M. zur Muehlen and M. Indulska. Modeling languages for business
processes and business rules: A representational analysis. Information Systems,
35(4):379–390, Elsevier, 2010.
Early work on the integration of business rules and business processes appeared shortly after the introduction of the rule modeling concept [13,14]. Krogstie et al. [16] were the first to suggest that business process and rule modeling approaches should be merged to improve the capture of temporal information for Information Systems (IS) development. They presented a top-down approach for model specification that involves the use of the External Rule Language for specification of process logic at the lowest level of decomposition. McBrien and Seltveit [20] further enhanced this concept by defining the structure of rules within the process model. Knolmayer et al. [14] refined process modeling and linked the resulting models to workflow execution through layers of Reaction Business Rules. Kappel et al. [13] use Reaction
Business Rules to model the coordination in workflow systems. Kovacic [15] developed a meta-model that represents important business constructs (goal, process, activity and events) and technical constructs (data objects, software components, actions in Information Systems). He demonstrates how rules can link these two categories of constructs. Charfi and Mezini [1] argues that business rules are often hard-coded into web services and proposes a hybrid approach of separating business processes and business rules. Meng et al. [21] introduced a dynamic workflow management system for modeling and control- ling the execution of inter-organizational business pro- cesses. The system uses an event- and rule-server to trigger business rules during the enactment of workflow processes in order to enforce business constraints and policies.
While the integration of rule and process modeling has been the subject of some investigation in the research community, anecdotal evidence shows that organizations struggle to effectively capture business processes and rules. In a recent study of the representational capabilities of the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), we found that organizations frequently supplement their BPMN process models with textual annotations of busi- ness rules [27]. This practice introduces problems regard- ing the consistency, reuse, and enforcement of rules – problems that are acknowledged by some of the organiza- tions using this technique.
The need to improve the representation of business rules within process model diagrams is apparent, yet little is known about which representation aspects, if any, are unique to each of the two types of modeling languages. Previous work by Recker et al. [26] has identified a general lack among process modeling languages to adequately represent business rules. Similarly, Green and Rosemann [6] found limitations with respect to modeling business rules in their BWW-based investigation of all five views of Architecture of Integrated Information Systems a popular enterprise architecture framework.
Rule modeling languages are likely candidates to fill such gaps. An earlier study by Herbst et al. [9] suggests that rule specification languages should be considered as a potential addition to graphical representation languages when modeling for Information Systems design. While their analysis is not based on any formal framework, they suggest that many of the popular IS modeling techniques lack the ability to adequately represent business rules. The work of Rosemann et al. [29] suggests that the same shortcomings exist in the process modeling domain; hence, an integration of business rule and business process modeling approaches may help overcome these perceived shortcomings.
In order to effectively integrate graphical business process modeling approaches with business rule model- ing approaches, we need to understand their synergies and overlap. In our research, we were unable to locate any attempts to evaluate the expressiveness of rule modeling languages or their relationships to conceptual process modeling approaches. The only related work appears to be that of Lu and Sadiq [17] who compared graph-based and rule-based modeling approaches. Since their work was focused on workflow modeling in particular, rather than conceptual modeling in general, no specific rule modeling languages were considered. The authors used a set of workflow patterns [36] as a basis for the evaluation, and found, that rule- and graph-based modeling approaches had similar levels of expressiveness in terms of the control flows specified by the workflow patterns.
Business Rules to model the coordination in workflow systems. Kovacic [15] developed a meta-model that represents important business constructs (goal, process, activity and events) and technical constructs (data objects, software components, actions in Information Systems). He demonstrates how rules can link these two categories of constructs. Charfi and Mezini [1] argues that business rules are often hard-coded into web services and proposes a hybrid approach of separating business processes and business rules. Meng et al. [21] introduced a dynamic workflow management system for modeling and control- ling the execution of inter-organizational business pro- cesses. The system uses an event- and rule-server to trigger business rules during the enactment of workflow processes in order to enforce business constraints and policies.
While the integration of rule and process modeling has been the subject of some investigation in the research community, anecdotal evidence shows that organizations struggle to effectively capture business processes and rules. In a recent study of the representational capabilities of the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), we found that organizations frequently supplement their BPMN process models with textual annotations of busi- ness rules [27]. This practice introduces problems regard- ing the consistency, reuse, and enforcement of rules – problems that are acknowledged by some of the organiza- tions using this technique.
The need to improve the representation of business rules within process model diagrams is apparent, yet little is known about which representation aspects, if any, are unique to each of the two types of modeling languages. Previous work by Recker et al. [26] has identified a general lack among process modeling languages to adequately represent business rules. Similarly, Green and Rosemann [6] found limitations with respect to modeling business rules in their BWW-based investigation of all five views of Architecture of Integrated Information Systems a popular enterprise architecture framework.
Rule modeling languages are likely candidates to fill such gaps. An earlier study by Herbst et al. [9] suggests that rule specification languages should be considered as a potential addition to graphical representation languages when modeling for Information Systems design. While their analysis is not based on any formal framework, they suggest that many of the popular IS modeling techniques lack the ability to adequately represent business rules. The work of Rosemann et al. [29] suggests that the same shortcomings exist in the process modeling domain; hence, an integration of business rule and business process modeling approaches may help overcome these perceived shortcomings.
In order to effectively integrate graphical business process modeling approaches with business rule model- ing approaches, we need to understand their synergies and overlap. In our research, we were unable to locate any attempts to evaluate the expressiveness of rule modeling languages or their relationships to conceptual process modeling approaches. The only related work appears to be that of Lu and Sadiq [17] who compared graph-based and rule-based modeling approaches. Since their work was focused on workflow modeling in particular, rather than conceptual modeling in general, no specific rule modeling languages were considered. The authors used a set of workflow patterns [36] as a basis for the evaluation, and found, that rule- and graph-based modeling approaches had similar levels of expressiveness in terms of the control flows specified by the workflow patterns.
1 : A. Charfi, M. Mezini, Hybrid web service composition: business pro- cesses meet business rules, in: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Service Oriented Computing, New York, NY, USA, 2004.
6 : P. Green, M. Rosemann, Perceived ontological weaknesses of process modelling techniques: further evidence, in: Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Information Systems, Gdansk, 2002.
9 : H. Herbst, G. Knolmayer, T. Myrach, M. Schlesinger, The specifica- tion of business rules: a comparison of selected methodologies, in: A.A. Verijn-Stuart, T.-W. Olle (Eds.), Methods and Associated Tools for the Information System Life Cycle, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994, pp. 29–46.
13 : G. Kappel, S. Rausch-Schott, W. Retschitzegger, Coordination in workflow management systems – a rule-based approach, in: W. Conen, G. Neumann (Eds.), Coordination Technology for Collabora-
tive Applications – Organizations, Processes, and Agents, 1364 ed., vol. 1364, Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp. 99–119.
14 : G.F. Knolmayer, R. Endl, M. Pfahrer, Modeling processes and
workflows by business rules, in: W.M.P. van der Aalst, J. Desel, A. Oberweis (Eds.), Business Process Management, Models, Techni- ques, and Empirical Studies, vol. 1806, Springer, London, 2000, pp. 16–29.
6 : P. Green, M. Rosemann, Perceived ontological weaknesses of process modelling techniques: further evidence, in: Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Information Systems, Gdansk, 2002.
9 : H. Herbst, G. Knolmayer, T. Myrach, M. Schlesinger, The specifica- tion of business rules: a comparison of selected methodologies, in: A.A. Verijn-Stuart, T.-W. Olle (Eds.), Methods and Associated Tools for the Information System Life Cycle, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994, pp. 29–46.
13 : G. Kappel, S. Rausch-Schott, W. Retschitzegger, Coordination in workflow management systems – a rule-based approach, in: W. Conen, G. Neumann (Eds.), Coordination Technology for Collabora-
tive Applications – Organizations, Processes, and Agents, 1364 ed., vol. 1364, Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp. 99–119.
14 : G.F. Knolmayer, R. Endl, M. Pfahrer, Modeling processes and
workflows by business rules, in: W.M.P. van der Aalst, J. Desel, A. Oberweis (Eds.), Business Process Management, Models, Techni- ques, and Empirical Studies, vol. 1806, Springer, London, 2000, pp. 16–29.
15 : A. Kovacic, Business renovation: business rules (still) the missing link, Business Process Management Journal 10 (2) (2004) 158.
16 : J. Krogstie, P. McBrien, R. Owens, A.H. Seltveit, Information systems development using a combination of process and rule-based approaches, in: R. Andersen, J.A. Bubenko Jr., A. Solvberg (Eds.), Third International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE ‘91), Springer, Trondheim, Norway, 1991, pp. 319–335.
17 : R. Lu, S. Sadiq, A survey of comparative business process modeling approaches, in: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Business Information Systems, Poznan, Poland, 2007.
20 : P. Mcbrien, A.H. Seltveit, Coupling process models and business rules, in: Proceedings of the IFIP 8.1 WG Conference on Information Systems Development for Decentralized Organizations, 1995.
21 : J. Meng, S.Y.W. Su, H. Lam, A. Helal, Achieving dynamic inter- organizational workflow management by integrating business processes, events and rules, in: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences System Sciences, HICSS 2002, Waikoloa, HI, 2002.
26 : J. Recker, M. Indulska, M. Rosemann, P. Green, Do process modelling techniques get better? A comparative ontological analysis of BPMN, in: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney, Australia, 2005.
27 : J. Recker, M. Indulska, M. Rosemann, P. Green, How good is BPMN really? Insights from theory and practice, in: Paper presented at the 14th European Conference on Information Systems, Goeteborg, Sweden, 2006.
29 : M. Rosemann, J. Recker, M. Indulska, P. Green, A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of process modeling grammars, in: E. Dubois, K. Pohl (Eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering – CAiSE 2006, vol. 4001, Springer, Luxem- bourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, 2006, pp. 447–461.
36 : W.M.P. Van Der Aalst, A.H.M. Ter Hofstede, B. Kiepuszewski, A.P. Barros, Workflow patterns, Distributed and Parallel Databases 14 (1) (2003) 5–51.
20 : P. Mcbrien, A.H. Seltveit, Coupling process models and business rules, in: Proceedings of the IFIP 8.1 WG Conference on Information Systems Development for Decentralized Organizations, 1995.
21 : J. Meng, S.Y.W. Su, H. Lam, A. Helal, Achieving dynamic inter- organizational workflow management by integrating business processes, events and rules, in: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences System Sciences, HICSS 2002, Waikoloa, HI, 2002.
26 : J. Recker, M. Indulska, M. Rosemann, P. Green, Do process modelling techniques get better? A comparative ontological analysis of BPMN, in: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney, Australia, 2005.
27 : J. Recker, M. Indulska, M. Rosemann, P. Green, How good is BPMN really? Insights from theory and practice, in: Paper presented at the 14th European Conference on Information Systems, Goeteborg, Sweden, 2006.
29 : M. Rosemann, J. Recker, M. Indulska, P. Green, A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of process modeling grammars, in: E. Dubois, K. Pohl (Eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering – CAiSE 2006, vol. 4001, Springer, Luxem- bourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, 2006, pp. 447–461.
36 : W.M.P. Van Der Aalst, A.H.M. Ter Hofstede, B. Kiepuszewski, A.P. Barros, Workflow patterns, Distributed and Parallel Databases 14 (1) (2003) 5–51.
No comments:
Post a Comment