Advertisement

Computing

pp 1–26 | Cite as

An approach to merge collaborating processes of an inter-organizational business process for artifact lifecycle synthesis

  • Jyothi KunchalaEmail author
  • Jian Yu
  • Sira Yongchareon
  • Chengfei Liu
Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Artifact-centric approach to business process modeling has received considerable attention for elevating data logic to the same level as the process flow logic. With the emergence of this modeling paradigm, several recent works have focused on synthesizing the indispensable lifecycles of key business entities called artifacts from the standalone activity-centric processes. However, synthesizing artifact lifecycles from the inter-organizational business processes (IOBP) is challenging, as the artifacts and states are shared among two or more collaborating processes. Thus, unlike a standalone process, the synthesis of artifact lifecycles from an IOBP require the process interactions to be captured by preserving the dependencies between the involved artifacts and states in the resulting lifecycles. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an automated approach that aims at merging the collaborating processes of an IOBP in order to support the synthesis of artifact lifecycles from an IOBP. The proposed approach is comprised of algorithms that combine the nodes of collaborating processes to generate an integrated process that can be used to synthesize the artifact lifecycles pertinent to an IOBP. We demonstrate the proposed approach using an e-business process scenario and the validity is proved using theorems and a prototype implementation.

Keywords

Artifact-centric modeling Inter-organizational business process Process merging and interaction patterns 

Mathematics Subject Classification

68Q85 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by Key Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61832004 and 61672042).

References

  1. 1.
    Assy N, Chan NN, Gaaloul W (2013) Assisting business process design with configurable process fragments. In: IEEE international conference on services computing. IEEE, pp 535–542Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhattacharya K, Caswell NS, Kumaran S, Nigam A, Wu FY (2007) Artifact-centered operational modeling: lessons from customer engagements. IBM Syst J 46(4):703–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bulanov P, Lazovik A, Aiello M (2011) Business process customization using process merging techniques. In: IEEE international conference on service-oriented computing and applications (SOCA). IEEE, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chao T, Cohn D, Flatgard A, Hahn S, Linehan M, Nandi P, Nigam A, Pinel F, Vergo J, y Wu F (2009) Artifact-based transformation of IBM global financing. In: International conference on business process management. Springer, pp 261–277Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chinnici R, Haas H, Lewis AA, Moreau JJ, Orchard D, Weerawarana S (2007) Web services description language (WSDL) version 2.0 part 2: adjuncts. W3C recommendationGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Derguech W, Bhiri S (2011) An automation support for creating configurable process models. In: International conference on web information systems engineering. Springer, pp 199–212Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Derguech W, Bhiri S, Curry E (2017) Designing business capability-aware configurable process models. Inform Syst 72:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eshuis R, Van Gorp P (2012) Synthesizing object life cycles from business process models. In: International conference on conceptual modeling. Springer, pp 307–320Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eshuis R, Van Gorp P (2016) Synthesizing object life cycles from business process models. Softw Syst Model 15(1):281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gottschalk F, van der Aalst WM, Jansen-Vullers MH (2008) Merging event-driven process chains. In: OTM confederated international conferences on the move to meaningful internet systems. Springer, pp 418–426Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang Y, Li W, Liang Z, Xue Y, Wang X (2018) Efficient business process consolidation: combining topic features with structure matching. Soft Comput 22(2):645–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kiepuszewski B, Ter Hofstede AH, Bussler CJ (2000) On structured workflow modelling. In: International conference on advanced information systems engineering. Springer, pp. 431–445Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kunchala J, Yu J, Sheng QZ, Han Y, Yongchareon S (2015) Synthesis of artifact lifecycles from activity-centric process models. In: IEEE 19th international enterprise distributed object computing conference. IEEE, pp 29–37Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kunchala J, Yu J, Yongchareon S, Han Y (2017) Towards merging collaborating processes for artifact lifecycle synthesis. In: Proceedings of the Australasian computer science week multiconference. ACM, p 50Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    La Rosa M, Dumas M, Uba R, Dijkman R (2013) Business process model merging: an approach to business process consolidation. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 22(2):11Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    La Rosa M, Dumas M, Uba R, Dijkman R (2010) Merging business process models. In: OTM confederated international conferences on the move to meaningful internet systems. Springer, pp 96–113Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu R, Wu FY, Kumaran S (2010) Transforming activity-centric business process models into information-centric models for soa solutions. J Database Manag 21(4):14–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendling J, Simon C (2006) Business process design by view integration. In: International conference on business process management. Springer, pp 55–64Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyer A, Weske M (2013) Activity-centric and artifact-centric process model roundtrip. In: International conference on business process management. Springer, pp 167–181Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nigam A, Caswell NS (2003) Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification. IBM Syst J 42(3):428–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schunselaar DM, Leopold H, Verbeek HM, van der Aalst WM, Reijers HA (2014) Configuring configurable process models made easier: an automated approach. In: International conference on business process management. Springer, pp 105–117Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sun S, Kumar A, Yen J (2006) Merging workflows: a new perspective on connecting business processes. Decis Support Syst 42(2):844–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu W, Su J, Yan Z, Yang J, Zhang L (2011) An artifact-centric approach to dynamic modification of workflow execution. In: OTM confederated international conferences on the move to meaningful internet systems. Springer, pp 256–273Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yongchareon S, Liu C, Zhao X (2012) A framework for behavior-consistent specialization of artifact-centric business processes. In: International conference on business process management. Springer, pp 285–301Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yongchareon S, Yu J, Zhao X (2015) A view framework for modeling and change validation of artifact-centric inter-organizational business processes. Inform Syst 47:51–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zemni MA, Mammar A, Hadj-Alouane NB (2016) An automated approach for merging business process fragments. Comput Ind 82:104–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical SciencesAuckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of Software and Electrical EngineeringSwinburne University of TechnologyVictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations