Advertisement

Executing Enterprise Dynamic Systems Control with the Demo Processor: The Business Transactions Transition Space Validation

  • Sérgio Guerreiro
  • Steven J. H. van Kervel
  • André Vasconcelos
  • José Tribolet
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 129)

Abstract

Business transactions models are useful to share a common understanding between the stakeholders in a process-based organization; however alone they do not guarantee that the actors perform their actions correspondingly. This paper proposes and exemplifies a solution to the Enterprise Information Systems (EIS) generation and operation using a Model Driven Engineering (MDE) approach founded and derived from Enterprise Ontology (EO) theory. The obtained EIS are (i) descriptive information systems that monitor and deliver a truthful representation of the enterprise on a software engine: the DEMO processor and (ii) prescriptive information system supported by an ontology specifically researched for controlling the operation of business transactions: the enterprise dynamic systems control (EDSC). The achieved benefits are (i) partially automatic validation of EDSC ontology; (ii) self-contained environment to test and validate the DEMO processor and (iii) full workflow capabilities calculated from DEMO models, with formal rigor, minimizing anomalies and minimizing the programming effort.

Keywords

Business transactions Control DEMO Enterprise ontology Runtime Simulation Validation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 9th edn. Addison-Wesley (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albani, A., Dietz, J., Hoogervorst, J., Mulder, H., Tribolet, J.: Enterprise engineering: the concise manifesto. In: CIAO Network Meeting Minute, version 7 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dietz, J.L.G., Hoogervorst, J.A.P.: The Principles of Enterprise Engineering. In: Albani, A., Aveiro, D., Barjis, J. (eds.) EEWC 2012. LNBIP, vol. 110, pp. 15–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barjis, J.: Automatic business process analysis and simulation based on demo. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 1, 365–381 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barjis, J.: The importance of business process modeling in software systems design. Sci. Comput. Program. 71, 73–87 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu, Y.: Enterprise knowlegde based collaborative business process simulating and reasoning. In: 11th CIAO Doctoral Consortium, Antwerpen (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elgerd, O.: Control systems theory. McGraw Hill Text (1967) ISBN 13: 9780070191747Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van der Aalst, W., van Hee, K.: Workflow management, models, methods, and systems. MIT Press (2004) ISBN 978-0-262-72046-5Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Nuffel, D., Mulder, H., Van Kervel, S.: Enhancing the Formal Foundations of BPMN by Enterprise Ontology. In: Albani, A., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) CIAO!/EOMAS 2009. LNBIP, vol. 34, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guerreiro, S., Vasconcelos, A., Tribolet, J.: Enforcing control in the run-time business transactions. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems (CONFENIS 2011), Center for Industrial Production, Aalborg University, Fibigerstraede 16, DK-9220 Aalborg, Denmark (2011a) ISBN: 978-87-91831-42-3Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guerreiro, S., Vasconcelos, A., Tribolet, J.: Dynamic business transactions control, an ontological example: organizational access control with DEMO. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development (KEOD 2011), Paris, France, pp. 549–554 (2011b); Special Session on Enterprise Ontology (SSEO 2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guerreiro, S., Vasconcelos, A., Tribolet, J.: Enterprise Dynamic Systems Control Enforcement of Run-Time Business Transactions. In: Albani, A., Aveiro, D., Barjis, J. (eds.) EEWC 2012. LNBIP, vol. 110, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology – Theory and Methodology. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Architecture: building strategy into design. Nederlands Architectuur Forum. Academic Service (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Kervel, S.: Enterprise ontology driven information system engineering. Presentation given at CIAO! (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Kervel, S.J.H.: High Quality Technical Documentation for Large Industrial Plants Using an Enterprise Engineering and Conceptual Modeling Based Software Solution. In: De Troyer, O., Bauzer Medeiros, C., Billen, R., Hallot, P., Simitsis, A., Van Mingroot, H. (eds.) ER Workshops 2011. LNCS, vol. 6999, pp. 383–388. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG: Model Driven Architecture ® specifications, The OMG (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Kervel, S., Dietz, J., Hintzen, J., van Meeuwen, T., Zijlstra, B.: Enterprise Ontology Driven Software Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends (ICSOFT 2012) (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gruber, R.: A Translation approach to portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krogstie, J.: Evaluating UML: A practical Application of a Framework for the understanding of Quality in Requirements Specifications and Conceptual Modeling. In: Norwegian Informatics Conference (NIK) (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Op’t Land, M.: Applying Architecture and Ontology to the splitting and Allying of Enterprises, PhD thesis, University of Technology Delft (2008) ISBN: 978-90-71382-32-1 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mulder, F.: Rapid Enterprise Design. PhD Thesis, University of Technology Delft, The Netherlands (2007) ISBN 90-810480-1-5 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ITGI: The IT Governance Institute (2012), http://www.itgi.org/
  24. 24.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. PhD thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands (2005) ISBN 90-75176-81-3 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Franklin, G.F., Powell, J.D., Emami-Naeini, A.: Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ribeiro, M.: Análise de sistemas lineares, vol. 1 e 2. IST Press (2002) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jaeger, A., Baliga, B.: Control systems and strategic adaptation: Lessons from the japanese experience. Strategic Management Journal 6, 115–134 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nieminen, A., Lehtonen, M.: Organisational control in programme teams: An empirical study in change programme context, pp. 63–72. European Academy of Management (EURAM) (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMG. Semantics of business vocabulary and business rules (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/PDF (accessed in June 2011)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sérgio Guerreiro
    • 1
  • Steven J. H. van Kervel
    • 2
  • André Vasconcelos
    • 3
    • 4
  • José Tribolet
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Escola de Comunicação, Artes, Arquitectura e Tecnologias da InformaçãoUniversidade Lusófona de Humanidades e TecnologiasLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Formetis BVNetherlands
  3. 3.CODE, Center for Organizational Design & Engineering, INOVLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Department of Information Systems and Computer Science, Instituto Superior TécnicoTechnical University of LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations