Advertisement

Abstract

Automated support of business processes by information systems can be seen as state-of-the-art for many domains, such as production planning or customer relationship management. A myriad of approaches to the automation of business processes in these domains has been proposed. However, these approaches are not suited for highly creative processes, as they are observed in the field of innovative product design. These processes require a high degree of flexibility of the process implementation. In this paper, we focus on product design processes and propose a methodology for the implementation of supporting workflows. In order to cope with the imposed flexibility requirements, we follow an artifact-centric approach. Based on high-level process models, object life-cycle models are derived. Those are manually enriched and used for automatic generation of an executable workflow model. We also present an implementation of our approach.

Keywords

process automation flexibility artifact-centric object life-cycles methodology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W.M., ter Hofstede, A.H.: Process-aware information systems: bridging people and software through process technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management – Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Production Workflow: Concepts and Techniques. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alves, A., et al.: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. Technical report, OASIS (January 2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hollingsworth, D.: The Workflow Reference Model. Technical report, WFMC (January 1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lenz, R., Blaser, R., Beyer, M., Heger, O., Biber, C., Bäumlein, M., Schnabel, M.: It support for clinical pathways - lessons learned. In: Volume, M. (ed.) MIE. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, vol. 124, pp. 645–650. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dadam, P., Reichert, M.: The ADEPT project: a decade of research and development for robust and flexible process support. Computer Science - R&D 23(2), 81–97 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reijers, H.A., Rigter, J.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The case handling case. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 12(3), 365–391 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W.M., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: A new paradigm for business process support. Data and Knowledge Engineering 53, 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhattacharya, K., Hull, R., Su, J.: A data-centric design methodology for business processes. In: Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling, ch. 23, pp. 503–531 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: A data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yourdon, E.: Modern structured analysis. Yourdon Press, Upper Saddle River (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luftman, J., Papp, R., Brier, T.: Enablers and inhibitors of business-IT alignment. Communications of the AI 1(3) (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lohmann, N., Verbeek, E., Dijkman, R.M.: Petri net transformations for business processes - a survey. T. Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency 2, 46–63 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Preuner, G., Schrefl, M.: Observation consistent integration of views of object life-cycles. In: Embury, S.M., Fiddian, N.J., Gray, W.A., Jones, A.C. (eds.) BNCOD 1998. LNCS, vol. 1405, p. 32. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of behavior. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 47(2), 47–145 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dehnert, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 13(3), 289–332 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brauer, W., Gold, R., Vogler, W.: A survey of behaviour and equivalence preserving refinements of petri nets. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) APN 1990. LNCS, vol. 483, pp. 1–46. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior-consistent specialization of object life cycles. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(1), 92–148 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ryndina, K., Küster, J.M., Gall, H.C.: Consistency of business process models and object life cycles. In: Auletta, V. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 80–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Aalst, W.M., Barthelmess, P., Ellis, C., Wainer, J.: Workflow modeling using proclets. In: Cooperative Information Systems. In: Scheuermann, P., Etzion, O. (eds.) CoopIS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1901, pp. 198–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fahland, D.: Oclets – scenario-based modeling with petri nets. In: Franceschinis, G., Wolf, K. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5606, pp. 223–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sadiq, S.K., Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Pockets of flexibility in workflow specification. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, p. 513. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Müller, D., Reichert, M., Herbst, J.: A new paradigm for the enactment and dynamic adaptation of data-driven process structures. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ole Eckermann
    • 1
  • Matthias Weidlich
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations