Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
and
Workflow
Handbook
Future Strategies Inc.
This book is published in digital format. The content of this book is fully copyrighted and may
not be distributed or data extracted therefrom without written permission by the publisher.
You are licensed to print one copy for your own use.
2007 BPM and
Workflow Handbook
Methods, Concepts, Case Studies and Standards
in Business Process Management and Workflow
Published in association with the
Workflow Management Coalition
Edited by
Layna Fischer
Future Strategies Inc., Book Division
Lighthouse Point, Florida
2007 BPM and Workflow Handbook
Copyright 2007 by Future Strategies Inc.
ISBN-13: 978-0-9777527-1-3
ISBN-10: 0-9777527-1-2
09 08 07 7 8 9
All brand names and product names mentioned in this book are trademarks or service marks of
their respective companies. Any omission or misuse should not be regarded as intent to infringe
on the property of others. The Publisher recognizes and respects all marks used by companies,
manufacturers and developers as a means to distinguish their products. The WfMC logo and
Workflow Management Coalition are service marks of the Workflow Management Coalition,
www.wfmc.org.
Neither the editor, Workflow Management Coalition, nor Future Strategies Inc., accept any
responsibility or liability for loss or damage occasioned to any person or property through using
the material, instructions, methods, or ideas contained herein, or acting or refraining from
acting as a result of such use. The authors and the publisher expressly disclaim all implied
warrantees, including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. There will be no
duty on the authors or Publisher to correct any errors or defects in the software.
Published by Future Strategies Inc., Book Division
2436 North Federal Highway #374
Lighthouse Point FL 33064 USA
954.782.3376 fax 954.782.6365
www.futstrat.com; books@futstrat.com
Cover design by Pearl & Associates
All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. No part of this
work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by
any meansgraphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
taping, or information storage and retrieval systemswithout written permission of
the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and
reviews.
Publishers Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 2007901191
2007 BPM and Workflow Handbook:
/Layna Fischer (editor)
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references, appendices and index.
ISBN 978-0-9777527-1-3
1. Business Process Management. 2. Workflow Management.
3. Technological Innovation. 4. Information Technology. 5. Total Quality
Management. 6. Organizational Change 7. Management Information Systems. 8.
Office Practice Automation. 9. Business Process Technology. 10. Electronic
Commerce. 11. Process Analysis
Fischer, Layna
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD 7
Jon Pyke, Chair WfMC, United Kingdom
INTRODUCTION: WORKFLOW AND BPM IN 2007: BUSINESS PROCESS STANDARDS SEE A NEW
GLOBAL IMPERATIVE 9
Nathaniel Palmer, Executive Director, Workflow Management Coalition,
United States
SECTION 1-THE BUSINESS VALUE OF WORKFLOW AND BPM
THE BUSINESS VALUE OF WORKFLOW AND BPM 17
Keith D Swenson, Fujitsu Computer Systems, United States
KNOWLEDGE INTENSIVE BPM 27
Jon Pyke, The Process Factory Ltd., United Kingdom
BPM AND SERVICE-ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE TEAMED TOGETHER: A PATHWAY TO SUCCESS FOR
AN AGILE GOVERNMENT 33
Linus Chow and Charles Medley, BEA Systems; Clay Richardson, Project
Performance Corp., USA
ANALYZING AND IMPROVING CORE TELECOM BUSINESS PROCESSES: CASE STUDY 55
Lee, Kyeong Eon; KTF Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea
WORKFLOW AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 67
Arnaud Bezancon, Advantys, France
BPM CENTER OF EXCELLENCE MANIFESTO 73
Dr. Setrag Khoshafian, Pegasystems Inc., USA
EVOLUTION: AN INNOVATION PROCESS 85
Gabriel Franciosi and Federico Silva, Pectra Inc., USA
WHY ENGAGEMENT WILL REDEFINE THE NEXT EVOLUTION IN WORKFLOW AND BPM 97
Steve Rotter, Adobe Systems Incorporated, USA
APPLYING MDA
Concepts to
Business Process Management
Alexander Petzmann, Michael Puncochar,
BOC Group, Austria
Christian Kuplich, BOC Group, Germany
David Orensanz, BOC Group, Spain
ABSTRACT
Business Process Management enables companies to gain from efficiency en-
hancements and to quickly and flexibly adopt for a changing world. Workflow
technology can definitely help to put business process management into action.
But how do you facilitate companies for sustainable Business Process Manage-
ment?
This paper first introduces the Process Management Life Cycle and its steps from
process strategy, documentation, optimization and implementation to daily busi-
ness process execution and process controlling.
For implementation aspects, the paper emphasizes on the duality of business-
focused and IT-focused process views which is a basic concept for applying MDA
approaches with respect for business needs and requirements. Then, practicable
concepts for model-driven implementation of workflow applications and model-
driven business monitoring are introduced.
Finally, different approaches of how to (re) introduce business process manage-
ment are discussed. In recent years a significant number of projects aimed at in-
troducing business process management required large amounts of initial in-
vestment before gaining benefit. To achieve sustained business process manage-
ment, significant benefits have to be quickly realized. To overcome the issue of
large initial investment, we discuss an approach to start with business monitoring
even before starting reengineering or implementation. This approach provides
process control and evaluation data to business people from the first minute.
Based on this, a continuous process management life cycle can be easily put into
action by starting with sharply focused process enhancements.
MDA
(MDA
)
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
In the following chapters a concept is evolved how MDA
In 2001 the Object Management Group
(OMG
(MDA
(UML
)
and the Common Warehouse Meta Model (CWM
TM
). This article does not focus on
the description of these techniquesfor more details see [OMG 2007].
MDA
approach
Transformation from one level to another is crucial within MDA
. Any transforma-
tion should cause manual activity as few as possible. Following MDA
, transfor-
mation from PIM to PSM can be fully automated. On the other hand, for trans-
formation from CIM to PIM no automated method is available so far. It has to be
done manually, more or less well supported by tools.
To summarize, MDA
. This
challenge emphasizes the advantage of our approach starting with a Business
Process Model (see chapter MDA
approach in
order to build business process oriented systems including monitoring artifacts
on all levels of modeling from the beginning. Making sure to keep consistency be-
tween levels and having mappable models, one can go all the way back with audit
data transforming it to the more technical execution view or even back to the
business view depending on the addressee for monitoring data.
This enhanced MDA
O(E)*O(E) = O(E
2
)
8 CONCLUSION
We have described various structural conflict errors that could occur in cyclic work-
flow graphs. We have discussed the issues in existing algorithms and methods for
verifying cyclic workflow graphs in identifying these structural conflicts.
Further, we have presented an algorithm called Mahanti-Sinnakkrishnan Algo-
rithm for Cyclic Workflow Verification (MSCWV) to verify cyclic and acyclic workflow
graphs. This algorithm is an extension of Mahanti-Sinnakkrishnan algorithm origi-
nally designed for verifying acyclic workflow graphs. We have also illustrated the
working of MSCWV algorithm with a real life business example. Finally, we have
commented on execution time, and correctness and completeness proofs of the
proposed MSCWV algorithm.
MSCWV: CYCLIC WORKFLOW VERIFICATION ALGORITHM FOR WORKFLOW GRAPHS
241
9 REFERENCES
[1] W. M. P. van der Aalst, A. H. M. ter Hofstede, B. Kiepuszewski, and A. P.
Barros, "Workflow Patterns," Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 14, pp. 5-51,
2003.
[2] W. M. P. van der Aalst, "The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Manage-
ment," Journal of Circuits, Systems, and Computers, vol. 8, pp. 21-66, 1998.
[3] H. M. W. Verbeek and W. M. P. van der Aalst, "Woflan 2.0: A Petri-Net-
Based Workflow Diagnosis Tool," in ICATPN, 2000, pp. 475-484.
[4] H. M. W. Verbeek, T. Basten, and W. M. P. van der Aalst, "Diagnosing
Workflow Processes using Woflan," Computer Journal, vol. 44, pp. 246-279, 2001.
[5] W. Sadiq and M. E. Orlowska, "Applying Graph Reduction Techniques for
Identifying Structural Conflicts in Process Models," in CAiSE, 1999, pp. 195-209.
[6] H. Lin, Z. Zhao, H. Li, and Z. Chen, "A Novel Graph Reduction Algorithm to
Identify Structural Conflicts," in HICSS, 2002, p. 289.
[7] H. H. Bi and J. L. Zhao, "Applying Propositional Logic to Workflow Verifica-
tion," Information Technology and Management, vol. 5, pp. 293-318, 2004.
[8] Y. Choi and J. L. Zhao, "Decomposition-Based Verification of Cyclic Work-
flows," in ATVA, 2005, pp. 84-98.
[9] S. Perumal and A. Mahanti, "Cyclic Workflow Verification Algorithm for
Workflow Graphs," Indian Institute Of Management Calcutta - Working Paper Series,
vol. WPS No. 599, pp. 1-58, 2006.
[10] S. Perumal and A. Mahanti, "A Simple and Efficient Algorithm for Verifying
Workflow Graphs," in Workflow Handbook 2005, L. Fischer, Ed. Lighthouse Point:
Future Strategies Inc., 2005, pp. 233-256.
[11] S. Perumal and A. Mahanti, "A Graph-Search Based Algorithm for Verifying
Workflow Graphs," in DEXA, 2005, pp. 992-996.
[12] S. Perumal and A. Mahanti, "Applying Graph Search Techniques for Work-
flow Verification," in HICSS, 2007, p. 48.
[13] W. M. P. van der Aalst, A. Hirnschall, and H. M. W. (Eric) Verbeek, "An Al-
ternative Way to Analyze Workflow Graphs," in CAiSE, 2002, pp. 535-552.
[14] "Case Study," Geneva Systems, Inc., 2004. Retrieved from:
http://www.genevasystems.com/highres/HTML/ProductInfoCenter/WFACaseStudy.htm,
Accessed: February 01, 2007.
243
Business Process Architecture and
the Workflow Reference Model
Chris Lawrence, Old Mutual, South Africa
INTRODUCTION
This paper is a response to David Hollingsworths The Workflow Reference Model
10 Years On.
1
He refers to a lack of agreement on a common meta-methodology
for modeling the business process. That is what this paper offers: a process meta-
model. The meta-model is derived not by abstracting business process architec-
ture from workflow or Business Process Management (BPM) implementation
technology, but by analysing the business process in terms of its core character-
istics.
2
Business rules play an important part in the meta-model, and the relationship
between process and rule is compared with that of Ronald Rosss Business Rule
Approach.
Implications of the meta-model are explored to see to what extent they illuminate
some of the process issues Hollingsworth raises in his paper.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE
Hollingsworth claims the Workflow Reference Model (hereafter abbreviated to
WfRM) was an attempt to
construct an abstract view of the business process in terms of its core characteris-
tics, separated from the technologies that could be used to deliver its functionality in
a real world situation.
3
I am not sure it has done quite this. What it might have done instead is abstract
general principles from workflow technology applications, in pursuit of effective
interoperability standards for the industry. But this is not constructing an ab-
stract view of the business process in terms of its core characteristics. The latter
would call for a conceptual meta-model of what it is to be a business process, not
just what it is to be a workflow system. Neither the WfRM nor the equivalent
Business Process Management (BPM) reference model Hollingsworth proposes
provides an analysis of what it is to be a business process. They both seem to
take it for granted that we know what a business process is.
This paper offers something which I think is more like an abstract view of the
business process, one which in particular seems to fit the kind of rule-intensive
contexts where workflow technology predominates, like insurance, banking, legal
and general administration as well as some classes of industrial and manufac-
turing applications.
4
1 David Hollingsworth: The Workflow Reference Model 10 Years On, included in the WfMC Handbook 2004, Future Strategies Inc,
Lighthouse Point, FL, 2004.
2 David Hollingsworth: ibid.
3 David Hollingsworth: ibid.
4 David Hollingsworth: The Workflow Management Coalition Specification: The Workflow Reference Model, Document Number TC00-
1003, Issue 1.1, 19 January 1995.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
244
I would argue the WfRM is an abstraction from workflow technology, not a con-
ceptual analysis of the process/workflow space in business terms. Either that
problem space was deliberately seen as out of scopewhich is fine; or it was as-
sumed that abstracting from workflow technology offerings is the same as concep-
tually analysing the process/workflow problem spacewhich is not so fine. By
extension the BPM reference model could end up as an abstraction from BPM
technology offerings rather than the conceptual analysis of the process space in
business terms which it needs to be.
Hollingsworths paper
5
displays other clues to what seems a generally (deliber-
ately?) un-analytical approach to processas if assuming that conceptual analy-
sis may not get us far. Process fragment is a case in point:
more emphasis is required on the decomposition of processes into fragments and
their consolidation in various ways to support more dynamic operational business
processes. The original model identified various ways in which process frag-
ments could interacthierarchic subprocess, parallel synchronised processes, etc
and did develop runtime models for binding them in execution terms. However, it
did not attempt to develop anything beyond a primitive choreography capability in
the area of process definition support for interactions between process fragments.
Later on the overall process is seen as a
combination of process fragments which can be recombined in various
ways to deliver new or modified business capability.
But what is a fragment? We approach an answer in the discussion of its inter-
nal and external aspects, which suggests it may be more a functionality compo-
nent than a process component:
Some form of choreography is required to identify the valid sequences of mes-
sages and responses across and between the participating process frag-
ments. The choreography requires each process fragment to exhibit a set of
prescribed external behaviours in response to such message sequences.
I do not expect my suggestion above to go unchallengedbut will explain later
what I mean by process as opposed to functionality component. For now I will
merely say that a process fragment seems like a piece of broken pottery, defined
by what it is a fragment of. Conversely a process seems little more than a set of
process fragments linked by messaging technology. Process fragment is some-
thing smaller than a process, but that is all. It is not an analytical component.
Another apparently equally arbitrary concept, but of something bigger than a
process, appears in the later discussion of the conceptual model phase, which
needs to focus on the position of the process within an end-to-end process de-
livery chain, involving interfaces with existing or planned processes within
other organizational domains.
So a process can be part of an end-to-end process delivery chain. But why
would a process not be an end-to-end process delivery chain, or vice versa?
We hear that in both the WfRM and the equivalent BPM reference model the
abstraction of the business process from the implementation technology re-
mains an important goal, because organizations tend to think differently, us-
ing different skills and methodologies, in the two domains.
5
David Hollingsworth (2004), op cit.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
245
I agree the WfRM abstracts something from implementation technology, but I am
unconvinced that what it abstracts is the business process. The WfRM offers little
conceptual analysis of the business process itself, because it sees it in terms of
given system functionality. Interestingly these are the two domains in which or-
ganisations think differently. Why should there be two domains? Is it because
organisations see their business processes in terms of the systems they happen to
have?because they are always encouraged to? But the problem is that, with
rare exceptions, systems are so fragmented in process termscollections of point
solutions. Could this be why the business process is seen as something in a
separate domain linking those systems and components together?
A more fruitful paradigm might be to see the business process as something ex-
isting logically prior to those systems, but as implemented in themwith varying
degrees of success. In which case there would not be two domains at all: there
just seem to be two when the degree of success is low.
A currently favoured implementation technology is web services. Hollingsworth is
concerned that
emphasis on web services architecture[could] constrain the development of the
business process architecture. [T]his raises the danger of ignoring the organiza-
tional and human aspects of the business process, in favour of a resource model
wholly based on web services.
This could miss the point. The danger is not so much of ignoring the organiza-
tional and human aspects of the business process, but of overlooking the busi-
ness process itself. The natural technology choice of web services represents yet
another solution architecture capable of obscuring logical architecture.
What do I mean by logical architecture? What is it, what is special about it, why
is it needed? Is it the same as the conceptual model?
Hollingsworth sees the conceptual model as
the formulation of the business process in terms of business component ob-
jects and their interactions.
But if business component objects are things like Customer, Suppliermaybe
also Department, Product etcthe snag is that some of these are necessary to the
process while others are contingent. Customer may be part of the what (logical
architecture) but Department will ultimately be part of the how (solution architec-
ture). The business process may be implemented in terms of business component
objects and their interactions, but we could miss a valuable step if we see the
conceptual model (ie the highest and most abstract level) as something formulated
in terms which include components of solution architecture, broadly conceived.
This missing step is important for automation and integration, both of which call
for the right representation in the right generic structures. We need a meta-model
which promotes this kind of rigour.
Hollingsworth provides a clue as the discussion turns to translating the concep-
tual model into an executable model:
It has proved relatively difficult to develop a fully standardised framework model to
support this function within the BPM model. Not only do different BPM/workflow
products have different internal representation structures but a large amount of lo-
cal detail needs to be defined to develop the complete internal representation of the
executable model.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
246
Not surprising, with so little basis for shared understanding. We can string ro-
botic components together with messages obeying specific standards. But by
what criteria do we see one string as a business process but not another string?
Hollingsworth continues to talk in solution architecture terms:
XPDL attempts to step around this problem through the use of extended attributes
for bi-lateral agreement. In practice many BPM products have process design tools
that are closely coupled to the execution capabilities of the BPMS. Generating a
common approach across multiple product environments may depend
more on agreement on a common meta-methodology for modeling the busi-
ness process. [My emphasis.]
That is what I offer in this papera candidate meta-methodology for modelling
business processes at logical level. But we will see it starts somewhere other than
the solution-architectural level of Service Interactions and Choreography:
the choreography could be likened to a very high level process definition that links
together process fragments by providing a set of high level business rules and iden-
tifiers for the locations of the resource implementing each process fragment.
There are two different things which should not be conflated. One is conceptual
analysis into what it is to be a business processleading to an agreed shared
meta-model. The other is a technology framework and standard protocols to let
business processes be implemented in a variety of waysincluding (where appro-
priate) participation by parties and services not identified or known at design
time. The meta-model should guide, but should not be, that framework.
Hollingsworth asks:
WHAT BPM STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED?
At the heart of any BPM reference architecture lies the methodology and stan-
dards for representing the business process... [which needs] ...to be consid-
ered at two levels:
(i) a lower level, internal view of each process fragment that is similar to the
traditional workflow process model
(ii) a higher level view concentrating on modeling the overall process flow, link-
ing re-usable process fragments together via a choreography. This is a view of
the external behaviors of the process fragments...
But both of these are solution levelhow, not what. If we want a common meta-
methodology for modeling the business process we should see the business proc-
ess as first of all a what, as something which can be implemented in a how. Then
we can represent the business process as a business process, not as a piece of
automated machineryeven though that may be how we want to implement it.
Hollingsworth surveys a number of existing approaches to Internal Process Defi-
nitionie (i) abovewhich
all provide a means of representing process flow, events and decision points, and
the classification of various process context data associated with executing proc-
esses. Some standards also provide a means of specifying the work resources as-
sociated with the process work items, or activities.
The purpose of these tools is to enable the integration of different process design
products with different execution products or to allow simple migration of existing
process definitions to a different design/execution product.
[But a] particular problem has been that different vendor products in the BPM space
tend to use different process design paradigms.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
247
Again, not surprising, without agreement on what a business process is. The fol-
lowing design paradigms are discussed:
Transition Based Representation:
typically derived from Petri Net methodology; a process is represented
graphically as a network of activity nodes and explicit transitions between
them.
A powerful and familiar paradigm, sharing features with the meta-model I will
introduce later. But clarity is needed as to what level the transitions are at, what
sorts of things are making the transitions, what the transitions are between, and
what the activity nodes actually are.
A significant practical distinction is whether the transition logic allows [back-
ward] transition to earlier [preceding] activities, allowing cycling through a
set of nodes, or constrains transition flow to acyclic paths only.
This is one of the reasons proprietary generic workflow can struggle to achieve
real process control. In many contexts the question is whether or not the busi-
ness logic and logistics at any particular point make a return to a prior state sen-
sible. This in turn depends on what has happened before and what is happening
now to the real business entities. Sometimes looping back is inappropriate be-
cause it would mean rewriting historyeg pretending we had not written to the
customer first time round. Terms like transition, cycling and acyclic paths beg
the question as to what exactly is going through the process. This will be a key
piece of the meta-model. If there is a thing going through the process, the ques-
tion of whether or not looping makes sense at a particular point typically depends
on what is happening to the thing at that point.
Block Structured Decomposition:
Any single node in a process model may be decomposed to a lower level of
underlying process (a paradigm based upon the hierarchic sub-process
model).
This seems to refer to the familiar nesting construct in which (say) a process can
be a subprocess or activity in another process, enabling flexible reuse. But is this
nesting a feature of the logical model or a desirable feature of any solution archi-
tecture? The difference will be explored later.
Activity Pre- & Post-conditions:
In this approach no explicit transitions between activities are declared. The
process is defined as a set of activities each having entry (pre-) and exit (post-)
conditions; parallelism is implicit and when pre-conditions are met the activity
is initiated, independently of the status of other activities within the process.
To provide sequential operation, pre-conditions may relate to the completion of
a particular prior activity
This, like the transition-based representation, may inform a successful solution
architecture. But neither seems to illuminate what a business process is at a logi-
cal level, and what is going through it. They could both apply to a natural process
or an automated control function just as well as to a business process.
Role Activity Diagrams
RADs focus on defining the process through the actions that are taken within
abstract roles associated with the organization, and the interactions between
roles. In this way the process flow is modeled as the combined actions asso-
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
248
ciated with the cooperating roles and their interactions. ... Modeling of data
and documents is not normally handled.
But what is passing through the process, if the process itself is the combined ac-
tions associated with the cooperating roles and their interactions? Organisational
roles (however abstract) are how not what. They are there because processes are
implemented as they are: with a different implementation the roles might be dif-
ferent, or may not even exist. Modelling a process in terms of roles and role inter-
actions could be putting the cart before the horse.
Having summarised these different paradigms, Hollingsworth concludes:
The problem for the systems integrator is that it is not easy to transfer process
information between design tools and/or workflow control software based
upon the different design paradigms. A very large amount of work has been
undertaken by both industry and academia in attempting to define a common
representation of a business process which may be translated between these
different paradigms, and, by extension, the different process modeling and
definition tools associated with the paradigm.
...The recent work on BPMN represents an interesting approach... By encour-
aging adoption of a common modeling notation to express the core compo-
nents of process structure it reduces some of the variety that constrains the
production of a common machine interpretable process definition.
But how far does agreement on notation take us, without agreeing what the nota-
tion expresses? It is as if we have all agreed what the core components of process
structure are, as we have all apparently agreed what a business process is.
