Advertisement

Collaboration Viewpoint for Modeling Cross-Organizational Business Concerns

  • Ayalew KassahunEmail author
  • Bedir Tekinerdogan
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 743)

Abstract

Organizations very often need to collaborate to achieve their business goals. Hereby it is important that the collaboration concerns are properly identified and reflected in their businesses. In practice, the business process design and architecture design are often carried out separately. This often leads to a misalignment between the business process and architecture design, a problem which becomes more severe when multiple collaborating organizations are involved. To address this problem, it is important to provide the proper design abstractions that can be used to detect and correct misalignments. To this end, we propose the architecture collaboration viewpoint that can be used by teams of business analysts and software architects when addressing business collaboration concerns. The collaboration viewpoint uses elements from business process and architecture viewpoints to provide new modeling artifacts for alignment. The design artefacts are mapping tables and workflow pattern diagrams that are used to identify misalignments and redesign the business processes. The viewpoint facilitates the communication between business analysts and architects. We illustrate the collaboration viewpoint for a food supply chain transparency system from a real industrial case study.

Keywords

Architecture viewpoint Business collaboration Collaboration viewpoint Business process modeling Workflow patterns 

References

  1. Autili, M., Inverardi, P., Tivoli, M.: Automated synthesis of service choreographies. IEEE Softw. 32(1), 50–57 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aversano, L., Grasso, C., Tortorella, M.: Managing the alignment between business processes and software systems. Inf. Soft. Technol. 72, 171–188 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P., Wilson, D.: Using and validating the strategic alignment model. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 13(3), 223–246 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartens, Y., Schulte, F., Voss, S.: E-business IT governance revisited: an attempt towards outlining a novel bi-directional business/IT alignment in COBIT5. In: 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (2014)Google Scholar
  5. Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Merson, P., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  6. Davenport, T.H., Short, J.E.: The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign. IEEE Eng. Manage. Rev. 26(3), 46–60 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: Introduction to business process management. In: Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H. (eds.) Fundamentals of Business Process Management, pp. 1–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EC: Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef productsand repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97. Off. J. Eur. Communities L204, 1–10 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. EC: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Off. J. Eur. Communities L31(1), 1–24 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. EC: Regulation No. 911/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards eartags, passports and holding registers. Off. J. Eur. Union L163, 65–70 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. EC: Factsheet: tracing food through the production and distribution chain to identify and address risks and protect public health, Brussels (2007)Google Scholar
  12. EC: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011 of 19 September 2011 on the traceability requirements set by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council for food of animal origin. Off. J. Eur. Union L242, 1–2 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. EC: Regulation (EU) No 2015/262 of 17 February 2015 laying down rules pursuant to Council Directives 90/427/EEC and 2009/156/EC as regards the methods for the identification of equidae (Equine Passport Regulation). Off. J Eur. Union L59, 51 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. EPCglobal: EPC Information Services (EPCIS) Version 1.1 Specification. GS1 Standard Version 1.1, May 2014, Brussels, Belgium, GS1 AISBL (2014)Google Scholar
  15. GS1: GS1 General Specifications, version 15, no 2, January 2015, GS1: 490 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. Hofmeister, C., Nord, R., Soni, D.: Applied Software Architecture. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boca Raton (2000)Google Scholar
  17. Hong-Mei, C.: Towards service engineering: service orientation and business-IT alignment. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2008)Google Scholar
  18. ISO/IEC:. Information technology - Object Management Group Business Process Model and Notation. ISO/IEC 19510:2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. ISO/IEC/IEEE: Systems and software engineering – architecture description. ISO/IEC/IEEE Standard 42010:2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. Kassahun, A., Tekinerdogan, B.: Architecture viewpoint for modeling business collaboration concerns using workflow patterns. In: The 11th International Joint Conference on Software Technologies, Lisbon, 1: ICSOFT-EA, pp. 27–38 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boca Raton (2004)Google Scholar
  22. Kruchten, P.B.: The 4 + 1 view model of architecture. IEEE Softw. 12(6), 42–50 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lattanze, A.J.: Architecting Software Intensive Systems: A Practitioners Guide. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murphy, G.C., Notkin, D., Sullivan, K.J.: Software reflexion models: bridging the gap between design and implementation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 27(4), 364–380 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rational Software: The Zachman framework for enterprise architecture and rational best practices and products, a Rational Software White paper (2001). http://www.rational.com/
  26. Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M., Mulyar, N.: Workflow control-flow patterns: a revised view. BPM Center Report BPM-06-22 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. Sharp, A., McDermott, P.: Workflow modeling: tools for process improvement and applications development. Artech House, Norwood (2009)Google Scholar
  28. Sözer, H., Tekinerdoğan, B., Akşit, M.: Optimizing decomposition of software architecture for local recovery. Softw. Qual. J. 21(2), 203–240 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tekinerdogan, B.: Software architecture. In: Computing Handbook, Third edn., pp. 1–16. Chapman and Hall/CRC (2014)Google Scholar
  30. Tekinerdogan, B.: Architectural drift analysis using design structure reflexion matrices. In: Sofware Quality Assurance in Large Scale and Complex Software-Intensive Systems, pp. 221–236. Elsevier (2015)Google Scholar
  31. Tekinerdogan, B., Sözer, H.: Defining architectural viewpoints for quality concerns. In: Crnkovic, I., Gruhn, V., Book, M. (eds.) ECSA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6903, pp. 26–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23798-0_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.1 Specification (2013). http://pubs.opengroup.org/ architecture/archimate2-doc/toc.html
  33. van der Aalst, Wil., M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Workflow Patterns (2011). http://www.workflowpatterns.com/. Accessed 23 Dec 2015
  34. van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verdouw, C., Beulens, A., Wolfert, S.: Towards software mass customization for business collaboration. In: 2014 Annual SRII Global Conference (SRII) (2014)Google Scholar
  36. Woods, E., Rozanski, N.: Using architectural perspectives. In: 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on software architecture WICSA 2005 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Technology GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations