Lifecycle Management of Business Process Variants

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter deals with advanced concepts for the configuration and management of business process variants. Typically, for a particular business process, different variants exist. Each of them constitutes an adjustment of a master process (e.g., a reference process) to specific requirements building the process context. Contemporary Business Process Management tools do not adequately support the modeling and management of such process variants. Either the variants have to be specified in separate process models or they are expressed in terms of conditional branches within the same process model. Both methods can result in high model redundancies, which make model adaptations a time-consuming and error-prone task. In this chapter, we discuss advanced concepts of our Provop approach, which provides a flexible and powerful solution for managing business process variants along their lifecycle. Such variant support will foster more systematic process configuration as well as process maintenance.

References

  1. Ayora C, Torres V, Reichert M, Weber B, Pelechano V (2012) Towards run-time flexibility for process families: open issues and research challenges. In: Proceedings BPM’12 workshops, LNBIP, vol 132, Tallinn, pp 477–488Google Scholar
  2. Ayora C, Torres V, Weber B, Reichert M, Pelechano V (2013a) Change patterns for process families. Technical report PROS-TR-2013-06, University of ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayora C, Torres V, Weber B, Reichert M, Pelechano V (2013b) Enhancing modeling and change support for process families through change patterns. In: Proceedings 14th international working conference on business process modeling, development, and support (BPMDS’13), LNBIP, vol 147, Valencia, pp 246–260Google Scholar
  4. Bachmann F, Bass L (2001) Managing variability in software architectures. In: Proceedings of symposium on software reusability, ACM, New York, pp 126–132Google Scholar
  5. Bayer J, Buhl W, Giese C, Lehner T, Ocampo A, Puhlmann F, Richter E, Schnieders A, Weiland J, Weske M (2005) PESOA – process family engineering – modeling variant-rich processes. TR 18/2005, Hasso-Plattner-Institute, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker M, Geyer L, Gilbert A, Becker K (2001) Comprehensive variability modeling to facilitate efficient variability treatment. In: Proceedings of 4th international workshop of product family engineering (PFE’01), LNCS, vol 2290, Bilbao, pp 294–303Google Scholar
  7. Becker J, Lis L, Pfeiffer D, Räckers M (2007) A process modeling language for the public sector – the PICTURE approach. In: Wybrane Problemy Elektronicznej Gospodarki. Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź, pp 271–281Google Scholar
  8. Gottschalk F (2009) Configurable process models. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  9. Gottschalk F, van der Aalst WMP, Jansen-Vullers MH, la Rosa M (2007) Configurable workflow models. Int J Cooper Inform Syst 17(2):177–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gottschalk F, Wagemakers T, Jansen-Vullers M, van der Aalst W, La Rosa M (2009) Configurable process models: experiences from a municipality case study. In: Proceedings CAiSE’09, LNCS, vol 5565, Amsterdam, pp 486–500Google Scholar
  11. Hallerbach A (2010) Management of process variants. Ph.D. thesis, University of UlmGoogle Scholar
  12. Hallerbach A, Bauer T, Reichert M (2008a) Modellierung und Darstellung von Prozessvarianten in Provop. In: Proceedings Modellierung’08 (in German), LNI P-127, Berlin, pp 41–56Google Scholar
  13. Hallerbach A, Bauer T, Reichert M (2008b) Context-based configuration of process variants. In: Proceedings 3rd international workshop on context-aware business process management (TCoB’08), Barcelona, pp 31–40Google Scholar
  14. Hallerbach A, Bauer T, Reichert M (2008c) Managing process variants in the process life cycle. In: Proceedings of 10th international conference on enterprise information systems (ICEIS’08), Barcelona, pp 154–161Google Scholar
  15. Hallerbach A, Bauer T, Reichert M (2008d) Issues in modeling process variants with provop. In: Proceedings of BPM’08 workshops, MilanGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallerbach A, Bauer T, Reichert M (2008e) Anforderungen an die Modellierung und Ausführung von Prozessvarianten. Datenbank Spektrum 24:48–58Google Scholar
