Abstract
Business process management (BPM) broadly covers a lifecycle of four distinct phases: design, configuration, enactment, and analysis and evaluation. Most BPM tool suites impose a strict separation between these phases, i.e., in each phase different languages and tools are used and the transition between phases is indirect and costly. This paper presents an environment for integrating all phases of the BPM lifecycle in which business process (BP) types and their instances can be modeled, visualized, managed and automatically synchronized, using a shared representation of models and code. The environment extends the capabilities of BP models to be used not only for specifying BPs but also for: (1) enactment—creating instance objects that capture BP operational data; (2) monitoring BP instances as they progress; (3) visualizing performance indicators of executed BPs at runtime; and (4) navigating from a BP type model to its respective instance population. As opposed to existing tools, the proposed environment does not require regenerating the workflow schema when BP designs change, nor does it require additional adaptations to support monitoring. Thereby, we facilitate a continuous and dynamic BPM environment, where workflow specifications can be changed at runtime. Our solution integrates a meta-programming language called eXecutable Modeling Facility (XMF) and the multi-perspective enterprise modeling framework (MEMO).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams M, Hofstede AHM, Edmond D, Aalst WMP (2006) Worklets: a service-oriented implementation of dynamic flexibility in workflows. In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM confederated international conferences, CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE 2006, Montpellier, France. Proceedings, Part I, vol 4275. Springer, Berlin, pp 291–308
Amoui M, Derakhshanmanesh M, Ebert J, Tahvildari L (2012) Achieving dynamic adaptation via management and interpretation of runtime models. J Syst Softw 85(12):2720–2737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.05.033
Atkinson C, Kühne T (2001) The essence of multilevel metamodeling, vol 2185. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–33
Atkinson C, Kühne T (2008) Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Softw Syst Model 7(3):345–359
Bandara W, Indulska M, Chong S, Sadiq S (2007) Major issues in business process management: an expert perspective. In: ECIS
Basin D, Klaedtke F, Müller S (2010) Policy monitoring in first-order temporal logic. In: Touili T, Cook B, Jackson PB (eds) Computer aided verification: 22nd international conference, CAV 2010, Edinburgh, UK, July 15–19, 2010: proceedings, vol 6174. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–18
Bencomo N (2009) On the use of software models during software execution. 2009 ICSE Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering: (MiSE 2009): May 17–18, 2009. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 62–67
Blair G, Bencomo N, France RB (2009) Models@ runtime. Computer 42(10):22–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2009.326
Briand LC, Williams CE (eds) (2005) Model driven engineering languages and systems: 8th international conference, MoDELS 2005, Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2–7, 2005: proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3713. Springer, Berlin
Capra L, Cazzola W (2012) Trying out reflective petri nets on a dynamic workflow case. In: Abu-Taieh EMO, El Sheikh AAR (eds) Handbook of research on discrete event simulation environments: Technologies and applications. Information Science Reference, Hershey PA, pp 218–233
Clark T, Sammut P, Willans J (2008) Applied metamodelling: a foundation for language driven development, 2nd edn. Ceteva
Der Aalst Van, Wil MP, Hofstede Ter, Arthur HM (2005) YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf Syst 30(4):245–275
Eclipse (2017) Eclipse modelling project. http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/. Accessed 14 June 2013
Ellis C, Keddara K, Rozenberg G (1995) Dynamic change within workflow systems. In: Conference on organizational computing systems, pp 10–21
Frank U (2006) Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems research
Frank U (2011a) MEMO organization modelling language (2): Focus on Business Processes: ICB-Report 49
Frank U (2011b) The MEMO meta modelling language (MML) and language architecture: ICB-Report 43
Frank U (2012) Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Softw Syst Model. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0273-9
Frank U (2014) Multilevel Modeling. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(6):319–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0350-4
Frank U, Heise D, Kattenstroth H, Ferguson D, Hadar E, Waschke M (2009) ITML: a domain-specific modeling language for supporting business driven IT management. In: Tolvanen J-P, Rossi M, Gray J, Sprinkle J (eds) Proceedings of the 9th OOPSLA workshop on domain-specific modeling (DSM’09). Helsinki Business School, Helsinki
Garlan D, Schmerl B (2004) Using architectural models at runtime: research challenges. In: Oquendo F, Warboys BC, Morrison R (eds) Software architecture: first European workshop, EWSA 2004, St. Andrews, UK, May 21–22, 2004: proceedings, vol 3047. Springer, Berlin, pp 200–205
Georgas JC, van der Hoek A, Taylor RN (2009) Using architectural models to manage and visualize runtime adaptation. Computer 42(10):52–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2009.335
Goldstein A, Frank U (2016) Components of a multi-perspective modeling method for designing and managing IT security systems. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 14(1):101–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-015-0276-5
Gonzalez-perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2007) Modelling software development methodologies: a conceptual foundation. J Syst Softw 80(11):1778–1796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2007.02.048
Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action, vol 1. Beacon Press, Boston
Hilty M, Pretschner A, Basin D, Schaefer C, Walter T (2007) Monitors for Usage Control. In: Etalle S, Marsh S (eds) Trust management, vol 238. Springer. US, Boston, pp 411–414
Hofstadter DR (1980) Godel, Escher, Bach: an eternal golden braid. Basic Books, New York
Hull R, Nezhad HRM (2016) Rethinking BPM in a cognitive world: transforming how we learn and perform business processes. In: La Rosa M, Loos P, Pastor O (eds) BPM
IBM FileNet Case Analyzer (2016) https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSNW2F_5.2.1/com.ibm.p8.ce.admin.tasks.doc/bpfad043.htm
IBM Business Monitor (2017) https://www.ibm.com/kn-en/marketplace/business-monitor. Accessed 08 July 2017
Ko RKL, Lee SSG, Wah Lee E (2009) Business process management (BPM) standards: a survey. Bus Process Manag J 15:744–791. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150910987937
Kühne T (2006) Matters of (meta-) modeling. Softw Syst Model 5(4):369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-006-0017-9
Kühne T, Schreiber D (2007) Can programming be liberated from the two-level style. In: Gabriel RP (ed) Proceedings of the 22nd annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on object-oriented programming systems and applications, vol 42. ACM, New York, p 229
Lehmann G, Blumendorf M, Trollmann F, Albayrak S (2011) Meta-modeling Runtime Models. In: Hutchison D, Kanade T, Kittler J, Kleinberg JM, Mattern F, Mitchell JC, Naor M, Nierstrasz O, Pandu Rangan C, Steffen B, Sudan M, Terzopoulos D, Tygar D, Vardi MY, Weikum G, Dingel J, Solberg A (eds) Models in software engineering, vol 6627. Springer, Berlin, pp 209–223
Ly LT, Maggi FM, Montali M, Rinderle-Ma S, van der Aalst WM (2015) Compliance monitoring in business processes: functionalities, application, and tool-support. Inf Syst 54:209–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2015.02.007
Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) (2006) On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM confederated international conferences, CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE 2006, Montpellier, France. Proceedings, Part I. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4275. Springer, Berlin
OASIS (2007) Web services business process execution language (WS-BPEL) Version 2.0. http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.html. Accessed 16 June 2017
Object Management Group (2011) Business process model and notation (BPMN) version 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/. Accessed 8 July 2017
Odell JJ (1994) Power types. Object Orient Program 7(2):8–12
Overbeek S, Frank U, Köhling C (2015) A language for multi-perspective goal modelling: challenges, requirements and solutions. Comput Stand Interf 38:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2014.08.001
Qiu Z, Wong Y (2007) Dynamic workflow change in 5PDM6 systems. Comput Ind 58(5):453–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2006.09.014
Rangiha ME, Comuzzi M, Karakostas B (2015) Role and task recommendation and social tagging to enable social business process management. In: Gaaloul K, Schmidt R, Nurcan S, Guerreiro S, Ma Q (eds) Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling: 16th International Conference, BPMDS 2015, 20th International Conference, EMMSAD 2015, held at CAiSE 2015, Stockholm, Sweden, June 8-9, 2015, Proceedings, vol 214. Springer, Cham, pp 68–82
Reichert Manfred, Dadam Peter (1998) ADEPT flex—supporting dynamic changes of workflows without loosing control. J Intell Inf Syst 10:93–129
Rorty R (1999) Philosophy and social hope. Penguin Books, New York
Scanchez M, Barrero I, Villalobos J, Deridder D (2008) An execution platform for extensible runtime models. In: Bencomo N, Blair G, France R, Muñoz F, Jeanneret C (eds) 3rd Workshop on Models@run.time at MODELS: Technical Report COMP COMP-005-2008 Lancaster University
Schelp J, Winter R (2006) Method engineering: lessons learned from reference modeling. In: Chatterjee S, Hevner A (eds) Proceedings of the first international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2006), pp 555–575
Schonenberg H, Mans R, Russell N, Mulyar N, Der Aalst Van, Wil MP (2008) Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility. CAiSE Forum 344:81–84
Song H, Huang G, Chauvel F, Xiong Y, Hu Z, Sun Y, Mei H (2011) Supporting runtime software architecture: a bidirectional-transformation-based approach. J Syst Softw 84(5):711–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.12.009
Spinellis D (2008) Rational Metaprogramming. IEEE Softw 25(1):78–79
van der Aalst WMP (ed) (2011) Process Mining. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
van der Aalst WMP (2013) Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw Eng 2013(1):1–37. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/507984
van der Aalst W, ter Hofstede AHM, Weske M (2003) Business process management: a survey. In: van Aalst Wd, Ter Hofstede A, Weske M (eds) Business process management: International conference, BPM 2003, Eindhoven, the Netherlands, June 26–27, 2003: proceedings. Springer, Berlin, New York, pp 1–12
Weske M (2001) Formal foundation and conceptual design of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system. In: Sprague RH (ed) Proceedings of the 34th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences: Abstracts and CD-ROM of full papers: January 3–6, 2001, Maui, Hawaii. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif, p 10
Weske M (2012) Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin
WfMC (2012) XML process definition language (XPDL). http://www.xpdl.org/standards/xpdl-2.2/XPDL%202.2%20(2012-08-30).pdf. Accessed 08 July 2017
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Interview questions
Appendix: Interview questions
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goldstein, A., Johanndeiter, T. & Frank, U. Business process runtime models: towards bridging the gap between design, enactment, and evaluation of business processes. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 17, 27–64 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-018-0374-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-018-0374-2