Advertisement

Business Process Architecture: Use and Correctness

  • Rami-Habib Eid-Sabbagh
  • Remco Dijkman
  • Mathias Weske
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7481)

Abstract

Becoming more and more process oriented, companies develop collections of hundreds or even thousands of business process models that represent the complex system of cooperating entities that form an organization. Designing and analyzing the structure of this system of business process models emerges as a new challenge, which is covered by the field of business process architecture. This paper presents a formal conceptual framework for representing and analyzing business process architectures. It identifies patterns of relations between process models, and it introduces anti-patterns that represent erroneous relations between them. The conceptual framework and the patterns are evaluated using a real-world process model collection. The evaluation shows that explicitly representing and analyzing relations between process models can help improving the correctness and consistency of the business process architecture as a whole.

Keywords

Business Process Business Process Model Process Instance Intermediate Event Process Architecture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dijkman, R.M., Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A.: The Road to a Business Process Architecture: An Overview of Approaches and their Use. BETA Working Paper WP-350, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, 2nd edn. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mooij, A.J., Stahl, C., Wolf, K.: Service Interaction: Patterns, Formalization, and Analysis. In: Bernardo, M., Padovani, L., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) SFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5569, pp. 42–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Service Interaction Patterns. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 302–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barros, A., Börger, E.: A Compositional Framework for Service Interaction Patterns and Interaction Flows. In: Lau, K.-K., Banach, R. (eds.) ICFEM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3785, pp. 5–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tut, M.T., Edmond, D.: The Use of Patterns in Service Composition. In: Bussler, C., Hull, R., McIlraith, S., Orlowska, M.E., Pernici, B., Yang, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2002 and WES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2512, pp. 28–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Workflow Verification: Finding Control-Flow Errors Using Petri-Net-Based Techniques. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 161–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curran, T.A., Keller, G.: SAP R/3 Business Blueprint - Business Engineering mit den R/3-Referenzprozessen. Addison-Wesley, Germany (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Dongen, B., Verbeek, E.: Errors in the SAP Reference Model. BPTrends 4(6), 1–5 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Decker, G., Mendling, J.: Process instantiation. TKDE 68(9), 777–792 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Behavioral Consistency for B2B Process Integration. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 81–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martens, A.: Analyzing Web Service Based Business Processes. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Stork, D.G.: Query Nets: Interacting Workflow Modules That Ensure Global Termination. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 184–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Milner, R.: Communicating and mobile systems - the Pi-calculus. Cambridge University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Decker, G., Zaha, J.M., Dumas, M.: Execution Semantics for Service Choreographies. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 163–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lucchi, R., Mazzara, M.: A pi-calculus based semantics for WS-BPEL. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 70(1), 96–118 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wombacher, A.: Decentralized Consistency Checking in Cross-organizational Workflows. In: CECEEE 2006, pp. 39–46. IEEE Computer Society Press (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rami-Habib Eid-Sabbagh
    • 1
  • Remco Dijkman
    • 2
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations