Abstract
Business processes are widely used to capture how a service is realized or a product is delivered by a set of combined tasks. It is a recommended practice to implement a business goal through a single business process; in many cases, however, this is impossible or it is not efficient. The choice is, then, to split the process into a number of interacting processes. In order to realize this kind of solution, the business goal is broken up and distributed through many “actors”, who will depend on one another in carrying out their tasks. We explain, in this work, some weaknesses that emerge in this picture, and also how they would be overcome by introducing an explicit representation of responsibilities and accountabilities. We rely, as a running example, on the Hiring Process as described by Silver in [13].
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Precedence logic is an event-based linear temporal logic introduced in [16] and in [17, Chap. 14] for Web service composition. The interpretation of such a logic deals with occurrences of events along runs (i.e., sequence of instanced events). Under this respect, event occurrences are assumed as nonrepeating and persistent: once an event has occurred, it has occurred forever. The precedence logic has three primary operators: ‘\(\vee \)’ (choice), ‘\(\wedge \)’ (concurrence), and ‘\(\cdot \)’ (before). The before operator allows one to constrain the order with which two events must occur, e.g., \(a \cdot b\) means that a must occur before b, but the two events do not need to occur immediately after one another.
References
Anderson, P.A.: Justifications and precedents as constraints in foreign policy decision-making. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 25(4), 738–761 (1981)
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Micalizio, R.: Commitment-based agent interaction in JaCaMo+. Fundam. Inform. 159(1–2), 1–33 (2018)
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: An information model for computing accountabilities. In: Ghidini, C., et al. (eds.) AI*IA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11298, pp. 30–44. Springer, Cham (2018)
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: Computational accountability in MAS organizations with ADOPT. Appl. Sci. 8(4), 489 (2018)
Bovens, M.: Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West Eur. Polit. 33(5), 946–967 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486119
Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: From social machines to social protocols: software engineering foundations for sociotechnical systems. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on WWW (2016)
Darwall, S.: Civil recourse as mutual accountability. In: Morality, Authority, and Law: Essays in Second-Personal Ethics I. Oxford University Press (2013)
Day, P., Klein, R.: Accountabilities: Five Public Services. Social Science Paperbacks. Tavistock, London (1987)
Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 292–312 (2011)
Dumas, M.: On the convergence of data and process engineering. In: Eder, J., Bielikova, M., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ADBIS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6909, pp. 19–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23737-9_2
Feltus, C.: Aligning access rights to governance needs with the responsibility metamodel (ReMMo) in the frame of enterprise architecture. Ph.D. thesis. University of Namur, Belgium (2014)
Marengo, E., Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A., Patti, V., Singh, M.: Commitments with regulations: reasoning about safety and control in REGULA. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS, vol. 2, pp. 467–474 (2011)
Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style, with BPMN Implementer’s Guide, 2nd edn. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos (2012)
Sinclair, A.: The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses. Account. Org. Soc. 20(2–3), 219–237 (1995)
Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artif. Intell. Law 7(1), 97–113 (1999)
Singh, M.P.: Distributed enactment of multiagent workflows: temporal logic for web service composition. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 14–18 July 2003, pp. 907–914. ACM (2003)
Singh, M.P., Huhns, M.N.: Service-Oriented Computing - Semantics, Processes, Agents. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)
W3C: W3C Glossary and Dictionary (2003). http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/
Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73522-9
Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The GAIA methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 3(3), 285–312 (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Micalizio, R. (2018). Goal Distribution in Business Process Models. In: Ghidini, C., Magnini, B., Passerini, A., Traverso, P. (eds) AI*IA 2018 – Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI*IA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11298. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03840-3_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03840-3_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03839-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03840-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)