Service Oriented Computing and Applications

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 233–251 | Cite as

Sound conflict management and resolution for virtual-enterprise collaborations

  • Nanjangud C. Narendra
  • Alex Norta
  • Msury Mahunnah
  • Lixin Ma
  • Fabrizio Maria Maggi
Original Research Paper

Abstract

For fulfilling customer requests, enterprises are increasingly part of collaboration networks with peers. Such collaborations, also known as virtual enterprises (VE), are governed by pre-defined contracts that restrict the behaviour of each participating enterprise. However, since each enterprise is autonomous, the potential arises for conflicts during collaboration. In this paper, we extend our earlier work on virtual-enterprise modelling and address the existing gap of conflict modelling, management and resolution in VEs. Our approach works as follows: first, to detect a conflict by analysing the exceptions reported during execution; second, to uncover the conflict type, origin and impact of an exception; and third, depending on the nature of an exception, to implement the appropriate conflict negotiation and resolution strategy among the participating entities of a VE. Crucial to this approach, and serving as one of the key contributions of this paper, is the conflict ontology. This ontology helps to model conflict types along with related exceptions, negotiation and resolution strategies, thereby enabling conflict management and resolution. Throughout this paper, we illustrate our ideas with a running example and also present a detailed evaluation based on a case study from the automotive production domain.

Keywords

Virtual enterprise Smart contract e-governance  Exceptions Conflict management Service orientation  Agents Decentralized autonomous organizations Industry 4.0 

