century”, BPTrends, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane (QUT Digital Repository), May, pp. 1-6, available at: https://eprints.qut.
edu.au/4640/1/4640a.pdf.
Reijers, H.A. (2007), “Case prediction in BPM systems: a research challenge”, Journal of Korean
Institute of Industrial Engineers, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J. and Recker, J. (2015), Business Process Quality Management Handbook on
Business Process Management, Vol. 1, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 167-185.
Reijers, H.A., Vanderfeesten, I. and Van der Aalst, W.M. (2016), “The effectiveness of workflow
management systems: a longitudinal study”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 126-141.
Richardson, C. and Moore, C. (2010), The Forrester Wave™: Business Process Management Suites, Q3
2010, Forrester Research.
Rigby, D.K. (2013), Management Tools 2013 – an Executive’s Guide, p. 64, available at: http://www.
bain.com/Images/MANAGEMENT_TOOLS_2013_An_Executives_guide.pdf.
Rodriguez, M.C.B. and Grau, J.P.P. (2011), “BPM: advances in business process management”,
Ingenierı@ y Tecnologı@, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 6-11.
Rosemann, M. and Vom Brocke, J. (2015), “The six core elements of business process management”,
Handbook on Business Process Management, Vol. 1, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 105-122.
Sahid, S., Sinha, S., La Greca, C. and K€onig, J., BPM Tool Study, Business Process Experts, March
2015, Germany (Gmbh).
Scholtz, B., Calitz, A. and Snyman, I. (2013), The Usability of Collaborative Tools: Application to
Business Process Modelling, Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the South African Institute for
Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference.
Segatto, M., In^es Dallavalle de Padua, S. and Pinheiro Martinelli, D. (2013), “Business process
management: a systemic approach?”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 698-714.
Shafiei, A. and Hajiheydari, H. (2014), “Developing a business process management maturity model: a
study of 300 Iranian superior companies”, International Journal of Engineering and Technical
Research, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 231-242.
Shaw, D.R., Holland, C.P., Kawalek, P., Snowdon, B. and Warboys, B. (2007), “Elements of a business
process management system: theory and practice”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 13, pp. 91-107.
Silver, B. and Richard, B. (2009), BPMN Method and Style, Vol. 2, Cody-Cassidy Press Aptos.
Smart, P.A., Maddern, H. and Maull, R.S. (2009), “Understanding business process management:
implications for theory and practice”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 491-507.
Snowdon, R. (1995), “ProcessWise: technology for developing systems for organisations”, Paper Business
Presented at the CSCW (Computer Supported Co-operative Working) and the Software Process
(Digest No. 1995/036), IEE Colloquium on. process
Stoilova, K.P. and Stoilov, T.A. (2006), “Evolution of the workflow management systems”, Paper
management
Presented at the XLI International Scientific Conference on Information, Communication and tools
Energy Systems and Technologies.
Subramoniam, S., Tounsi, M. and Krishnankutty, K. (2009), “The role of BPR in the implementation of
ERP systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 653-668.
Sungau, J. and Msanjila, S.S. (2012), “On IT enabling of business process reengineering in
Organizations”, Paper Presented at the Advanced Materials research.
Swan, H. and Pitta, D. (2010), “The ultimate in new product design: molding the product concept to
user learning needs”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 286-294.
Swithinbank, P., Chessell, M., Gardner, T., Griffin, C., Man, J., Wylie, H. and Yusuf, L. (2005), Patterns:
Model-Driven Development Using IBM Rational Software Architect, IBM, International
Technical Support Organization, IBM Redbooks.
Tabrizi, R.S., Marthandan, G., Esferjani, P.S., Chavosh, A. and Halimi, A.B. (2012), “A study on the
recursive relationship between BPR and ERP implementation”, Paper Presented at the
Advanced Materials Research.
Thompson, G., Seymour, L.F. and O’Donovan, B. (2009), “Towards a BPM success model: An analysis
in South African financial services organisations”, Enterprise, Business-Process and
Information Systems Modeling, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1-13.
Thorpe, M., Holm, J. and van den Boer, G. (2014), Discovering the Decisions within Your Business
Processes Using IBM Blueworks Live, IBM Redbooks, IBM systems.
