A Comparison of BPMN and UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams

  • Daniela C. C. Peixoto UFMG
  • Vitor A. Batista UFMG
  • Ana P. Atayde UFMG
  • Eduardo P. Borges UFMG
  • Rodolfo F. Resende UFMG
  • Clarindo Isaías P. S. Pádua UFMG


Interest in evaluating Business Process Modeling Languages has widespread, in part due to the increase of the number of languages available for this purpose. Several works on the evaluation of BPMLs are available. Their evaluation are mainly based on perspectives centered in modeling experts. In this paper, we address the readability perspective of two BPMLs (UML 2.0 and BPMN) for people not familiar with process modeling. The UML can be tailored for purposes beyond software modeling and offers Activity Diagrams for business process modeling. BPMN was designed for modeling business process and has a primary goal of being understandable by all business stakeholders. We compared undergraduates (freshmen) understanding of business process modeled in BPMN and UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams. Our results are interesting, since we were able to find that these two languages do not have significant differences, despite BPMN readability design goals.
Palavras-chave: BPMN, UML 2.0, Activity Diagrams


Eriksson, H., & Penker, M. 2000. Business Modeling with UML: business patterns at work. John Wiley & Sons.

Gou, H., Huang, B., Liu, W., Ren, S., & Y., Li. 2000. Petri-net-based business process modeling for virtual enterprises Systems. Pages 3183 – 3188 of: IEEE International Conference on Man, and Cybernetics, 2000, vol. 5.

Holt, A, Ramsey R., & Grimes, J. 1983. Coordinating System Technology as the Basis for a Programming Environment.Electrical Communication, 57(4), 307 – 314.

List, Beate, & Korherr, Birgit. 2006. An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. Pages 1532–1539 of: SAC '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.
[Mayer & Perakath, 1995] Mayer, R., Menzel C. Painter M. Witte P. Blinn T., & Perakath, B. 1995. Information Integration for Concurrent Engineering (IICE) IDEF3 Process Description Capture Method Report. Tech. rept. Knowledge Based Systems Inc. (KBSI).

Mendling, J., uttgens, N., & Neumann, M. 2004. A Comparison of XML Interchange Formats for Business Process Modelling.

OMG. 2004 (January). Business Process Definition Metamodel - Version 1.0.2.

OMG. 2005. Unified Modeling Language Specification, version 2.0. Object Management Group (OMG).

OMG. 2006. Business Process Modeling Notation Specification. Object Modeling Group.

Ould, M. 1995. Business Process – Modeling and Analysis for Reengineering and Improvement. John Wiley & Sons.

Russell, N., ter Hofsted, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., & Mulyar, N. 2006a. Workflow Control-Flow Patterns: A Revised View. Tech. rept. BPM Center Report BPM-06-22.

Russell, Nick, van der Aalst, Wil M. P., ter Hofstede, Arthur H. M., & Wohed, Petia. 2006b. On the suitability of UML 2.0 activity diagrams for business process modelling. Pages 95–104 of: APCCM '06: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific conference on Conceptual modelling. Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.

Scheer, A. W. 1999. ARIS – Business Process Modeling. 2nd edition edn. Springer Verlag.

Triola, Mario F. 2008. Introdução à Estatística. 10a. edição edn. LTC Editora.

White, Stephen A. 2004. Process Modeling Notations and Workflow Patterns.

WMC. 1998. Workflow Management Coalition. Interface 1: Process Definition Interchange Process Model, WfMC TC- 1016-M (1998).

Wohed, P., Perjons, E., Dumas, M., & ter, A. 2003. Pattern based analysis of EAI languages - the case of the business modeling language.

Wohed, Petia, van der Aalst, Wil M.P., Dumas, Marlon, ter Hofstede, Arthur H.M., & Russell, Nick. 2005. Pattern-based analysis of the control flow perspective of UML activity diagrams. In: ER 2005: 24th International Conference on Conceptual Modelling. Springer Verlag.

Wohlin, Claes, Runeson, Per, Höst, Martin, Ohlsson, Magnus C., Regnell, Björn, & Wesslén, Anders. 2000. Experimentation in Software Engineering, An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wright, Tim, & Cockburn, Andy. 2005. Evaluation of two textual programming notations for children. Pages 55–62 of: AUIC '05: Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian conference on User interface. Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.

zur Muehlen, M.; Rosemann, M. 2004. Multi-Paradigm Process Management. Pages 169–175 of: Janis Grundspenkis, Marite Kirikova, Riga Latvia (ed), Proceedings of CAiSE'04 Workshops - 5th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support (BPMDS 2004).
Como Citar

Selecione um Formato
PEIXOTO, Daniela C. C.; BATISTA, Vitor A.; ATAYDE, Ana P.; BORGES, Eduardo P.; RESENDE, Rodolfo F.; PÁDUA, Clarindo Isaías P. S.. A Comparison of BPMN and UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE QUALIDADE DE SOFTWARE (SBQS), 7. , 2008, Florianópolis. Anais [...]. Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, 2008 . p. 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2008.15531.