Advertisement

Monitoring Business Processes in the Networked Enterprise

  • Francesco Arigliano
  • Devis Bianchini
  • Cinzia Cappiello
  • Angelo Corallo
  • Paolo Ceravolo
  • Ernesto Damiani
  • Valeria De Antonellis
  • Barbara Pernici
  • Pierluigi Plebani
  • Davide Storelli
  • Claudia Vicari
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 116)

Abstract

The Object Management Group (OMG) is promoting the Model Driven Architecture (MDA) approach to support interaction among enterprises based on business process models. Based on this approach, we discuss in this paper how to specify performance indicators among the levels with different degree of abstraction suggested in MDA. These indicators will drive the monitoring activities to check the execution of business processes involving networked enterprises. Connecting the different levels we also decrease the cost of implementing metrics as the measurement of the entities at one level can be based on the lower level.

Keywords

performance indicators model driven architecture rules violations trends 

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M.: Business Process Management: A Survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oracle: Business Activity MonitoringGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Workflow Management Consortium: The workflow reference modelGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Brien, J.A.: Introduction to Information Systems: Essentials for the Internetworked Enterprise. McGraw-Hill Education (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aßmann, U., Aksit, M., Rensink, A. (eds.): MDAFA 2003/2004. LNCS, vol. 3599. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., Fugazza, C.: Representing and validating digital business processes. In: Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies, WEBIST (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arigliano, F., Ceravolo, P., Fugazza, C., Storelli, D.: Business Metrics Discovery by Business Rules. In: Lytras, M.D., Damiani, E., Tennyson, R.D. (eds.) WSKS 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5288, pp. 395–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corallo, A., Taifi, N., Passiante, G.: Strategic and managerial ties for the new product development. In: The Open Knowlege Society. A Computer Science and Information Systems Manifesto, pp. 398–405 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ardagna, D., Comuzzi, M., Mussi, E., Pernici, B., Plebani, P.: PAWS: A framework for executing adaptive web-service processes. IEEE Software 24(6), 39–46 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    BPMN: Business process modeling notation (bpmn). Misc, OMG (2006), http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/BPMN%20V1-0%20May%203%202004.pdf
  11. 11.
    Plebani, P., Pernici, B.: URBE: Web service retrieval based on similarity evaluation. IEEE TKDE (November 2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, M.: Problem Frames: Analyzing and Structuring Software Development Problem. Addison-Wesley (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buccafurri, F., Meo, P.D., Fugini, M.G., Furnari, R., Goy, A., Lax, G., Lops, P., Modafferi, S., Pernici, B., Redavid, D., Semeraro, G., Ursino, D.: Analysis of QoS in cooperative services for real time applications. Data Knowl. Eng. 67(3), 463–484 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goedertier, S., Mues, C., Vanthienen, J.: Specifying Process-Aware Access Control Rules in SBVR. In: Paschke, A., Biletskiy, Y. (eds.) RuleML 2007. LNCS, vol. 4824, pp. 39–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lazovik, A., Aiello, M., Papazoglou, M.: Associating assertions with business processes and monitoring their execution. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Namiri, K., Stojanovic, N.: A formal approach for internal controls compliance in business processes. In: 8th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kharbili, M.E., Stein, S., Pulvermller, E.: Policy-based semantic compliance checking for business process management. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Gemischter Workshop zu Referenzmodellierung und Semantische Geschftsprozessmodellierung, Saarbrcken, Germany, vol. 420, pp. 178–192 (November 2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S.: Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts. In: Proc. EDOC 2006, pp. 221–232 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghose, A., Koliadis, G.: Auditing Business Process Compliance. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baresi, L., Guinea, S.: Towards Dynamic Monitoring of WS-BPEL Processes. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 269–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wustenhoff, E.: Service level management in the data center. Technical report (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wetzstein, B., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F.: Towards management of SLA-aware business processes based on key performance indicators. In: 9th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support, BPMDS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Motta, G., Pignatelli, G.: Performing business processes knowledge base. In: First International Workshop and Summer School on Service Science (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Arigliano
    • 4
  • Devis Bianchini
    • 5
  • Cinzia Cappiello
    • 3
  • Angelo Corallo
    • 2
  • Paolo Ceravolo
    • 1
  • Ernesto Damiani
    • 1
  • Valeria De Antonellis
    • 5
  • Barbara Pernici
    • 3
  • Pierluigi Plebani
    • 3
  • Davide Storelli
    • 2
  • Claudia Vicari
    • 4
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Tecnologie dell’InformazioneUniversità degli Studi di MilanoItaly
  2. 2.Centro Cultura Innovativa d’ImpresaUniversità del SalentoLecceItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Elettronica ed InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoItaly
  4. 4.Research & Development Laboratory - EngineeringIngegneria Informatica S.p.A.Italy
  5. 5.Dipartimento di Elettronica per l’AutomazioneUniversità degli Studi di BresciaItaly

Personalised recommendations