Trkman, P. (2010), “The critical success factors of business process management”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 125-134.
Underdown, D.R. (1997), An Enterprise Transformation Methodology, Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Texas, Arlington.
Van der Aalst, W.M. (2015), “Business process management as the ‘killer app’ for petri nets”, Software
and Systems Modeling, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 685-691.
Van Der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H. and Weske, M. (2003), Business process Management: A
Survey, Paper Presented at the International Conference on Business Process Management.
Vollmer, K. (2008), The Forrester Wave™: Integration-Centric Business Process Management Suites,
Forrester, Q4 2008.
Vom Brocke, J., Recker, J. and Mendling, J. (2010), “Value-oriented process modeling: integrating
financial perspectives into business process re-design”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 333-356.
Vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S. and Schmiedel, T. (2016), “On the role of context in business process
management”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 486-495.
Wainwright, K. and Power, C. (2016), “Adventures in starting a service desk”, Paper Presented at the
Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on SIGUCCS Annual Conference.
Weske, M. (2007), Business Process Management–Concepts, Verlag, Languages, Architectures, Berlin.
Wohed, P., Russell, N., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Andersson, B. and Van der Aalst, W.M. (2009), “Patterns-
based evaluation of open source BPM systems: the cases of jBPM, OpenWFE, and Enhydra
Shark”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 51 No. 8, pp. 1187-1216.
Wolf, J. (2010), “Towards collaborative process modeling–a framework for comparing social Features
in current BPM tools”, Master’s thesis, School of Business and Economics, Humboldt–University
of Berlin, Germany.
BPMJ Xiaosong, W., Yijing, L. and Wu, X. (2012), Role Analysis of IT in Business Process Re-engineering,
Paper Presented at the Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS), 2012 IEEE 3rd
International Conference on.
Yu, B. and Wright, D.T. (1997), “Software tools supporting business process analysis and modelling”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 133-150.
Zhou, Y. and Chen, Y. (2010), “The analytic supporting tools for business reengineering with system
integration design. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans”, IEEE
Transactions on, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 285-300.
Zhu, W.D., Benoit, B., Jackson, B., Liu, J., Marin, M., Meena, S., Ospina, J.F. and Rios, G. (2015),
Advanced Case Management with IBM Case Manager, IBM Redbooks.
Zuhaira, B., Ahmad, N., Saba, T., Haseeb, J., Malik, S.U.R., Manzoor, U., Balubaid, M.A. and Anjum, A.
(2017), “Identifying deviations in software processes”, IEEE Access, Vol. 5, pp. 20319-20332.
Zur Muehlen, M. and Ho, D.T.Y. (2005), Risk Management in the BPM Lifecycle, Paper presented at the
International Conference on Business Process Management.
Zur Muehlen, M. and Shapiro, R. (2010), Business Process Analytics Handbook on Business Process
Management, Vol. 2, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 137-157.

Further reading
Corporation, V. (2013), Process Architect, available at: http://www.shanit.com/docs/vsPA.pdf.
Lab, T.O. (2013), Teamwork User Guide, Vol. 270, available at: http://www.twproject.com.
Software, B. (2011), Workflow Objects Guide. BMC Remedy Action Request System, p. 318, 7.6.04 BMC
Software website, available at: http://klslconsulting.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/
183986-Workflow-Objects-Guide.pdf.
Technologies, C. (2006), All Fusion Process Modeler. 77, CA Technologies website, available at: https://
supportcontent.ca.com/cadocs/0/e002711e.pdf.

Corresponding author
Naveed Ahmad can be contacted at: naveed.ahmad@nu.edu.pk
Appendix 1
Tool/vendor
AccuProcess Business Process Modeler (AccuProcess)
Scholtz et al. (2013)
ActionWorks™ Process Builder (Action Technologies)
ActiveModeler Avantage (KAISHA-Tec) Prager et al.
(2009)
Activiti (Alfresco Software) Meyer et al. (2013),
Rademakers (2012)
All Clear (Ideagen)
AllFusion 7 (Technologies) Maklakov (2003), Recker (2006) https://www.ca.com/us/services-support/ca-support/ca-support-
ARIS Express (Software AG) Prager et al. (2009)
ARISalign/ARIS Express (Software AG) Prager et al.
