Advertisement

Service Oriented Computing and Applications

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 167–188 | Cite as

Designing, formalizing, and evaluating a flexible architecture for integrated service delivery: combining event-driven and service-oriented architectures

  • Sietse OverbeekEmail author
  • Marijn Janssen
  • Patrick van Bommel
Open Access
Original Research Paper

Abstract

An influx of service providers collaborate in networks to meet their clients’ demands. Integrated service delivery (ISD) is a way to let networked service providers offer services to their clients by bundling selected services offered by each provider so that clients do not have to deal with each single provider anymore. Designing such a network is a complicated endeavor as independent organizations need to collaborate and should understand how their activities are dependent on each other. Communication of events is necessary to deal with unpredictable and complex processes in such a network. In contrast with conventional event-driven architecture and service-oriented architecture (SOA) approaches, the hybrid model of event-driven interactions and SOA offers the required flexibility to realize ISD. This flexibility is realized by integrating not only services but also the processes of the different service providers to supply such services. A design science approach has been applied resulting in a detailed and formalized design of an event-driven service-oriented architecture (EDSOA). The EDSOA has been illustrated to show how ISD is realized with support of the architecture in a scenario concerning an application for a temporary residence permit by an immigrant. An evaluative workshop has been conducted which reflected that the following criteria are most important for successful organizational adoption of the EDSOA: expected usefulness, fit with organizational standards, use of trusted technology, and ease of maintenance.

Keywords

Design science EDSOA Integrated service delivery Public/private service network Web services 

