Upload
malinda-kapuruge
View
227
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Event-driven Process Chains (EPC) has been widely adopted as a business process modeling notation. The common practice is to use a software tool to build a directed graph consisting of EPC constructs to model a business process. If a change is required, the constructed graph is partially dismantled and reconstructed. While the graph-based representation is beneficial in providing visualization, we investigate in this paper the advantages of having a textual representation alongside the graph representation. We introduce a textual language, called EPClets, to represent an EPC graph as a set of declarative event-action rules. The EPC graph can be constructed incrementally and automatically from the textual representation, separating the business- process specification and graph (re)construction concerns. The advantages of our approach have been evaluated through a controlled experiment. The experimental results suggest that having a textual representation alongside the graph representation increases the efficiency compared to an entirely graph-based approach.
Citation preview
1
EPCletsA Lightweight and Flexible Textual Language to
Augment EPC Process Modeling
By Malinda Kapuruge, Jun Han, Alan Colman and Ulf Ruegg
SCC 2014, ANCHORAGE, AK
2
Outline
• Event-driven Process Chains (EPC)• Emergence of Textual representations• EPC Markup Language (EPML)• Limitations of EPML• EPClets• Tool support• Evaluation results• Conclusions
3
Event-driven Process Chain
• Represent a process/flow.• Very basic constructs.– Function– Event– Arc– Connectors (AND, OR, XOR)
• Easy to learn.• Few constraints.
4
Event-driven Process Chain
• A graphical modelingnotation.
• Used by Graphical modeling tools– ARIS Tool set– Visio– Semtalk
5
In a parallel universe…
6
Textual representations are emerging for Graphical notations…
7
• Allows modifying/defining graphical models using a textual language.
• Agility and efficiency. • Less dismantling/assembling of graphs.– Separation of concerns– Algorithmic graph construction
• E.g., UML Modeling.– UMLets (http://www.umlet.com/)– PlantUML (http://plantuml.sourceforge.net/)
Textual representations
8
9
How about EPC?
10
A textual representations for EPC?
• EPC Markup Language (EPML)– Mendling et al., 2006– http://www.mendling.com/EPML/
• An excellent solution to interchange EPC process models. – Export from one tool and import into another.– Describes an EPC graph.
11
EPML
12
EPML as a textual representation?
• EPML describes graph semantics.– Node* connections– Direction of arcs– Node positioning
• No explicit process semantics.– When the function “order meal” become
executable?– What happens when function “order meal” is
executed?
* Node = Event, Function or a Connector (AND, OR, XOR)
13
EPClets• A textual language to augment EPC.• Explicit process semantics (instead of graph semantics).
– The post- and pre-conditions of each business activity– A set of declarative Event-action-event rules
• Graph construction concerns are handled by the EPClets tool.
14
EPClets
• NOT an alternative to EPML.– EPML keeps its place as an interchange format– EPML descriptions can be exported from EPClets
• Tool support– An eclipse plugin
15
EPClets
16
17
EPClets
• Each declarative EPClets statement in the process description is converted to an atomic graph
18
EPClets
• All the atomic graphs are iteratively linked to create the process graph.
• Linking patterns– A linking event has a predecessor or a successor or both?
19
Linking patterns
20
Advantages• Suitable for heterogeneous and agile process modeling
environments.– Declarative statements can be added or removed– Tool automatically adjust/re-align the graph
• Separation of concerns– User only specifies pre- and post-conditions of a business activity.
• Less error prone – Graph construction algorithm make sure a correct graph is constructed.
• Eye candy – Compact (10 lines vs 300+ lines)– No XML– No graph semantics
21
Disadvantages
• Not suitable as an interchangeable format.– Loss of coordinates upon export– The coordinates are determined by the tool upon
import• Typos can lead to broken graphs– E.g., a typo in a pre-condition can make the tool to
assume two different events
22
Evaluation
• Controlled experiments• EPClets tool vs Any EPC modeling tool• Participants are asked to – Model a process– Perform 3 adaptations
• The time taken to perform each task is noted.
23
Evaluation
38.19 34.17 36.19 28.89
24
Discussion
• We observed…• With graph-based approach,– Users spent more time re-positioning graphs– Dismantling graphs can be error prone (syntactic)
• With EPClets approach,– Graph re-positioning is handled by the algorithm– Always produces a syntactically valid graph
26
Question…!
• How to integrate an N number of related business processes into one?– (A) Using a Graphical tool (VISIO/ARIS)?– (B) Using textual tool (EPClets)?
27
Conclusions
• EPClets is a textual language to augment EPC process modeling.
• EPClets provides the ability to efficiently model and adapt EPC process models.
• EPClets separates the process specification concerns from graph construction concerns.
• EPClets capabilities have been experimentally evaluated.
28
29
Photo credit
• http://addictedto24.blogspot.com/• http://imconfident.wordpress.com/• http://wscounselblog.com/