Towards Flexibility and Dynamic Coordination in Computer-Interpretable Enterprise Process Models

  • Christoph J. Stettina
  • Lucas P. J. Groenewegen
  • Bernhard R. Katzy
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings of the I-ESA Conferences book series (IESACONF, volume 5)

Abstract

We contribute to the understanding of collaboration in enterprise process models and adaptation to unforeseen variations thereof. To address the need for flexibility we take an example from the life-saving domain and translate qualitatively collected process data of a concrete medical intervention into a computer-interpretable guideline model. To overcome implementation barriers we apply the coordination modeling language Paradigm, as a possible approach, which addresses coordination of collaborating components in terms of dynamic constraints. Its component McPal enables adding new behavior, and, subsequently, gradually adapting the system without quiescence.

Keywords

Process models Computer-interpretable guidelines Flexibility Dynamic consistency organizational routines 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work has been partly funded by the EDAFMIS project in the framework of ITEA2. We would like to thank all EDAFMIS partners for their feedback and positive influence.

References

  1. 1.
    Pentland B. and Feldman M. 2008. Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4):235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reijers H.A. and Mendling J. 2011. A Study into the Factors that Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetic – Part A, 41(3): 449–461, 2011.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sonnenberg F.A., Hagerty C.G. Computer-interpretable clinical practice guidelines. Methods of Information in Medicine, 45(1):145–158, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grando A., Peleg M. and Glasspool, D. A goal-oriented framework for specifying clinical guidelines and handling medical errors. J. of Biomedical Informatics, 43:287–299, April 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peleg M. et al. Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models: a case-study approach. JAMIA, 10(1):52–68, January 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Isern D, and Moreno A. Computer-based execution of clinical guidelines: A review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77(12):787–808, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shahar Y, Miksch S, and Johnson P. The asgaard project: a task-specific framework for the application and critiquing of time-oriented clinical guidelines. Artif Intell Med, 14(1-2):29–51, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giordano L. et al. Model checking for clinical guidelines: an agent-based approach. Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium, pages 289–293, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boxwala A, et al. Glif3: a representation format for sharable computer-interpretable clinical practice guidelines. J. of Biomedical Informatics, 37:147–161, June 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tu S.W, Campbell J, and Musen M.A. The sage guideline modeling: motivation and methodology. Stud Helath Technol Inform, (101):167–171, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peleg M. and Tu S.W. Design patterns for clinical guidelines. Artif. Intell. Med., 47:1–24, September 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shea S., DuMouchel W. and Bahamonde L. A meta-analysis of 16 randomized con- trolled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventative care in the ambulatory setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc, (3): pp. 399–409, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Küster J. Consistency Management of Object-Oriented Behavioral Models. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fox J, Das S. Safe and Sound: Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. AAAI Press, 1st edition, July 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andova S, Groenewegen L.P.J, and de Vink E.P. Dynamic consistency in process algebra: From Paradigm to ACP. Science of Computer Programming, 76(8), pp. 711–735, 2011.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andova S. et al. Adaptation on-the-fly. In G. Salaün and M. Sirjani, editors, Proc. FOCLASA 2009, Rhodes, pp. 23–44. ENTCS 255, 2009.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pentland B.T, Feldman M.S. Narrative Networks: Patterns of Technology and Organization. Organization Science September/October 2007 vol. 18 no. 5, 781–795Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pentland B.T, Rueter H. Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, pp. 484–510. 1994Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feldman M.S., Pentland, B.T., Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 1. (2003), pp. 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Becker M.C., Organizational routines: a review of the literature. ICC (2004) 13(4):643–678Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mulyar N. et al. Declarative and procedural approaches for modelling clinical guidelines: addressing flexibility issues. In Proceedings of BPM’07, pp. 335–346, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph J. Stettina
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lucas P. J. Groenewegen
    • 1
  • Bernhard R. Katzy
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.LIACSLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CeTIMLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations