Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Software and Systems Modeling
Published in: Software and Systems Modeling 4/2016

24-01-2015 | Regular Paper

Supporting different process views through a Shared Process Model

Authors: Jochen Küster, Hagen Völzer, Cédric Favre, Moisés Castelo Branco, Krzysztof Czarnecki

Published in: Software and Systems Modeling | Issue 4/2016

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Different stakeholders in the business process management (BPM) life cycle benefit from having different views onto a particular process model. Each view can show, and offer to change, the details relevant to the particular stakeholder, leaving out the irrelevant ones. However, introducing different views on a process model entails the problem to synchronize changes in case that one view evolves. This problem is especially relevant and challenging for views at different abstraction levels. In this paper, we propose a Shared Process Model that provides different stakeholder views at different abstraction levels and synchronizes changes made to any view. We present detailed requirements and a solution design for the Shared Process Model. We also present an overview of our prototypical implementation to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach. Finally, we report on a comprehensive evaluation of the approach on real Business–IT modeling scenarios.
previous article Feature Nets: behavioural modelling of software product lines

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Throughout the text, we indistinctly use ‘model’ or ‘view’ when referring to a particular perspective—Business or IT.
 
Literature
1.
Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the translation between bpmn and bpel: conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages. In: Proceedings of 11th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, 2006
2.
Branco, M.C., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K., Küster, J., Völzer, H.: A case study on consistency management of business and IT process models in banking. Software and Systems Modeling, March 2013
3.
Weidlich, M., Barros, A.P., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Vertical alignment of process models—how can we get there? In: Proceedings of Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, 10th International Workshop, BPMDS 2009, ser. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 29, pp. 71–84. Springer, Berlin (2009)
4.
5.
De Castro, V., Marcos, E., Wieringa, R.: Towards a service-oriented MDA-based approach to the alignment of business processes with it systems: from the business model to a web service composition model. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 18(2), 225–260 (2009). [Online]. http://​doc.​utwente.​nl/​68172/​
6.
7.
Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Benz, S., Jürgens, E.: Cope - automating coupled evolution of metamodels and models. In: Drossopoulou, S. (ed.) ECOOP, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5653, pp. 52–76. Springer, Berlin (2009)
8.
Giese, H., Wagner, R.: From model transformation to incremental bidirectional model synchronization. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(1), 21–43 (2009)
9.
10.
Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K.: Specifying overlaps of heterogeneous models for global consistency checking. In: Proceedings of the first international workshop on model-driven interoperability, ser. MDI ’10, pp. 42–51. ACM, New York (2010). [Online]. doi:10.​1145/​1866272.​1866279
11.
Kolb, J., Kammerer, K., Reichert, M.: Updatable process views for user-centered adaption of large process models. In: Liu, C., Ludwig, H., Toumani, F., Yu, Q. (eds.) ICSOC, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7636, pp. 484–498. Springer, Berlin (2012)
12.
Küster, J.M., Völzer, H., Favre, C., Branco, M.C., Czarnecki, K.: Supporting different process views through a shared process model. In: 9th European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications, ECMFA, 2013, pp. 20–36
13.
Tran, H., Zdun, U., Dustdar, S.: View-based integration of process-driven SOA models at various abstraction levels. In: Kutsche, R.-D., Milanovic, N. (eds.) 1st International Workshop on Model-Based Software and Data Integration. Springer, Berlin (2008)
14.
Winkler, S., von Pilgrim, J.: A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Softw. Syst. Model. 9(4), 529–565 (2010)CrossRef
15.
Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRef
16.
Branco, M., Troya, J., Czarnecki, K., Küster, J.M., Völzer, H.: Matching business process workflows across abstraction levels. In: France, R. B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MoDELS, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7590, pp. 626–641. Springer, Berlin (2012)
17.
Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient consistency measurement based on behavioural profiles of process models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 99, no. PrePrints (2010)
18.
Bergstra, J.A.: The Linear time — branching time spectrum I. The semantics of concrete, sequential processes. In: Ponse, A., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) Handbook of Process Algebra, Chap. 1. Elsevier Science Inc., New York (2001)
19.
Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through SESE decomposition. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007, ser. LNCS, pp. 43–55. Springer, Berlin (2007)
20.
Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Förster, A., Engels, G.: Detecting and resolving process model differences in the absence of a change log. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M. (eds.) BPM’08, ser. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 244–260. Springer, Berlin (2008)
21.
22.
OMG, Business process model and notation (BPMN) version 2.0, omg document number dtc/2010-05-03, Tech. Rep., 2010
23.
Branco, M.C., Wider, A.: Generating preliminary edit lenses from automatic pattern discovery in business process modeling. In: CAiSE Forum, 2013, pp. 65–72
24.
Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K., Ehrig, H., Hermann, F., Orejas, F.: From state- to delta-based bidirectional model transformations: the symmetric case. In: MoDELS, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6981, pp. 304–318. Springer, Berlin (2011)
25.
Hofmann, M., Pierce, B., Wagner, D.: Symmetric lenses. In: POPL. ACM, pp. 371–384 (2011)
26.
Cicchetti, A., Ruscio, D.D., Pierantonio, A.: Managing dependent changes in coupled evolution. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5563, pp. 35–51. Springer, Berlin (2009)
27.
Cicchetti, A., Ciccozzi, F., Leveque, T.: A solution for concurrent versioning of metamodels and models. J. Object Technol. 11(3), 1–32 (2012)
28.
Finkelstein, A., Gabbay, D., Hunter, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B.: Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. In: ESEC, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 717, pp. 84–99. Springer, Berlin (1993)
29.
Egyed, A.: Instant consistency checking for the UML. In: ICSE 2006, pp. 381–390. ACM, New York (2006)
30.
Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: The ICoP framework: identification of correspondences between process models. In: CAiSE, ser. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 483–498. Springer, Berlin (2010)
31.
Buchwald, S., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Bridging the gap between business process models and service composition specifications. Methods, Trends and Advances, Int’l Handbook on Service Life Cycle Tools and Technologies (2011)
32.
Werth, D., Leyking, K., Dreifus, F., Ziemann, J., Martin, A.: Managing SOA through business services—a business-oriented approach to service-oriented architectures. In: ICSOC Workshops, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4652, pp. 3–13. Springer, Berlin (2006)
33.
Thomas, O., Leyking, K., Dreifus, F.: Using process models for the design of service-oriented architectures: methodology and e-commerce case study. In: HICSS. IEEE Computer Society, 2008, p. 109
34.
Schumm, D., Leymann, F., Streule, A.: Process viewing patterns. In: EDOC. IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 89–98
35.
Branco, M., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K., Küster, J., Völzer, H.: An empirical study on consistency management of business and IT process models”, Generative Software Development Laboratory, University of Waterloo, Technical Report GSDLAB-TR 2012–03-22, 2012, accepted for publication in Software and Systems Modeling, draft available at http://​gsd.​uwaterloo.​ca/​reportstudybpm
Metadata
Title
Supporting different process views through a Shared Process Model
Authors
Jochen Küster
Hagen Völzer
Cédric Favre
Moisés Castelo Branco
Krzysztof Czarnecki
Publication date
24-01-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Software and Systems Modeling / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Electronic ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-015-0453-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Software and Systems Modeling 4/2016 Go to the issue

Theme Section Paper

A framework for deadlock detection in core ABS

Theme Section Paper

Knowledge-based construction of distributed constrained systems

Theme Section Paper

Integrating deductive verification and symbolic execution for abstract object creation in dynamic logic

Theme Section Paper

Automated anonymity verification of the ThreeBallot and VAV voting systems

Guest Editorial

Theme issue on Integrated Formal Methods

Theme Section Paper

A formal verification framework for static analysis

Premium Partner

    Image Credits