Advertisement

Abstract

While the use of a single business process paradigm (e.g. procedural or declarative) over the process lifecycle is often assumed in business process management, transitions between approaches at different phases in the lifecycle could also be examined. This paper explores several business process management strategies by analyzing the approaches at different phases in the process lifecycle as well as the various transitions between those phases.

Keywords

Business Process Management Process Modeling Process Enactment Transitions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zisman, M.: Representation, specification and automation of office procedures. PhD thesis, Wharton School (1977)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science-Research and Development 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Configuration and management of process variants. In: Handbook on Business Process Management 1, pp. 237–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S., Governatori, G.: On managing business processes variants. Data & Knowledge Engineering 68(7), 642–664 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sadiq, S., Orlowska, M., Sadiq, W.: Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. Information Systems 30(5), 349–378 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Group, O.M.: Business process modeling notation (bpmn) 1.1 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ellis, C., Nutt, G.: Modeling and enactment of workflow systems. In: Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1993, pp. 1–16 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: In: An Overview of Declarative Process Modeling Principles and Languages. Communications of systemics and informatics world network, vol. 6, pp. 51–58 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Flexibility as a service. In: Chen, L., Liu, C., Liu, Q., Deng, K. (eds.) DASFAA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5667, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N., Aalst, W.: Process flexibility: A survey of contemporary approaches. In: Advances in Enterprise Engineering I, pp. 16–30 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar, A., Yao, W.: Process Materialization Using Templates and Rules to Design Flexible Process Models. In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications, pp. 122–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Capturing variability in business process models: the Provop approach. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and PracticeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sinur, J.: The art and science of rules vs. process flows. Gartner Research, ID Number G00166408 (March 2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keller, G., Nuttgens, M., Scheer, A.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). Inst. fur Wirtschaftsinformatik (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling: a comparative analysis. Association for Information Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kappel, G., Rausch-Schott, S., Retschitzegger, W.: Coordination in workflow management systems a rule-based approach. In: Coordination Technology for Collaborative Applications, pp. 99–119 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management, pp. 169–180 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Web Services and Formal Methods, pp. 1–23 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    OASIS: Web services business process execution language 2.0 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Aalst, W., Ter Hofstede, A.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pesic, M., Aalst, W., Eijnatten, F.: Constraint-based workflow management systems: shifting control to users. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu, J., Manh, T.P., Han, J., Jin, Y., Han, Y., Wang, J.: Pattern based property specification and verification for service composition. In: Aberer, K., Peng, Z., Rundensteiner, E.A., Zhang, Y., Li, X. (eds.) WISE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4255, pp. 156–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zeng, L., Flaxer, D., Chang, H., Jeng, J.: PLM flow—Dynamic Business Process Composition and Execution by Rule Inference. In: Technologies for E-Services, pp. 51–95 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paschke, A., Boley, H.: Rules capturing events and reactivity. In: Handbook of Research on Emerging Rule-Based Languages and Technologies: Open Solutions and Approaches, IGI Publishing (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Decker, G., Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Transforming BPMN diagrams into YAWL nets. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 386–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., Aalst, W., Hofstede, A., Mendling, J.: From business process models to process-oriented software systems. ACM transactions on software engineering and methodology (TOSEM) 19(1), 1–37 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: Conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages. In: Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Deriving active rules for workflow enactment. In: Database and Expert Systems Applications, pp. 94–115. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dumas, M., Fjellheim, T., Milliner, S., Vayssière, J.: Event-based coordination of process-oriented composite applications. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 236–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    El Maghraoui, K., Meghranjani, A., Eilam, T., Kalantar, M., Konstantinou, A.V.: Model driven provisioning: Bridging the gap between declarative object models and procedural provisioning tools. In: van Steen, M., Henning, M. (eds.) Middleware 2006. LNCS, vol. 4290, pp. 404–423. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hendler, J., Tate, A., Drummond, M.: AI planning: Systems and techniques. AI Magazine 11(2), 61 (1990)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Friedler, F., Tarjan, K., Huang, Y., Fan, L.: Combinatorial algorithms for process synthesis. Computers & Chemical Engineering 16, S313–S320 (1992)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu, J., Fan, L., Seib, P., Friedler, F., Bertok, B.: Downstream process synthesis for biochemical production of butanol, ethanol, and acetone from grains: Generation of optimal and near-optimal flowsheets with conventional operating units. Biotechnology Progress 20(5), 1518–1527 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fahland, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative vs. Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Maintainability. In: 1st International Workshop on Empirical Research in Business Process Management, Ulm, Germany, pp. 65–76 (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Regev, G., Soffer, P., Schmidt, R.: Taxonomy of flexibility in business processes. In: Regev, G., Soffer, P., Schmidt, R. (eds.) BPMDS (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weber, B., Sadiq, S., Reichert, M.: Beyond rigidity–dynamic process lifecycle support. Computer Science-Research and Development 23(2), 47–65 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schmidt, R.: Flexibility in Service Processes. In: BPMDS 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bider, I.: Masking flexibility behind rigidity: Notes on how much flexibility people are willing to cope with. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE, vol. 5, pp. 7–18 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filip Caron
    • 1
  • Jan Vanthienen
    • 1
  1. 1.K.U.Leuven, Faculty of Business and EconomicsLeuven Institute for Research on Information Systems (LIRIS)LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations