Abstract
An emerging challenge for collaborating business partners is to properly define and evolve their cross-organizational processes with respect to imposed global compliance rules. Since compliance verification is known to be very costly, reducing the number of compliance rules to be rechecked in the context of process changes will be crucial. Opposed to intra-organizational processes, however, change effects cannot be easily assessed in such distributed scenarios, where partners only provide restricted public views and assertions on their private processes. Even if local process changes are invisible to partners, they might affect the compliance of the cross-organizational process with the mentioned rules. This paper provides an approach for ensuring compliance when evolving a cross-organizational process. For this purpose, we construct qualified dependency graphs expressing relationships between process activities, process assertions, and compliance rules. Based on such graphs, we are able to determine the subset of compliance rules that might be affected by a particular change. Altogether, our approach increases the efficiency of compliance checking in cross-organizational settings.
This work was done within the research project C\(^3\)Pro funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), under project number RE 1402/2-1, and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), under project number I743.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
We assume \(\mathcal {A} = \mathcal {A}_v \cup \mathcal {A}_h\), but do not require \(\mathcal {A}_v \cap \mathcal {A}_h = \emptyset \).
- 2.
Note that the eCRG language also addresses the resources, data and time perspectives, but these are not relevant in the context of this paper.
References
Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: The journey to business process compliance. In: Cardoso, J., van der Aalst, W. (eds.) Handbook of Research on BPM, pp. 426–454. IGI Global, Hershey (2009)
Awad, A., Decker, G., Weske, M.: Efficient compliance checking using BPMN-Q and temporal logic. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Ly, L.T., et al.: Integration and verification of semantic constraints in adaptive process management systems. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 3–23 (2008)
Ramezani Taghiabadi, E., Fahland, D., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Diagnostic Information for compliance checking of temporal compliance requirements. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 304–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Maggi, F.M., Di Francescomarino, C., Dumas, M., Ghidini, C.: Predictive monitoring of business processes. In: Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J., Quix, C., Rolland, C., Manolopoulos, Y., Mouratidis, H., Horkoff, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8484, pp. 457–472. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Knuplesch, D., et al.: Towards compliance of cross-organizational processes and their changes. In: BPM 2012 Workshops, pp. 649–661 (2013)
Fdhila, W., Knuplesch, D., Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M.: Change and compliance in collaborative processes. In: SCC 2015 (2015)
Knuplesch, D., et al.: Ensuring compliance of distributed and collaborative workflows. In: CollaborateCom 2013, pp. 133–142. IEEE (2013)
Fdhila, W., et al.: Dealing with change in process choreographies: design and implementation of propagation algorithms. Inf. Syst. 49, 1–24 (2015)
van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of interorganizational workflows to enable Business-to-Business E-Commerce. Electron. Commer. Res. 2(3), 195–231 (2002)
Rinderle, S., Wombacher, A., Reichert, M.: Evolution of process choreographies in DYCHOR. In: CoopIS 2006, pp. 273–290 (2006)
Mafazi, S., Grossmann, G., Mayer, W., Stumptner, M.: On-the-fly change propagation for the co-evolution of business processes. In: OTM 2013, pp. 75–93 (2013)
Comuzzi, M.: Aligning monitoring and compliance requirements in evolving business networks. In: Meersman, R., Panetto, H., Dillon, T., Missikoff, M., Liu, L., Pastor, O., Cuzzocrea, A., Sellis, T. (eds.) OTM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8841, pp. 166–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Knuplesch, D., et al.: On enabling data-aware compliance checking of business process models. In: ER 2010, pp. 332–346 (2010)
van der Aalst, W.M.P., et al.: Multiparty contracts: agreeing and implementing interorganizational processes. Comp J. 53(1), 90–106 (2010)
Decker, G., Weske, M.: Behavioral consistency for B2B process integration. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 81–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Rouached, M., et al.: Web services compositions modelling and choreographies analysis. Int. J. Web Service Res. 7(2), 87–110 (2010)
Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M., Fdhila, W., Rinderle-Ma, S.: On enabling compliance of cross-organizational business processes. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 146–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Knuplesch, D., et al.: Visual modeling of business process compliance rules with the support of multiple perspectives. In: ER 2013, pp. 106–120 (2013)
Semmelrodt, F., Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M.: Modeling the Resource perspective of business process compliance rules with the extended compliance rule graph. In: Bider, I., Gaaloul, K., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPMDS 2014 and EMMSAD 2014. LNBIP, vol. 175, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Governatori, G., et al.: Detecting regulatory compliance for business process models through semantic annotations. In: BPM 2008 Workshops, pp. 5–17. Springer (2009)
Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M.: Ensuring business process compliance along the process life cycle. Technical report 2011–06, Ulm University (2011)
Turetken, O., et al.: Capturing compliance requirements: a pattern-based approach. IEEE Softw. 29, 29–36 (2012)
Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Dadam, P.: Design and verification of instantiable compliance rule graphs in process-aware information systems. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 9–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Koetter, F., et al.: Integrating compliance requirements across business and it. In: EDOC 2014 (2014)
Kumar, A., et al.: Flexible process compliance with semantic constraints using mixed-integer programming. INFORMS J. Comput. 25(3), 543–559 (2013)
Berry, A., Milosevic, Z.: Extending choreography with business contract constraints. Coop. Inf. Syst. 14(2–3), 131–179 (2005)
Ly, L.T., et al.: A framework for the systematic comparison and evaluation of compliance monitoring approaches. In: EDOC 2013, pp. 7–16. IEEE (2013)
Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M., Kumar, A.: Visually monitoring multiple perspectives of business process compliance. In: BPM 2015 (2015)
Alles, M., Kogan, A., Vasarhelyi, M.: Putting continuous auditing theory into practice: lessons from two pilot implementations. Inf. Syst. 22(2), 195–214 (2008)
Governatori, G., et al.: Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts. In: EDOC 2006, pp. 221–232 (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Knuplesch, D., Fdhila, W., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S. (2015). Detecting the Effects of Changes on the Compliance of Cross-Organizational Business Processes. In: Johannesson, P., Lee, M., Liddle, S., Opdahl, A., Pastor López, Ó. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9381. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25264-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25264-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25263-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25264-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)