(2009)
Bizagi BPM Suite (Bizagi) Fraternali et al. (2011)
Bizagi Process Modeler (Bizagi) Liu et al. (2011)
Blueworks Live (IBM) Al-Fedaghi (2017), Thorpe et al.
(2014)
BMC Remedy Action Request System (Software) Da Silva http://www.bmc.com/products/product-listing/remedy-action-
et al. (2009)
BonitaSoft Suite (Renamed as Bonita BPM by BonitaSoft) www.bonitasoft.com/ (19th November, 2016)
Rodriguez and Grau (2011)
BPM Product Suite (Pegasystems, Inc.) Craggs (2011)
Business Process Modeler (BusinessGenetics)
CAM (Design processes and Systems group, Cambridge https://www-edc.eng.cam.ac.uk/cam (24th December, 2016)
EDC)
Cameo® Business Modeler Plugin (No Magic, Inc.)
Pavalkis (2011)
ConceptDraw PRO (CS Odessa Corp.) Swan and Pitta
(2010)
COSA BPM Suite (COSA) Van der Aalst (2015)
DECmodel (Digital Equipment Corporation; acquired by http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/dtj/vol6num4/vol6num4art3.
Compaq that merged with Hewlett–Packard) Cochran and pdf (27th March, 2016)
King (1993), Hoover and Kratkiewicz (1994)
DynaFlow (DynaFlow Solutions) Meng et al. (2006)
Edoras (renamed as Edoras-One by Edorasware)
Effektif (Renamed as Signavio Workflow Accelerator)
ExtendSim/BPR (Imagine That Inc.) Laguna and
Marklund (2013)
Business
process
management
Access URL/access date
tools
www.accuprocess.com/ (23rd June, 2016)
http://www.actiontech.com/products/process_builder.cfm (19th
November, 2016)
http://www.activemodeler.com/ (22nd November, 2016)
https://www.activiti.org/ (23rd December, 2016)
https://www.ideagen.com/ (16th November, 2016)
http://www.allclearsoftware.com/ (16th November, 2016)
online/product-content/status/announcement-documents/2011/
allfusion-modeling-suite-r7-is-now-available.html (2nd January,
2017)
https://supportcontent.ca.com/cadocs/0/e002711e.pdf (2nd
January, 2017)
http://www.ariscommunity.com/aris-express (7th September,
2016)
http://www.ariscommunity.com/aris-express (7th September,
2016)
https://www.bizagi.com/ (29th November, 2016)
http://help.bizagi.com/bpmsuite/en/ (29th November, 2016)
http://www.bizagi.com/ (30th November, 2016)
http://download.bizagi.com/docs/modeler/2511/en/Modeler_
user_Guide.pdf (30th November, 2016)
https://www.blueworkslive.com/home (12th November, 2016)
request-system.html (19th October, 2016)
http://klslconsulting.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/
183986-Workflow-Objects-Guide.pdf (19th October, 2016)
http://remedy.ncsu.edu/project/documentation/PDF/7.6.3_
Compatibility_Matrix.pdf (20th October, 2016)
http://www.pega.com/bpm-suite (11th December, 2016)
http://www.pega.com/products/business-process-management
(11th December, 2016)
http://www.businessgenetics.com/Products/
BusinessProcessModeler.aspx (10th December, 2016)
http://www.nomagic.com/products/magicdraw-addons/cameo-
business-modeler-plugin.html (8th December, 2016)
http://www.conceptdraw.com/products/drawing-tool/ (4th
December, 2016)
http://www.cosa.nl/bpm_suite.html (27th November, 2016)
http://www.dynaflow-solutions.com/ (16th June, 2016)
http://www.edorasware.com/edoras.html (21st July, 2016)
https://www.edorasware.com/edoras-one/ (13th December, 2016)
https://www.signavio.com/products/workflow-accelerator/ (1st
January, 2017)
www.extendsim.com (9th November, 2016)
Table A1.
