Modeling the Resource Perspective of Business Process Compliance Rules with the Extended Compliance Rule Graph

  • Franziska Semmelrodt
  • David Knuplesch
  • Manfred Reichert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 175)

Abstract

Process-aware information systems must ensure compliance of the business processes they implement with global compliance rules related to security constraints, domain-specific guidelines, standards, and laws. Usually, respective compliance rules cover multiple process perspectives; i.e., they not only deal with the control flow perspective that restricts the sequence in which the process activities shall be executed, but also refer to other process perspectives like data, time, and resource. Although there are various approaches for specifying compliance rules (e.g., based on temporal logic and narrative patterns), only few languages allow for the visual modeling of compliance rules. In turn, existing visual languages focus on the control flow perspective, but treat the other process perspectives as second class citizens. To remedy this drawback, this paper presents an approach for the visual modeling of business process compliance rules, including the resource perspective. The suitability of this approach is evaluated in a case study that was performed by business analysts in the healthcare domain.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex – supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. Intelligent Inf. Sys. 10(2), 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S.: Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts. In: EDOC 2006, pp. 221–232 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  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 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
  7. 7.
    Schaad, A., Spadone, P., Weichsel, H.: A case study of separation of duty properties in the context of the austrian “elaw” process. In: SAC 2005, pp. 1328–1332. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Konyen, I., Schultheiß, B., Reichert, M.: Prozessentwurf eines Ablaufs im Labor. Technical Report DBIS-16, University of Ulm (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schultheiß, B., Meyer, J., Mangold, R., Zemmler, T., Reichert, M., Dadam, P., Kreienberg, R.: Prozessentwurf am Beispiel eines Ablaufs aus dem OP-Bereich - Ergebnisse einer Analyse an der Universitätsfrauenklinik Ulm. Technical Report DBIS-6, University of Ulm (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Konyen, I., Schultheiß, B., Reichert, M.: Prozessentwurf für den Ablauf einer radiologischen Untersuchung. Technical Report DBIS-15, University of Ulm (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schultheiß, B., Meyer, J., Mangold, R., Zemmler, T., Reichert, M., Dadam, P., Kreienberg, R.: Prozessentwurf für den Ablauf einer ambulanten Chemotherapie. Technical Report DBIS-7, University of Ulm (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M., Ly, L.T., Kumar, A., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Visual modeling of business process compliance rules with the support of multiple perspectives. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 106–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Knuplesch, D., Dadam, P.: Monitoring business process compliance using compliance rule graphs. In: CoopIS 2011, pp. 82–99 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M.: Ensuring business process compliance along the process life cycle. Technical Report 2011-06, Ulm University (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M., Ly, L.T., Kumar, A., Rinderle-Ma, S.: On the formal semantics of the extended compliance rule graph. Technical Report 2013-05, Ulm University (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Kumar, A., Wang, J.: A framework for document-driven workflow systems. In: Int’l Handbook on Business Process Management, pp. 419–440. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Lanz, A., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: Time patterns for process-aware information systems. In: Requirements Engineering (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf. Sys. 35(8) (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Knuplesch, D., Pryss, R., Reichert, M.: Data-aware interaction in distributed and collaborative workflows: Modeling, semantics, correctness. In: CollaborateCom 2012, pp. 223–232. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Göser, K., Dadam, P.: On enabling integrated process compliance with semantic constraints in process management systems. Inf. Sys. Front. 14(2), 195–219 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: The journey to business process compliance. In: Handbook of Research on BPM, pp. 426–454. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    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
  31. 31.
    Liu, Y., Müller, S., Xu, K.: A static compliance-checking framework for business process models. IBM Systems Journal 46(2), 335–361 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kokash, N., Krause, C., de Vink, E.: Time and data aware analysis of graphical service models. In: SEFM 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Höhn, S.: Model-based reasoning on the achievement of business goals. In: SAC 2009, pp. 1589–1593. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    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
  35. 35.
    Kumar, A., Yao, W., Chu, C.: Flexible process compliance with semantic constraints using mixed-integer programming. INFORMS J. on Comp. (2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    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 Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 649–661. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M., Fdhila, W., Rinderle-Ma, S.: On enabling compliance of cross-organizational business processes. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 146–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M., Pryss, R., Fdhila, W., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Ensuring compliance of distributed and collaborative workflows. In: CollaborateCom 2013, pp. 133–142. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    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
  40. 40.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franziska Semmelrodt
    • 1
  • David Knuplesch
    • 1
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Databases and Information SystemsUlm UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations