Sotirios Koussouris, George Gionis,
Aikaterini Maria Sourouni, Dimitrios Askounis and Kostas
Kalaboukas

Agenda
 The need for “generic” process models
 Modelling Approach
 Process Selection
 B2B, B2G, B2I Examples
 Conclusions and Future Steps

 The project GENESIS [http://www.genesis-ist.eu] (Enterprise
Application Interoperability – Integration for SMEs, Governmental
Organizations and Intermediaries in the New European Union) is
funded in the context of the EU Framework Program 6 (FP 6)
 Participants of 8 different countries
Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania and
Czech Republic

Categorising Io
The different models for semantic interoperability can be classified based on
two fundamental dimensions:
By distinguishing between the two possible ways of integrating mappings –
each schema is either mapped to any other (any-to-any) or each schema is
mapped to a single central schema (any-to-one)
By choosing whether the integrated logic is executed in a single,
distinguished node (centralized) or the execution is distributed among
multiple, functionally equivalent nodes (decentralized).
Model for Integrating Mappings Model for Integrating Logic
Any-to-One Any-to-Any Centralized Decentralized
Server-Based o x
P2P x o

Architectural Overview
Process Flow
Adapter for A Adapter for B
Business Doc. Business Doc.
Workflow Workflow
Web Service
Web Service
in Format A in Format B
Execution Execution
ERP ERP
Data ERP Data
Transformation Transformation
Stakeholder specific
Process Models
Stakeholder specific
Data Models
Transaction Pattern A-B Transaction Pattern
Data Mapping Schema
Server Data Mapping Schema
Composition of
Web Service Workflows
Creation of Inter-Document
Data Mappings
Store and Retrieve
Business Semantics
Repository

Challenges in creating Generic Process
models for e-Business Transactions
 Available methodologies cover mainly national or
sector specific business domain transactions
 Heterogeneous Domains characteristics:
◦ “Cross-Enterprise, Cross-Sector” Processes
◦ “Cross Border” Transactions
◦ “Legal Issues”
 Multi-View Modelling Approach
 Attempt to reach “generic representations/templates”
for eTransactions

 Business-to-Consumer (B2C) and the Business-to-
Business (B2B) of same interests –same business
sector– area and not so vitally towards this research
area.
 Target area includes cross-border/cross-sector
transactions :
◦ Business to Business (B2B)
◦ Business to Government (B2G)
◦ Business to Intermediaries (B2I) –such as Banks and
Public Insurance Institutions

Process Modelling Data Modelling
Processes Roles Rules Data
Operations PRIVATE VIEW
Map
Process Parties
Landscape
Internal Bus.
Business Roles Rules
Documents
Process
Business Specific Bus.
Roles Rules
Process Documents
PUBLIC VIEW
CROSS-FUNCTIONAL Frameworks / Core
LAYER Fw. Elements Components
Operations Specific Bus.
Generic
Map Documents
Parties Generic Bus.
Rules
Collaboration XML/UBL
BPMN Models
Process Types
GENERIC VIEW

Private View
•Country Specific
•Sector Specific
•Detailed Internal
Activities

Public View
•Country Specific
•Sector Specific
•Collaboration Interface
•Only shows activities that are useful
to understand the relevant process
outputs and communication with an
external entity.
•The significant process logic has to
be indicated as well.

Collaboration View
•Country Specific
•Sector Specific/Cross-Sector
•Shows a consolidation of
public processes for 2
entities/roles.
•Public activities of each role
are being linked through
messages.
•Leads to Generic
Representations of Processes

Generic/Abstract View
•Cross-Border
•Cross-Sector
•Projection of collaboration
models
•Used for service orchestration
between the two peers
•Specifies the Io interfaces of
Business systems
•Significally non-matching
public models are flagged for
BPR

Category Business Process / Transaction
• Initial B2B transactions were Catalogue Provision (Request, Issue/Get, Handle)
identified with the use of the UBL Quotation (Request, Issue/Get, Handle)
Order (Request, Issue/Get, Handle)
2.0 standards for B2B Processes
B2B Packing Slip (Issue/Get, Handle)
Invoice (Issue/Get, Handle)
• B2G transactions were identified Billing (Credit/debit, Reconcile, Handle)
by studying the eEurope 2005 and Fulfillment Collaboration (Despatch/Receive through 3rd Party)
IDABC initiatives VAT Statement (periodic)
VAT Statement (annual or cumulative)
• Banking transactions were Enterprise Income TAX Statement (annual)
identified by studying financial INTRASTAT Statement (annual)
B2G Social Security Statement – Contribution (periodic)
exchange standards like IFX.
Transactions Reporting (intra-EU/national, periodic)
Various VAT sub-statements and reports
Declaration of hiring new employee
The final process selection was Account Status
based on the results of an List of Account Transactions
evaluation framework Fund Transfer (intra-bank, inter-bank)
B2Banking Specific Payment (VAT, tax, other)
Payment Check (Credit Note) Issuing
Payment Check (Credit Note) Status
Loan Status Inquiry

 Evaluation Framework Criteria:
◦ Frequency of use.
◦ Time for the process execution.
◦ Cost of the process.
◦ Level of support of the process with the
existing Enterprise Applications.
◦ Legal and statutory framework
supporting the execution of the process.
More specifically, the end user must also
determine if the specific transaction is
obligatory under the legislation or not.
◦ Value added for the Enterprise by the
automation of the transaction.
Those criteria were applied in enterprises
in all of the 8 countries for the selected
processes.

A. Buyer
Involved Pattern A-B-A
B. Seller
No. of No. of Decision
Exchanged 8 Points 5
Documents (complexity)
6 (GR,
TR, RO,
Country fit No. of Activities 14
BG,
LT, CZ)
Subproccesses Legal
Mediu
present none Framework
m
(Decomposition) Interference

A. Enterprise
B. VAT
Process
Service
Involved Flow A-B-B
C. Bank
Pattern
(hidden “as
sub process”)
No. of
No. of Decision
Exchanged 3 Points 2
Documents (complexity
)
4 (GR, CY, No. of
Country fit 6
TR, IT) Activities
1. Specific
Subproccesses Legal
Payment
present Framework High
2. Account
(Decomposition) Interference
Status

B2I Processes
ex. Payment Order
A.
Involved Enterprise Pattern A-B
B. Bank
No. of No. of Decision
Exchanged 2 Points 1
Documents (complexity)
4 (GR, CY,
TR, IT) –
Country fit No. of Activities 4
probably
all!
1. Account
Subproccesses Legal
Status
present Framework Low
2. Fund
(Decomposition) Interference
transfer

Process Characteristics
 Banking transactions have low
differentiation in all three
dimensions.
n
tiatio
 B2G transactions have low to w Dif
ss Flo dium
feren High
Proce Me
medium data differentiation and Low
high differentiation regarding the
legal rules, whereas they have also
High
medium to high differentiation
Data Differentiation
Process Low differentiation.
 B2B transactions have medium to Medium
high data differentiation but
medium process flow and legal
Low
rules differentiation. Low Medium High
Legal Rules Differentiation

 Generic Models are here and can be used for
enterprise interconnection
 A great motive/opportunity for possible BPR in the
organizations
 What is still missing is:
◦ legal rules integration
◦ business documents standards (mainly for B2G
transactions --- national GIFs seem the way to go)

Thank you for your attention!