ABSTRACT Business process model and notation (BPMN) is a widely used modeling language for representing business processes. BPMN has been extended to represent particular domains or application areas, or to improve practical aspects. BPMN extensions have been the subject of recent studies. This study aims to identify and analyze the BPMN extensions proposed between 2019 and 2025 (until July). This paper followed the steps of a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify and analyze the BPMN extensions. We first performed automatic and manual search and selection process to obtain the primary studies. We also selected papers using forward and backward snowballing techniques. In this analysis, we checked whether the studies reviewed presented clear meaning for the new extended constructs, including name, formal description, purpose, and application in the proposed context. The research identified 84 studies that resulted in new BPMN extensions, analyzing essential attributes, application areas, type of extension, syntax level, and adherence to Object Management Group (OMG) standards. The results showed that 95.7% of the extensions do not preserve the original BPMN syntax, and 55% do not support the modeling of the new elements, making their adoption difficult. In addition, we found that the presentation of the extensions lacks standardization: 55% of the studies do not provide meaning, 18.8% present partial definitions, and only 26.3% offer complete and structured descriptions. These findings reinforce the need for more consistent guidelines for defining and implementing BPMN extensions, contributing to future research into the extensibility of the notation. In this paper, we presented the results of an updated SLR to identify BPMN extensions. Our goal was to improve the understanding of how BPMN has been extended through evidence in literature. We identified 84 papers that extended BPMN in the last years (2019–2025), and five research questions were answered and discussed.
Cavalcante et al. (2026) studied this question.