Skip to main content
Log in

Process Specialization: Defining Specialization for State Diagrams

  • Published:
Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A precise definition of specialization and inheritance promises to be as useful in organizational process modeling as it is in object modeling. It would help us better understand, maintain, reuse, and generate process models. However, even though object-oriented analysis and design methodologies take full advantage of the object specialization hierarchy, the process specialization hierarchy is not supported in major process representations, such as the state diagram, data flow diagram, and UML representations. Partly underlying this lack of support is an implicit assumption that we can always specialize a process by treating it as “just another object.” We argue in this paper that this is not so straightforward as it might seem; we argue that a process-specific approach must be developed. We propose such an approach in the form of a set of transformations which, when applied to a process description, always result in specialization. We illustrate this approach by applying it to the state diagram representation and demonstrate that this approach to process specialization is not only theoretically possible, but shows promise as a method for categorizing and analyzing processes. We point out apparent inconsistencies between our notion of process specialization and existing work on object specialization but show that these inconsistencies are superficial and that the definition we provide is compatible with the traditional notion of specialization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bansler, J.P. and K. Bodker (1993), “A Reappraisal of Structured Analysis: Design in an Organizational Context,” ACM Transaction on Information Systems, 11(2), 165–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booch, G. (1991), Object Oriented Design with Applications. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booch, G., A. Rumbaugh and I. Javobson (1998), The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgida, A., J. Mylopoulos and J.W. Schmidt (1993), “The TaxisDL Software Description Language,” in M. Jarke (Ed.) Database Application Engineering with DAIDA, Vol. 1 of Research Reports ESPRIT. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.M. and B. Obel (1998), Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley and Sons, Chicester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coad, P. and E. Yourdon (1990), Object-Oriented Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Antonellis, V., B. Pernici and P. Samarati (1991), “F-ORM METHOD: A F-ORM Methodology for Reusing Specifications,” Proc. IFIP TC8/WG8.1 Working Conference on the Object Oriented Approach in Information Systems. North-Holland, Quebec City, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Champeaux, D. (1991), “Object-Oriented Analysis and Top-Down Software Development,” Proc. ECOOP' 91, European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Springer-Verlag, Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Champeaux, D., L. Constantine, I. Jacobson, S. Mellor, P. Ward and E. Yourdon (1990), “Panel: Structural Analysis and Object Oriented Analysis,” Proc. Conference on Object-Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages, and Applications/ European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Association for Computing Machinery, Ottawa, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, P.E. and Y. Iwasaki (1985), “The Concept and Implementation of Skeletal Plans,” J. Automated Reasoning, 1(2), 161–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J.R. (1977), Organization Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horning, J.J. and B. Randell (1973), “Process Structuring,” ACM Computing Surveys, 5(1), 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, G. and Teufel, T. (1998), SAP R/3 Process—Oriented Implementation: Iterative Process Prototyping. Harlow, England and Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunz, J.C., et al. (1998), “The Virtual Design Team,” Communications of the ACM, 41(11), 84–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch (1967), Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maksay, G. and Y. Pigneur (1991), “Reconciling Functional Decomposition, Conceptual Modeling, Modular Design and Object Orientation for Application Development,” IFIP TC8/WG8.1 Working Conference on the Object Oriented Approach in Information Systems. North-Holland, Quebec City, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T.W., K. Crowston, J. Lee, B. Pentland, et al. (1999), “Tools for Inventing Organizations: Toward a Handbook of Organizational Processes,” Management Science, 45(3), 425–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nierstrasz, O. (1993), “Regular Types for Active Objects,” Proc. Conference on Object-Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages, and Applications. Association for Computing Machinery, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R.V. (1991), “Understated Implications of Object-Oriented Simulation and Modeling,” Proc. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. IEEE, Charlottesville, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumbaugh, B., W. Premerlani, F. Eddy and W. Lorensen (1991), Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G.R. and H. Leblebici (1988), “Variety and Form in Organizing Transactions: A Generative Grammar of Organization,” in N. DiTomaso and S.B. Bacharach (Eds.) Research in the Sociology of Organizations. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline. Double Day/Currency, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefik, M. (1981), “Planning with Constraints (MOLGEN: Part 1),” Artificial Intelligence, 16(2), 111–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taivalsaari, A. (1996), “On the Notion of Inheritance,” ACM Computing Surveys, 28(3), 438–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takagaki, K. and Y. Wand (1991), “An Object-Oriented Information Systems Model Based on Ontology,” Proc. IFIP TC8/WG8.1Working Conference on the Object Oriented Approach in Information Systems. North-Holland, Quebec City, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst, W.M.P. and T. Basten (1999), “Inheritance of Workflows—An Approach to Tackling Problems Related to Change,” Eindhoven University of Technology Computing Science Reports No. 99/06.

  • Wegner, P. and S.B. Zdonik (1988), “Inheritance as an Incremental Modification Mechanism or What Like Is and Isn't Like,” Proc. European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Springer-Verlag, Oslo, Norway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner, G. and J. Lee (1995), “Applying Specialization to Process Models,” Proc. Conference on Organizational Computing Systems, Milpitas, CA, ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner, G. and J. Lee (2002), “Defining Specialization for Dataflow Diagrams,” to be published in Information Systems.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wyner, G.M., Lee, J. Process Specialization: Defining Specialization for State Diagrams. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 8, 133–155 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016091900743

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016091900743

Navigation