Advertisement

New Modeling Concepts in S-BPM: The First Implementation of the “Message Guard” and “Macro” Behavior Extensions

  • Florian Strecker
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 284)

Abstract

Until 2011, S-BPM has been lacking the possibility to model special issues like reacting to events at any time. This paper gives an overview over two new modeling constructs (“message guard” & “macro”) proposed by Fleischmann et al. It further connects these constructs to the well-known workflow patterns and offers the first (technical) implementation of the behavior extensions within an S-BPM modeling- and workflow-tool. At the end, two examples for real-world processes making use of the new extension are given.

Keywords

behavior extension macro message guard workflow patterns implementation modeling convention 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Börger, E.: Approaches to Modeling Business Processes. A Critical Analysis of BPMN, Workflow Patterns and YAWL. To appear in J. Software & Systems Modeling (2011), http://www.di.unipi.it/~boerger/main.html
  2. 2.
    Fleischmann, A.: Distributed Systems: Software design and Implementation. Springer, Berlin (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fleischmann, A.: What Is S-BPM? In: Buchwald, H., Fleischmann, A., Seese, D., Stary, C. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2009. CCIS, vol. 85, pp. 85–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurz, M., Fleischmann, A.: BPM 2.0: Business Process Management Meets Empowerment. In: Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Singer, R., Seese, D. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2010. CCIS, vol. 138, pp. 54–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C., Obermeier, S., Börger, E.: Subjektorientiertes Prozessmanagement: Mitarbeiter einbinden, Motivation und Prozessakzeptanz steigern. Hanser, München (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Metasonic, A.G.: Metasonic Suite 4.4. Pfaffenhofen (2011), http://www.metasonic.de
  7. 7.
    Metasonic, A.G.: Metasonic Suite Developer Documentation 4.4. Pfaffenhofen (2011), http://www.metasonic.de
  8. 8.
    Metasonic, A.G.: Execution Order Within Refinements And Observers (com.jcom1.documentation.refinements. Execution Order Within Refinements And Observers). In: Metasonic AG: Metasonic Suite Developer Documentation 4.4. Pfaffenhofen (2011), http://www.metasonic.de
  9. 9.
    Meyer, N., Feiner, T., Radmayr, M., Blei, D., Fleischmann, A.: Dynamic Catenation and Execution of Cross Organisational Business Processes - The jCPEX! Approach. In: Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Singer, R., Seese, D. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2010. CCIS, vol. 138, pp. 84–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN): Version 2.0 (2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/PDF
  11. 11.
    Rodenhagen, J., Strecker, F.: Using Multi-subjects for Process Synchronization on Different Abstraction Levels. In: Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Singer, R., Seese, D. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2010. CCIS, vol. 138, pp. 134–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mulyar, N.: Workflow Control-Flow Patterns: A Revised View. BPM Center Report BPM-06-22, BPMcenter.org (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(3), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Strecker
    • 1
  1. 1.Metasonic AGHettenshausenGermany

Personalised recommendations