An Artifact-centric View-based Approach to Modeling Inter-organizational Business Processes
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

An Artifact-centric View-based Approach to Modeling Inter-organizational Business Processes

  • 302 views
Uploaded on

An Artifact-centric View-based Approach to Modeling Inter-organizational Business Processes

An Artifact-centric View-based Approach to Modeling Inter-organizational Business Processes

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
302
On Slideshare
302
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
  • Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology

Transcript

  • 1. Sira Yongchareon1 , Chengfei Liu1 , and Xiaohui Zhao2 1 Faculty of Information & Communication Technologies Swinburne University of Technology, Australia 2 Faculty of Creative Industries and Business Unitec Institute of Technology, New Zealand An Artifact-centric View-based Approach to Modeling Inter- organizational Business Processes WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia
  • 2. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 2  Introduction & Related works  Motivation & Issues  Artifact-centric Collaboration Model (ACC model)  ACC Construction method – a view-based approach  ACC Verification  Changes and Validation  Conclusion Outline
  • 3. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 3  Inter-organizational workflows Introduction : Inter-org workflows Taken from Chebbi, I, et al. Data & Knowledge Engineering 56 (2006)
  • 4. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 4  Public view can be used to facilitate the inter-org coordination Introduction : Inter-org workflows Taken from Chebbi, I, et al. Data & Knowledge Engineering 56 (2006)
  • 5. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 5  Process view framework for (traditional) inter-org workflow management Introduction : Inter-org workflows From Jiang, P, et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 24 (2010)
  • 6. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 6  Issues on current task-based approaches  Process still inflexible? Due to procedural nature of task-based model (and contract)  How to ensure that the changes can preserve both local and global goals?  Contract not formed by goals of all participants, but their task interactions  Data related issues? Due to lack of holistic view of data in the model  Most control decisions made based on “data”  How to preserve the integrity and consistency of data effected by the change of tasks?  How key data interested by business stakeholders can be modelled and monitored?  Artifact-centric workflow modeling  an emerging and promising approach that can tackle those issues Introduction : An emerging approach
  • 7. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 7 Introduction : Artifact-centric model  Business Artifacts and their lifecycle – Purchasing process example  The purchasing process starts when a buyer places a purchase order to a supplier for particular products and it ends when the buyer pays an invoice.  The shipping process starts when the supplier requests a logistic to create a shipping order and it ends when the items arrives to the buyer
  • 8. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 8 Introduction : How they glued together  Business rules – to associate artifacts and tasks sync rule
  • 9. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 9 Introduction : High-level framework  4-Dimensional Framework for Artifact-Centric Business Process Modeling (Hull, R., CoopIS 2008)  Business artifacts  Macro Lifecycles  Services (Tasks)  Associations
  • 10. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 10 Introduction : Artifacts in inter-org  Business Artifacts in the inter-org processes  Local artifact – involved in a single org (cross-department is possible)  Shared artifact – involved cross-organizational process  Part of a “message” passing between orgs?  What are the “concerns” in the collaborative environment?  Flexibility  Need to allow organization to freely change and implement its own responsible part of the collaboration  Autonomy  Changes can be done locally and privately without revealing any private parts to others  Compliance  Changes made to the private parts conform to the “agreed contract” and do not interfere the overall process
  • 11. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 11 Issues and challenges?  How to define/model inter-org processes by using artifact-centric modeling approach  How to guarantee a desired behavior of inter-org processes  How to validate changes occurring within local processes but may impact the overall collaboration
  • 12. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 12  From Private view to Public view to “Service Contract”  To achieve high-degree of autonomy, flexibility, and compliance of inter-org processes Process view approach Taken from van der Aalst, W.M.P., et al. The Computer Journal 53(1) (2010)
  • 13. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 13  Construct private view – a complete (concrete) local process owned by each individual organization  Construct public view of local process – an abstracted version of private view that is publicly visible to every organization  By applying state condensation technique on the lifecycle of artifact (Yongchareon, S. et al., CoopIS 2010)  Construct ACC model - an integration of all views in the collaboration Construction method
  • 14. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 14  Private/Public view construction - Running example. Purchasing process consists of three core artifacts: Purchase Order, Shipping Order, and Invoice  The purchasing process starts when a buyer places a purchase order to a supplier for particular products and it ends when the buyer pays an invoice.  The shipping process starts when the supplier requests a logistic to create a shipping order and it ends when the items arrives to the buyer Construction method
  • 15. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 15  Private/Public view construction – Buyer’s view  Buyer’s private process consists of Purchase Order, Quote, and Invoice artifacts  Purchase Order and Invoice are shared artifacts  Quote is local artifact (belong only to Buyer’s local process) Construction method Synchronization dependency Private-to-public view abstraction we denote it as p(buyer)
  • 16. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 16  Private/Public view construction – Supplier’s view  Supplier’s private process consists of Purchase Order, Picking List, Shipping Order, and Invoice artifacts  Notice changes in Purchase Order  Buyer’s local part disappear Construction method Buyer’s view Buyer’s view
  • 17. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 17  Private/Public view construction – Logistics’ view  Logistics' private process consists of Purchase Order, Shipping List, and Shipping Order artifacts  Notice NO Invoice artifact Construction method
  • 18. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 18  Private ACC Model Construction  Integrate private view of each organization in the collaboration Construction method vbuyer + vsupplier+ vlogistics= vACC
  • 19. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 19  Public ACC Model Construction  Integrate public view of each organization in the collaboration Construction method p(vbuyer ) + p(vsupplier ) + p(vlogistics ) = p(vACC )
  • 20. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 20 Model verification  Traditional compositional model verification approach can be used for the behavior verification of ACC model (e.g., LIND-NIELSEN, J., Formal Methods in System Design 2001)  “soundness”  guarantee the desired and correct behavior of overall process  Local soundness vs. Global soundness  Local soundness  soundness of individual private view  Global soundness  soundness of ACC model
  • 21. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 21 Model verification  Artifact lifecycle and ACC lifecycle 1) Artifact lifecycle  generated by interpreting BRs 2) ACC lifecycle  generated by using compositional technique
  • 22. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 22 Model verification  Given two lifecycles, we can compose them into new composed lifecycle  There inference rules for combined transition formation
  • 23. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 23 Model verification  Lifecycle of ACC is “sound” if it is:  safe  for every business rule r in ACC, r induces one and only one transition  and goal-reachable  For every state s in ACC, there exists final state sf in ACC such that s is reachable from the initial state and sfis reachable from s  For every final state sf in ACC, sfis reachable from the initial state
  • 24. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 24 Process changes  Changes can be made locally on the private view  Refinement  Replace states or a transition of shared artifact with new sub-lifecycle (called Lifecycle fragment or L-fragment)  Lifecycle refinement and synchronization refinement  Extension  Add new local artifact(s) with the synchronization to some existing artifact in the process
  • 25. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 25 Process changes  Examples of changes in process Several possible ways of refinement with extension
  • 26. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 26 Process changes  Issues?  How to guarantee valid changes  the result of refinement/extension preserves the global soundness of the collaboration  Compositional model verification  Unrealistic to access local artifacts owned by other organizations  Is expensive and leads to state exposition problem  We propose to validate the process locally but can assert global soundness, i.e., Validating individual private view based on local modification
  • 27. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 27 Process changes : Validation  Change Validation Framework  “View conformance” (covers) conforms to
  • 28. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 28 Process changes : Validation  The modified private view must be behavioral- consistent to its original private view  Consistency checking by lifecycle coverage checking  (a) is public view and (b), (c), and (d) are private views of (a) with lifecycle modification  (a) is covered by (c) and (d), but not (b)  (c) and (d) are consistent to (a)  Notice this is observation consistency
  • 29. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 29 ACC Model : Validating changes  Key questions….  How to ensure that changes make a modified private view consistent to its original view?  We need to guarantee that every change is valid by imposing construction rules on both “refinement” and “extension”  Refinement consistency  can adapt from SESE block checking in programming language verification  Extension consistency  By imposing refinement consistency checking and consistent synchronization rules
  • 30. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 30 ACC Model : Validating changes  Synchronization consistency checking  Locally-bound lifecycle  When an extended artifact totally syncs within the refined SESE L-fragment  Transitivity  Extended artifact syncs within another locally-bound extended artifact
  • 31. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 31 ACC Model : Conclusion  Artifact-centric Collaboration model  Private/Public view construction  Model verification  Changes and validation  Valid change  Modified private view consistent to its original private view and conforms to the public ACC  Consistent “refinement” and “extension”  What’s this all about?  Organization is flexible and free to change and implement its own part without revealing its private/sensitive information to other organization while still preserving global correctness of the collaboration
  • 32. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 32 Open Challenges  Realization approach?  On traditional “task-based” workflow system  Need model-model transformation, e.g., ArtiFlow  BPEL (Narendra, N.C., SCC 2009 and Liu, G., ICSOC 2009)  Pose loss of information and degrade flexibility (of business rules)  Inefficiency in Monitoring/Tracking due to model conversion/mapping  Alternative?  Pure artifact-centric workflow system  Process driven by pure business rule engine (SOA supported)  Artifact-centric model can be directly (fully automated) executed  Efficient-level of flexibility and monitoring ability
  • 33. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 33 Open Challenges  Our current developing work “A Framework for Automated Realization of Artifact-centric Business Processes in SOA”  ACP Realization framework  ACP System architecture To be appeared in the proceeding of DASFAA 2012To be appeared in the proceeding of DASFAA 2012
  • 34. WISE’11, 12-14 October 2011, Sydney, Australia Sira Yongchareon, Chengfei Liu, and Xiaohui Zhao 34 Thank you