Advertisement

Abstract

A typical e-business transaction takes hours or days to complete, involves a number of partners, and comprises many failure points[8]. With short-lived transactions, database systems ensure atomicity by either committing all of the elements of the transaction, or by canceling all of them in case of a failure. With typical e-business transactions, strict atomicity is not practical, and we need a way of reversing the effects of those activities that cannot be rolled back: that is compensation. For a given business process, identifying the various failure points, and designing the appropriate compensation processes represents the bulk of process design effort[8]. Yet, business analysts have little or no guidance, as for a given failure point, there appears to be an infinite variety of ways to compensate for it. We recognize that compensation is a business issue, but we argue that it can be explained in terms of a handful of parameters within the context of REA ontology [20], including things such as the type of activity, the type of resource, and organizational policies. We propose a three-step process compensation design approach that 1) starts by abstracting a business process to focus on those activities that create/modify value, 2) compensates for those activities, individually, based on values of the compensation parameters, and 3) composes those compensations using a Saga-like approach [10]. In this paper, we present our approach, and discuss issues for future research.

Keywords

Business Process Compensation Process Failure Point Compensation Activity Business Process Execution Language 
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.
    Antunes, P.: BPM and Exception Handling: Focus on Organizational Resilience. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 41(3), 383–392 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Behnam, S.A., Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G.: Towards a Pattern-Based Framework for Goal-Driven Business Process Modeling. In: 2010 Eighth ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications (SERA), pp. 137–145 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bocchi, L., Ciancarini, P., Rossi, D.: Transactional aspects in semantic based discovery of services. In: Jacquet, J.-M., Picco, G.P. (eds.) COORDINATION 2005. LNCS, vol. 3454, pp. 283–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butler, M., Ferreira, C.: A Process Compensation Language. In: Grieskamp, W., Santen, T., Stoddart, B. (eds.) IFM 2000. LNCS, vol. 1945, pp. 61–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butler, M., Ferreira, C.: An Operational Semantics for StAC, a Language for Modelling Long-running Business Transactions. In: De Nicola, R., Ferrari, G.-L., Meredith, G. (eds.) COORDINATION 2004. LNCS, vol. 2949, pp. 87–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curran, T., Keller, G., Ladd, A.: SAP R/3 Business Blueprint. Understanding the business process reference model. Prentice Hall (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    CYCorp. CYC Knowledge BaseGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dayal, U., Hsu, M., Ladin, R.: Business Process Coordination: State of the Art, Trends, and Open Issues. In: 27th Very Large Databases Conference, VLDB 2001, Roma, pp. 3–13 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eisentraut, C., Spieler, D.: Fault, Compensation and Termination in WS-BPEL 2.0 - A Comparative Analysis. In: Bruni, R., Wolf, K. (eds.) WS-FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5387, pp. 107–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garcia-Molina, H., Salem, K.: Sagas. In: SIGMOD 1987: Proceedings of the 1987 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 249–259. ACM Request Permissions, New York (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Geerts, G.L., Mccarthy, W.E.: Modeling Business Enterprises as Value-Added Process Hierarchies with Resource-Event-Agent Object Templates. In: Business Object Design and Implementation, pp. 94–113. Springer (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geerts, G.L., Mccarthy, W.E.: The Ontological Foundation of REA Enterprise Information Systems. In: American Accounting Association Conference, Philadelphia (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geerts, G.L., Mccarthy, W.E.: An ontological analysis of the economic primitives of the extended-REA enterprise information architecture. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 3(1) (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghidini, C., Francescomarino, C.D., Rospocher, M., Tonella, P., Serafini, L.: Semantics-Based Aspect-Oriented Management of Exceptional Flows in Business Processes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews 42(1), 25–37 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H., van Vliet, H.: Business Modelling is not Process Modelling. In: Mayr, H.C., Liddle, S.W., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER Workshops 2000. LNCS, vol. 1921, pp. 40–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R.: A value-oriented approach to e-business process design. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 390–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gordijn, J., Yu, E., van der Raadt, B.: E-service design using i* and e/sup 3/ value modeling. IEEE Software 23(3), 26–33 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenfield, P., Fekete, A., Jang, J., Kuo, D.: Compensation is not enough (fault-handling and compensation mechanism). In: Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference 2003, pp. 232–239. IEEE Comput. Soc. (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hruby, P.: Model-Driven Design Using Business Patterns. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mccarthy, W.E.: The REA Accounting Model - A Generalized Framework for Accounting Systems in a Shared Data Environment. The Accounting Review 57(3), 554–578 (1982)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mili, H., Godin, R., Tremblay, G., Dorfeuille, W.: Towards a Methodology for Designing Compensation Processes in Long-Running Business Transactions. In: Montreal Conference on eTechnologies, MCETECH 2006, Montreal, pp. 137–148 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    OASIS. Web Services Business Process Execution Language (BPEL). OASIS (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). OMG (January 2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Osterwalder, A.: The Business Model Ontology. PhD thesis, Université de Lausanne École des Hautes Études Commerciales (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Porter, M.E.: Competitive advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York, USA (1985)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sonntag, M., Karastoyanova, D.: Compensation of Adapted Service Orchestration Logic in BPEL ’ n ’ Aspects. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 413–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu, E.S.K.: Models for supporting the redesign of organizational work. In: COCS 1995: Proceedings of Conference on Organizational Computing Systems. ACM Request Permissions (August 1995)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu, S.C.: The Structure of Accounting Theory. The University Press of Florida (1976)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anis Boubaker
    • 1
  • Hafedh Mili
    • 1
  • Yasmine Charif
    • 2
  • Abderrahmane Leshob
    • 1
  1. 1.LATECE LaboratoryUniversity of Quebec at Montreal (UQÀM)Canada
  2. 2.Xerox Research Center at WebsterCanada

Personalised recommendations