Service Oriented Computing and Applications

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 203–215 | Cite as

On business process monitoring using cross-flow coordination

  • Zakaria Maamar
  • Noura Faci
  • Mohamed Sellami
  • Khouloud Boukadi
  • Fadwa Yahya
  • Ahmed Barnawi
  • Sherif Sakr
Original Research Paper


This paper presents an approach for monitoring the execution progress of business processes. The monitoring focuses on the exceptions that could arise during this execution and, hence, could make the processes fail if not handled properly and timely. The approach relies on three flows known as control, communication, and navigation. The control flow connects tasks together with respect to a certain business logic. The communication flow captures the messages exchanged between persons/machines when they perform tasks of processes. Finally, the navigation flow captures the interactions between specialized networks that offer solutions to exceptions. These networks are built upon relations between tasks, between persons, and between machines. The coordination of control, communication, and navigation flows focuses on both the actions that are taken and the messages that are exchanged when handling exceptions. A system demonstrating flow development and coordination is, also, presented in the paper.


Business process Coordination Exception Flow Monitoring 



This work was partially supported by King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) Project AD-35-20.


  1. 1.
    Kajan E, Faci N, Maamar Z, Loo A, Pljaskovic A, Sheng QZ (2014) The network-based business process. IEEE Internet Comput 18(2):63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maamar Z, Faci N, Sakr S, Boukhebouze M, Barnawi A (2016) Network-based social coordination of business processes. Inf Syst 58:56–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hagel J, Seely Brown J, Davison L (2010) The power of pull: how small moves, smartly made, can set big things in motion. Basic Civitas Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    OpenKnowledge. Social Business Process Reengineering (Social Business Manifesto).
  5. 5.
    Comuzzi M, Vonk J, Grefen PWPJ (2012) Measures and mechanisms for process monitoring in evolving business networks. Data Knowl Eng 71(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang B, Kim D, Kang S-H (2011) Periodic performance prediction for real-time business process monitoring. Ind Manag Data Syst 112(1):4–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Labrou Y, Finin TW (1997) Semantics and conversations for an agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’1997), Nagoya, JapanGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O.M.G. (OMG) (2010) Business process model and notation by example. Object Management Group, Technical Report.
  9. 9.
    O.M.G. (OMG) (2011) Business Process Model and Notation version 2.0. Object Management Group, Technical Report.
  10. 10.
    Thullner R, Rozsnyai S, Schiefer J, Obweger H, Suninger M (2011) Proactive business process compliance monitoring with event-based systems. In: Proceedings of the workshops of the 15th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOCW’2011), Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weidmann M, Alvi M, Koetter F, Leymann F, Renner T, Schumm D (2011) Business process change management based on process model synchronization of multiple abstraction levels. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE international conference on service-oriented computing and applications (SOCA’2011), Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grossmann G, Mafazi S, Mayer W, Schrefl M, Stumptner M (2015) Change propagation and conflict resolution for the co-evolution of business processes. Int J Coop Inf Syst 24(1):1540002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Polyvyanyy A, Smirnov S, Weske M (2015) Business process model abstraction. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management 1: introduction, methods, and information systems, 2nd edn, pp 147–165. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miles R, Hamilton K (2006) Learning UML 2.0. O’Reilly Media, Inc., NewtonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varro D (2002) A formal semantics of UML statecharts by model transition systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on graph transformation (ICGT’2002), Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Song M (2006) Organizational mining in business process management. Ph.D. Dissertation, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang, South KoreaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wondracek G, Comparetti PM, Kruegel C, Kirda E (2008) Automatic network protocol analysis. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual network and distributed system security symposium (NDSS’2008), San Diego, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maamar Z, Faci N, Luck M, Hachimi S (2012) Specifying and implementing social web services operation using commitments. In: The Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC’2012), Riva del Garda, Trento, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Topçu O, Durak U, Oğuztüzün H, Yilmaz L (2016) Distributed simulation: a model driven engineering approach, Simulation foundations, methods and applications. Springer, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laddad R (2009) AspectJ in action: enterprise AOP with spring applications. Manning Publications Co., GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Aalst W (2012) Process mining: overview and opportunities. ACM Trans Manag Inf Syst 3(2):7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zayed UniversityDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.Université Lyon 1LyonFrance
  3. 3.ISEP ParisParisFrance
  4. 4.University of SfaxSfaxTunisia
  5. 5.King Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia
  6. 6.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  7. 7.King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health SciencesRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations