Abstract
This paper examines the question of how to structure the representation of a process in order to assure that the representation is effective in supporting such diverse activities as process understanding, communication among process participants, and process execution. The paper uses the example of a negotiation process to demonstrate that one process structure (which we refer to as the narrative form) seems to be quite effective in supporting understanding and communication, but then indicates that this structure seems problematic in supporting process execution. The paper indicates that a different structure (which we refer to as the role-oriented form) seems much more appropriate and effective in supporting execution, but may be lacking at supporting communication. In addition to serving different purposes, the two structures seem to represent different underlying models–a static process model, and a similar, but more complex, execution model. The properties of these two complementary structures are then analyzed and evaluated. The paper then uses these observations to raise questions about the underlying needs for effective process representation, suggesting in particular that a single process representation may not be a suitable basis for supporting the range of needs that process representations are expected to address.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Zhu, L., Osterweil, L.J., Staples, M., Kannengiesser, U., Simidchieva, B.I.: Desiderata for languages to be used in the definition of reference business processes. International Journal of Software and Informatics 1(1), 37–65 (2007)
Osterweil, L.J.: Unifying microprocess and macroprocess research. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 68–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Clarke, L.A., Avrunin, G.S., Osterweil, L.J.: Using software engineering technology to improve the quality of medical processes. In: ACM SIGSOFT/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2008), pp. 889–898 (May 2008); Invited keynote address by Lori A. Clarke
Chen, B., Clarke, L.A., Avrunin, G.S., Osterweil, L.J., Henneman, E.A., Henneman, P.L.: Analyzing medical processes. In: ACM SIGSOFT/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2008), pp. 623–632 (May 2008)
Osteweil, L.J., Katsh, E., Sondheimer, N.K., Rainey, D.: Early lessons from the application of process technology to online grievance mediation. In: 2006 National Conference on DIgital Government Research (2005)
Osterweil, L.J., Clarke, L.A., Gaitenby, A., Gyllstom, D., Katsh, E., Marzilli, M., Sondheimer, N.K., WIng, L., Wise, A., Rainey, D.: A process-driven tool to support online dispute resolution. In: International Conference on Digital Government Research, pp. 356–357. ACM Press, New York (2006)
Wise, A.: Little-JIL 1.5 Language Report. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (2006)
Osterweil, L.J., Clarke, L.A., Podorozhny, R., Wise, A., Boose, E., Ellison, A.M., Hadley, J.: Experience in using a process language to define scientific workflow and generate dataset provenance. In: ACM SIGSOFT 16th International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE16), pp. 319–329 (2008)
Simidchieva, B.I., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J.: Representing process variation with a process family. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4470, pp. 109–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Osterweil, L.J.: Software processes are software too. In: 9th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1987), pp. 2–13 (March 1987)
Osterweil, L.J.: Software processes are software too, revisited. In: 19th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1997), pp. 540–548 (September 1997)
Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Superstructure. Technical Report formal/2007-11-02, Object Management Group, Version 2.1.2 (November 2007)
US Air Force: ICAM architecture. part II, functional modeling manual (IDEF0). Technical Report AFWAL-TR-81-4023, Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (1981)
Ludäscher, B., Altintas, I., Berkley, C., Higgins, D., Jaeger-Frank, E., Jones, M., Lee, E., Tao, J., Zhao, Y.: Scientific workflow management and the kepler system. Concurrency and Computation: Practice & Experience 18(10), 1039–1065 (2006)
Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: Expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 187–196 (May 1993)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Simidchieva, B.I., Osterweil, L.J., Wise, A. (2009). Structural Considerations in Defining Executable Process Models. In: Wang, Q., Garousi, V., Madachy, R., Pfahl, D. (eds) Trustworthy Software Development Processes. ICSP 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5543. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01680-6_33
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01680-6_33
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01679-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01680-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)