  17. Hallerbach A, Bauer T, Reichert M (2009) Guaranteeing soundness of configurable process variants in Provop. In: Proceedings 11th IEEE conference on commerce and enterprise computing (CEC’09), IEEE Computer Society, Vienna, pp 98–105Google Scholar
  18. Halmans G, Pohl K (2003) Communicating the variability of a software-product family to customers. Softw Syst Model 2(1):15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumar A, Wen Y (2012) Design and management of flexible process variants using templates and rules. Int J Comput Ind 63(2):112–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Künzle V, Reichert M (2012) Striving for object-aware process support: how existing approaches fit together. In: Proceedings 1st international symposium on data-driven process discovery and analysis (SIMPDA’11), LNBIP, vol 116, Campione d’Italia, pp 169–188Google Scholar
  21. La Rosa M, Lux J, Seidel S, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM (2007) Questionnaire-driven configuration of reference process models. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, LNCS, vol 4495, Trondheim, pp 424–438Google Scholar
  22. La Rosa M, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM, Mendling J, Gottschalk F (2008) Beyond control-flow: extending business process configuration to roles and objects. In: Proceedings of ER’08, Barcelona, Spain, pp 199–215Google Scholar
  23. La Rosa M, Dumas M, Uba R, Dijkman RM (2010) Merging business process models. In: Proceedings OTM conferences (1). LNCS, vol 6426, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece, pp 96–113Google Scholar
  24. La Rosa M, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM, Mendling J (2011) Configurable multi-perspective business process models. Inf Syst 36(2):313–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lenz R, Reichert M (2007) IT support for healthcare processes – premises, challenges, perspectives. Data Knowl Engl 61(1):39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li C, Reichert M, Wombacher A (2008a) Mining process variants: goals and issues. In: IEEE 5th international conference on services computing (SCC’08), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp 573–576Google Scholar
  27. Li C, Reichert M, Wombacher A (2008b) Discovering reference process models by mining process variants. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on web services (ICWS’08), IEEE Computer Society, Beijing, pp 45–53Google Scholar
  28. Li C, Reichert M, Wombacher A (2011) Mining business process variants: challenges, scenarios, algorithms. Data Knowl Eng 70(5):409–434, ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lohmann N, Wolf K (2011) Compact representations and efficient algorithms for operating guidelines. Fundam Inform 108(1–2):43–62Google Scholar
  30. Lohrmann M, Reichert M (2012) Modeling business objectives for business process management. In: Proceedings S-BPM ONE 2012 scientific research, LNBIP, vol 104, Springer, Vienna, pp 106–126Google Scholar
  31. Lu R, Sadiq S (2006) On managing process variants as an information resource. Technical report no. 464, University of Queensland, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  32. Müller D, Herbst J, Hammori M, Reichert M (2006) IT support for release management processes in the automotive industry. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on business process management (BPM’06), LNCS, vol 4102, Vienna, pp 368–377Google Scholar
  33. Mutschler B, Reichert N, Bumiller J (2008) Unleashing the effectiveness of process-oriented information systems: problem analysis, critical success factors and implications. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyberm C 38(3):280–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Puhlmann F, Schnieders A, Weiland J, Weske M (2005) PESOA – variability mechanisms for process models. Hasso-Plattner-Institute, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  35. Reichert M (2012a) Process and data: two sides of the same coin. In: Proceedings 20th international conference on cooperative information systems (CoopIS’12), OTM 2012, Part I, LNCS, vol 7565, Rome, pp 2–19Google Scholar
  36. Reichert M (2012b) Visualizing large business process models: challenges, techniques, applications. In: Proceedings BPM’12 workshops, LNBIP, vol 132, Tallinn, pp 725–736Google Scholar