List of evaluated
(continued ) software tools for BPM
BPMJ Tool/vendor Access URL/access date

GRADE Modeler (GRADE Development Group) http://www.gradetools.com/default.htm (30th May, 2016)

Camarinha-Matos and Lima (1999) http://www.gradetools.com/grade40/grade.htm (30th May, 2016)
Graham Process Mapping Software (The Ben Graham http://www.processchart.com/ (15th November, 2016)
Corporation)
IBM Business Process Manager (IBM) www.ibm.com/software/products/en/business-process-manager-
family (10th November, 2016)
IBM Case Foundation (IBM) Zhu et al. (2015) www.ibm.com/software/products/pk/en/case-foundation/ (21st
November, 2016)
i-Flow (Fujitsu) Haller et al. (2009) http://www.iflowbpm.com/products/iflow-platform/features-2/
(23rd November, 2016)
iGrafx Noakes (2005) http://www.igrafx.com/products (9th December, 2016)
Imixs Workflow (Imixs Software Solutions) Ferme and www.imixs.org/ (4th November, 2016)
Ivanchikj (2016), Stoilova and Stoilov (2006)
Insight Maker Fortmann-Roe (2014) http://insightmaker.com (1st December, 2016)
IntaliojBPMS (Intalio) http://www.intalio.com/products/bpms/overview/ (2nd
February, 2017)
Interstage Business Process Manager (Fujitsu) Milanovic http://www.fujitsu.com/global/products/software/middleware/
et al. (2008), Zur Muehlen and Shapiro (2010) application-infrastructure/interstage/solutions/bpmgt/ (22nd
November, 2016)
Inubit BPM (Bosch) Bochon et al. (2015) https://www.bosch-si.com/bpm-and-brm/inubit-bpm/business-
process-management.html (11th January, 2017)
http://www.inubit.com/inubit-Suite/6.1/onlinehelp/start_en.html
(11th January, 2017)
iProcess Suite (TIBCO Software) Reijers (2007), Vollmer https://docs.tibco.com/products/tibco-iprocess-engine (20th
(2008) December, 2016)
http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/05-2009-PR-%
20BPMS%20TIBCO_V4-final.pdf (21st December, 2016)
iThink (isee systems) Ng et al. (2011) http://www.iseesystems.com/softwares/Business/
IthinkSoftware.aspx (2nd December, 2016)
jBPM (RedHat) Cumberlidge (2007), Wohed et al. (2009) https://www.jbpm.org/ (10th November, 2016)
Joget Workflow (Joget) Abdelgader (2012), Hamling (2016) www.joget.org/ (31st December, 2016)
Kofax TotalAgility 7.0 (Kofax) http://www.kofax.com/bpm-solutions/ (15th December, 2016)
Livelink Workflow (OpenText Corporation) http://www.contentmanagementbyexcel.com/livelinkdownload-
1.pdf (18th July, 2016)
METEOR (LSDIS lab, University of Georgia) Mulye (2005) http://cobweb.cs.uga.edu/∼jam/papers/zLSDISpapers/KSM99.
pdf (16th December, 2016)
http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/past/METEOR/ (17th December,
2016) http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/meteor-s/
Modelio (Modeliosoft) Desfray (2011) www.modelio.org/ (25th December, 2016)
Monarch BPM (LTD) http://www.monarchbpm.com/LinkClick.aspx?