Notes

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.
    Bertolotti I, Durante L, Maggi P, Sisto R, Valenzano A (2007) Improving the security of industrial networks by means of formal verification. Comput Stand Interfaces 29(3): 387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Milward H, Provan K (2003) Managing the hollow state: collaboration and contracting. Public Manag Rev 5(1): 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee J, Chae H, Kim CH, Kim K (2009) Design of product ontology architecture for collaborative enterprises. Expert Syst Appl 36(2): 2300–2309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiu D, Lin D, Kafeza E, Wang M, Hu H, Hu H, Zhuang Y (2010) Alert based disaster notification and resource allocation. Inf Syst Front 12(1): 29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Álvarez Sabucedo L, Anido Rifón L, Pérez R, Santos Gago J (2009) Providing standard-oriented data models and interfaces to eGovernment services: a semantic-driven approach. Comput Stand Interfaces 31(5): 1014–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MacKenzie C, Laskey K, McCabe F, Brown P, Metz R (2006) Oasis reference model for service oriented architecture 1.0. OASIS Standard 12 October 2006, Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, BillericaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhu D, Li Y, Shi J, Xu Y, Shen W (2009) A service-oriented city portal framework and collaborative development platform. Inf Sci 179(15): 2606–2617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferris C, Farrell J (2003) What are web services?. Commun ACM 46(6): 31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chung JY, Chao KM (2007) A view on service-oriented architecture. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 1(2): 93–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tang L, Dong J, Peng T, Tsai WT (2010) Modeling enterprise service-oriented architectural styles. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 4(2): 81–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michelson B (2006) Event-driven architecture overview: event-driven SOA is just part of the EDA story. Tech. Rep. 2 Feb 2006, Patricia Seybold Group, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scheer A (2000) ARIS: business process modelling. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gosain S, Malhotra A, El-Sawy O (2005) Coordinating for flexibility in ebusiness supply chains. J Manag Inf Syst 21(3): 7–45Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hevner A, March S, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1): 75–105Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    March S, Smith G (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst 15(4): 251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geerts G (2011) A design science research methodology and its application to accounting information systems research. Int J Account Inf Syst 12(2): 142–151MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simon H (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q 30(3): 611–642Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Aalst W, Lassen K (2008) Translating unstructured workflow processes to readable BPEL: theory and implementation. Inf Softw Technol 50(3): 131–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jarrar M, Meersman R (2008) . In: Dillon T, Chang E, Meersman R, Sycara K (eds) Advances in web semantics I. Springer, Berlin, pp 7–34Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Casteleyn S, Daniel F, Dolog P, Matera M (2009) Engineering web applications. Data-centric systems and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feenstra R, Janssen M, Wagenaar R (2007) Evaluating web service composition methods: the need for including multi-actor elements. Electron J e-Government 5(2): 153–164Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dias C (2001) Corporate portals: a literature review of a new concept in information management. Int J Inf Manag 21(4): 269– 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu M, Gao W, Shen Q, Hao Q, Yan J (2009) A semantic-augmented multilevel matching model of web services. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 3(3): 205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    WFMC (1999) Terminology & glossary. Tech. Rep. WFMC-TC-1011 issue 3.0, Workflow Management Coalition, HampshireGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andrews T, Curbera F, Dholakia H, Goland Y, Klein J, Leymann F, Liu K, Roller D, Smith D, Thatte S, Trickovic I, Weerawarana S (2003) Business process execution language for web services. International Standard Version 1.1, BEA Systems, IBM, and MicrosoftGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Halpin T (2001) Information modeling and relational databases: from conceptual analysis to logical design. Morgan Kaufmann, San MateoGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Overbeek S, Klievink A, Janssen M (2009) A flexible, event-driven, service-oriented architecture for orchestrating service delivery. IEEE Intell Syst 24(5): 31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hofstede At, Proper HE, van der Weide T (1993) Formal definition of a conceptual language for the description and manipulation of information models. Inf Syst 18(7): 489–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Bommel P, ter Hofstede A, van der Weide T (1991) Semantics and verification of object-role models. Inf Syst 16(5): 471–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    OMG (2008) Semantics of business vocabulary and business rules (SBVR), v1.0. OMG available specification formal/2008-01-02, Object Management Group, NeedhamGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jarrar M, Demey J, Meersman R (2003) On using conceptual data modeling for ontology engineering. In: Spaccapietra S, March S, Aberer K (eds) Journal on data semantics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2800. Springer, Berlin, pp 185–207Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McGuinness D, van Harmelen F (2004) OWL web ontology language overview. W3C recommendation, The OWL Working GroupGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Velsen L, van der Geest T, Klaassen R, Steehouder M (2008) User-centered evaluation of adaptive and adaptable systems: a literature review. Knowl Eng Rev 23(3): 261–281Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    de Vreede GJ, Dickson G (2000) Using GSS to support designing organizational processes and information systems: an action research study on collaborative business engineering. Group Decis Negot 9(2): 161–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Duarte B, Reis A (2006) Developing a projects evaluation system based on multiple attribute value theory. Comput Oper Res 33(5): 1488–1504zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dillon A, Morris M (1996) User acceptance of new information technology: theories and models. In: Williams M (eds) Annual review of information science and technology. Information Today, Medford, pp 3–32Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    McGovern J, Sims O, Jain A, Little M (2006) Enterprise service oriented architectures: concepts, challenges, recommendations. The Enterprise Series. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chen W, Wei J, Wu G, Qiao X (2008) In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems 2008: OTM 2008, Monterrey, Mexico, 9–14 Nov, 2008, Proceedings, Part I, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5331, Monterrey, Mexico (Springer, Berlin, 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5331, pp 675–690Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Niblett P, Graham S (2005) Events and service-oriented architecture: the OASIS web services notification specifications. IBM Syst J 44(4): 869–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yuan ST, Lu MR (2009) An value-centric event driven model and architecture: a case study of adaptive complement of SOA for distributed care service delivery. Expert Syst Appl 36(2): 3671–3694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Laliwala Z, Chaudhary S (2008) Event-driven service-oriented architecture. In: Lee V, Chen J, Ng WK, Ong KL, Tan T (eds) International conference on service systems and service management, 2008, Melbourne, Australia. IEEE Computer Society, Washinghton, pp 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Juric M (2010) WSDL and BPEL extensions for event driven architecture. Inf Softw Technol 52(10): 1023–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wynn M (2009) Reduction rules for YAWL workflows with cancellation regions and OR-joins. Inf Softw Technol 51(6): 1010–1020MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Burstein M (2004) Dynamic invocation of semantic web services that use unfamiliar technologies. IEEE Intell Syst 19(4): 67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    van der Aalst W, Benatallah B, Casati F, Curbera F, Verbeek E (2007) Business process management: where business processes and web services meet. Data Knowl Eng 61(1): 1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sietse Overbeek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marijn Janssen
    • 1
  • Patrick van Bommel
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Computing and Information SciencesRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations