Cross-Organizational Business Processes Modeling Using Design-by-Contract Approach

  • Malik Khalfallah
  • Nicolas Figay
  • Parisa Ghodous
  • Catarina Ferreira Da Silva
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 144)

Abstract

Reaching agreements between organizations in a collaborative environment is a way to ensure interoperability between these organizations at all levels. For business processes interoperability this agreement can be reached by well defining the cross-organizational process. However most BPM frameworks have used meta-models centered on flows of activities, with the data manipulated by these activities seen as second-class citizens. For business analysts (for example in complex product design collaborative environments) data plays a major role. In this paper, we propose a methodology backed by a conceptual framework to model the cross-organizational process relying on the product model. This framework defines the evolution of the product model through a finite number of states, and then automatically generates executable artifacts to support the collaboration during run-time phase. This approach is being implemented in the living laboratory provided by EADS in the context of the European project IMAGINE.

Keywords

design-by-contract interoperability product model business process model driven architecture UML 

References

  1. 1.
    Innovative end-to-end Management of Dynamic Manufacturing Networks (IMAGINE Project) (September 2012), http://www.imagine-futurefactory.eu/
  2. 2.
    Kramer, T., Xu, X.: STEP in a Nutshell. In: Xu, X., Nee, A.Y.C. (eds.) Advanced Design and Manufacturing Based on STEP, pp. 1–22. Springer, London (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lewis, G.A., Morris, E.J., Simanta, S., Wrage, L.: Why Standards Are Not Enough to Guarantee End-to-End Interoperability. In: ICCBSS, pp. 164–173 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collaborative and Robust Engineering using Simulation Capability Enabling Next Design Optimization (CRESCENDO Project) (September 2012), http://www.crescendo-fp7.eu/
  5. 5.
    Papazoglou, M.P., van den Heuvel, W.-J.: Service oriented architectures: approaches, technologies and research issues. VLDB J. 16(3), 389–415 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Jablonski, S.: Dealing with workflow change: identification of issues and solutions. International Journal of Computer Systems Science and Engineering 15(5), 267–276 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Telang, P.R., Singh, M.P.: Business Modeling via Commitments. In: Kowalczyk, R., Vo, Q.B., Maamar, Z., Huhns, M. (eds.) SOCASE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5907, pp. 111–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guttman, M., Parodi, J.: Real-Life MDA: Solving Business Problems with Model Driven Architecture. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frankel, D.: Model Driven Architecture: Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bocchi, L., Honda, K., Tuosto, E., Yoshida, N.: A Theory of Design-by-Contract for Distributed Multiparty Interactions. In: Gastin, P., Laroussinie, F. (eds.) CONCUR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6269, pp. 162–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Eijndhoven, T., Iacob, M.-E., Ponisio, M.L.: Achieving Business Process Flexibility with Business Rules. In: EDOC, pp. 95–104 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knolmayer, G., Endl, R., Pfahrer, M.: Modeling Processes and Workflows by Business Rules. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 16–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kharbili, M., Keil, T.: Bringing Agility to Business Process Management: Rules Deployment in an SOA. In: Binder, W., Dustdar, S. (eds.) Emerging Web Services Technology, vol. III, pp. 157–170. Birkhäuser, Basel (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Property specification patterns for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Practice, pp. 7–15. ACM (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Türetken, O., Elgammal, A., van den Heuvel, W.-J., Papazoglou, M.P.: Enforcing compliance on business processes through the use of patterns. In: ECIS (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khalfallah, M., Figay, N., Barhamgi, M., Ghodous, P.: Product-based Business Processes Interoperability. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Wolf, K.: Multiparty Contracts: Agreeing and Implementing Interorganizational Processes. Comput. J. 53(1), 90–106 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zaha, J.M., Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.: Let’s Dance: A Language for Service Behavior Modeling. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 145–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative specification and verification of service choreographiess. TWEB 4(1) (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Honda, K., Mukhamedov, A., Brown, G., Chen, T.-C., Yoshida, N.: Scribbling Interactions with a Formal Foundation. In: Natarajan, R., Ojo, A. (eds.) ICDCIT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6536, pp. 55–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Charfi, A., Mezini, M.: Hybrid web service composition: business processes meet business rules. In: ICSOC, pp. 30–38 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reijers, H.A., Limam, S., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Product- Based Workflow Design. J. of Management Information Systems 20(1), 229–262 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M.: Business Process Management: A Survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khalfallah, M., Barhamgi, M., Figay, N., Ghodous, P.: A Novel Approach to Ensure Interoperability Based on a Cloud Infrastructure. In: ISPE CE, pp. 1143–1154 (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Figay, N., Ghodous, P., Khalfallah, M., Barhamgi, M.: Interoperability framework for dynamic manufacturing networks. Computers in Industry 63(8), 749–755 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Munusamy, K., Selamat, H.B., Ibrahim, S., Baba, M.S.: A comparative study of process mediator components that support behavioral incompatibility. CoRR abs/1110.2258, volume abs/1110.2258 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malik Khalfallah
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nicolas Figay
    • 1
    • 2
  • Parisa Ghodous
    • 1
    • 2
  • Catarina Ferreira Da Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS)ParisFrance
  2. 2.Lyon 1 UniversityLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations