Hybrid Process Technologies in the Financial Sector: The Case of BRFkredit
Situation faced: Exformatics, a Danish adaptive case-management vendor, wanted to leverage declarative process tools to support the flexible processes found at BRFkredit. However, switching from the more common flow-based notations to a declarative notation brought new challenges in terms of understandability. We undertook the project described in this chapter to investigate and address these challenges.
Action taken: We started our investigation by having several full-day and half-day meetings to discuss BRFkredit’s requirements. Based on these requirements, we proposed and developed a prototype hybrid process-modelling approach with which models are defined declaratively, but the possible behavior of the model can be viewed and investigated using flow-based notions. The prototype was then presented to BRFkredit for feedback.
Results achieved: Our investigation helped to clarify the requirements for making declarative process models understandable to end users at BRFkredit and showed how a hybrid approach could be used to satisfy these requirements. Based on these insights, we developed tools to enhance our existing declarative modelling framework with flow-based visualizations.
Lessons learned: Different stakeholders have different needs and preferred levels of abstraction when process models are used as tools for communication. However, one model that seems to fit most situations is a simple no-branches sequential swimlane diagram that was extracted automatically from a more detailed declarative model. These observations enabled Exformatics to enhance its declarative modelling framework to make it more attractive to end-users.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the substantial resources set aside by BRFkredit to support this study, in particular the personal commitment of Thomas Bo Nielsen and Younes Nielsen.
- De Giacomo, G., Dumas, M., Maggi, F. M., & Montali, M. (2015). Declarative process modeling in BPMN. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2015). Google Scholar
- De Smedt, J., Vanden Broucke, S. K. L. M., De Weerdt, J., & Vanthienen, J. (2015). A full R/I-net construct lexicon for declare constraints. SSRN 2572869.Google Scholar
- Debois, S, Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M., & Slaats, T. (2014). A case for declarative process modelling: Agile development of a grant application system. In International Workshop on adaptive case management and other non-workflow approaches to BPM.Google Scholar
- Haisjackl, C., Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Hadar, I., Reichert, M., Pinggera, J., & Weber, B. (2013). Making sense of declarative process models: Common strategies and typical pitfalls. In S. Nurcan, H. A. Proper, P. Soffer, J. Krogstie, R. Schmidt, T. Halpin, & I. Bider (Eds.), BMMDS/EMMSAD, volume 147 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (pp. 2–17). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hildebrandt, T., & Mukkamala, R. R. (2010). Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In Post-proceedings of PLACES 2010.Google Scholar
- Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R. R., & Slaats, T. (2011). Safe distribution of declarative processes. In Proceedings of the 9th International conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, SEFM’11 (pp. 237–252). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Marquard, M., Shahzad, M., & Slaats, T. (2015). Web-based modelling and collaborative simulation of declarative processes. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2015).Google Scholar
- Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., & van der W. M. P. Aalst (2007). DECLARE: Full support for loosely-structured processes. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International enterprise distributed object computing conference. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
- Prescher, J., Di Ciccio, C., & Mendling, J. (2014, November 19–21). From declarative processes to imperative models. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2014), Milan, Italy, pp. 162–173.Google Scholar
- Reijers, H. A., Slaats, T., & Stahl, C. (2013). Declarative modeling—An academic dream or the future for BPM? In F. Daniel, J. Wang, & B. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2013), volume 8094 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 307–322). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Westergaard, M., & Slaats, T.. (2013, August 26–30). Mixing paradigms for more comprehensible models. In Business Process Management—11th International Conference, BPM 2013, Proceedings. Beijing, China, pp. 283–290.Google Scholar
- Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A.(2011). Assessing the impact of hierarchy on model—a cognitive perspective. In EESSMod.Google Scholar