Energías de interacción

3.4.5 Related Work

BPM Systems usually follow BPM methodologies, such as the widely used ARIS [Sch00a, Sch00b], IBM [WAM⁺07, IBM06], or methodologies related to modeling tools such as Savvion [Sav05] or Ultimus [Ult06]. The BPM lifecycle of these method-ologies is mainly composed of the following activities: i) modeling: from business requirements to process model [Sch00a], ii) configuration: executable business pro-cess model preparation [IBM06], iii) execution: deployment of the propro-cess in an execution engine, and iv) analysis: analyzing the process execution. Our method-ological proposal, and therefore the related work analysis focuses on the modeling activity, where a big gap in the translation between business requirements to process models still exists [HLD⁺05].

BP modeling is covered by most of the methodologies, e.g. ARIS, IBM, Savvion, Ultimus. The modeling lifecycle is mainly formed by: requirement analysis from business analysts, process modeling by using a formal language, simulation and re-design [IBM06]. In addition, ARIS defines the five views of the knowledge (mainly focused on IT level) used during BP modeling activities [Sch00a]: data (information objects and their relationships), organization (organizational structures and their relations), function (activities), product (input and output produced by activities) and control (process flow). The knowledge related to BP modeling is broader than current methodologies and languages can represent [MCZ04]. Extending the rep-resentable knowledge of current methodologies and languages as presented in Sec-tions 3.2 and 3.3 provide several advantages which are discussed previously in this section.

In [WHMN07], the authors present a methodology for semantic business process modeling and configuration. However, they mainly focus on deriving the so called execution-level business process models out of conceptual ones. The execution-level models are introduced as an intermediary level between levels 4 and 5 in Fig. 2.2 for the purpose of mediating between purely conceptual models from the business perspective, and the technical models containing a lot of execution-relevant infor-mation. In other words, the work does not consider the early activities involved in creating a conceptual business process model. Hence, this work and our methodol-ogy can be seen as complementary.

Within the SUPER project¹⁸, a methodology which covers the complete SBP management lifecycle (from modeling to execution and analysis) has been defined [FSM⁺06]. However, due to its broad scope, it stays on a rather superficial level when it comes to the definition of the semantic business process modeling activ-ity. Therefore, our SBP modeling methodology refines this activity with a focus on creation of conceptual business process models. Indeed, the SBPM methodology presented here has been incorporated in the later version of the project deliverables [FSK⁺09].

3.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, we have presented the concepts which serve as the foundations for our semantic business process modeling framework. We start with an analysis of

18www.ip-super.org

process knowledge captured in conceptual business process models in order to bet-ter understand and categorize it. We discuss the discovered knowledge in bet-terms of six process perspectives and three process modeling abstraction levels. Based on the insights gained from this analysis, we define a process-oriented enterprise ontology framework which identifies the structure and building blocks necessary for the for-mal representation of relevant process knowledge. We further discuss the mapping of the ontology framework to process perspectives and abstraction levels defined previously, and present its application in the telecommunication domain. Finally, we introduce the semantic business process modeling methodology which provides methodological guidelines for the usage of ontologies and reasoning in business process modeling. The guidelines are discussed on the basis of a lifecycle where the role of semantic technologies is discussed in each of the lifecycle activities. Based on the framework foundations presented here, we present the first part of the semantic business process modeling framework - a modeling technique and tool for business motivation modeling.

Chapter 4

Modeling of Business Motivation

4.1 Introduction

If an enterprise prescribes a certain approach for its business activity, it ought to be able to say why i.e. what results the approach is meant to achieve. This is referred to as the motivational perspective of processes in Section 3.2.2. The motivational per-spective (business strategy, goals, KPIs) aims to see a business process in its wider enterprise context. A business process is not just there for some isolated purpose, i.e. the intention why a business process is performed is not and should not be de-coupled from what an enterprise intends to do as a whole. Thus, the motivation on the one hand provides an explanation, why structured activities, i.e. business processes, are performed and on the other hand suggests what is needed to become what an enterprise wants to become.

The problem of not integrating the motivational perspective in process descrip-tions is illustrated best in the fable “The Blind Men and the Elephant” by J.G. Saxe [Lin78]. In his fable, Saxe talks about six blind men who went to “see” the elephant and since each of them could only touch a part of the elephant, they all had different interpretations of what they “saw”. A blind man who touched the elephant’s foot

“saw” a tree; the other who touched the elephant’s trunk “saw” a snake; the third who touched the elephant’s tusk “saw” a spear, and so on. Since none of the blind men had the vision to see the entire animal, they all grabbed hold of some part or the other and created their own different interpretations of it [MLA05]. In our case, the strategy is represented by the elephant and the blind men are employees of a company.

On the other hand, since the ancient times people have used models to com-municate and share their design. More recently, models have been used in engi-neering disciplines (mechanical, civil, electrical engiengi-neering, architecture) to share designs, but also to perform various types of analysis on the models. For example, static analysis in building construction is widely used in civil engineering, circuit analysis in electrical engineering, material distortion analysis in mechanical engi-neering, etc. Thus, engineering models do not only serve communication purposes but are also executable and may be used to discover design errors much before an engineering artifact (car, bridge, microchip) is actually built. In order to profit from lessons learned in engineering disciplines, we take the engineering approach to process-oriented enterprise design. This implies the development of appropriate models and techniques for analyzing such models, so that the design can be

com-municated and shared among stakeholders and also analyzed for errors before it is implemented.

For creating the models in process-oriented enterprise design, the users first need to be provided with a modeling language. In addition, a modeling method which defines procedures and guidelines of using the language needs to be designed. Fi-nally, a modeling tool that allows for the use of language in accordance with the appropriate method needs to be provided¹.

In this chapter, we aim to provide a modeling language, method and a tool for modeling business motivation. By doing so, we want to enable all employees to have the same interpretation of the elephant.This work represents the first part of the semantic business process modeling framework, as defined in Fig. 3.7. Visual modeling and analysis of business motivation are also the first activities within the semantic business process modeling lifecycle depicted in Fig. 3.8.

The chapter is structured as follows. Section 4.2 introduces a Core Ontology for Business Process Analysis which was used as a lightweight ontological foundation in creating a language for business motivation modeling. In Section 4.3 we provide a list of requirements which the modeling technique and a tool for business moti-vation modeling need to fulfill. Section 4.4 presents the modeling language and a method for business motivation modeling. The syntax and semantics of the model-ing language are provided by means of Business Motivation Ontology (BMO) (see Fig. 3.5). In Section 4.5, we discuss the prototypical implementation of a business motivation modeling tool. Section 4.6 contrasts our work to related efforts and fi-nally Section 4.7 summarizes our contributions in this chapter.