Advertisement

Business process runtime models: towards bridging the gap between design, enactment, and evaluation of business processes

  • Anat GoldsteinEmail author
  • Thomas Johanndeiter
  • Ulrich Frank
Original Article

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).

Keywords

Business process modeling Runtime models Process monitoring Workflow management systems Enterprise modeling Continuous BPM 

References

  1. 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 291–308Google Scholar
  2. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson C, Kühne T (2001) The essence of multilevel metamodeling, vol 2185. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–33Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson C, Kühne T (2008) Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Softw Syst Model 7(3):345–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandara W, Indulska M, Chong S, Sadiq S (2007) Major issues in business process management: an expert perspective. In: ECISGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 1–18Google Scholar
  7. 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 62–67Google Scholar
  8. Blair G, Bencomo N, France RB (2009) Models@ runtime. Computer 42(10):22–27.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2009.326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 218–233Google Scholar
  11. Clark T, Sammut P, Willans J (2008) Applied metamodelling: a foundation for language driven development, 2nd edn. CetevaGoogle Scholar
  12. Der Aalst Van, Wil MP, Hofstede Ter, Arthur HM (2005) YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf Syst 30(4):245–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eclipse (2017) Eclipse modelling project. http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/. Accessed 14 June 2013
  14. Ellis C, Keddara K, Rozenberg G (1995) Dynamic change within workflow systems. In: Conference on organizational computing systems, pp 10–21Google Scholar
  15. Frank U (2006) Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems researchGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank U (2011a) MEMO organization modelling language (2): Focus on Business Processes: ICB-Report 49Google Scholar
  17. Frank U (2011b) The MEMO meta modelling language (MML) and language architecture: ICB-Report 43Google Scholar
  18. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frank U (2014) Multilevel Modeling. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(6):319–337.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0350-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 200–205Google Scholar
  22. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action, vol 1. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 411–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hofstadter DR (1980) Godel, Escher, Bach: an eternal golden braid. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 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) BPMGoogle Scholar
  29. IBM Business Monitor (2017) https://www.ibm.com/kn-en/marketplace/business-monitor. Accessed 08 July 2017
  30. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kühne T (2006) Matters of (meta-) modeling. Softw Syst Model 5(4):369–385.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-006-0017-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 229Google Scholar
  33. 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 209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Odell JJ (1994) Power types. Object Orient Program 7(2):8–12Google Scholar
  39. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 68–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reichert Manfred, Dadam Peter (1998) ADEPT flex—supporting dynamic changes of workflows without loosing control. J Intell Inf Syst 10:93–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rorty R (1999) Philosophy and social hope. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 555–575Google Scholar
  46. Schonenberg H, Mans R, Russell N, Mulyar N, Der Aalst Van, Wil MP (2008) Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility. CAiSE Forum 344:81–84Google Scholar
  47. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spinellis D (2008) Rational Metaprogramming. IEEE Softw 25(1):78–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van der Aalst WMP (ed) (2011) Process Mining. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 1–12Google Scholar
  52. 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 10Google Scholar
  53. Weske M (2012) Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technology and Information ManagementTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Information Systems and Enterprise Modeling, Institute for Computer Science and Business Information SystemsUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations