With the advent of Industry 4.0, more and more companies are actively working on digitising their assets (i.e., services, processes, etc.) for better control, collaboration, modularity, analysis, etc. By 2020 more than 80% of companies will have digitised their business processes and value chains. This creates more services and processes, making their indexing, discovery, configuration, etc. more challenging. Thus, digitising assets needs a data model to describe them together with algorithms for indexing, discovery and configuration. This thesis details a concept model for describing the business capability of services and business processes from a functional perspective in terms of what do they achieve together with related business properties. Furthermore, this work proposes the aggregation, indexing, discovery and configuration of services and business processes using the concept of business capability.

1. Business Capability-centric Management of
Services and Business Process Models
Supervisors: Dr. Edward Curry and Dr. Sami Bhiri
Examiners: Prof. Jan Mendling,
Prof. François Charoy,
and Prof. Dietrich Rebholz-Schuhmann
In fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Insight Centre for Data
Analytics at the National University of Ireland, Galway – College of Engineering and Informatics
December 2016
by Wassim Derguech

2. Thesis Overview
• Research Problem
– Descriptions of IT Capabilitites of services and processes are very difficult to
manage by business users
• Proposed Solution
– Buiness capabilities concept model of services and processes used in 3 scenarios: (1)
indexing and discovery, (2) aggregation and (3) design of configurable process models
• Research Contributions
C1 - Business capability meta model
• Model’s constructs validated via an ontological evaluation
• Intuitive appeal of the model evaluated via interviews with domain experts
C2 - Validation of the applicability of formal concept analysis for time-efficient
indexing and discovery of business capabilitities
• Quantitative evaluation shows the indexing and discovery performs in less than 200 ms
over a set of 5000 sensor capabilitites
C3 – Algorithm for business capability aggregation
• Steps of the algorithm are verified for basic workflow patterns using PetriNets
• Usefulness of the approach is evaluated via interviews with domain experts
C4 - Algorithm for designing capability-enriched configurable process models
• Creates models via merge operation in few ms and reach a compression rate of 50%
2

3. • Context and Motivation
• Research Problem and Proposed Solution
C1 - Business Capability Meta Model
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C2 - Business Capability Indexing and Discovery
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C3 - Business Capability Aggregation
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C4 - Business Capability in Configurable process models
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
• Summary, Limitations, and Future Work
Outline

4. 4
1
Designing BPs and
Services
Context

5. 5
1
Designing BPs and
Services
A Business process is “a set of
tasks, roles, and resources
working in concert to achieve a
business objective or goal.”
[Business Process Modeling Languages and
Tools, Encyclopedia of Information Science and
Technology, 3rd Edt, 2015]
Context

6. 6
1
Designing BPs and
Services
2
Software
engineer
Implementation of
BPs and Services
3
Context

7. 7
1
Designing BPs and
Services
2
Software
engineer
Implementation of
BPs and Services
3
End Users
Discovery
Reuse
Context

8. Problem
8
1
Designing BPs and
Services
2
Software
engineer
Implementation of
BPs and Services
3
End Users
Discovery
Reuse
IT Expert IT Capability
IT Capability
ITExpert

9. 9
1
Designing BPs and
Services
2
Software
engineer
Implementation of
BPs and Services
3
End Users
Discovery
Reuse
IT Expert IT Capability
IT Capability
ITExpert
Business
Expert
Business Expert
Business & IT Capability
Problem

10. 10
1
Designing BPs and
Services
2
Software
engineer
Implementation of
BPs and Services
3
End Users
Discovery
Reuse
Problem

11. 11
1
Designing BPs and
Services
2
Software
engineer
Implementation of
BPs and Services
3
End Users
Discovery
Reuse
Business Processes and Services
are not properly described from
a business perspective
Discovery and Composition
/ aggregation of services is
based only on IT
capabilities, thus difficult to
understand by Business
Experts
Reuse of services and process
models requires extensive IT
knowledge
Problem

12. 12
1
Designing BPs and
Services
2
Software
engineer
Implementation of
BPs and Services
3
End Users
Discovery
Reuse
1 . Business Capability met-model
for describing services and
business processes using business
properties
2. Indexing and Discovery of
Services using Business
Properties
3. Aggregation of Business
Capabilities
4. Designing configurable process
models featuring business
properties
Proposed Solution

13. Contributions and Requirements
13
Business
Capability
Meta-Model
Business Capability
Meta-Model
- Expressiveness
- Inferences
- Use-Of-Ontologies
- Configuration
C1

14. Contributions and Requirements
14
Business
Capability
Meta-Model
C2
Business Capability
Meta-Model
Business Capability
Indexing & Discovery
- Expressiveness
- Inferences
- Use-Of-Ontologies
- Configuration
- Ontology-based
- Time efficient
C1

15. Contributions and Requirements
15
Business
Capability
Meta-Model
C2 C3
Business Capability
Meta-Model
Business Capability
Indexing & Discovery
Business Capability
Aggregation
- Expressiveness
- Inferences
- Use-Of-Ontologies
- Configuration
- Ontology-based
- Time efficient
C1
- Detailed
Description

16. Contributions and Requirements
16
Business
Capability
Meta-Model
C2 C3
C4
Business Capability
Meta-Model
Business Capability
Indexing & Discovery
Business Capability
Aggregation
Business Capability
in Configurable Process Models
- Expressiveness
- Inferences
- Use-Of-Ontologies
- Configuration
- Ontology-based
- Time efficient
- Detailed
Description
- Integrate Business
Capabilities in process
models
- Quick design
- Compact models
C1

17. • Context and Motivation
• Research Problem and Proposed Solution
C1 - Business Capability Meta Model
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C2 - Business Capability Indexing and Discovery
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C3 - Business Capability Aggregation
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C4 - Business Capability in Configurable process models
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
• Summary, Limitations, and Future Work
Outline

18. 18
Scenario 1: Modeling and Discovery of Services
and Business Processes
Address check
service
Tracking service
Utility services: customer
identification, payment
processing, etc.
Rate query
service
Find services that “deliver a package” in programmableweb.com
Results under the shipping category [June 2012]

19. Limits of current approaches (Modeling)
19
Expressiveness [Sycara]
Inferences
[Sycara]
Use-of-
Ontologies
[Sycara]
Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between
capabilities
Use of
domain and
general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
[Sycara] P.K. Sycara et al., Larks: Dynamic Matchmaking Among Heterogeneous Software Agents in Cyberspace.
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 2002
Chap. 2 p.36

20. Limits of current approaches (Modeling)
20
*IOPE: Input, Output, Preconditions and Effect
[Sycara] P.K. Sycara et al., Larks: Dynamic Matchmaking Among Heterogeneous Software Agents in Cyberspace.
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 2002
Expressiveness [Sycara]
Inferences
[Sycara]
Use-of-
Ontologies
[Sycara]
Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between
capabilities
Use of
domain and
general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
Semantic
Web
Services
Models:
WSMO and
OWL-S
Part. Ful.
(categories)
Part. Ful.
(IOPE*)
Fulfilled Part. Ful. Fulfilled Not Fulfilled
Semantic
Annotation
of services:
SA-WSDL
and SA-
REST
Part. Ful.
(categories in
modelRefere
nce)
Not Ful.
(Interaction
interfaces)
Fulfilled Not Ful. Fulfilled Not Fulfilled
Frame-based
Models Fulfilled Not Ful. Fulfilled Part. Ful. Part. Ful. Not Fulfilled
Chap. 2 p.38

21. Limits of current approaches (Modeling)
21
Expressiveness [Sycara]
Inferences
[Sycara]
Use-of-
Ontologies
[Sycara]
Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between
capabilities
Use of
domain and
general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
Semantic
Web
Services
Models:
WSMO and
OWL-S
Part. Ful.
(categories)
Part. Ful.
(IOPE*)
Fulfilled Part. Ful. Fulfilled Not Fulfilled
Semantic
Annotation
of services:
SA-WSDL
and SA-
REST
Part. Ful.
(categories in
modelRefere
nce)
Not Ful.
(Interaction
interfaces)
Fulfilled Not Ful. Fulfilled Not Fulfilled
Frame-based
Models Fulfilled Not Ful. Fulfilled Part. Ful. Part. Ful. Not Fulfilled
*IOPE: Input, Output, Preconditions and Effect
[Sycara] P.K. Sycara et al., Larks: Dynamic Matchmaking Among Heterogeneous Software Agents in Cyberspace.
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 2002
Chap. 2 p.38

22. Limits of current approaches (Modeling)
22
Expressiveness [Sycara]
Inferences
[Sycara]
Use-of-
Ontologies
[Sycara]
Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between
capabilities
Use of
domain and
general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
Semantic
Web
Services
Models:
WSMO and
OWL-S
Part. Ful.
(categories)
Part. Ful.
(IOPE*)
Fulfilled Part. Ful. Fulfilled Not Fulfilled
Semantic
Annotation
of services:
SA-WSDL
and SA-
REST
Part. Ful.
(categories in
modelRefere
nce)
Not Ful.
(Interaction
interfaces)
Fulfilled Not Ful. Fulfilled Not Fulfilled
Frame-based
Models Fulfilled Not Ful. Fulfilled Part. Ful. Part. Ful. Not Fulfilled
*IOPE: Input, Output, Preconditions and Effect
[Sycara] P.K. Sycara et al., Larks: Dynamic Matchmaking Among Heterogeneous Software Agents in Cyberspace.
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 2002
Chap. 2 p.38

23. Solution: Frame-based modeling
23
• I model a business capability as an action category enriched by
(zero or many) functional or non-functional properties
• An action category is the most abstract business capability
• Related properties refine the given category by giving more details
about the corresponding action.
Capability1:
Action Category = Shipping
Capability2:
Action Category = Shipping
Item = Package [Max Weight = 65 Kg]
Capability3:
Action Category = Shipping
Item = Package [Max Weight = 65 Kg]
Area = Europe
Chap. 3 p.73

24. This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Modelling, interlinking and discovering capabilities. AICCSA 2013 (best paper)
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Capability Modelling - Case of Logistics Capabilities. Business Process Management Workshops 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Web Service Capability Meta Model. WEBIST 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Modelling Capabilities as Attribute-Featured Entities. WEBIST (Selected Papers) 2012
Capability meta-model
24
Property_declaration
Property_entry
Property_value
defined.w.r.t
propertyValue
Capability
Action_Category
achieves
hasProperty
Expressiveness Inferences Use-of-Ont Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between capabilities
Use of domain
and general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
Configurable: bool
Chap. 3 p.73

25. This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Modelling, interlinking and discovering capabilities. AICCSA 2013 (best paper)
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Capability Modelling - Case of Logistics Capabilities. Business Process Management Workshops 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Web Service Capability Meta Model. WEBIST 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Modelling Capabilities as Attribute-Featured Entities. WEBIST (Selected Papers) 2012
Capability meta-model
25
Property_declaration
Property_entry
Property_value
defined.w.r.t
propertyValue
Capability
Action_Category
achieves
hasProperty
Expressiveness Inferences Use-of-Ont Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between capabilities
Use of domain
and general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
Configurable: bool
Most_General_ValueSpecification_Relation
superValuespecificationRelation
is a
Chap. 3 p.73

26. This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Modelling, interlinking and discovering capabilities. AICCSA 2013 (best paper)
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Capability Modelling - Case of Logistics Capabilities. Business Process Management Workshops 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Web Service Capability Meta Model. WEBIST 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Modelling Capabilities as Attribute-Featured Entities. WEBIST (Selected Papers) 2012
Capability meta-model
26
Expressiveness Inferences Use-of-Ont Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between capabilities
Use of domain
and general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
Property_value
Range_value
Enumeration_value Single_value
Function_value
Constrained_value
Conditional_value
Expression
has_Valuehas_Element
has_Conditionhas_Function
has_Constraint
Chap. 3 p.75

27. This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Modelling, interlinking and discovering capabilities. AICCSA 2013 (best paper)
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Capability Modelling - Case of Logistics Capabilities. Business Process Management Workshops 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Web Service Capability Meta Model. WEBIST 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Modelling Capabilities as Attribute-Featured Entities. WEBIST (Selected Papers) 2012
Capability meta-model
27
Expressiveness Inferences Use-of-Ont Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between capabilities
Use of domain
and general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
Capability A
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
Capability C
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
MinWeight = 68 Kg
MaxWeight = 1 t
Capability B
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
MaxWeight = 68 Kg
Capability D
Action Category = Shipping
From = Europe
To = Europe
MaxWeight = 68 Kg
extends
extends
Chap. 3 p.77

28. This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Modelling, interlinking and discovering capabilities. AICCSA 2013 (best paper)
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Capability Modelling - Case of Logistics Capabilities. Business Process Management Workshops 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Web Service Capability Meta Model. WEBIST 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Modelling Capabilities as Attribute-Featured Entities. WEBIST (Selected Papers) 2012
Capability meta-model
28
Expressiveness Inferences Use-of-Ont Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between capabilities
Use of domain
and general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
Capability A
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
Capability C
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
MinWeight = 68 Kg
MaxWeight = 1 t
Capability B
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
MaxWeight = 68 Kg
Capability D
Action Category = Shipping
From = Europe
To = Europe
MaxWeight = 68 Kg
extends
extends
Given two capabilitites C1 and C2, C1 extends C2 if:
1. ∀pr in C2.properties, pr in C1.properties
2. ∀pr in C2.properties ∩ C1.properties,
C1.pr = C2.pr
3. ∃pr’ in C1. properties and pr’ not in C2.properties
Chap. 3 p.77

29. This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Modelling, interlinking and discovering capabilities. AICCSA 2013 (best paper)
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Capability Modelling - Case of Logistics Capabilities. Business Process Management Workshops 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Web Service Capability Meta Model. WEBIST 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Modelling Capabilities as Attribute-Featured Entities. WEBIST (Selected Papers) 2012
Capability meta-model
29
Expressiveness Inferences Use-of-Ont Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between capabilities
Use of domain
and general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
Capability A
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
Capability C
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
MinWeight = 68 Kg
MaxWeight = 1 t
Capability B
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
MaxWeight = 68 Kg
Capability D
Action Category = Shipping
From = Europe
To = Europe
MaxWeight = 68 Kg
extends
extends
specifies
Given two capabilitites C1 and C2, C1 specifies C2 if:
1. ∀pr in C2.properties, pr in C1.properties
2. ∀pr in C2.properties ∩ C1.properties,
C1.pr = C2.pr or C1.pr variantOf C2.pr
3. ∃pr’ / C1.pr’ variantOf C2.pr’
Chap. 3 p.77

30. This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Modelling, interlinking and discovering capabilities. AICCSA 2013 (best paper)
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Capability Modelling - Case of Logistics Capabilities. Business Process Management Workshops 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Web Service Capability Meta Model. WEBIST 2012
Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Modelling Capabilities as Attribute-Featured Entities. WEBIST (Selected Papers) 2012
Capability meta-model
30
Expressiveness Inferences Use-of-Ont Configuration
Action
Performed
Functional and
non-functional
features
Simple and
Complex
Types
Relationships
between capabilities
Use of domain
and general
ontologies
Describe
configurable
capabilities
Capability A
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
Capability C
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
MinWeight = 68 Kg
MaxWeight = 1 t
Capability B
Action Category = Shipping
From = International
To = International
MaxWeight = 68 Kg
Capability D
Action Category = Shipping
From = Europe
To = Europe
MaxWeight = 68 Kg
extends
extends
specifies

31. Ontological Evaluation
31
• Objective: Verify that the model’s constructs are suitable for modeling (no
ambiguity and no redundancy)
• Methodology [Bunge, Wand]
• Results:
• The model does not generate semantic ambiguity
• It avoids constructs overload and redundancy
[Bunge] M. Bunge. Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. 1977
[Wand] Y. Wand An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1999
Step 1:
Map each of the model constructs
to ontological concepts [Wand]
Step 2:
Verify that the model verifies
a set of rules [Wand]
Capability : Class
Action Category: Class
achieves: Attribute
…
Rule 6: null attributes have
no meaning
…
Chap. 3 p.91

32. Evaluation: Tool Support
32
2
1
3
Extended version of EPCTools: a business process modeling tool using Event-driven Process Chains (EPC)
Chap. 3 p.87

33. 33
Evaluation: Interviews with domain experts
Objective:
• Assess the intuitive appeal to end-
users?
Participants:
• 5 experts: 2 project managers, 2
service providers and consumers,
and 1 IT Engineer
Approach (1 hour per participant)
• Introduction
• Design capabilities in RDF
• Demo of the tool support
• Open discussion
Results:
Positive feedback
+ Current languages do not give much
importance to business capabilities
+ The proposed model is seen as an addition
rather than a substitution
+ Frame-based modeling is a good option
+ Extend current model to cover IT
perspective
Negative feedback
- RDF is not necessary the best
implementation language
Chap. 3 p.96

34. Summary
34
Business
Capability
Meta-Model
C2 C3
C4
Business Capability
Meta-Model
Business Capability
Indexing & Discovery
Business Capability
Aggregation
Business Capability
in Configurable Process Models
- RDF-based model
- Ontological evaluation
- Extended version of EPCTools
to annotate process activities
with capabilities
- Interviews with domain experts
C1

35. • Context and Motivation
• Research Problem and Proposed Solution
C1 - Business Capability Meta Model
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C2 - Business Capability Indexing and Discovery
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C3 - Business Capability Aggregation
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C4 - Business Capability in Configurable process models
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
• Summary, Limitations, and Future Work
Outline

36. 36
Limits of current approaches (Discovery)
Indexing Technique
Ontology-based
Discovery
Time Performance
Inheritance between OWL-S
Services [Elenius]
Not Fulfilled N/A
Topic Extraction and FCA [Aznag] Fulfilled
1088 service, query response time
between 300 and 3000 ms
Reasoning-based Matchmaking
[Srinivasan]
Fulfilled 50 services, indexing + query in 4 s
Numerical Encoding of
Ontological Concepts [Mokhtar]
Fulfilled
100 services, indexing + query in 500
ms
Business Capability and FCA
Fulfilled
5000 capabilities, indexing and
discovery in 200 ms
[Elenius] D. Elenius et al., The OWL-S editor - A development tool for se- mantic web services. ESWC 2005
[Aznag] M. Aznag et al., Leveraging formal concept analysis with topic correlation for service clustering and
discovery. ICWS 2014
[Srinivasan] N. Srinivasan et al. Adding OWL-S to UDDI, Implementation and Throughput. SWSWPC 2004
[Mokhtar] A. Ben Mokhtar et al. EASY: Efficient semAntic Service discoverY in pervasive computing environments
with QoS and context support . Journal of Systems and Software. 2008
Reasoning-based solutions
Chap. 2 p.51

37. Solution based in Formal Concept Analysis
37
•FCA [Ganter] is a technique that evolves form mathematical lattice theory used for
data analysis
•A tool for identifying meaningful relationships within a set of objects that share
common properties
•It provides a theoretical model to build from a formal context a partially ordered
structure called concept lattice
Active Storage
Option
Digital
Display
Accessible
SensorCap1 X X X X
SensorCap2 X X X
SensorCap3 X X X
SensorCap4 X X X
SensorCap5 X
[Ganter] B. Ganter and R. Wille. Formal concept analysis - mathematical foundations. 1999
Chap. 5 p.132

