cs.AIAug 27, 2026

BPMN4CAI: A BPMN Extension for Modeling Dynamic Conversational AI

Authors: Björn-Lennart Eger, Daniel Rose, Barbara Dinter

Organizations: Chemnitz University of Technology, Chair of Business Information Systems - Business Process and Information Management, Chemnitz, Germany

Abstract

Conversational AI systems, such as chatbots and virtual assistants, are becoming increasingly important to digital business processes. However, the established Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) standard faces challenges when representing dynamic, context-sensitive interactions. This paper addresses this methodological and practical research gap by developing a standard-compliant BPMN extension (BPMN4CAI). Using Design Science Research methodology, this paper develops an approach that systematically extends existing BPMN elements and incorporates specialized components. The applicability and relevance of the BPMN4CAI framework are demonstrated and evaluated through a case study. The results show that the BPMN4CAI extension facilitates adaptive decision-making processes, robust context management, and transparent interactions for Conversational AI within business processes.

Explore similar work

Apr 15, 2026

Large Language Models to Enhance Business Process Modeling: Past, Present, and Future Trends

Recent advances in Generative Artificial Intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), have stimulated growing interest in automating or assisting Business Process Modeling tasks using natural language. Several approaches have been proposed to transform textual process descriptions into BPMN and related workflow models. However, the extent to which these approaches effectively support complex process modeling in organizational settings remains unclear. This article presents a literature review of AI-driven methods for transforming natural language into BPMN process models, with a particular focus on the role of LLMs. Following a structured review strategy, relevant studies were identified and analyzed to classify existing approaches, examine how LLMs are integrated into text-to-model pipelines, and investigate the evaluation practices used to assess generated models. The analysis reveals a clear shift from rule-based and traditional NLP pipelines toward LLM-based architectures that rely on prompt engineering, intermediate representations, and iterative refinement mechanisms. While these approaches significantly expand the capabilities of automated process model generation, the literature also exposes persistent challenges related to semantic correctness, evaluation fragmentation, reproducibility, and limited validation in real-world organizational contexts. Based on these findings, this review identifies key research gaps and discusses promising directions for future research, including the integration of contextual knowledge through Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), its integration with LLMs, the development of interactive modeling architectures, and the need for more comprehensive and standardized evaluation frameworks.
Jan 29, 2026

Assessing the Business Process Modeling Competences of Large Language Models

The creation of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) models is a complex and time-consuming task requiring both domain knowledge and proficiency in modeling conventions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly expanded the possibilities for generating BPMN models directly from natural language, building upon earlier text-to-process methods with enhanced capabilities in handling complex descriptions. However, there is a lack of systematic evaluations of LLM-generated process models. Current efforts either use LLM-as-a-judge approaches or do not consider established dimensions of model quality. To this end, we introduce BEF4LLM, a novel LLM evaluation framework comprising four perspectives: syntactic quality, pragmatic quality, semantic quality, and validity. Using BEF4LLM, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of open-source LLMs and benchmark their performance against human modeling experts. Results indicate that LLMs excel in syntactic and pragmatic quality, while humans outperform LLMs in semantic aspects; however, the differences in scores are relatively modest, highlighting LLMs' competitive potential despite challenges in validity and semantic quality. The insights highlight current strengths and limitations of using LLMs for BPMN modeling and guide future model development and fine-tuning. Addressing these areas is essential for advancing the practical deployment of LLMs in business process modeling.
Oct 5, 2026

AI-Decision Checkpoints for AI-Augmented Business Process Management: Framework and Educational Instantiation

Large Language Models (LLMs), Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and AI agents are increasingly embedded in operational business processes. Yet Business Process Management (BPM) curricula and frameworks still largely treat artificial intelligence (AI) as an add-on technology, leaving graduates (as potential future process developers) unprepared to reason about AI as a first-class design element of end-to-end processes. This paper addresses that gap by proposing AI-decision checkpoints: explicit moments in a process development trajectory where process developers identify AI-candidate sub-processes, assess expected effects on time, cost, quality, and flexibility, consider legal and organisational constraints, and document a reasoned decision to adopt, constrain, or reject specific AI components. The checkpoints are instantiated through a fictitious customer onboarding process as a BPM Teaching Case, embedded in a lifecycle-driven framework spanning six modules that combine process modeling, simulation, workflow execution with AI agents, and process mining, with each module's output serving as the next module's input. A preliminary formative reflection draws on instructor observations, submitted artifacts, and discovered process maps from learning-management-system logs. These exploratory observations suggest that the approach supported clearer distinctions between task-level automation and process-level value.