Business Process and Business Rule Modeling Languages for Compliance Management: A Representational Analysis

Organizations are under increasing scrutiny to document their compliance to regulatory requirements. To this end, they have to formally document their operating procedures to support their compliance management efforts. Both process modeling languages and rule modeling languages are candidates for the documentation of organizational policies and procedures. While both types of languages are currently used to document organizational practices, little work has been done to understand their synergies and overlap. Accordingly, in this paper we use the Bunge-Wand-Weber (BWW) representation theory as a basis for such an analysis. We perform a representational analysis of two popular rule modeling languages, viz., SRML and SBVR. We compare their representation capabilities with those of four popular conceptual business process modeling languages, and focus on the aspects of maximum ontological completeness and minimum ontological overlap. The outcome of this study shows that a combination of two languages, viz. SRML and BPMN, is more suitable for documenting compliance than any single modeling language, and that the combination of process and rule modeling languages shows synergies.

[1]  Gerhard Steinke,et al.  Business rules as the basis of an organization's information systems , 2003, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[2]  Gerti Kappel,et al.  Coordination in Workflow Management Systems - A Rule-Based Approach , 1996, Coordination Technology for Collaborative Applications.

[3]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Workflow Patterns , 2003, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[4]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Ontological evaluation of enterprise systems interoperability using ebXML , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[5]  Michael Uschold,et al.  The Enterprise Ontology , 1998, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[6]  Gustaf Neumann,et al.  Coordination Technology for Collaborative Applications: Organizations, Processes, and Agents , 1998 .

[7]  Shazia Wasim Sadiq,et al.  A Survey of Comparative Business Process Modeling Approaches , 2007, BIS.

[8]  Andrej Kovacic,et al.  Business renovation: business rules (still) the missing link , 2004, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[9]  Roger Turner,et al.  Investment management compliance: The dawn of a new era? , 2003 .

[10]  Richard R. Weber.  Ontological Foundations of Information Systems: Coopers and Lybrand , 1997 .

[11]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Towards Ontologically Based Semantics for UML Constructs , 2001, ER.

[12]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Do Process Modelling Techniques Get Better? A Comparative Ontological Analysis of BPMN , 2005 .

[13]  Angie Pantages,et al.  Coopers & Lybrand , 1993 .

[14]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Integrated Process Modeling: An Ontological Evaluation , 2000, Inf. Syst..

[15]  Ron Weber,et al.  Ontological foundations of information systems , 1997 .

[16]  Gerhard Knolmayer,et al.  The specification of business rules: A comparison of selected methodologies , 1994, Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle.

[17]  Marta Indulska,et al.  A Reference Methodology for Conducting Ontological Analyses , 2004, ER.

[18]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Workflow Patterns , 2004, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[19]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Candidate interoperability standards: An ontological overlap analysis , 2007, Data Knowl. Eng..

[20]  Marta Indulska,et al.  A Study of the Evolution of the Representational Capabilities of Process Modeling Grammars , 2006, CAiSE.

[21]  Mira Mezini,et al.  Hybrid web service composition: business processes meet business rules , 2004, ICSOC '04.

[22]  F. Caeldries.  Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution , 1994 .

[23]  Gerd Wagner.  Rule Modeling and Markup , 2005, Reasoning Web.

[24]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Perceived Ontological Weaknesses Of Process Modeling Techniques : Further Evidence , 2002, ECIS.

[25]  Marta Indulska,et al.  How good is BPMN really? Insights from theory and practice , 2006, ECIS.

[26]  Eelco Visser,et al.  Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Rule-Based Programming, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 2002 , 2002, ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Rule-Based Programming.

[27]  Gerhard Knolmayer.  Business Rules Layers Between Processes and Workflow Modeling: An Object-Oriented Perspective , 1998, ECOOP Workshops.

[28]  Gerhard Knolmayer,et al.  Modeling Processes and Workflows by Business Rules , 2000, Business Process Management.

[29]  Peter Loos,et al.  Ontological Evaluation of Reference Models Using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model , 2003, AMCIS.

[30]  Herman Lam,et al.  Achieving dynamic inter-organizational workflow management by integrating business processes, events and rules , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[31]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge–Wand–Weber Model , 2002, Software and Systems Modeling.

[32]  David M. Eyers,et al.  An asynchronous rule-based approach for business process automation using obligations , 2002, RULE '02.

[33]  Simon Shiu,et al.  Trust Record: High-Level Assurance and Compliance , 2005, iTrust.