Role Assignment in Business Process Models

  • Agnes Koschmider
  • Liu Yingbo
  • Thomas Schuster
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 99)


Business processes are subject to changes due to frequently fluctuating opportunities. The changes has as result a modification of business process models and also the organizational model since both models are jointly linked through the assignment of roles to process activities. A consistent adaptation of both model types (due to changes) still poses challenges. For instance, varying competences and skills are insufficiently considered for the (re-)assignment of roles to process activities. As a consequence, tasks are performed inefficiently. In this paper we will present an organizational model that considers resources’ competences, skills and knowledge. Based on this model the hidden Markov model is applied to efficiently assign roles to process activities. The improvement in task processing through automated role assignment is a significant contribution of this approach.


Hide Markov Model Business Process Task Allocation Hide State Business Process Model 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Liu, Y., Wang, J., Sun, J.: A Machine Learning Approach to Semi-Automating Workflow Staff Assignment. In: The 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2007), Seoul, Korea (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu, Y., Wang, J., Sun, J.: Mining Workflow Event Log to Find Parallel Task Dispatching Rules. In: The 4th International Workshop on Computer Supported Activity Coordination (CSAC 2007), Funchal, Madeira - Portugal (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rabiner, L.R.: A Tutorial on Hidden Markov Models and Selected Applications in Speech Recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 77(2), 257–286 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cappé, O., Moulines, E., Rydén, T.: Inference in Hidden Markov Models. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Durbin, R., Eddy, S., Krogh, A., Mitchison, G.: Biological Sequence Analysis (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang, H., Wang, C., Liu, Y., Wang, J.: An Optimal Approach for Workflow Staff Assignment Based on Hidden Markov Models. In: Meersman, R., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5333, pp. 24–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Workflow Resource Patterns. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Du, W., Shan, M.-C.: Enterprise Workflow Resource Management. In: HP Labs Technical Reports (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang, Y.-N., Shan, M.-C.: Policies in a Resource Manager of Workflow Systems: Modeling, Enforcement and Management. In: HP Labs Technical Reports (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reis, C.A.L., Reis, R.Q., Schlebbe, H., Nunes, D.J.: A Policy-Based Resource Instantiation Mechanism to Automate Software Process Management. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. ACM Press, Ischia (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    zur Muehlen, M.: Organizational Management in Workflow Applications – Issues and Perspectives. Information Technology and Management 5(3-4), 271–291 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P., Reichert, M.: Mining Staff Assignment Rules from Event-Based Data. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 177–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rinderle-Ma, S., van der Aalst, W.: Life-Cycle Support for Staff Assignment Rules in Process-Aware Information Systems, Technical Report, TU Eindhoven (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, Y., Wang, J., Yang, Y., Sun, J.: A Semi-Automatic Approach for Workflow Staff Assignment. Comput. Ind. 59(5), 463–476 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang, Z., van der Aalst, W., Lu, X., Duan, H.: Reinforcement Learning Based Resource Allocation in Business Process Management. Data & Knowledge Engineering (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Kumar, A., Verbeek, H.M.W.: Organizational modeling in UML and XML in the context of workflow systems. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Melbourne, Florida, pp. S. 603–S. 608 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    European e-Competence Framework, “European e-Competence Framework 2.0 – A commom European Framework for ICT Professionals in all industrie sectors”. In: CEN Workshop Agreement, European Commission (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    HR-XML Consortium: Competencies, HR-XML Version 3.0 (2011),
  19. 19.
    OASIS: Web Services – Human Task (WS-HumanTask) Specification Version (November 2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification OMG Available Specification Version 2.0 (January 2006),
  21. 21.
    Oberweis, Schuster, T.: A meta-model based approach to the description of resources and skills. In: 16th Americas Conference on Informaction Systems, AMCIS 2010 Proceedings (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Measuring Similarity between Semantic Business Process Models. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2007), pp. 71–80. Australian Computer Science Communications, Ballarat (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agnes Koschmider
    • 1
  • Liu Yingbo
    • 2
  • Thomas Schuster
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Applied Informatics and Formal Description MethodsKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyGermany
  2. 2.School of SoftwareTsinghua UniversityChina
  3. 3.FZI Forschungszentrum InformatikGermany

Personalised recommendations