fileticket5t6yZWCJZCpk%3D&tabid583 (14th December,
2016)
MS Visio (Microsoft) Blechar and Sinur (2007) https://products.office.com/en/microsoft-visio-2013 (18th
December, 2016)
MS Word (Microsoft) https://products.office.com/en/word (19th December, 2016)
multiDESK Workflow (DIaLOGIKa GmbH) Cass et al. http://www.dialogika.de (20th November, 2016)
(2003)
OpenText Process Suite (OpenText Corporation) Fanning http://www.opentext.com/What-We-Do/Products/Business-
and Centers (2013), Le Clair and Miers (2011) Process-Management (25th November, 2016)
Oryx (Hasso-Plattner-Institute and Signavio) http://bpt.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/Oryx/WebHome (4th September,
2016)
Pathmaker (S. Corporation) Galatescu and Greceanu (2003) http://www.skymark.com/pathmaker/uses/reengine.asp (11th
November, 2016)
Postoz (Postoz) http://www.postoz.com (21st March, 2016)
Procap/Prosim (Knowledge Based Systems, Inc., KBSI) http://www.kbsi.com/products/procap (7th December, 2016)
Kalnins (2004)
Process Architect (V. Corporation) Mohan (1998) http://www.shanit.com/docs/vsPA.pdf (28th November, 2016)
Process Live (Renamed as ARIS Cloud Basic by Software http://www.softwareag.com/us/products/cloud/aris/default.asp
AG) (Sahid et al.) (30th September, 2016)
Process model http://www.processmodel.com/solutions/software.php (19th July,
2016)

Table A1. (continued )

Tool/vendor Access URL/access date
Business
process
Process Navigator (Triaster) La Ferla (2003) http://knowledgebase.triaster.co.uk/help-for-process-mappers/
process-navigator-help (7th December, 2016)
management
ProcessMaker (ProcessMaker Inc.) Aversano and www.processmaker.com/ (9th November, 2016) tools
Tortorella (2012)
ProcessMate http://processmate.net/workflow-management-and-other-bpm-
features/ (12th December, 2016)
PROCESSpedia BPMS http://processpedia.com.au/featurespage (20th June, 2016)
processWise (ICL) Snowdon (1995) http://www.processwise.eu/ (21st April, 2016)
ProcessWorks (Wizdom Systems, Inc.) Ami and Sommer http://www.wizdom.com/processworks.html (12th November,
(2007) 2016)
Proforma (Proforma UK Ltd) Vom Brocke et al. (2010) http://www.proforma-uk.co.uk/ (18th November, 2016)
QPR Suite (QPR Software Plc) Keyes (2016) https://www.qpr.com/products/qpr-suite (14th November, 2016)
RASP (Regatta Group) Araujo et al. (1999) http://kswenson.workcast.org/1993/199303_Applica/Applica93.
pdf (14th March, 2016)
Rational System Architect (IBM) Swithinbank et al. (2005) http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/ratisystarch (8th
June, 2016)
Roubroo (Prezi) Fischer (2010) https://prezi.com/bi6c30gercd7/product-features/ (31st
December, 2016)
RunMyProcess (a Fujitsu Company) Khalaf et al. (2009) https://www.runmyprocess.com/ (22nd December, 2016)
Savvion (Renamed as CX Process) Jambor-sadeghi (2017) www.savvion.com (23rd March, 2016)
https://www.aurea.com/our-solutions/cx-platform/cx-process/
(18th April, 2017)
SemTalk (Semtation) Patig et al. (2010b) www.semtation.de/ (22nd December, 2016)
Signavio Process Editor (Signavio) Mendling et al. (2012), http://signavio.com (1st January, 2017)
Silver and Richard (2009)
Sim4BPM Holzm€ uller-Laue et al. (2013) www.sim4bpm.com/ (19th March, 2016)
SIMUL8 (SIMUL8 Corporation) Hlupic and Vuksic (2004) http://www.simul8.com/ (17th November, 2016)
SmartDraw (SmartDraw Software, LLC.) Recker (2006) http://www.smartdraw.com/ (13th November, 2016)
Sterling Business Suite (Sterling Software) http://www.ss-us.com/ (5th December, 2016)
TIM BPM Solutions (TIM Solutions) http://www.tim-solutions.de/de/ (13th November, 2016)
TaskMap (Harvard Computing Group) http://taskmap.com (6th December, 2016)
TeamWARE Flow (Fujitsu) Maurer et al. (2000) http://www.fujitsu.com/my/products/software/applications/
(17th July, 2016)
Teamwork (Lab) McIntosh (2009) https://twproject.com/enterprise/ (10th November, 2016)
Track-It (Software) Wainwright and Power (2016) http://www.trackit.com (26th November, 2016)
Ultimus BPM Software Suite (Ultimus) Richardson and www.ultimus.com/ (22nd December, 2016)
Moore (2010)
Vensim (Ventana Systems) Khan et al. (2009) http://vensim.com/vensim-software/ (3rd December, 2016)
VLPM (Fondazione Bruno Kessler) Ciaghi et al. (2009) http://ed.fbk.eu/vlpm/ (1st November, 2016) Table A1.