# Domain Model Based Design of Business Process Architectures
## 7 Discussion
Third, a dedicated ArchiMate viewpoint--designated the BPA viewpoint--was proposed for the BPA models of the dBPA method (DD3). Though some recent works relate BPA models with ArchiMate, e.g., [65; 66], no BPA design method has, so far, has used ArchiMate for the specification of BPA models. It is usually the case that BPA design methods use ad hoc languages. An advantage of using standard notations is the availability of tool support. In this work, for instance, _Signavio Process Manager 14.3_ was used for building domain and BPA models (Figures 3 and 6), and _Visual Paradigm 16.1_ for building OLCs (Figure 4), yet there are other tools for these purposes in the market. The paper shows the use of UML class diagrams for domain models, state machine diagrams for OLCs, and an ArchiMate viewpoint for BPA models. However, the method is not language-dependent and, for example, entity-relationship diagrams, Petri nets, and other model types could be used alternatively. The notations presented in the paper are, however, widely used and thus recommended for the target users of the dBPA method. The comparative evaluation reported in this paper is a step towards justifying that the dBPA method might be an improvement in comparison to other available BPA design methods. However, this conjecture might be better backed up by further research. The evaluation of the dBPA method with BPM practitioners revealed they perceived it as useful to achieve its goal with the benefits of being objective and clear and allowing to create complete and understandable BPA models that enable the integration of processes and the software that automates them. Regarding future empirical work, it would be interesting to complement user perceptions with more objective measures. For instance, the Method Evaluation Model (MEM) [67] is an adaptation of [60] that measures the actual usefulness and ease of use of methods. In a similar vein, the BPA models resulting from applying the dBPA method might be analyzed further. For example, it would be interesting to assess the cognitive effectiveness of BPA models to complement the information about perceptions. Furthermore, a model quality approach such as the SEmiotic QUALity framework (SEQUAL) [68] might be used to compare BPA models generated using alternative BPA design methods. In addition to further empirical work, two main future research topics are envisioned. On the one hand, a new version of the dBPA method could explore further aspects of domain models, e.g., association multiplicity (cf. [69]), and their impact on the resulting BPA model. In line with this, it would be interesting to perform a sensitivity study for assessing the impact of the variations of different parameters of domain models in the resulting BPA models. On the other hand, the dBPA method adopts some simplifications. First, it considers a one-to-one relation between a business process and an OLC transition. However, in some cases there might be a one-to-many relation between a business process and OLC transitions. For the sake of flexibility, future versions of the dBPA method should address this issue. Business process decomposition under the entity-centric paradigm has also been discussed in approaches such as [70]. Second, the dBPA method does not differentiate between the most general composition and the most specific aggregation process relations. The latter, which would allow representing processes that can be reused, is not included in the dBPA method in its current version but might be considered in the future.