Business Education and Training During the Enterprises' Digital Transformation: Notation Alignment and Equivalence Rules Among the Enterprises' Business Process Models

Authors

  • Athanasios G. Lazaropoulos School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Iroon Polytechniou Street, Zografou, GR 15780, Greece https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1940-6989

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37256/redr.212021764

Keywords:

business process modeling standards, BPMN diagrams, classic flowcharts, Gantt charts, Petri nets, digital transformation, project management, total quality management (TQM), business analytics

Abstract

Business process modeling attracts great importance in enterprises due to the need for a graphically simplified and less verbal way to manage their operations. Nevertheless, the existence of various process modeling standards across the different departments of the same enterprise, such as Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) diagrams, classic flowcharts, Gantt charts and Petri nets, urges their notation alignment. After the business process model nota-tion alignment, complex constraints and relationships among the enterprise's department processes can be automated and simplified. In the light of the digital transformation of today's enterprises, the main objective of this paper is the proposal of a straightforward and simplified business educational equivalence table so that a direct conversion among BPMN diagrams, flowcharts, Gantt Charts and Petri Nets can be locally fulfilled by non-specialized personnel in each enterprise's department. The methodology of this paper can be generalized in every enterprise where the aforementioned process modeling standards across its different departments coexist.

Downloads

Published

2021-04-08

How to Cite

Athanasios G. Lazaropoulos. (2021). Business Education and Training During the Enterprises’ Digital Transformation: Notation Alignment and Equivalence Rules Among the Enterprises’ Business Process Models. Regional Economic Development Research, 2(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.37256/redr.212021764