38. Evaluation (1) à Applicability
38
• Objective: Assess the applicability of the approach in interpreting the identified
classes and relations between them
• Dataset:
• Real world sensors deployed within the Linked Energy Intelligence (LEI)
dataspace [Curry] realised in Insight building
• Sensors deployed :
• 50 energy sensors
• 20 light and heater energy consumption
• 8 temperature and motion detection
• Properties: Active, Phenomenon Observed, Protocol, Electricity Phases and
Location
[Curry] E. Curry et al., Enterprise energy management using a linked dataspace for energy intelligence. SustainIT 2012
This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Souleiman Hasan, Sami Bhiri, Edward Curry: Organizing Capabilities Using Formal Concept Analysis. WETICE 2013
Chap. 5 p.139

39. 39
Evaluation (1) à Applicability
All the sensors are active
The set of all temperature sensors
The set of all motion sensors
This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Souleiman Hasan, Sami Bhiri, Edward Curry: Organizing Capabilities Using Formal Concept Analysis. WETICE 2013
Chap. 5 p.145

40. Evaluation (2) à Time Performance
40
Indexing of up to 1000 sensor capabilities
• Measure the size of resulting concept lattice
Indexing structure reduces the search space if the
properties are carefully chosen
Indexing time is less than 200 ms
Context size
Lattice size
Indexing 5000 sensor capabilities
• Measure the required time to construct and
parse the lattice
Synthetic data set of sensor capabilitites with up to 16 properties
This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri, Souleiman Hasan, Edward Curry: Using Formal Concept Analysis for Organizing and Discovering Sensor
Capabilities. Computer Journal, 2015 (nominated for best paper award 2016)
Chap. 5 p.146

41. Summary
41
Business
Capability
Meta-Model
C2 C3
C4
Business Capability
Meta-Model
Business Capability
Indexing & Discovery
Business Capability
Aggregation
Business Capability
in Configurable Process Models
- FCA-based
solution
- Time efficient:
5000 capabilities
indexed in 200 ms
C1

42. • Context and Motivation
• Research Problem and Proposed Solution
C1 - Business Capability Meta Model
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C2 - Business Capability Indexing and Discovery
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C3 - Business Capability Aggregation
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C4 - Business Capability in Configurable process models
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
• Summary, Limitations, and Future Work
Outline

43. 43
Scenario 2: What do Business Processes Achieve?
What is being
achieved? What are
the parameters? 102
pages!!!

44. 44
Scenario 2: What do Business Processes Achieve?
What is being
achieved? What are
the parameters? 102
pages!!!

45. 45
What is the business capability of an entire Process (atomic vs.
aggregated capabilities)?
Abstraction
cap1 cap2
cap3
cap4
Aggregated
Capability?
Action Category? Properties?

46. Limits of current approaches (BPAbstraction)
46
Aggregation Technique Aggregated Capability
Elimination of Activities [Reichert] No Capability
Using Structural Patterns [Reichert, Eshuis, Polyvyanyy ] No Capability
Similarity Measures [Smirnov1] No Capability
Lexical Relationship between Words [Leopold] Activity Labels only
Using Meronymy Trees [Smirnov2] Activity Labels only
Propagation of IOPEs [Vulcu] IOPE
Business Capability Aggregation Algorithm Business Capability
[Reichert] M. Reichert et al., Enabling per- sonalized visualization of large business processes through
parameterizable views. SAC 2012
[Eshuis] R. Eshuis et al.Transactional process views. OTM 2011
[Polyvyanyy] A. Polyvyanyy et al., Reducing complexity of large EPCs. GI 2008
[Smirnov1 ] S. Smirnov et al. A semantic approach for business process model abstraction. CAiSE 2011
[Smirnov12] S. Smirnov et al. Meronymy-based aggregation of activities in business process models. ER 2010
[Vulcu] G. Vulcu et al. Semantically-enabled Business Process Models Discovery. IJBPIM 2011
[Leopold] H.Leopold et al., Simplifying process model abstraction: Techniques for generating model names. Inf.
Syst., 2014
Chap. 2 p.47

47. Determining the Action Category
47
cap2
cap3
cap4cap1
Action Category = Lowest
Common Ancestor of all the
ActionCategories of the
component capabilities.
This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Business Process Model Overview: Determining the Capability of a Process Model Using Ontologies. BIS 2013
Chap. 4 p.109

48. Determining the Properties
48
• Idea: propagate the properties starting from initial node to the end node.
• Each fired node introduces some changes on the propagated properties.
• The set of propagated attributes is marked on the edges of the model.
• Valid for all basic workflow patterns è I use the token
propagation game similar to colored PetriNets
This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Business Process Model Overview: Determining the Capability of a Process Model Using Ontologies. BIS 2013
Chap. 4 p.112

49. Evaluation: Tool Support
49
1
2
3
Extended version of EPCTools: a business process modeling tool using Event-driven Process Chains (EPC)
Chap. 4 p.123

50. 50
Objective:
• Assess the usefulness of the
approach by end-users?
Participants:
• 5 experts: 2 system architects, 1
project manager, 1 IT Engineer,
and 1 Consultant and trainer
Approach (1 hour per
participant)
• Introduction
• Manual aggregation
• Demo of the tool support
• Open discussion
Evaluation: Interviews with domain experts
Results:
Positive feedback
+ Promising direction towards users
understanding (influenced by the tool
support)
+ Use of ontologies is widely accepted in
industry
+ Results of the aggregations can be used for
generating the documentation of processes
Negative feedback
- The proposed work needs to be adapted to
currently used modeling languages to be
adopted
This work has been submitted to:
Wassim Derguech, Edward Curry, Sami Bhiri. Aggregation of Business Capabilities: Determining the Actions and Properties of Knowledge-Centric
Business Processes, ACM Trans.Internet Technology (under review)
Chap. 4 p.124

51. Summary
51
Business
Capability
Meta-Model
C2 C3
C4
Business Capability
Meta-Model
Business Capability
Indexing & Discovery
Business Capability
Aggregation
Business Capability
in Configurable Process Models
- Aggregation
algorithm
- Colored PetriNet
for steps’ validation
- Interview with
domain expert to
assess usefullness
C1

52. • Context and Motivation
• Research Problem and Proposed Solution
C1 - Business Capability Meta Model
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C2 - Business Capability Indexing and Discovery
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C3 - Business Capability Aggregation
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C4 - Business Capability in Configurable process models
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
• Summary, Limitations, and Future Work
Outline

53. 53
Reuse-oriented technique Integration of Business Cap. Quick Design Compact Model
Most BP repositories
Labels, textual description
(+ semantic annotations)
N/A Not Fulfilled
Placeholders
Refinement: Late
Modeling
Labels + textual
descriptions
Not Fulfilled Fulfilled
Hierarchical Reference
Models
Captured but not linked to
the model
Part. Fulfilled Fulfilled
Configurable Process
Models
Captured in terms of
questions but manually
maintained
Fulfilled Fulfilled
Limits of current approaches (BP Reuse)
This work has been accepted for publication in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri, Edward Curry: Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration. Government 3.0 -
Next Generation Government Technology Infrastructure and Services (to appear)
Chap. 2 p.67

54. 54
Limits of current approaches (BP Reuse)
This work has been accepted for publication in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri, Edward Curry: Techniques for Reuse in Business Process Modeling in Public Administration. Government 3.0 -
Next Generation Government Technology Infrastructure and Services (to appear)
Reuse-oriented technique Integration of Business Cap. Quick Design Compact Model
Most BP repositories
Labels, textual description
(+ semantic annotations)
N/A Not Fulfilled
Placeholders
Refinement: Late
Modeling
Labels + textual
descriptions
Not Fulfilled Fulfilled
Hierarchical Reference
Models
Captured but not linked to
the model
Part. Fulfilled Fulfilled
Configurable Process
Models
Captured in terms of
questions but manually
maintained
Fulfilled Fulfilled
Business Capability-
annotated Configrable
Process Models
Integrated + automatically
generated
Automated
algorithm merges
in few
milliseconds
Fulfilled
Chap. 2 p.67

55. Configurable Business Process Models
55
X-Ray variant Advanced variant
Configurable
Process Model
Register for
checking
Check
documents
Advanced check
of goods
X-Ray scan
X-Ray Advanced
Integrated representation of multiple process variants for achieving the same goal in
a given domain, which can be configured for a specific setting, leading to an
individualized process model.
commonality
=
variability
+ variation point
common practice for
X-Ray checking of goods
Register for
checking
Check
documents
X-Ray Scan
common practice for
advanced checking of goods
Register for
checking
Check
documents
Advanced check
of goods
[Adapted from M. La Rosa 2009]

56. 56
X-Ray variant Advanced variant
Configurable
Process Model
Register for
checking
Check
documents
Advanced check
of goods
X-Ray scan
X-Ray Advanced
Integrated representation of multiple process variants for achieving the same goal in
a given domain, which can be configured for a specific setting, leading to an
individualized process model.
=+ variation point
common practice for
X-Ray checking of goods
Register for
checking
Check
documents
X-Ray Scan
common practice for
advanced checking of goods
Register for
checking
Check
documents
Advanced check
of goods
[Adapted from M. La Rosa 2009]
Behaviour Subsumption:
Output model should
subsume the behaviour of all
input models1Traceability: Elements of
the resulting model can be
traced back to their original
model1
Reversability: Resulting
models can generate input
models (as well as new
ones)1
Configurable Business Process Models
1 La Rosa M. et al., Business Process Model Merging: An Approach to Business Process Consolidation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2013
Chap. 6 p.152