References

  1. 1.
    Abubkr A (2013) A toolkit for model checking of electronic contracts. PhD thesis, Newcastle UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams M., Hofstede AHM, Aalst WMP, Edmond D (2007) Dynamic, extensible and context-aware exception handling for workflows. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems 2007: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4803, pp 95–112Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angelov S (2006) Foundations of B2B electronic contracting. Dissertation, Technology University Eindhoven, Faculty of Technology Management, Information Systems DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Apache (2013) Apache Xalan project. https://xalan.apache.org/
  5. 5.
    Apache (2013) Hadoop. https://hadoop.apache.org/
  6. 6.
    Apache (2013) Hive. https://hive.apache.org/
  7. 7.
    Avizienis A, Laprie JC, Randell B, Landwehr C (2004) Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans Dependable Secure Comput 1(1):11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baxter G, Sommerville I (2011) Socio-technical systems: from design methods to systems engineering. Interact Comput 23(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0. Object Management Group, (2011). http://www.bpmn.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/
  10. 10.
    Buyya R, Yeo CS, Venugopal S, Broberg J, Brandic I (2009) Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Gener Comput Syst 25(6):599–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Casati F, Ceri S, Paraboschi S, Pozzi G (1999) Specification and implementation of exceptions in workflow management systems. ACM Trans Database Syst 24(3):405–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chou SW, Chiang CH (2013) Understanding the formation of software-as-a-service (saas) satisfaction from the perspective of service quality. Decis Support Syst 56:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Davidrajuh R (2013) Distributed workflow based approach for eliminating redundancy in virtual enterprising. J Supercomput 63(1):107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Derler P, Lee EA, Vincentelli AS (2012) Modeling cyber-physical systems. Proc IEEE 100(1):13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duan Y (2012) A survey on service contract. In: 13th ACIS international conference on software engineering, artificial intelligence, networking and parallel & distributed computing (SNPD), 2012, pp 805–810. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erven H, Hicker G, Huemer C, Zaptletal M (July 2007) The web services-businessactivity-initiator (ws-ba-i) protocol: an extension to the web services-businessactivity specification. In: IEEE international conference on web services, 2007, ICWS 2007, pp 216–224Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eshuis R, Norta A, Kopp O, Pitkanen E (2015) Service outsourcing with process views. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 8(1):136–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Georgakopoulos D, Papazoglou MP (2008) Service-oriented computing. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Georgios K, Daskalopulu G, Daskalopulu A (2011) Normative conflicts in electronic contracts. Electron Commer Res Appl 10(2):247–267. Special Issue on Electronic Auctions: Strategies and MethodsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giret A, Noriega P (2011) On grievance protocols for conflict resolution in open multi-agent systems. In: 44th Hawaii international international conference on systems science (HICSS-44 2011), proceedings, 4–7 Jan 2011, Koloa, Kauai, HI, USA, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haibei Z, Xu Y (2012) The architecture design of a distributed workflow system. In: 11th International symposium on distributed computing and applications to business, engineering science (DCABES), 2012, pp 9–12Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hu J, Song Y, Sun Y (2012) Multi-agent oriented policy-based management system for virtual enterprise. J Softw 7(10):2357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang M, Lu FQ, Ching WK, Siu TK (2011) A distributed decision making model for risk management of virtual enterprise. Expert Syst Appl 38(10):13208–13215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jensen K, Michael L, Wells KL (2007) Coloured PetriNets and CPN tools for modelling and validation of concurrent systems. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 9:213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jensen K, Kristensen LM (2009) Coloured Petri nets: modelling and validation of concurrent systems. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jordan D, Evdemon J, Alves A, Arkin A (2007) Business process execution language for web-services 2.0. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/10347/wsbpel-specification-draft-120204.htm
  28. 28.
    Kazman R, Klein M, Clements P (2002) ATAM: method for architecture evaluationevaluation: ATAM—architecture trade-off analysis method report. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/ata/ata_method.html
  29. 29.
    Kollingbaum MJ, Vasconcelos WW, García-Camino A, Norman TJ (2007) Managing conflict resolution in norm-regulated environments. In: Engineering societies in the agents world VIII, 8th international workshop, ESAW 2007, Athens, Greece, 22–24 Oct 2007. Revised selected papers, pp 55–71Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kollingbaum MJ, Vasconcelos WW, García-Camino A, Norman TJ (2007) Managing conflict resolution in norm-regulated environments. In: Engineering societies in the agents world VIII, 8th international workshop, ESAW 2007, Athens, Greece, 22–24 Oct 2007. Revised selected papers, pp 55–71Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kollingbaum MJ, Vasconcelos WW, García-Camino A, Norman TJ (2007) Conflict resolution in norm-regulated environments via unification and constraints. In: Baldoni M, Son TC, van Riemsdijk MB, Winikoff M (eds) DALT. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4897. Springer, Berlin, pp 158–174Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kutvonen L, Norta A, Ruohomaa S (Sept 2012) Inter-enterprise business transaction management in open service ecosystems. In: Enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC), 2012 IEEE 16th international, pp 31–40Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maggi FM, Dumas M, García-Bañuelos L, Montali M (2013) Discovering data-aware declarative process models from event logs. BPM, pp 81–96Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mehandjiev N, Grefen P (eds) (2010) Dynamic business process formation for instant virtual enterprises. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Minsky N (2005) Law governed interaction (lgi): a distributed coordination and control mechanism. Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, 0.9, 2, 2005Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Minsky N (2012) Decentralized governance of distributed systems via interaction control. Logic Programs, Norms and Action, pp 374–400. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Minsky N (2014) Dependable management of untrusted distributed systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.4321
  38. 38.
    Molina-Jimenez C, Shrivastava S, Strano M (2012) A model for checking contractual compliance of business interactions. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 5(2):276–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Molina-Jimenez C, Shrivastava S, Wheater S (2011) An architecture for negotiation and enforcement of resource usage policies. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on service-oriented computing and applications (SOCA), pp 1–8. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mougayar W (2014) The Blockchain is the New Database, Get Ready to Rewrite Everything. http://startupmanagement.org/2014/12/27/theblockchain-is-the-new-database-get-ready-to-rewrite-everything/
  41. 41.
    Nagl C, Rosenberg F, Dustdar S (2006) Vidre—a distributed service-oriented business rule engine based on ruleml. In: Enterprise distributed object computing conference, 2006, EDOC’06. 10th IEEE international, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Norta A (forthcoming) Creation of smart-contracting collaborations for decentralized autonomous organizations. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on perspectives in business informatics research, BIR’15, 2015. http://tinyurl.com/qzjrxoc
  43. 43.
    Norta A, Grefen P, Narendra NC (2014) A reference architecture for managing dynamic inter-organizational business processes. Data Knowl Eng 91:52–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Norta A, Ma L, Duan Y, Rull A, Kõlvart M, Taveter K (2015) eContractual choreography-language properties towards cross-organizational business collaboration. J Internet Serv Appl 6(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Norta A, and Kutvonen L (2012) A Cloud HUB for brokering business processes as a service: a rendezvous platform that supports semi-automated background checked partner discovery for cross-enterprise collaboration. In: SRII global conference (SRII), 2012 annual, pp 293–302Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Norta A, Eshuis R (2010) Specification and verification of harmonized business-process collaborations. Inf Syst Front 12:457–479. doi:10.1007/s10796-009-9164-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Norta A, Hendrix M, Grefen P (October 2006) A pattern-knowledge base supported establishment of inter-organizational business processes. In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems 2006: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE. Lecture notes in computer science, Montpellier, France, LNCS, vol 4277, p 834843. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Olsson NL (2013) Xml content translator. http://www.nikse.dk/XmlContentTranslator/
  49. 49.
    openNMS (2013) Event translator. http://www.opennms.org/wiki/Event_Translator
  50. 50.
    Padgham L, Thangarajah J, Winikoff M (2014) Prometheus research directions. In: Shehory O, Sturm A (eds) Agent-oriented software engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 155–171Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pesic M, Schonenberg H, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Declare: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: Enterprise distributed object computing conference, 2007. EDOC 2007. 11th IEEE international, pp 287–287. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pimentel F, De Paoli E, Zavattaro G (2012) Service-oriented and cloud computingGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Queensland University of Technology. YAWL home page. http://www.yawl-system.com
  54. 54.
    Reichert M, Weber B (2012) Aristaflow bpm suite. Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems, pp 441–464. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Reinecke J, Dessler G, Schoell W (1989) Introduction to business—a contemporary view. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ruohomaa S, Kaur P, Kutvonen L (2012) From subjective reputation to verifiable experiences augmenting peer-control mechanisms for open service ecosystems. In: Dimitrakos T, Moona R, Patel D, McKnight DH (eds) Trust management VI. IFIP advances in information and communication technology, vol 374, pp 142–157. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Russell N, van der Aalst WMP, Hofstede A (2006) Workflow exception patterns. In: Advanced information systems engineering. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4001, pp 288–302Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Russell N, van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM (2008) NewYAWL: designing a workflow system using coloured Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on Petri nets and distributed systems, PNDS’08Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Shrouf F, Ordieres J, Miragliotta G (Dec 2014) Smart factories in industry 4.0: a review of the concept and of energy management approached in production based on the Internet of things paradigm. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (IEEM), pp 697–701Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sterling L, Taveter K (2009) The art of agent-oriented modeling. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Szabo N (1997) Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday 2(9):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ter Hofstede AHM, van der Aalst WMP, Adams M, Russell N (2009) Modern business process automation: YAWL and its support environment. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    van der Aalst WMP (1996) Structural characterizations of sound workflow nets. Computing Science Reports 96/23, Eindhoven University of Technology, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM (2002) Yawl: yet another workflow languageGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    van der Aalst WMP, Pesic M, Schonenberg H (2009) Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support. Comput Sci Res Dev 23(2):99–113Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wang X, Wong TN, Wang G (2012) Service-oriented architecture for ontologies supporting multi-agent system negotiations in virtual enterprise. J Intell Manuf 23(4):1331–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Westergaard M (2013) CPN tools 4: multi-formalism and extensibility. In: Colom JM, Desel J (eds) Application and theory of Petri nets and concurrency. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7927, pp 400–409. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zarras A, Fredj N, Manel, Georgantas N, Issarny V (2006) Engineering reconfigurable distributed software systems: issues arising for pervasive computing. In: Rigorous development of complex fault-tolerant systems, pp 364–386. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zhao Z (2014) A rule-based agent-oriented framework for weakly-structured scientific workflows. PhD thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nanjangud C. Narendra
    • 1
  • Alex Norta
    • 2
  • Msury Mahunnah
    • 2
  • Lixin Ma
    • 4
  • Fabrizio Maria Maggi
    • 3
  1. 1.MS Ramaiah University of Applied SciencesBengaluruIndia
  2. 2.Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  3. 3.University of TartuTartuEstonia
  4. 4.University of Shanghai for Science and TechnologyShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations