Business Process and Business Rule Modeling A Representational Analysis

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Business Process and Business Rule Modeling A Representational Analysis"

Rudolf Evans
7 years ago
Views:

1 Business Process and Business Rule Modeling A Representational Analysis Michael zur Muehlen Howe School of Technology Management Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken NJ Michael.zurMuehlen@stevens.edu Marta Indulska UQ Business School The University of Queensland Brisbane, QLD, Australia m.indulska@uq.edu.au Gerrit Kamp Howe School of Technology Management Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken NJ Gerrit.Kamp@stevens.edu 1

2 Motivation Business Process Management (BPM) provides organizations with a horizontal perspective on its operations BPM assumes vertical decomposition from high-level value chain constructs to low-level operational process definitions Respects precedence relationships, but handling of other types of rules is less clear No clear understanding how to deal with changes that affect policies, rather than the control flow structure of the process Significant number of languages and tools available 2

3 Managing Change 3

4 Managing Change Claims processing at major US Insurance company 12 Business Process Steps >5,000 Business Rules Rules change significantly faster than process structure 3

5 How many rules exactly? >90 product types and their associated product rules >700 data edit rules >70 claim pending rules >200 types of correspondence letters >250 claim processing and payment approval authority rules >70 claim quality review sampling rules >1,000 special client claim handling rules >2,000 federal/state regulatory rules >850 accounting rules >600 published claim processing guidelines 4

6 Business Process vs. Rule Modeling! Declarative vs procedural modeling Alphabet soup of process and rule modeling languages (BPMN, BPEL, EPC, XPDL, PRR, SBVR, RuleML, SWRL...) Increased need for modeling Selection dilemma for organizations Which is more expressive? Which is easier to comprehend? Which is better suited to our needs? 5

7 Business Process + Rule Modeling? Evaluation of process modeling languages shows business rule modeling deficiencies Earlier work speculates that the two approaches should be integrated Few initial approaches introduced in early 90s, failure to consider representation capability In practice, empirical research shows need for integration guidelines - e.g. in earlier study we found that deficiencies in BPMN rule modeling drive users to adopt additional methods (Recker et al. 2006) 6

8 Before We Consider Integration Need to understand representation commonalities and differences between the two types of languages Use BWW representation theory as evaluation benchmark Simple Rule Markup Language (SRML) and Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR) chosen as examples of rule modeling languages Compare to evaluations of popular process modeling languages 7

9 2 Questions What are the representational capabilities of SRML and SBVR? Are SRML and SBVR complementary or substitutive to Business Process Modeling approaches? 8

10 Thing ='total statefunction' has System Structure has Sim ple Thing subsetof is causes contains initiated by includedin isnot has System The BWW has Environm ent is subsetof interacts with Unstable State External ocurs on Event d,t Model is subsetof d,t doesnot ocuron initiated by rem ains produces x1+x2=1;x1,2iselem entof{0,1} x2,n Stable State x 0,1 generates System has has Com position 2,n Defines constructs, for which modeling contains is subsetof grammars need to provide representations, 0,1 System that are necessary and sufficient 0,1 Level decom posed partial order into definedin to provide a Structure form ed by conceptual model of IS domains, e.g., of 0,1 Subsystem EVENT / TRANSFORMATION business processes. Event Internal Event x6,n ocurs on is includedin x3+x4=1;x3,4iselem entof{0,1} 2,n x4,n x3,n isdefined as 2,n Internal Coupling External Coupling ocurs on 2,2 can ocur x5,n x5+x6=1;x5,6iselem entof{0,1} d,t Coupling STATE asum es asum es on contained form s contained in in KEY: Four Model objects: clusters of constructs: Lawful Event Space is subset of 0,1 Conceivable Event Space consists of consists of 'asum es' relationship com posed of Things, Properties and Types of Things = BWW core constructs States assumed by Things = other BWW constructs Events and Transformations = non-bww-constructentity types d,t Systems = non-bww-constructrelationship structured types around Things isa = introduced conceptsor termsnotexplicitly stated in Weber (1997) or Green & Rosemann (2000), which have been added in order to fuly Wel-defined Event Porly-defined Event Transform ation is precedes suceds is is not requires asum es State 0,1 n,p Known State Predictable State can asum e contained in afects Lawful State Space describe the BWW constructswithin the constraintsofeer modeling Cros Product Generalization/Specialization: d = disjoint(xor) n = non-disjoint(inclusive OR) t= total(alsubtypeswhich existare dipicted) p = partial(further subtypesnotdepicted in the modelexist) Transform ation Law alowed by enables Change Value enables alowed by State Law d,t Natural Law specified by Corective Action 9 Hum an Law instigated by Transform ation Lawful specified in specifies Condition Stability specifies specified in subset is

11 Comparative Study of Ontological Completeness 10

12 Rule Modeling Representation BWW analysis of SBVR and SRML: Less expressive than process modeling counterparts Do not provide an equivalent means to modeling processes Significantly deficient in BWW event and system clusters E.g. lack of representation for system decomposition, system structure, etc. Narrower focus than graphical process modeling languages might explain some of the differences in representation capability 11

13 12

14 12

15 Process + Rule Modeling! Compare BWW analysis to previous BWW analyses of Petri Nets (original version), EPC, IDEF3 and BPMN Possible deficiencies exist even when used in combination, e.g. Lack of representation for history Lack of representation for conceivable- and lawful-event space Combination of BPMN and SRML provides highest power of representation, w.r.t. BWW model 13

16 TABLE 1. OVERLAP ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED LANGUAGES SRML SBVR Petri Nets EPCs IDEF 3 BPMN LEGEND FOR EACH QUADRANT 1. Unique 3. Process Add 2. Overlap 4. Rule Add Overlap Analysis 14

17 TABLE 1. OVERLAP ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED LANGUAGES SRML SBVR Petri Nets EPCs IDEF 3 BPMN LEGEND FOR EACH QUADRANT 1. Unique 3. Process Add 2. Overlap 4. Rule Add Overlap Analysis 14

18 Conclusions Both SRML and SBVR suffer from representational deficiencies Deficiencies are not completely eliminated when combined with process modeling languages BPMN and SRML the best combination based on BWW model In general, rule modeling languages add representational power to process modeling languages Hence, results encourage integration of process and rule modeling languages How do we do this? 15

19 Next Steps Analyze further rule modeling languages to complement SBVR Cost/benefit calculation for added representation capability Identify language plug-points Control Flow Task Assignment Cross-Process Policies Exception Handling Guidelines for integration of business process and rule modeling languages Feedback to modeling language developers 16

20 Thank You Questions? Michael zur Muehlen, Ph.D. Center of Excellence in Business Process Innovation Howe School of Technology Management Stevens Institute of Technology Castle Point on the Hudson Hoboken, NJ Phone: +1 (201) Fax: +1 (201) Web: 17

Linking BPMN, ArchiMate, and BWW: Perfect Match for Complete and Lawful Business Process Models?

Linking BPMN, ArchiMate, and BWW: Perfect Match for Complete and Lawful Business Process Models? Ludmila Penicina Institute of Applied Computer Systems, Riga Technical University, 1 Kalku, Riga, LV-1658,