Advertisement

Goal Distribution in Business Process Models

  • Matteo Baldoni
  • Cristina Baroglio
  • Roberto Micalizio
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11298)

Abstract

Business processes are widely used to capture how a service is realized or a product is delivered by a set of combined tasks. It is a recommended practice to implement a business goal through a single business process; in many cases, however, this is impossible or it is not efficient. The choice is, then, to split the process into a number of interacting processes. In order to realize this kind of solution, the business goal is broken up and distributed through many “actors”, who will depend on one another in carrying out their tasks. We explain, in this work, some weaknesses that emerge in this picture, and also how they would be overcome by introducing an explicit representation of responsibilities and accountabilities. We rely, as a running example, on the Hiring Process as described by Silver in [13].

Keywords

Accountability Responsibility BPM Goals 

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, P.A.: Justifications and precedents as constraints in foreign policy decision-making. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 25(4), 738–761 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Micalizio, R.: Commitment-based agent interaction in JaCaMo+. Fundam. Inform. 159(1–2), 1–33 (2018)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: An information model for computing accountabilities. In: Ghidini, C., et al. (eds.) AI*IA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11298, pp. 30–44. Springer, Cham (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: Computational accountability in MAS organizations with ADOPT. Appl. Sci. 8(4), 489 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bovens, M.: Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West Eur. Polit. 33(5), 946–967 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: From social machines to social protocols: software engineering foundations for sociotechnical systems. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on WWW (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Darwall, S.: Civil recourse as mutual accountability. In: Morality, Authority, and Law: Essays in Second-Personal Ethics I. Oxford University Press (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Day, P., Klein, R.: Accountabilities: Five Public Services. Social Science Paperbacks. Tavistock, London (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 292–312 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dumas, M.: On the convergence of data and process engineering. In: Eder, J., Bielikova, M., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ADBIS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6909, pp. 19–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23737-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feltus, C.: Aligning access rights to governance needs with the responsibility metamodel (ReMMo) in the frame of enterprise architecture. Ph.D. thesis. University of Namur, Belgium (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marengo, E., Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A., Patti, V., Singh, M.: Commitments with regulations: reasoning about safety and control in REGULA. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS, vol. 2, pp. 467–474 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style, with BPMN Implementer’s Guide, 2nd edn. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sinclair, A.: The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses. Account. Org. Soc. 20(2–3), 219–237 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artif. Intell. Law 7(1), 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh, M.P.: Distributed enactment of multiagent workflows: temporal logic for web service composition. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 14–18 July 2003, pp. 907–914. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh, M.P., Huhns, M.N.: Service-Oriented Computing - Semantics, Processes, Agents. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W3C: W3C Glossary and Dictionary (2003). http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/
  19. 19.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73522-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The GAIA methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations