International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management in Mediterranean Countries

Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management in Mediterranean Countries pp 155-166 | Cite as

A Tool for Assessing Quality of Rescue Plans by Combining Visualizations of Different Business Process Perspectives

  • Alvaro Jose Peralta
  • Nguyen Tuan Thanh Le
  • Serge Stinckwich
  • Chihab Hanachi
  • Alexandre Bergel
  • Tuong Vinh Ho
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 233)

Abstract

Rescue plans for crisis situations such as natural or made disasters are mostly presented in a textual format to the relevant authority. Assessing the quality of a rescue plan requires analyzing different perspectives, such as plan complexity, resources costs, service time, allocation strategy and organization efficiency. Unfortunately, textual rescue plans lack a formal structure to ease the reading and navigation through the document. To address this problem we are composing tailored visualizations, each visualization representing a particular perspective. We provide a domain specific language to describe domain specific visualizations of processes. We validate our approach using static and dynamic analysis of the Ho Chi Minh city rescue plan in case of a tsunami. Our approach provides recommendations that are useful for the authority to improve the original rescue plan.

Keywords

Rescue plans assessments Business process modeling Visualization BPMN 

References

  1. 1.
    Prizzia, R.: The role of coordination in disaster management. In: Public Administration and Public Policy-New York, vol. 138, pp. 75 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Le, N.T.T., Hanachi, C., Stinckwich, S., Ho, T.V.: Representing, simulating and analysing Ho Chi Minh City Tsunami plan by means of process models. In: ISCRAM Vietnam 2013 (Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management) (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Le, N.T.T., Hanachi, C., Stinckwich, S., Ho, T.V.: Combining process simulation and agent organizational structure evaluation in order to analyze disaster response plans. In: Gordan Jezic, G., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications, Part II. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 38, pp. 55–68. Springer, Switzerland (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Le, N.T.T., Hanachi, C., Stinckwich, S., Ho, T.V.: Mapping BPMN processes to organization centered multi-agent systems to help assess crisis models. In: 7th International Conference on Computational Collective Intelligence Technologies and Applications (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saoud, N.B.B., Mena, T.B., Dugdale, J., Pavard, B., Ahmed, M.B.: Assessing large scale emergency rescue plans: an agent based approach. Int. J. Intell. Control. Syst. 11(4), 260–271 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alegría, J.A.H., Bastarrica, M.C., Bergel, A.: AVISPA: a tool for analyzing software process models. J. Softw. Evol. Process. 26(4), 434–450 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grossi, D., Dignum, F.P.M., Dignum, V., Dastani, M., Royakkers, L.M.M.: Structural aspects of the evaluation of agent organizations. In: Noriega, P., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Boella, G., Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Fornara, N., Matson, E. (eds.) COIN 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4386, pp. 3–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Neuman, J., Reijers, H.A.: A discourse on complexity of process models. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S., et al. (eds.) BPM 2006 Workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4103, pp. 115–126. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cardoso, J.: Business process control-flow complexity: metric, evaluation, and validation. Int. J. Web Serv. Res. (IJWSR) 5(2), 49–76 (2008). IGI GlobalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Nakatumba, J., Rozinat, A., Russell, N.: Business process simulation. In: Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 313–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Makni, L., Khlif, W., Haddar, N.Z., Ben-Abdallah, H.: A tool for evaluating the quality of business process models. In: ISSS/BPSC, pp. 230–242 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M., Over, J.: Process modeling. Commun. ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lanza, M., Ducasse, S.: Polymetric views - a lightweight visual approach to reverse engineering. Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(9), 782–795 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Demeyer, S., Ducasse, S., Nierstrasz, O.: Object-Oriented Reengineering Patterns. Square Bracket Associates, Kehrsatz (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bergel, A., Cassou, D., Ducasse, S., Laval, J.: Deep Into Pharo. Square Bracket Associates, Kehrsatz (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alvaro Jose Peralta
    • 1
  • Nguyen Tuan Thanh Le
    • 2
    • 3
  • Serge Stinckwich
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
  • Chihab Hanachi
    • 4
  • Alexandre Bergel
    • 1
  • Tuong Vinh Ho
    • 5
    • 6
    • 8
  1. 1.Pleiad Lab, Department of Computer Science (DCC)University of ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.University Paul Sabatier Toulouse III, IRIT LaboratoryToulouseFrance
  3. 3.University of Science and Technology of HanoiHanoiVietnam
  4. 4.University of Toulouse I, IRIT LaboratoryToulouseFrance
  5. 5.IRD, UMI 209, UMMISCO, IRD France NordBondyFrance
  6. 6.Sorbonne Universités, University of Paris 06, UMI 209, UMMISCOParisFrance
  7. 7.Université de Caen Basse-NormandieCaenFrance
  8. 8.Institute Francophone InternationalVietnam National UniversityHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations