Advertisement

Distributed modeling and distributed enaction of business processes

  • Günter Graw
  • Volker Gruhn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 989)

Abstract

The benefits of business process management and software process management are most promising for complex processes. Many processes are not carried out at only one site, but they are distributed to several sites. Management of distributed processes means to coordinate distributed modeling and to support distributed process enaction. In this article we illustrate a typical process distribution scenario and we discuss what distributed modeling and distributed enaction look like. An architecture supporting distributed process enaction is proposed.

Keywords

process modeling process enaction distributed modeling process communication 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Aue and M. Breu. Distributed Information Systems: An Advanced Methodology. In I. Sommerville and M. Paul, editors, Software Engineering — ESEC'93 4th European Software Engineering Conference, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, September 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Bandinelli, M. Braga, A. Fugetta, and L. Lavazza. The Architecture of SPADE-1 Process-Centered SEE. In B. Warboys, editor, Software Process Technology — Proceedings of the 3 rd European Software Process Modeling Workshop, pages 15–30, Villard de Lans, France, February 1994. Springer. Appeared as Lecture Notes in Computer Science 772.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Bandinelli, A. Fugetta, and S. Grigolli. Process Modelling In-the-Large with SLANG. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Software Process — Continuous Software Process Improvement, pages 75–83, Berlin, Germany, February 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S.C. Bandinelli, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi. Software Process Model Evolution in the SPADE Environment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19(12), December 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Barker. CASE * Method Entity Relationship Modelling. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, England, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Deiters and V. Gruhn. Managing Software Processes in MELMAC. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Development Environments, pages 193–205, Irvine, California, USA, December 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Deiters, V. Gruhn, and H. Weber. Software Process Evolution in MELMAC. In Daniel E. Cooke, editor, The Impact of CASE on the Software Development Life Cycle. World Scientific, Series on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.-C. Derniame and V. Gruhn. Development of Process-Centered IPSEs in the ALF Project. Journal of Systems Integration, 4(2):127–150, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Dinkhoff, V. Gruhn, A. Saalmann, and M. Zielonka. Business Process Modeling in the Workflow Management Environment LEU. In P. Loucopoulos, editor, Proceedings of the 13 th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach, pages 46–63, Manchester, UK, December 1994. Springer. Appeared as Lecture Notes in Computer Science no. 881.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Emmerich and V. Gruhn. FUNSOFT Nets: A Petri-Net based Software Process Modeling Language. In Proc. of the 6 th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Como, Italy, September 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Engels and L. Groenewegen. Specification of Coordinated Behavior by SOCCA. In B. Warboys, editor, Software Process Technology — Proceedings of the 3 rd European Software Process Modeling Workshop, pages 128–151, Villard de Lans, France, February 1994. Springer. Appeared as Lecture Notes in Computer Science 772.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H.J. Genrich. Predicate/Transition Nets, In W. Brauer, W. Reisig, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Petri Nets: Central Models and Their Properties, pages 208–247, Berlin, FRG, 1987. Springer. Appeared in Lecture Notes on Computer Science 254.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Graw and V. Guhn. Process Management in-the-Many. In J.-C. Derniame, editor, Software Process Technology — Proceedings of the 4 th European Software Process Modeling Workshop, Leiden, Netherlands, April 1995. Springer. submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. Gruhn. Analysis of Software Process Models in the Software Process Management Environment MELMAC. In F. Long, editor, Software Engineering Environments, volume 3. Ellis Horwood, September 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. Gruhn. Communication Support in the Workflow Management Environment LEU. In Connectivity '94 — Workflow Management — Challenges, Paradigms and Products, pages 187–200, Linz, Austria, October 1994. R. Oldenbourg, Vienna, Munich.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Hales and M. Lavery. Workflow Management Software: the Business Opportunity. Ovum Ltd., London, UK, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Hartel and R. Jungclaus. Specifying Business Processes over Objects. In P. Loucopoulos, editor, Proceedings of the 13 th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach, pages 10–27, Manchester, UK, December 1994. Springer. Appeared as Lecture Notes in Computer Science no. 881.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Huber, K. Jensen, and R.M. Shapiro. Hierarchies in Coloured Petri Nets. In Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, Bonn, FRG, 1989.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Liman. Verteilte Modellierung und Ausführung in Software-Prozeβmodellen (in German). 1992. Diplomarbeit, University of Dortmund.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. O'Conner, editor. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Software Process — Continuous Software Process Improvement, Berlin, Germany, February 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M.H. Penedo. Towards understanding Software Engineering Environments. In Proceedings of TRW Conference on Integrated Computer-Aided Software Engineering, California, USA, November 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    B. Peuschel and W. Schäfer. Concepts and Implementation of a Rule-based Process Engine. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, May 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    W. Reisig. Petrinetze (in German). Springer, Berlin, FRG, 1986.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    W. Schäfer, editor. Proceedings of the 8 th International Software Process Workshop, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, February 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A.P. Sheth and J.A. Larson. Federated Database Systems for Managing Distributed Heterogeneous, and Autonomous Databases. ACM Computing Surveys, 22(3):182–233, September 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    E.A. Stohr and B.R. Konsynski, editors. Information Systems and Decision Processes, Los Alamitos, CA, US, 1992. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    K.D. Swenson. Interoperability Through Workflow Management Coalition Standards. In Proceedings of the Workflow 1994, pages 185–197, San Jose, US, August 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. Warboys, editor. Proceedings of the 3 rd European Workshop on Software Process Modelling, Villard de Lans, France, February 1994. Springer. Appeared as Lecture Notes in Computer Science 772.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Günter Graw
    • 1
  • Volker Gruhn
    • 1
  1. 1.LION GmbHBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations