Visual Modeling of Business Process Compliance Rules with the Support of Multiple Perspectives

  • David Knuplesch
  • Manfred Reichert
  • Linh Thao Ly
  • Akhil Kumar
  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8217)

Abstract

A fundamental challenge for any process-aware information system is to ensure compliance of modeled and executed business processes with imposed compliance rules stemming from guidelines, standards and laws. Such compliance rules usually refer to multiple process perspectives including control flow, time, resources, data, and interactions with business partners. On one hand, compliance rules should be comprehensible for domain experts who must define and apply them. On the other, they should have a precise semantics such that they can be automatically processed. In this context, providing a visual compliance rule language seems promising as it allows hiding formal details and offers an intuitive way of modeling. So far, visual compliance rule languages have focused on the control flow perspective, but lack adequate support for the other perspectives. To remedy this drawback, this paper provides an approach that extends visual compliance rule languages with the ability to consider data, time, resources, and partner interactions when modeling business process compliance rules. Overall, this extension will foster business process compliance support in practice.

Keywords

business process compliance compliance rule graphs business process modeling business intelligence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sadiq, W., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M., Mangler, J., Rinderle-Ma, S., Fdhila, W.: Towards compliance of cross-organizational processes and their changes. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM 2012 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 649–661. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabanillas, C., Resinas, M., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Hints on how to face business process compliance. In: JISBD 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramezani, E., Fahland, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Where Did I Misbehave? Diagnostic Information in Compliance Checking. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 262–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mangler, J., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Iupc: Identification and unification of process constraints. arXiv. org (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turetken, O., Elgammal, A., van den Heuvel, W.J., Papazoglou, M.: Capturing compliance requirements: A pattern-based approach. IEEE Soft., 29–36 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghose, A.K., 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
  10. 10.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Dadam, P.: Design and verification of instantiable compliance rule graphs in process-aware information systems. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 9–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu, Y., Müller, S., Xu, K.: A static compliance-checking framework for business process models. IBM Systems Journal 46(2), 261–335 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M.: Ensuring business process compliance along the process life cycle. Technical Report 2011-06, Ulm University (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Workflow resource patterns: Identification, representation and tool support. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 216–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, J., Kumar, A.: A framework for document-driven workflow systems. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 285–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eder, J., Tahamtan, A.: Temporal conformance of federated choreographies. In: Bhowmick, S.S., Küng, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5181, pp. 668–675. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lanz, A., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: Time patterns for process-aware information systems. Requirements Engineering (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf. Sys. 35(8) (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Knuplesch, D., et al.: Data-aware interaction in distributed and collaborative workflows: Modeling, semantics, correctness. In: CollaborateCom 2012, pp. 223–232 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ly, L.T., et al.: Integration and verification of semantic constraints in adaptive process management systems. Data & Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 3–23 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ly, L.T., et al.: On enabling integrated process compliance with semantic constraints in process management systems. Inf. Sys. Front. 14(2), 195–219 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramezani, E., Fahland, D., van der Werf, J.M., Mattheis, P.: Separating compliance management and business process management. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2011, Part II. LNBIP, vol. 100, pp. 459–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: The journey to business process compliance. In: Handbook of Research on BPM, pp. 426–454. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Namiri, K., Stojanovic, N.: Pattern-Based design and validation of business process compliance. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 59–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Governatori, G., Hoffmann, J., Sadiq, S., Weber, I.: Detecting regulatory compliance for business process models through semantic annotations. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 5–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumar, A., Yao, W., Chu, C.: Flexible process compliance with semantic constraints using mixed-integer programming. INFORMS J. on Comp. (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Specification, verification and explanation of violation for data aware compliance rules. In: Baresi, L., Chi, C.-H., Suzuki, J. (eds.) ICSOC-ServiceWave 2009. LNCS, vol. 5900, pp. 500–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knuplesch, D., Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Pfeifer, H., Dadam, P.: On enabling data-aware compliance checking of business process models. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 332–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kokash, N., Krause, C., de Vink, E.: Time and data aware analysis of graphical service models. In: SEFM 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Höhn, S.: Model-based reasoning on the achievement of business goals. In: SAC 2009, pp. 1589–1593. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Accorsi, R., Lowis, L., Sato, Y.: Automated certification for compliant cloud-based business processes. Business & Inf. Sys. Engineering 3(3), 145–154 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Visually specifying compliance rules and explaining their violations for business processes. Vis. Lang. Comp. 22(1), 30–55 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Feja, S., Speck, A., Witt, S., Schulz, M.: Checkable graphical business process representation. In: Catania, B., Ivanović, M., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ADBIS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6295, pp. 176–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Property specification patterns for finite-state verification. In: FMSP 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Knuplesch, D., et al.: On the formal semantics of the extended compliance rule graph. Technical Report 2013-05, Ulm University (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Knuplesch
    • 1
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  • Linh Thao Ly
    • 1
  • Akhil Kumar
    • 2
  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Databases and Information SystemsUlm UniversityGermany
  2. 2.Smeal College of BusinessPennsylvania State UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations