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

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

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 291–308

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson C, Kühne T (2001) The essence of multilevel metamodeling, vol 2185. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–33

    Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson C, Kühne T (2008) Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Softw Syst Model 7(3):345–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bandara W, Indulska M, Chong S, Sadiq S (2007) Major issues in business process management: an expert perspective. In: ECIS

  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 1–18

  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 62–67

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blair G, Bencomo N, France RB (2009) Models@ runtime. Computer 42(10):22–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2009.326

    Article  Google 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, Berlin

  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 218–233

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clark T, Sammut P, Willans J (2008) Applied metamodelling: a foundation for language driven development, 2nd edn. Ceteva

  12. Der Aalst Van, Wil MP, Hofstede Ter, Arthur HM (2005) YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf Syst 30(4):245–275

    Article  Google 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 10–21

  15. Frank U (2006) Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems research

  16. Frank U (2011a) MEMO organization modelling language (2): Focus on Business Processes: ICB-Report 49

  17. Frank U (2011b) The MEMO meta modelling language (MML) and language architecture: ICB-Report 43

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Frank U (2014) Multilevel Modeling. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(6):319–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0350-4

    Article  Google 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, Helsinki

  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 200–205

  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action, vol 1. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google 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 411–414

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hofstadter DR (1980) Godel, Escher, Bach: an eternal golden braid. Basic Books, New York

    Google 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) BPM

  29. 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

  30. IBM Business Monitor (2017) https://www.ibm.com/kn-en/marketplace/business-monitor. Accessed 08 July 2017

  31. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kühne T (2006) Matters of (meta-) modeling. Softw Syst Model 5(4):369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-006-0017-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

  34. 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

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. Odell JJ (1994) Power types. Object Orient Program 7(2):8–12

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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

    Google Scholar 

  43. Reichert Manfred, Dadam Peter (1998) ADEPT flex—supporting dynamic changes of workflows without loosing control. J Intell Inf Syst 10:93–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rorty R (1999) Philosophy and social hope. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. 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

  46. 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

  47. 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

    Google Scholar 

  48. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Spinellis D (2008) Rational Metaprogramming. IEEE Softw 25(1):78–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. van der Aalst WMP (ed) (2011) Process Mining. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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

  53. 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

  54. Weske M (2012) Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anat Goldstein.

Appendix: Interview questions

Appendix: Interview questions

figurea
figureb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

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