Advertisement

An Evaluation Framework for Design-Time Context-Adaptation of Process Modelling Languages

  • Jing Hu
  • Ghazaleh Aghakhani
  • Faruk HasićEmail author
  • Estefanía SerralEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 305)

Abstract

To enhance the performance and efficiency of business processes, it is essential to take the dynamics of their execution context into account during process modelling. This paper first proposes an evaluation framework that identifies the main requirements for supporting the modelling of context-adaptive processes. Using this framework, we analyse four popular business process modelling languages: Coloured Petri Nets (CPN), Business Process Modelling and Notation 2.0 (BPMN), Yet Another Workflow Language (YAWL), and Unified Modelling Language Activity Diagrams (UML AD). The analysis is carried out by evaluating how the respective language notations fulfil the identified requirements in several real-life scenarios. Lastly, a comparative analysis of the languages focussed on their support for modelling context-adaptive business processes is provided.

Keywords

Context adaptation Business process modelling Process notation 

References

  1. 1.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.: A survey of comparative business process modeling approaches. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4439, pp. 82–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72035-5_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saidani, O., Nurcan, S.: Context-awareness for adequate business process modelling. In: Proceedings of the 2009 3rd International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2009, pp. 177–186 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    vom Brocke, J., Schmiedel, T., Zelt, S.: Considering Context in Business Process Management- The BPM Process Framework. BPTrends (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    vom Brocke, J., Schmiedel, T., Recker, J., Trkman, P., Mertens, W., Viaene, S.: Ten principles of good business process management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 20, 530–548 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dey, A.K.: Understanding and using context. J. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 5, 4–7 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coutaz, B.Y.J., Crowley, J.L., Dobson, S., Garlan, D.: Context is key. Commun. ACM 48, 49–53 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de la Vara, J.L., Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F., Sánchez, J., Giorgini, P.: Business processes contextualisation via context analysis. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 471–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16373-9_37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Flender, C., Ansell, P.: Understanding context-awareness in business process design. In: Proceedings 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Flender, C.: Contextualization of business processes. Int. J. Bus. Process Integr. Manag. 3, 47–60 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, S., Xu, L.Da, Zhao, S.: The internet of things: a survey. Inf. Syst. Front. 17, 243–259 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henricksen, K., Indulska, J., Rakotonirainy, A.: Modeling context information in pervasive computing systems. In: Mattern, F., Naghshineh, M. (eds.) Pervasive 2002. LNCS, vol. 2414, pp. 167–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45866-2_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saidani, O., Nurcan, S.: Towards context aware business process modelling. In: 8th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support, p. 9 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kröschel, I.: On the notion of context for business process use. In: ISSS/BPSC, pp. 288–297 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Serral, E., De Smedt, J., Vanthienen, J.: Extending CPN tools with ontologies to support the management of context-adaptive business processes. In: Fournier, F., Mendling, J. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 202, pp. 198–209. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-15895-2_18 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adams, M., Ter Hofstede, A., Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Dynamic and context-aware process adaptation. In: Handbook of Research on Complex Dynamic Process Management: Techniques for Adaptability in Turbulent Environments, pp. 104–136 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yousfi, A., Bauer, C., Saidi, R., Dey, A.K.: UBPMN: a BPMN extension for modeling ubiquitous business processes. Inf. Softw. Technol. 74, 55–68 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer, S., Ruppen, A., Magerkurth, C.: Internet of things-aware process modeling: integrating IoT devices as business process resources. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 84–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38709-8_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ayora, C., Torres, V., Pelechano, V.: BP Variability Case Studies Development using different Modeling Approaches. pp. 1–31 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    BÖrger, E.: Approaches to modeling business processes: a critical analysis of BPMN, workflow patterns and YAWL. Softw. Syst. Model. 11, 305–318 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jian, H.Y., Shi, X.S., Wen, S., Li, J.W.: Formal semantics of BPMN process models using YAWL. In: Proceedings - 2008 2nd International Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology Application, IITA 2008, vol. 2, pp. 70–74 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lerner, B.S., Christov, S., Member, S., Osterweil, L.J., Bendraou, R., Kannengiesser, U., Wise, A.: Exception handling patterns for process modelling. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36, 162–184 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramadan, M., Elmongui, H., Hassan, R.: BPMN formalisation using coloured petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 2nd GSTF Annual International Conference on Software Engineering & Applications (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Geambasu, C.V.: BPMN vs. UML activity diagram for business process modeling. Acc. Manag. Inf. Syst. 11, 637–651 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vasko, M., Dustdar, S.: A view based analysis of workflow modeling languages. In: Proceedings - 14th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed, and Network-Based Processing, PDP 2006, pp. 293–300 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meyer, S., Sperner, K., Magerkurth, C., Pasquier, J.: Towards modeling real-world aware business processes. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Web of Things, pp. 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dar, K., Taherkordi, A., Baraki, H., Eliassen, F., Geihs, K.: A resource oriented integration architecture for the internet of things: a business process perspective. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 20, 145–159 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ann, M., Kerryann, M.: Context-aware Process Design: Exploring the Extrinsic Drivers for Process Flexibility. vol. 26, pp. 423–436 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Haller, S., Magerkurth, C.: The real-time enterprise: Iot-enabled business processes. In: IETF IAB Workshop on Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet, pp. 1–3 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alves, P., Ferreira, P.: Distributed Context-Aware Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Serral, E., De Smedt, J., Snoeck, M., Vanthienen, J.: Context-adaptive petri nets: supporting adaptation for the execution context. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 9307–9317 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perera, C., Zaslavsky, A., Christen, P., Georgakopoulos, D.: Context aware computing for the internet of things. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 16, 414–454 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vasilecas, O., Rusinaite, T., Kalibatiene, D.: Dynamic business processes and their simulation: a survey. Databases Inf. Syst. IX, 155–166 (2016)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smanchat, S., Ling, S., Indrawan, M.: A survey on context-aware workflow adaptations. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia - MoMM 2008, p. 414 (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vanthienen, J., Caron, F., De Smedt, J.: Business rules, decisions and processes: five reflections upon living apart together. In: Proceedings SIGBPS Workshop on Business Processes and Services (BPS 2013), pp. 76–81 (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eder, J., Panagos, E., Rabinovich, M.: Time constraints in workflow systems. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 286–300. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi: 10.1007/3-540-48738-7_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process flexibility: a survey of contemporary approaches. In: Dietz, J.L.G., Albani, A., Barjis, J. (eds.) CIAO!/EOMAS -2008. LNBIP, vol. 10, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-68644-6_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.: Workflow exception patterns. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 288–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11767138_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nielsen, C., Lund, M.: The concept of business model scalability. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. 1–20 (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 127–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    OMG: Decision Model and Notation (DMN) 1.1 (2016)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hasić, F., Devadder, L., Dochez, M., Hanot, J., De Smedt, J., Vanthienen, J.: Challenges in refactoring processes to include decision modelling. In: Business Process Management Workshops (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leuven Institute for Research on Information Systems (LIRIS)KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations