Process Algebra and the Subject-Oriented Business Process Management Approach

  • Robert Singer
  • Matthias Teller
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 284)

Abstract

Recently there have been some discussion about possible revolutions in business process management. It is evident, that business process management up to now misses a solid scientific foundation. This has led to misinterpretations during implementation of business process management in organizations on one side, and uncoordinated research directions and results on the other side. It can be shown, that actual concepts, such as BPMN 2.0 or scientific community driven concepts such as Petri-nets do not fit business and organizational needs. We discuss one possible step forward to come up with a solid scientific definition of business process management, id est process calculi such as CCS and π-calculus. Based on these algebras, we can define and study business processes on a formal basis. Further on, we demonstrate that such calculi are not only theoretical concepts, but can be used for daily business process modeling and enactment in the from of the subject-oriented business process management (S-BPM) methodology.

Keywords

business process business process management process calculi CCS pi-calculus theory S-BPM communication agents process execution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Why workflow is NOT just a Pi-process. BPTrends (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W., Stahl, C.: Modeling Business Processes. The MIT Press (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.: Pi calculus versus petri nets: Let us eat ”humble pie” rather than further inflate the ”pi hype”. BPTrends (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aceto, L., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Larsen, K.G., Srba, J.: Reactive Systems: Modelling, Specification and Verification. Cambridge University Press (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aitenbichler, E., Borgert, S., Mühlhäuser, M.: Distributed Execution of S-BPM Business Processes. In: Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Singer, R., Seese, D. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2010. CCIS, vol. 138, pp. 19–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergstra, J.A., Klop, J.W.: Process Algebra for Synchronous Communication. Information and Control 60, 109–137 (1984)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bog, A.: A Visual Environment for the Simulation of Business Processes based on the Pi-Calculus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Potsdam (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Börger, E.: Approaches to modeling business processes: a critical analysis of BPMN, workflow patterns and YAWL. Software and Systems Modeling, pp. 1–14, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10270-011-0214-z
  9. 9.
    Chun, O., van der Aalst, W.M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.: From Business Process Models to Process-oriented Software Systems: The BPMN to BPEL Way. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 19(1), Articel Nr. 2 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Graef, N., Tölle, N.: Evaluation, Mapping und quantitative Reduktion von Workflow Pattern (Control-Flow). Bachelor Thesis, University of Karlsruhe (2009) (in German)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grossgasteiger, S., Singer, R.: Process Calculi and the Notion of Communication in Social Sciences (to be published, 2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall (1985)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koomen, C.J.: The Design of Communicating Systems: a System Engineering Approach. Springer (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leymann, F.: BPEL vs. BPMN 2.0: Should You Care? In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPMN 2010. LNBIP, vol. 67, pp. 8–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malik, F.: Strategie – Navigieren in der Komplexität der Neuen Welt. Management: Komplexität meistern, vol. 3, campus (2011) (in German)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communication Systems. LNCS, vol. 92. Springer, Heidelberg (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milner, R.: Communicating and mobile systems: The pi-calculus. Cambridge University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milner, R., Parrow, J., Walker, D.: A calculus of mobile processes, part i. Information and Computation 100 (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milner, R., Parrow, J., Walker, D.: A calculus of mobile processes, part ii. Information and Computation 100(1), 41–77 (1992)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olbrich, T.J.: Why We Need to Re-think Current BPM Research Issues. In: Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Singer, R., Seese, D. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2010. CCIS, vol. 138, pp. 209–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parrow, J.: An introduction to the π-calculus, ch.8, pp. 479–544. Elsevier Science (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Puhlmann, F.: Why do we actually need the Pi-Calculus for Business Process Management? Business Informations Systems, 77–89 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Puhlmann, F.: On the Application of a Theory for Mobile Systems to Business Process Management. Ph.D. thesis, University of Potsdam (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the Translation between BPMN and BPEL: Conceptual Mismatch between Process Modeling Languages, pp. 521–532 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmidt, W., Fleischmann, A., Gilbert, O.: Subject-Oriented Business Process Management. Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik (266), 52–62 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Silver, B.: BPMN Method & Style, 2nd edn. Cody-Cassidy Press (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singer, R., Zinser, E.: Business Process Management – Do We Need a New Research Agenda? In: Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Singer, R., Seese, D. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2010. CCIS, vol. 138, pp. 220–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Workflow is just a Pi process. BPTrends (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sneed, S.H.: Exporting Natural Language: Generating NL Sentences Out of S-BPM Process Models. In: Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Singer, R., Seese, D. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2010. CCIS, vol. 138, pp. 163–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Voelzer, H.: An Overview of BPMN 2.0 and Its Potential Use. Business Process Modeling Notation 67(1), 14–15 (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weidlich, M., Decker, G., Großkopf, A., Weske, M.: BPEL to BPMN: The Myth of a Straight-Forward Mapping. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5331, pp. 265–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Russell, N.: On the Suitability of BPMN for Business Process Modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Singer
    • 1
  • Matthias Teller
    • 1
  1. 1.FH JOANNEUM - University of Applied SciencesGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations