Managing and Simplifying Cognitive Business Operations Using Process Architecture Models
Enterprises increasingly rely on cognitive capabilities to enhance their core business processes by adopting systems that utilize machine learning and deep learning approaches to support cognitive decisions to aid humans responsible for business process execution. Unlike conventional information systems, for which the design and implementation is a much-studied area, the design of cognitive systems and their integration into existing enterprise business processes is less well understood. This results in long drawn-out implementation and adoption cycles, and requires individuals with highly specialized skills. As cognitively-assisted business processes involve human and machine collaboration, non-functional requirements, such as reusability and configurability that are prominent for software system design, must also be addressed at the enterprise level. Supporting processes may emerge and evolve over time to monitor, evaluate, adjust, or modify these cognitively-enhanced business processes. In this paper, we utilize a goal-oriented approach to analyze the requirements for designing cognitive systems for simplified adoption in enterprises, which are then used to guide and inform the design of a process architecture for cognitive business operations.
KeywordsBusiness process management Goal modeling Cognitive computing Cognitive business operations Requirements engineering
This work was partially funded by IBM Canada Ltd. through the Centre for Advanced Studies (CAS) Canada (Project #1030).
- 2.Vernon, D.: Artificial Cognitive Systems: A Primer. MIT Press, Cambridge (2014)Google Scholar
- 3.Lapouchnian, A., Babar, Z., Yu, E., Chan, A., Carbajales, S.: Designing process architectures for user engagement with enterprise cognitive systems. In: Poels, G., Gailly, F., Serral Asensio, E., Snoeck, M. (eds.) PoEM 2017. LNBIP, vol. 305, pp. 141–155. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70241-4_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Lapouchnian, A., Yu, E., Sturm, A.: Re-designing process architectures towards a framework of design dimensions. In: International Conference on RCIS, pp. 205–210. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
- 6.Lapouchnian, A., Yu, E., Sturm, A.: Design dimensions for business process architecture. In: Johannesson, P., Lee, M.L., Liddle, Stephen W., Opdahl, Andreas L., López, Ó.P. (eds.) ER 2015. LNCS, vol. 9381, pp. 276–284. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25264-3_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Lapouchnian, A., Yu, E.: Exploiting emergent technologies to create systems that meet shifting expectations. In Proceedings of 24th Annual International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, pp. 371–374. IBM Corporation (2014)Google Scholar
- 9.Van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings of Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 249–262. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
- 14.Malinova, M., Leopold, H., Mendling, J.: An empirical investigation on the design of process architectures. In: 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp. 1197–1211 (2013)Google Scholar
- 15.Business process Model and Notation, v2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/PDF/
- 17.Bhattacharya, K., Gerede, C., Hull, R., Liu, R., Su, J.: Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 288–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.ArchiMate 3.0 Specification. http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate3-doc/
- 20.TOGAF® Version 9.1. http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/index.html