Business process runtime models: towards bridging the gap between design, enactment, and evaluation of business processes

Business process management (BPM) broadly covers a lifecycle of four distinct phases: design, configuration, enactment, and analysis and evaluation. Most BPM tool suites impose a strict separation between these phases, i.e., in each phase different languages and tools are used and the transition between phases is indirect and costly. This paper presents an environment for integrating all phases of the BPM lifecycle in which business process (BP) types and their instances can be modeled, visualized, managed and automatically synchronized, using a shared representation of models and code. The environment extends the capabilities of BP models to be used not only for specifying BPs but also for: (1) enactment—creating instance objects that capture BP operational data; (2) monitoring BP instances as they progress; (3) visualizing performance indicators of executed BPs at runtime; and (4) navigating from a BP type model to its respective instance population. As opposed to existing tools, the proposed environment does not require regenerating the workflow schema when BP designs change, nor does it require additional adaptations to support monitoring. Thereby, we facilitate a continuous and dynamic BPM environment, where workflow specifications can be changed at runtime. Our solution integrates a meta-programming language called eXecutable Modeling Facility (XMF) and the multi-perspective enterprise modeling framework (MEMO).

[1]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Adeptflex—Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control , 1998, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems.

[2]  Grzegorz Rozenberg,et al.  Dynamic change within workflow systems , 1995, COCS '95.

[3]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  Multilevel Modeling , 2014, Business & Information Systems Engineering.

[4]  Zahir Tari,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE: OTM Confederated International Conferences, CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE ... Part II (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) , 2006 .

[5]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges , 2014, Software & Systems Modeling.

[6]  J. Habermas Theory of Communicative Action , 1981 .

[7]  Colin Atkinson,et al.  Reducing accidental complexity in domain models , 2008, Software & Systems Modeling.

[8]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Towards a Taxonomy of Process Flexibility , 2008, CAiSE Forum.

[9]  Diomidis Spinellis Rational Metaprogramming , 2008, IEEE Software.

[10]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  A language for multi-perspective goal modelling: Challenges, requirements and solutions , 2015, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[11]  Yoke San Wong,et al.  Dynamic workflow change in PDM systems , 2007, Comput. Ind..

[12]  Marco Montali,et al.  Compliance monitoring in business processes: Functionalities, application, and tool-support , 2015, Inf. Syst..

[13]  Colin Atkinson,et al.  The Essence of Multilevel Metamodeling , 2001, UML.

[14]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Business Process Management: A Survey , 2003, Business Process Management.

[15]  Wil M.P. van der Aalst,et al.  YAWL: yet another workflow language , 2005, Inf. Syst..

[16]  Thomas Kühne,et al.  Matters of (Meta-) Modeling , 2006, Software & Systems Modeling.

[17]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  Components of a multi-perspective modeling method for designing and managing IT security systems , 2016, Inf. Syst. E Bus. Manag..

[18]  Donald F. Ferguson,et al.  ITML: A domain-specific modeling language for supporting business driven IT management , 2009, OOPSLA 2009.

[19]  Nelly Bencomo,et al.  On the use of software models during software execution , 2009, 2009 ICSE Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering.

[20]  W.M.P. van der Aalst,et al.  Business Process Management: A Comprehensive Survey , 2013 .

[21]  Richard Hull,et al.  Rethinking BPM in a Cognitive World: Transforming How We Learn and Perform Business Processes , 2016, BPM.

[22]  Gordon S. Blair,et al.  Models@ run.time , 2009, Computer.

[23]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Major Issues in Business Process Management: An Expert Perspective , 2007 .

[24]  KühneThomas,et al.  Can programming be liberated from the two-level style , 2007 .

[25]  Sahin Albayrak,et al.  Meta-Modeling Runtime Models , 2010, Models@run.time.

[26]  Tony Clark,et al.  Applied Metamodelling: A Foundation for Language Driven Development (Third Edition) , 2015, ArXiv.

[27]  Hui Song,et al.  Supporting runtime software architecture: A bidirectional-transformation-based approach , 2011, J. Syst. Softw..

[28]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Formal foundation and conceptual design of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[29]  Christian Schaefer,et al.  Monitors for Usage Control , 2007, IFIPTM.

[30]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Worklets: A Service-Oriented Implementation of Dynamic Flexibility in Workflows , 2006, OTM Conferences.

[31]  R. Rorty Philosophy and Social Hope , 1999 .

[32]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems research , 2006 .

[33]  Eng Wah Lee,et al.  Business process management (BPM) standards: a survey , 2009, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[34]  Richard N. Taylor,et al.  Using Architectural Models to Manage and Visualize Runtime Adaptation , 2009, Computer.

[35]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst Process mining , 2012, CACM.

[36]  Bill Karakostas,et al.  Role and Task Recommendation and Social Tagging to Enable Social Business Process Management , 2015, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[37]  Mahdi Derakhshanmanesh,et al.  Achieving dynamic adaptation via management and interpretation of runtime models , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[38]  Douglas R. Hofstadter,et al.  Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. , 1980 .

[39]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Modelling software development methodologies: A conceptual foundation , 2007, J. Syst. Softw..

[40]  Bradley R. Schmerl,et al.  Using Architectural Models at Runtime: Research Challenges , 2004, EWSA.

[41]  Felix Klaedtke,et al.  Policy Monitoring in First-Order Temporal Logic , 2010, CAV.

[42]  Ralph H. Sprague Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 3-6, 2001, Maui, Hawaii : Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers , 2001 .