Towards Automated Support for Case Management Processes with Declarative Configurable Specifications

  • Irina Rychkova
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 132)


Until recently, efficiency gained through process automation and control was the main preoccupation of BPM practitioners. As a result, the majority of mainstream process modeling standards today is characterized by the imperative modeling style. This style encourages a modeler to commit to a well-determined process execution scenario already at the early design stages. For case management processes, however, a strict commitment to a predefined control flow is considered by organizations as a serious handicap. This is the main reason why case management as well as other knowledge-intensive processes in the organizations mostly remain “pen and paper”. In this article we demonstrate how configurable data objects and context-based configuration rules can be integrated into a process model in order to improve the process post-design adaptability and to pave the road for case management automated support. These concepts are defined as a part of DeCo (the Declarative Configurable process specification language). DeCo is a declarative modeling approach that is currently under development. We illustrate our results on the example.


Business process modeling BPMN declarative modeling configurability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Business Process Management: The Third Wave. Meghan-Kiffer Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barjis, J.: The Importance of Business Process Modeling in Software Systems Design. Journal of the Science of Computer Programming 71(1), 73–875 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hill, J.B., Lheureux, B.J., Olding, E., Plummer, D.C., Rosser, B., Sinur, J.: Predicts 2010: Business Process Management Will Expand Beyond Traditional Boundaries,
  4. 4.
    OMG, Case Management Process Modeling (CMPM) Request For Proposal: Bmi/2009-09-23Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swenson, K.D.: Mastering the Unpredictable. How adaptive case management will revolutionize the way the knowledge workers get things done. Meghan-Kiffer Press (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Man, H.: Case Management: A Review of Modeling Approaches, BPTrends (January 2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rychkova, I., Nurcan, S.: Towards Adaptability and Control for Knowledge-Intensive Business Processes: Declarative Configurable Process Specifications. In: Proc. 44th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jablonski, S., Bussler, C.: Workflow Management: Modeling Concepts, Architecture, and Implementation. International Thomson Computer Press (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barjis, J., Rychkova, I., Yilmaz, L.: Modeling and Simulation Driven Software Development. In: Chinni, M.J., Weed, D. (eds.) Spring Simulation Multi Conference, pp. 4–10 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OASIS Web Services Business Process Execution Language, WSBPEL (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Pi calculus versus Petri nets: Let us eat “humble pie” rather than further inflate the “Pi hype”. BP Trends 3(5), 1–11 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Making Work Flow: On the Application of Petri Nets to Business Process Management. In: Esparza, J., Lakos, C. (eds.) ICATPN 2002. LNCS, vol. 2360, pp. 1–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Information and Software Technology 50, 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barjis, J.: Automatic Business Process Analysis and Simulation Based on DEMO. J. Enterprise Information Systems 1(4), 365–381 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology –Theory and Methodology. Springer, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science – Research and Development 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu, E.S.K., Mylopoulos, J.: Understanding “why” in software process modeling, analysis, and design. In: The Proceedings of ICSE 1994, pp. 159–168 (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fahland, D., Lübke, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Understandability. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2009 and EMMSAD 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wegmann, A.: On the Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology (SEAM). In: Proc. 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pp. 483–490 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wegmann, A., Lê, L.-S., Regev, G., Woods, B.: Enterprise Modeling Using the Foundation Concepts of the RM-ODP ISO/ITU. Standard Information Systems and E-Business Management, vol. 5, pp. 397–413 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A Multi-Model View of Process Modeling. In: Requirements Engineering, vol. 4(4). Springer, London (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nurcan, S., Etien, A., Kaabi, A., Zoukar, I., Rolland, C.: A Strategy Driven Business Process Modelling Approach. Special issue of the Business Process Management Journal on Goal-Oriented Business Process Modeling (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Korherr, B., List, B.: Extending the EPC and the BPMN with Business Process Goals and Performance Measures. In: ICEIS, vol. (3), pp. 287–294 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Awad, A.: BPMN-Q: A Language to Query Business Processes. In: EMISA, pp. 115–128 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Mendling, J.: Configurable multi-perspective business process models. Journal Information Systems 36(2) (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Mendling, J., Gottschalk, F.: Beyond Control-Flow: Extending Business Process Configuration to Roles and Objects. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 199–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: DECLARE: Full Support for Loosely-Structured Processes. In: Spies, M., Blake, M.B. (eds.) Proc.11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp. 287–298. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rychkova, I., Regev, G., Wegmann, A.: Using Declarative Specification. In: Business Process Design. International Journal of Computer Science & Applications (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rychkova, I.: Formal semantics for refinement verification of entreprise models. Dir.: Alain Wegmann. Thèse EPFL, no 4210 (2008),
  31. 31.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rychkova, I., Nurcan, S.: The Old Therapy for the New Problem: Declarative Configurable Process Specifications for the Adaptive Case Management Support. In: zur Muehlen, M., Su, J. (eds.) BPM 2010 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 66, pp. 420–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wirth, N.: Program development by stepwise refinement. Communications of the ACM (1971)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    BPMI/OMG, Inc. Business Process Modeling Notation. Version 1.0 (February 6, 2006),
  35. 35.
    Dey, A.: Understanding and Using Context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 5, 4–7 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Denekere, R., Rychkova, I., Nurcan, S.: Modeling the role variability in the MAP process model. In: Proc. RCIS (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rolland, C., Nurcan, S.: Business Process Lines to deal with the Variability. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, USA (January 2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irina Rychkova
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre de Recherches en InformatiqueUniversity Paris 1 Pantheon-SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations