Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Modeling Requirements for the Management of Electronic Records


Published on

Talk @ conference 2009 organized by WfMC. How are documents managed by the European Union? The Italian Documental Work
flow Protocol; Overview on the Italian Electronic Documents Management System; Some example work
flows re-engineered with BPMN and serialized with XPDL; Concluding remarks and achieved results.

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Login to see the comments

Modeling Requirements for the Management of Electronic Records

  1. 1. Modeling Requirements for the Management of Electronic Records Michele Chinosi joint work with Alberto Trombetta Universit` degli Studi dell’Insubria (Varese – Italy) a Dipartimento di Informatica e Comunicazione June 18-19, 2009, Washington, D.C., USA
  2. 2. Agenda Introduction: how are documents managed by the European Union? The Italian Documental Workflow Protocol Overview on the Italian Electronic Documents Management System Some example workflows re-engineered with BPMN and serialized with XPDL Concluding remarks and achieved results 2/28
  3. 3. The EU setting Three main offices: • Bruxelles (BE) (aka the European Washington) • Strasbourg (FR) • Luxembourg (LU) European Parliament: 12 plenary sessions / year Each plenary session produces: • Acts, translated in 22 languages and printed in 785 copies • 3400 archive chests, each containing 40 Kg. • 100 three-tiered cupboards Total amount of 200 tons of paper sheets, 12 times a year! 3/28
  4. 4. EU & the MoReq document eGovernment priority 2001: The European Commission published the MoReq document • Model Requirements for the Management of Electronic Records • MoReq is addressed to Public Administrations (PA) 2008: MoReq2 – an enhanced version • Information Technology has changed a lot since 2001 • Change in documents creation, capture, management • Development of new modeling techniques 4/28
  5. 5. The Italian CNIPA Protocol The Italian Government acknowledged the EU directive 2003: National Center of Computer Science in the PA (CNIPA) 2005: Digital Administration Code (IT Law 82/2005) The CNIPA implemented a Protocol to electronically index and store all PA’s documents Electronic Records (Documents) Management System It is the computer infrastructure (hardware, software, network, procedures) used by Public Administrations to handle their documents. Italian Law The Protocol is the basic infrastructure upon which the entire PA’s modernization process is founded 5/28
  6. 6. The Adoption of the Protocol 2005: 33% Central PA adopted the Protocol 2006: 42% (+9%), but 98% of 160 million documents is still on paper sheet :( 2008: 91% (esteemed), 283 million documents/year: 41% (117 million) documents are managed electronically 2% (5,3 million): email 98% (277,7 million): traditional ways 60% (172 million) exchanged between administrations 6/28
  7. 7. Motivations • The Protocol provides only a textual description • 80% of users are clerks, non-technicians, citizens • No BP or IT know-how, no procedures propensity, no business skills • Maybe enjoy handling paper sheets :) Why should we care about modeling PA’s documental workflows? • to give all the European citizens an easy access to documents • to ensure the interoperability between European Offices and Countries • to reinforce exchanges of good practices • to provide a more easily usable and more widely readable version of the Protocol • to employ the most recent BP modeling techniques • to improve interactive business models • to let browsing, validation, sharing, simulation, execution, . . . 7/28
  8. 8. Business Process Graphical Modeling Why should we propose a graphical modeling tecnique? The “eeeBP” model: • new capabilities • easy readable • widely implemented • easy sharing • use of tools • easy collaboration • executability • short training time 8/28
  9. 9. A Brief Overview of the Protocol Main goals: • Safety (backup) • Documental Workflows • input / output • Security • internal / external • Privacy • formal / informal • Availability • Classification • Improve searches • Sorting • Environment • Filtering 9/28
  10. 10. The Italian PA – State of the Art 10/28
  11. 11. The Italian PA – What we Aim to Reach 11/28
  12. 12. AOO and the Organizational Models Each PA can specify 1+ Homogeneous Organizational Area (AOO) Each AOO can be composed by multiple Protocol Organizational Units (UOP), Referential Organizational Offices (UOR) and Users Offices (UU). • Distributed Model (1 PA, 2+ AOO) • Centralized Model (1 PA, 1 AOO, + UOR,UOP,UU) Each AOO can be internally organized as follows: • centralized protocol system Only 1 UOP • mixed protocol system Some UOR work as UOP • totally de-centralized Every UOR is also a UOP 12/28
  13. 13. Safety, Security, Privacy Confidential documents should be protected but all the others should be accessible 13/28
  14. 14. Classification of Documents • deals with one unique argument Administrative Classification • pertains to one unique protocol • Received • AOO name and logo • Sent • AOO address • Internal or Formal • UOR telephone and fax • External or Informal • AOO Italian Tax Code aka the SSN cultural equivalent • timestamp and location Technological Classification • protocol number • Analogue • # of attachments • Digital • (digital) signature 14/28
  15. 15. Documental Workflows Documents can be: • Received or Sent by the AOO • Formal (internal) or Informal (external) Digital Documents Exchange Requirements: • Integrity • Automated protocol and sort processes • Non-disclosure • Interconnections inside AOO • Non-repudiation • Interoperability between diverse • Certified acknowledgment systems and organizations Nonsense! “The flows can be described without the help of graphical representation” from the CNIPA Protocol 15/28
  16. 16. Business Process Modeling Notation 16/28
  17. 17. Business Process Modeling Notation 17/28
  18. 18. AOO Input Documental Workflow 18/28
  19. 19. AOO Output Documental Workflow – Centralized 19/28
  20. 20. AOO Output Documental Workflow – Decentralized 20/28
  21. 21. AOO Sorting Documental Workflow 21/28
  22. 22. BPMN: Relationships with Serialization Formats 22/28
  23. 23. XPDL Excerpt of the Input WF <WorkflowProcess Id="Process-001" Name="AOO"> <ProcessHeader/><RedefinableHeader/> <ActivitySets> <ActivitySet Id="sp-01" Name="Produce Receipts" /> <ActivitySet Id="sp-02" Name="Sorting and Assigning" /> ... </ActivitySets> <Activities> <Activity Id="GW-01" Name="Is target UOP correct?"> <Route/><Documentation/><ExtendedAttributes/><NodeGraphicsInfos/> <IsForCompensationSpecified>false</IsForCompensationSpecified> </Activity> <Activity Id="task-07" Name="Scan the Document"> <Implementation><Task><TaskUser/></Task></Implementation> <Performers/><Documentation/><ExtendedAttributes/> <InputSets><InputSet><Input ArtifactId="doc-1"/></InputSet></InputSets> <OutputSets><OutputSet><Output ArtifactId="doc-2"/></OutputSet></OutputSets> <NodeGraphicsInfos/> <IsForCompensationSpecified>false</IsForCompensationSpecified> </Activity> ... </Activities> <Transitions> <Transition Id="tr-01" From="GW-01" To="sp-03" Name="Yes"> <Condition Type="OTHERWISE"/><ExtendedAttributes/><ConnectorGraphicsInfos/> </Transition> <Transition Id="tr-02" From="GW-01" To="GW-02" Name="No"> <Condition Type="CONDITION"><Expression/></Condition> <ExtendedAttributes/><ConnectorGraphicsInfos/> </Transition> ... </Transitions> <ExtendedAttributes/> </WorkflowProcess> 23/28
  24. 24. XPDL Excerpt of the Output WF <Pool Id="pool-002" Name="AOO" Process="Process-001" BoundaryVisible="true"> <Lanes> <Lane Id="Lane-001" Name="UOR / UOP" ParentPool="pool-002"> <NodeGraphicsInfos/><Documentation /><ExtendedAttributes /> </Lane> <Lane Id="Lane-002" Name="UOP" ParentPool="pool-002"> <NodeGraphicsInfos/><Documentation /><ExtendedAttributes /> </Lane> <Lane Id="Lane-003" Name="Mail Office" ParentPool="pool-002"> <NodeGraphicsInfos/><Documentation /><ExtendedAttributes /> </Lane> </Lanes> </Pool> ... <MessageFlows> <MessageFlow Id="mf-001" Name="" Source="task-004" Target="pool-001"> <ConnectorGraphicsInfos/><ExtendedAttributes /> </MessageFlow> <MessageFlow Id="mf-002" Name="" Source="pool-001" Target="ask-005"> <ConnectorGraphicsInfos/><ExtendedAttributes /> </MessageFlow> </MessageFlows> ... <Activity Id="gw-005" Name="Fax or Mail?"> <Route GatewayType="OR" /> <Documentation /><ExtendedAttributes /><NodeGraphicsInfos/> <IsForCompensationSpecified>false</IsForCompensationSpecified> </Activity> 24/28
  25. 25. XPDL Excerpt of the Sorting WF <Activity Id="ie-001"> <Event> <IntermediateEvent Trigger="Link"> <TriggerResultLink/> </IntermediateEvent> </Event> <Documentation/><ExtendedAttributes/><NodeGraphicsInfos/> <IsForCompensationSpecified>false</IsForCompensationSpecified> </Activity> <Activity Id="task-001" Name="Close the File/Dossier"> <Implementation><Task/></Implementation> <Performers/><Documentation/><ExtendedAttributes/> <Loop LoopType="MultiInstance"> <LoopMultiInstance LoopCounter="0" MI_Ordering="Parallel"> <MI_Condition/> </LoopMultiInstance> </Loop> <NodeGraphicsInfos/> <IsForCompensationSpecified>false</IsForCompensationSpecified> </Activity> <Activity Id="ie-002"> <Event> <IntermediateEvent Trigger="Rule" Target="task-010" IsAttached="true"> <TriggerConditional/> </IntermediateEvent> </Event> <Documentation/><ExtendedAttributes/><NodeGraphicsInfos/> <IsForCompensationSpecified>false</IsForCompensationSpecified> </Activity> 25/28
  26. 26. BPMN/XPDL Capabilities & Enhancements • Design methodology • Executability XPDL does, BPMN 1.2 doesn’t: will BPMN 2.0 be executable? • Roles and Domains definition / control (!) • Privacy protection mechanism • Enhanced multilevel browseability with embedded access control • Native complete syntax (and partly semantics) validation support 26/28
  27. 27. Summary & Further Directions • What we have talked about: • The state of the art in European and Italian PA • MoReq / Moreq2 / Italian Protocol • The use of graphical tools to model the processes but also their descriptions (metamodels) • Some diagrams and XML serializations proposals, underlying some great advantages • Will BPMN need XPDL, BPEL, . . . support yet? • We are working on: • Design methodology • Self-validation • Security aspects • Views / browseability • Case studies • eGovernment, eBusiness and eInclusion EU directives (eEurope first, now iEurope 2010) 27/28
  28. 28. Thank you. Questions? 28/28