57. 57
Step 1/4: Identification of common elements
• Events have the same label
• Distributional Semantics
can be used in case labels
are not identical
• Functions have the same
action category
• I assume that models are
annotated with concepts
from the same domain
ontologies
• Otherwise ontology
matching is required
Solution: Creating configurable models from business capability-
annotated business process models
Chap. 6 p.163

58. 58
Step 2/4: creating configurable capabilities
:CHKRequestByManager_Cap_A
a cmm:Capability ;
cmm:achieves
bt:CHKTravelRequestByManager;
bt:decision bt:accept , bt:reject.
+ =CHK Request by
Manager
CHK Request by
Manager
CHK Request by
Manager
:CHKRequestByManager_Cap_M
a cmm:Capability ;
cmm:achieves
bt:CHKTravelRequestByManager;
bt:decision bt:accept , bt:reject,
bt:adjust.
:CHKRequestByManager_Cap_AM
a cap:ConfigurableCapability ;
cmm:achieves
bt:CHKTravelRequestByManager;
bt:decision [a
cmm:ConfigurableValue ;
cmm:hasOption :option1 , :option2.
:option1 cmm:hasValue
bt:accept , bt:reject.
:option2 cmm:hasValue bt:accept,
bt:reject, bt:adjust.].
Solution: Creating configurable models from business capability-
annotated business process models
Chap. 6 p.166

59. 59
Step 3/4: Resolving syntactic issues
EPC Rule: Event nodes have a single incoming/outgoing node
EPC Rule: Event nodes have a single incoming/outgoing node
Solution: Creating configurable models from business capability-
annotated business process models
Chap. 6 p.169

60. 60
Step 4/4: Reducing Connector chains
Solution: Creating configurable models from business capability-
annotated business process models
Chap. 6 p.171

61. • Objective: Measure the time required for merging process variants and the
compression rate gained after applying the algorithm
• Methodology [La Rosa 2013]:
1. Measure the total number of nodes of input models
2. Merge models and measure the required time (without interruption)
3. Measure the number of nodes of the resulting merged model before & after the
reduction
• Dataset [Gottschalk CAiSE09]: 4 real world business processes from Dutch municipalities:
1. Acknowledging an unborn child
2. Registering a newborn
3. Marriage
4. Issuing a death certificate
• Each process has 5 variants è 5 x 4 = 20 models
– Available in Protos [Protos] modelling notation è translated manually into EPC
61
[La Rosa 2013] La Rosa M. et al., Business Process Model Merging: An Approach to Business Process Consolidation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Meth. 2013
[Gottschalk CAiSE09] Gottschalk F. et al., Configurable Process Models: Experiences from a Municipality Case Study.CAiSE 2009
[Protos] Protos is part of Pallas Athena's BPM toolset BPM|one
Evaluation: Execution time and compression rate
Chap. 6 p.177

62. 62
n Compression rate è Around 50%
n Execution Time è Milliseconds in contrast to 130 man hour for merging
25% of an enterprise process models [La Rosa 2010].
n Complexity è O(|S|*|N|2) where |S| is the number of the input models and |N|
is the total number of nodes of the largest model.
Input size
Output size
before
reduction
Output size
after
reduction
Execution
time (ms)
P1 190 (29+56+52+29+24) 131 (31%) 71 (62%) 157
P2 347 (63+84+73+57+70) 276 (20%) 180 (48%) 235
P3 507 (76+127+127+114+63) 298 (41%) 214 (57%) 407
P4 355 (56+111+91+67+30) 266 (25%) 160 (54%) 282
[La Rosa 2010] La Rosa M. et al.: Merging Business Process Models. OTM 2010
This work has been published in:
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: An Automation Support for Creating Configurable Process Models. WISE 2011
Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Merging Business Process Variants. BIS 2011
Wassim Derguech, Feng Gao, Sami Bhiri: Configurable Process Models for Logistics Case Study for Customs Clearance Processes.
BPM’11 Workshops
Evaluation: Execution time and compression rate
Chap. 6 p.177
Chap. 6 p.174

63. Evaluation: Tool Support
63
1
2
Extended version of EPCTools: a business process modeling tool using Event-driven Process Chains (EPC)
Chap. 6 p.176

64. 64
Objective:
• Assess the usefulness of the
approach by end-users?
Participants:
• 5 experts: 2 system architects, 1
project manager, 1 IT Engineer,
and 1 Consultant and trainer
Approach (1 hour per
participant)
• Introduction
• Manual merge
• Demo of the tool support
• Open discussion
Evaluation: Interviews with domain experts
Results:
Positive feedback
+ All experts are aware of the use of
reference models, but configuring them from
an IT perspective
+ Small models can be merged easily but
large ones need support à the tool support
was very appreciated
Neutral feedback
+- Full automation is not always needed
Negative feedback
- Single capability ontology was pointed as a
weak point
Chap. 6 p.180

65. Objectives and Requirements
65
Business
Capability
Meta-Model
C2 C3
C4
Business Capability
Meta-Model
Business Capability
Indexing & Discovery
Business Capability
Aggregation
Business Capability
in Configurable Process Models
- Algorithm for creating configurable
process models with capabilities as
configuration options
- Compression rate around 50%
- Execution time in few ms
- Evaluated via interviews with
domain experts
C1

66. • Context and Motivation
• Research Problem and Proposed Solution
C1 - Business Capability Meta Model
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C2 - Business Capability Indexing and Discovery
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C3 - Business Capability Aggregation
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
C4 - Business Capability in Configurable process models
• Limits of current approaches, solution and evaluation
• Summary, Limitations, and Future Work
Outline

67. Summary of Research Contributions
C3 - Business capability aggregation algorithm for determining the business
capability of a process model
• Steps of the algorithm are verified for basic workflow patterns using PetriNets
• Usefulness of the approach is evaluated via interviews with domain experts
67
C2 C3
C4
C1
C1 - Business capability meta model
• Model constructs are validated via an ontological
evaluation
• Intuitive appeal of the model is evaluated via interviews
with domain experts
C2 - Validation of the applicability of formal concept analysis for
time-efficient indexing and discovery of business capabilitities
• Quantitative evaluation shows the indexing and discovery performs
in less than 200 ms over a set of 5000 sensor capabilitites
C4 - Algorithm for designing configurable process models capturing configuration
options as business capability parameters
• Creates models via merge operation in few ms and reach a compression rate of 50%
• Usefulness of the approach is evaluated via interviews with domain experts
Results of this work have been published in 7 conferences, 2 Workshops, 1 Journal, and 1 Book Chapters

68. Limitations
C3. Business Capability Aggregation
• Without business capability annotations, the algorithm limits the
results to activity labels
• The aggregations can be computed only for well structured models
68
C2 C3
C4
C1
C1. Business Capability Modelling:
• Business Capabilities describe only coarse-grained
semantics, not applicable in services composition
C2. Business Capability Indexing and Discovery
• Limited FCA scaling operations, not using all types of
properties
C4. Business Capability in Configurable Process Models
• All input process models have to be annotated with the same
capability ontology

69. Future Research Directions
C3. On Business Capability Aggregation
• Extend the approach to evaluate other aspects such as the cost of
processes
69
C2 C3
C4
C1
C1. Business Capability Modelling:
• Inferring other types of relations between
capabilities
• Automatic generation of capabilities of services and
processes from existing descriptions
• Documentation generation
C2. Capability Indexing and Discovery
• Maintainability of the indexing structure
C4. Business Capability in Configurable Process Models
• Cover the entire cycle of Business Capability-driven configuration
• Process mining for recommending configuration options

70. This work has been published in
C2. On Capability Indexing and Discovery
1. Wassim Derguech, Souleiman Hasan, Sami Bhiri, Edward Curry: Organizing
Capabilities Using Formal Concept Analysis. WETICE 2013
2. Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri, Souleiman Hasan, Edward Curry: Using Formal
Concept Analysis for Organizing and Discovering Sensor Capabilities. Computer
Journal, 2015 (nominated for best paper award 2016)
70
C2 C3
C4
C1
C1. On Business Capability Modelling:
1. Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Modelling, interlinking and
discovering capabilities. AICCSA 2013 (best paper)
2. Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Capability Modelling - Case of
Logistics Capabilities. Business Process Management Workshops
2012
3. Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Web Service
Capability Meta Model. WEBIST 2012
4. Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech, Maciej Zaremba: Modelling
Capabilities as Attribute-Featured Entities. WEBIST (Selected
Papers) 2012

71. This work has been published in
71
C2 C3
C4
C1
C4. On Configurable Process Models Design
1. Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri, Edward Curry: Techniques for Reuse in
Business Process Modeling in Public Administration. Government 3.0 - Next
Generation Government Technology Infrastructure and Services (to appear)
2. Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: An Automation Support for Creating
Configurable Process Models. WISE 2011
3. Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Merging Business Process Variants. BIS 2011
4. Wassim Derguech, Feng Gao, Sami Bhiri: Configurable Process Models for
Logistics: Study for Customs Clearance Processes. BPM’11 Workshops
C3. On Business Capability Aggregation
1. Wassim Derguech, Sami Bhiri: Business Process Model
Overview: Determining the Capability of a Process Model
Using Ontologies. BIS 2013

72. Other related publications
72
C2 C3
C4
C11. Wassim Derguech: Towards a framework for
business process models reuse. CAiSE Doctoral
Consortium 2010
2. Wassim Derguech, Gabriela Vulcu, and Sami
Bhiri. An indexing structure for maintaining
configurable process models. EMMSAD, 2010
3. Gabriela Vulcu, Sami Bhiri, Wassim Derguech,
and Maria Ibanez. Semantically-enabled business
process models discovery. IJBPIM 2011
4. Wassim Derguech and Sami Bhiri. Reuse-oriented
business process modeleing based on a
hierachical structure. BPM’10 Workshops