Moving Across Paradigms between the Process Design and Enactment Phase in Enterprise Information Systems

Filip Caron, Jan Vanthienen

Abstract

While the business process management literature often assumes a single approach (e.g. procedural or event-driven) over the process lifecycle, a transition between approaches at different phases in the process lifecycle may significantly reduce the impact of intrinsic trade-offs between process characteristics. This position paper explores several business process strategies by analyzing the approaches at different phases in the process lifecycle as well as the various transitions.

References

  1. Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., and Pozzi, G. (1998). Deriving active rules for workflow enactment. In Database and Expert Systems Applications, pages 94- 115. Springer.
  2. Davenport, T. (1993). Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business Press.
  3. Decker, G., Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., and García-Ban˜uelos, L. (2008). Transforming BPMN diagrams into YAWL nets. Business Process Management, pages 386-389.
  4. Dumas, M., Fjellheim, T., Milliner, S., and Vayssière, J. (2005). Event-Based Coordination of ProcessOriented Composite Applications. Business Process Management, pages 236-251.
  5. Ellis, C. and Nutt, G. (1993). Modeling and enactment of workflow systems. Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1993, pages 1-16.
  6. Fahland, D., Lubke, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., and Zugal, S. (2009a). Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: The issue of understandability. Enterprise, BusinessProcess and Information Systems Modeling, pages 353-366.
  7. Fahland, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., and Zugal, S. (2009b). Declarative vs. Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Maintainability. In 1st International Workshop on Empirical Research in Business Process Management, pages 65- 76, Ulm, Germany.
  8. Ferreira, D. and Ferreira, H. (2005). Learning, planning, and the life cycle of workflow management. In EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference, 2005 Ninth IEEE International, pages 39-45. IEEE.
  9. Fickas, S. (1989). Design issues in a rule-based system. Journal of Systems and Software, 10(2):113-123.
  10. Goedertier, S. and Vanthienen, J. (2009). An overview of declarative process modeling principles and languages, volume 6, pages 51-58. Communications of systemics and informatics world network.
  11. Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., and Reichert, M. (2010). Capturing variability in business process models: the provop approach. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 22(6-7):519-546.
  12. Hendler, J., Tate, A., and Drummond, M. (1990). AI planning: Systems and techniques. AI magazine, 11(2):61.
  13. Kappel, G., Rausch-Schott, S., and Retschitzegger, W. (1998). Coordination in workflow management systems a rule-based approach. Coordination Technology for Collaborative Applications, pages 99-119.
  14. Kumar, A. and Yao, W. (2009). Process Materialization Using Templates and Rules to Design Flexible Process Models. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications, pages 122-136. Springer-Verlag.
  15. Lu, R. and Sadiq, S. (2007). A survey of comparative business process modeling approaches. In Business Information Systems, pages 82-94. Springer.
  16. Lu, R., Sadiq, S., and Governatori, G. (2009). On managing business processes variants. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 68(7):642-664.
  17. Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S., and Dadam, P. (2009). Flexibility in process-aware information systems. Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency II, pages 115-135.
  18. Sadiq, S., Orlowska, M., and Sadiq, W. (2005). Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. Information Systems, 30(5):349-378.
  19. Schmidt, R. (2006). Flexibility in service processes. In Proceedings of the CAISE 2006 Workshop on Business Process Modelling, Development and Support, BPMDS.
  20. Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N., and Aalst, W. (2008). Process flexibility: A survey of contemporary approaches. Advances in Enterprise Engineering I, pages 16-30.
  21. Swenson, K. (2010). Mastering the unpredictable: How adaptive case management will revolutionize the way that knowledge workers get things do.
  22. van der Aalst, W., Adams, M., Hofstede, A., Pesic, M., and Schonenberg, H. (2009a). Flexibility as a Service. In Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pages 319-333. Springer-Verlag.
  23. van der Aalst, W. and Pesic, M. (2006). DecSerFlow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. Web Services and Formal Methods, pages 1-23.
  24. van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M., and Schonenberg, H. (2009b). Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science-Research and Development, 23(2):99-113.
  25. van der Aalst, W. and Ter Hofstede, A. (2005). YAWL: yet another workflow language. Information Systems, 30(4):245-275.
  26. Weber, B., Sadiq, S., and Reichert, M. (2009). Beyond rigidity-dynamic process lifecycle support. Computer Science-Research and Development, 23(2):47-65.
  27. Weske, M. (2007). Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
  28. Yu, J., Manh, T., Han, J., Jin, Y., Han, Y., and Wang, J. (2006). Pattern based property specification and verification for service composition. Web Information Systems-WISE 2006, pages 156-168.
  29. Zeng, L., Flaxer, D., Chang, H., and Jeng, J. (2002). PLM flowDynamic Business Process Composition and Execution by Rule Inference. Technologies for E-Services, pages 51-95.
  30. Zisman, M. (1977). Representation, specification and automation of office procedures. PhD thesis, Wharton School.
  31. zur Muehlen, M., Indulska, M., and Kamp, G. (2007). Business process and business rule modeling: A representational analysis. In EDOC Conference Workshop, 2007. EDOC'07. Eleventh International IEEE, pages 189-196. IEEE.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Caron F. and Vanthienen J. (2012). Moving Across Paradigms between the Process Design and Enactment Phase in Enterprise Information Systems . In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8565-12-9, pages 218-223. DOI: 10.5220/0003999202180223


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis12,
author={Filip Caron and Jan Vanthienen},
title={Moving Across Paradigms between the Process Design and Enactment Phase in Enterprise Information Systems},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},
year={2012},
pages={218-223},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003999202180223},
isbn={978-989-8565-12-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - Moving Across Paradigms between the Process Design and Enactment Phase in Enterprise Information Systems
SN - 978-989-8565-12-9
AU - Caron F.
AU - Vanthienen J.
PY - 2012
SP - 218
EP - 223
DO - 10.5220/0003999202180223