Advertisement

The Role of BPMN in a Modeling Methodology for Dynamic Process Solutions

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 67)

Abstract

This paper introduces a design method for dynamic business process management solutions in which the well-known modeling elements of business object life cycles, business rules, and business activities are integrated in a distributed system as equal communicating components. Using the EURENT car rental domain originally developed by the business rules community, it is demonstrated how this method can be used to enable adhoc and rule-driven activities integrated with the life cycle management of business objects. A modeling methodology based on BPMN collaboration diagrams is proposed to describe component interactions and behavior. Agile principles are applicable to incrementally build the solution in which scenarios play a major role to validate and further evolve the solution’s behavior. A clear separation between components, their interaction, and details of the internal component behavior facilitates change and the implementation of business patterns.

Keywords

Business Process Modeling Methodology Business Process Management Business Object Business Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data and Knowledge Engineering 53(2), 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0, OMG document number dtc/2010-05-03 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Object Management Group: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR), Version 1.0, OMG document number formal/2008-01-02 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Business Rules Group: Defining business rules - what are they really? Final Report (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weigold, T., Kramp, T., Buhler, P.: Flexible persistence support for state machine-based workflow engines. In: 4th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering Advances, pp. 313–319. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Specifying and executing behavioral requirements: the play-in/play-out approach. Software and System Modeling 2(2), 82–107 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abiteboul, S., Bourhis, P., Marinoiu, B.: Efficient maintenance techniques for views over active documents. In: 12th Int. Conf. on Extending Database Technology, pp. 1076–1087. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sinur, J.: The art and science of rules vs. process flows. Research Report G00166408, Gartner (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abrahams, A., Eyers, D., Bacon, J.: An asynchronous rule-based approach for business process automation using obligations. In: ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Rule-Based Programming, pp. 93–103 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, R.: Business Process Modeling with ARIS. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.: Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Systems Journal 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nandi, P., et al.: Data4BPM: Introducing business entities and the business entity definition language (BEDL), IBM developerWorks (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Müller, D., Reichert, M., Herbst, J.: Data-driven modeling and coordination of large process structures. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 131–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Küster, J., Ryndina, K., Gall, H.: Generation of business process models for object life cycle compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 165–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linehan, M.: Ontologies and rules in business models. In: 11th Int. Conf. on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC), pp. 149–156. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fritz, C., Hull, R., Su, J.: Automatic construction of simple artifact-based business processes. In: 12th Int. Conference on Database Theory (ICDT). ACM Int. Conf. Proc. Series, vol. 361, pp. 225–238. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst, W., Barthelmess, P., Ellis, C., Wainer, J.: Workflow modeling using Proclets. In: Scheuermann, P., Etzion, O. (eds.) CoopIS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1901, pp. 198–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Redding, G., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., Iordachescu, A.: Modelling flexible processes with business objects. In: IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC), pp. 41–48. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: The Role of Business Processes in Service Oriented Architectures. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 6291 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu, Q., Pu, C., Sahai, A., Barga, R.: Categorization and optimization of synchronization dependencies in business processes. In: 23rd Int. Conf. on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 306–315. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barták, R., McCluskey, L.: Introduction to the special issue on knowledge engineering tools and techniques for automated planning and scheduling systems. Knowledge Enginering Review 22(2), 115–116 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taveter, K., Wagner, G.: Agent-oriented enterprise modeling based on business rules. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 527–540. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jennings, N., Norman, T., Faratin, P., O’Brien, P., Odgers, B.: Autonomous agents for business process management. Applied Artificial Intelligence 14(2), 145–189 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weyns, D.: A pattern language for multi-agent systems. In: Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture 2009 and European Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA/ECSA), pp. 191–200. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hruby, P.: Model-Driven Design Using Business Patterns. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thom, L., Reichert, M., Iochpe, C.: Activity patterns in process-aware information systems: basic concepts and empirical evidence. Int. Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 4(2), 93–110 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IBM Research - ZurichRüschlikonSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations