Advertisement

Structural Considerations in Defining Executable Process Models

  • Borislava I. Simidchieva
  • Leon J. Osterweil
  • Alexander Wise
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5543)

Abstract

This paper examines the question of how to structure the representation of a process in order to assure that the representation is effective in supporting such diverse activities as process understanding, communication among process participants, and process execution. The paper uses the example of a negotiation process to demonstrate that one process structure (which we refer to as the narrative form) seems to be quite effective in supporting understanding and communication, but then indicates that this structure seems problematic in supporting process execution. The paper indicates that a different structure (which we refer to as the role-oriented form) seems much more appropriate and effective in supporting execution, but may be lacking at supporting communication. In addition to serving different purposes, the two structures seem to represent different underlying models–a static process model, and a similar, but more complex, execution model. The properties of these two complementary structures are then analyzed and evaluated. The paper then uses these observations to raise questions about the underlying needs for effective process representation, suggesting in particular that a single process representation may not be a suitable basis for supporting the range of needs that process representations are expected to address.

Keywords

Process Representation Process Participant Process Family Object Management Group Narrative Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zhu, L., Osterweil, L.J., Staples, M., Kannengiesser, U., Simidchieva, B.I.: Desiderata for languages to be used in the definition of reference business processes. International Journal of Software and Informatics 1(1), 37–65 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Unifying microprocess and macroprocess research. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 68–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, L.A., Avrunin, G.S., Osterweil, L.J.: Using software engineering technology to improve the quality of medical processes. In: ACM SIGSOFT/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2008), pp. 889–898 (May 2008); Invited keynote address by Lori A. ClarkeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, B., Clarke, L.A., Avrunin, G.S., Osterweil, L.J., Henneman, E.A., Henneman, P.L.: Analyzing medical processes. In: ACM SIGSOFT/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2008), pp. 623–632 (May 2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Osteweil, L.J., Katsh, E., Sondheimer, N.K., Rainey, D.: Early lessons from the application of process technology to online grievance mediation. In: 2006 National Conference on DIgital Government Research (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Osterweil, L.J., Clarke, L.A., Gaitenby, A., Gyllstom, D., Katsh, E., Marzilli, M., Sondheimer, N.K., WIng, L., Wise, A., Rainey, D.: A process-driven tool to support online dispute resolution. In: International Conference on Digital Government Research, pp. 356–357. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wise, A.: Little-JIL 1.5 Language Report. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Osterweil, L.J., Clarke, L.A., Podorozhny, R., Wise, A., Boose, E., Ellison, A.M., Hadley, J.: Experience in using a process language to define scientific workflow and generate dataset provenance. In: ACM SIGSOFT 16th International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE16), pp. 319–329 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simidchieva, B.I., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J.: Representing process variation with a process family. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4470, pp. 109–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Software processes are software too. In: 9th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1987), pp. 2–13 (March 1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Software processes are software too, revisited. In: 19th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1997), pp. 540–548 (September 1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Superstructure. Technical Report formal/2007-11-02, Object Management Group, Version 2.1.2 (November 2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    US Air Force: ICAM architecture. part II, functional modeling manual (IDEF0). Technical Report AFWAL-TR-81-4023, Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (1981)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ludäscher, B., Altintas, I., Berkley, C., Higgins, D., Jaeger-Frank, E., Jones, M., Lee, E., Tao, J., Zhao, Y.: Scientific workflow management and the kepler system. Concurrency and Computation: Practice & Experience 18(10), 1039–1065 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: Expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 187–196 (May 1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Borislava I. Simidchieva
    • 1
  • Leon J. Osterweil
    • 1
  • Alexander Wise
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Advanced Software Engineering Research (LASER) Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstAmherst MAUSA

Personalised recommendations