  37. Reichert M, Weber B (2012) Enabling flexibility in process-aware information systems: challenges, methods, technologies. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reichert M, Kolb J, Bobrik R, Bauer T (2012) Enabling personalized visualization of large business processes through parameterizable views. In: Proceedings 27th ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC’12), ACM, Trento, pp 1653–60Google Scholar
  39. Rinderle-Ma S, Reichert M, Weber B (2008) On the formal semantics of change patterns in process-aware information systems. In: Proceedings 27th international conference on conceptual modeling (ER’08), LNCS, vol 5231, Barcelona, pp 279–293Google Scholar
  40. Rosemann M, van der Aalst W (2007) A configurable reference modeling language. Inform Syst 32:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. IDS Scheer (2008) ARIS platform method 7.1. Technical Handbook, IDS Scheer GmbH, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  42. Torres V, Zugal S, Weber B, Reichert M, Ayora C, Pelechano V (2012) A qualitative comparison of approaches supporting business process variability. In: Proceedings BPM’12 workshops, LNBIP, vol 132, Tallinn, pp 560–572Google Scholar
  43. van der Aalst W, Basten T (2002) Inheritance of workflows: an approach to tackling problems related to change. Theor Comput Sci 270(1–2):125–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van der Aalst W, Dumas M, Gottschalk F, ter Hofstede AHM, La Rosa M, Mendling J (2008) Correctness-preserving configuration of business process models. In: Proceedings of fundamental approaches to software engineering, LNCS, vol 4961, Budapest, pp 46–61Google Scholar
  45. van der Aalst W, Dumas M, Gottschalk F, ter Hofstede AHM, La Rosa M, Mendling J (2010a) Preserving correctness during business process model configuration. Formal Asp Comput 22(3–4):459–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van der Aalst W, Lohmann N, La Rosa M, Xu J (2010b) Correctness ensuring process configuration: an approach based on partner synthesis. In: Proceedings BPM’10 conference, LNCS, vol 6336, Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp 95–111Google Scholar
  47. VDA (2005) Engineering change management (ECM) – Part 1: engineering change request (ECR) Version 1.1, Recommendation 4965 T1Google Scholar
  48. vom Brocke J (2007) Design principles for reference modelling – reusing information models by means of aggregation, specialization, instantiation, and analogy. In: Fettke P, Loos P (eds) Reference modelling for business systems analysis. Idea Group, Hershey, pp 47–75Google Scholar
  49. Weber B, Reichert M (2008) Refactoring process models in large process re-positories. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE’08), LNCS, vol 5074, Montpellier, pp 124–139Google Scholar
  50. Weber B, Reichert M, Rinderle S, Wild W (2006) Towards a framework for the agile mining of business processes. In: Proceedings of BPM’05 workshop, LNCS, vol 3812, Nancy, France, pp 191–202Google Scholar
  51. Weber B, Rinderle S, Reichert M (2007) Change patterns and change support features in process- aware information systems. In: Proceedings of 11th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE’07), LNCS, vol 4495, Trondheim, pp 574–588Google Scholar
  52. Weber B, Rinderle S, Reichert M (2008) Change patterns and change support features – enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data Knowl Eng 66(3):438–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weber B, Reichert M, Wild W, Rinderle-Ma S (2009) Providing integrated life-cycle support in process-aware information systems. Int J Cooper Inform Syst (IJCIS) 18(1):115–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weber B, Reichert M, Mendling J, Reijers H (2011) Refactoring large process model repositories. Comput Ind 62(5):467–486, ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wyner GM, Lee J (2003) Defining specialization for process models. In: Malone TW, Crowston K, Herman GA (eds) Organizing business knowledge – the MIT process handbook. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 131–174Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  • Alena Hallerbach
    • 2
  • Thomas Bauer
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Databases and Information SystemsUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.UlmGermany
  3. 3.Department for Information ManagementNeu-Ulm University of Applied SciencesNeu-UlmGermany

Personalised recommendations