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.

Heterogeneous Domains’ e-Business Transactions Interoperability with the use of Generic Process Models


Published on

Heterogeneous Domains’ e-Business Transactions Interoperability with the use of Generic Process Models presented in I-ESA 2008

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Heterogeneous Domains’ e-Business Transactions Interoperability with the use of Generic Process Models

  1. 1. Sotirios Koussouris, George Gionis, Aikaterini Maria Sourouni, Dimitrios Askounis and Kostas Kalaboukas
  2. 2. Agenda  The need for “generic” process models  Modelling Approach  Process Selection  B2B, B2G, B2I Examples  Conclusions and Future Steps
  3. 3.  The project GENESIS [] (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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7.  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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. Private View •Country Specific •Sector Specific •Detailed Internal Activities
  10. 10. 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.
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14.  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.
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19.  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)
  20. 20. Thank you for your attention!