BPMN most readily depicts an as-is or to-be implemented process (how), rather
than the what of the business process at logical level. For example the use of
pools and lanes to contextualise the process is most relevant once the physical
implementation (how) has been decided. But BPMN is methodologically agnostic:
BPMN is independent of any specific process modeling methodology.
6
And there is thankfully little to stop it being used to depict business processes at
logical level, as my diagrams below should show.
It is no surprise that transferring process information between different para-
digms is a struggle. The attempts to define a common representation of a busi-
ness process appear to be abstractions from different technology approaches, not
different logical analyses of what a business process is. It is like doing data con-
version and integration in the days before the relational model, or like transferring
accounting information without considering double entry.
Having surveyed existing standards for internal process definition Hollingsworth
turns to Choreography & External Process Interactions. Focus has mostly been
on extending internal process definition approaches to external business-to-
business (B2B) and business-to-customer (B2C) contexts; or, as e-business gets
increasingly sophisticated, on
structured sequences of messages and the process implications behind such
sequences... [all the time] ...remembering that the prime requirement is to
support processes intermeshed across organizational boundaries.
A revealing reminder. It is one thing to imagine, design and implement a process
intermeshed across organizational boundaries. But what is the business-
6
Stephen A. White, Introduction to BPMN (Introduction to BPMN.pdf), IBM Corporation, 2004.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
249
architectural status of such a process? Who owns it, governs it, who is account-
able for what aspect of it? More fundamentally, what is it there for? To get to an
effective logical model we need to steer clear of the solution level: Petri Nets, or-
ganisational roles, functional decomposition, rules engines, interoperability, cho-
reography, message exchange, process fragments. We must start further back.
A PROCESS META-MODEL
Request and outcome
The model I want to present has already been outlined elsewhere.
7
,
8
We start with a familiar schema:
input process output
Process re-engineering and quality initiatives often assume a model like this
implicitly or explicitly. It is not false, but it is too generic. It can apply to a natural
process like photosynthesis or a computer system process like computation. It
says nothing specific about a business process.
Derek Miers alludes to a key feature of a business process by the concept of
process as purpose.
9
A thread of intentionality runs through it.
We can express this by making the first and last components more specific:
request process outcome
There may be other inputs and outputs. But what makes it a business process is
that it is initiated by an implicit or explicit request. In the paradigm case the re-
quest is explicit, from an external customer. But the request could be implicit,
and the customer could be internal rather than external. Where goods are manu-
factured and/or distributed for stock, the request itself is pre-empted. But even if
the request lies in the future, it is still the reason the process exists.
The customer could even be a supplier who, say, asks an actual or potential cus-
tomer to supply a new contract, transaction breakdown, or overdue payment. We
need to construe customer very broadly, as any entity likely to request some-
thing the supplier might agree to provide. Ultimately the initiating event is de-
scribed as a request to reflect the intentionality which characterises a business
process. The initiating event is a request which the supplier intentionally re-
sponds to as a request.
Specifying outcome rather than output highlights the continuity of this thread of
intentionality. The input-process-output model has no necessary identity between
input and output: the process takes in, transforms or uses the inputs, and gener-
ates outputs which may be different from the inputs. But in the request-process-
outcome model the request and outcome are in an important sense the same. The
request is for the outcome; the outcome is the thing requested.
This may seem an over-complex way of stating the obvious. But it has architec-
tural implications. A business process does not just happen. Nor is it just a series
of causally related events like photosynthesis. It is a structured and intentional
response triggered by something seen as a request for a specific outcome. The
request initiates the process, and in the middle of the process it is still there.
7
Chris Lawrence, Make work make sense, Future Managers, Cape Town, 2005.
8
Chris Lawrence, Integrated function and workflow, in: Fischer, L. (Ed.). (2005). Workflow handbook
2005. Lighthouse Point, Florida: Future Strategies Inc.
9
Derek Miers, Issues and Best Practices for the BPM and SOA Journey, Enix Consulting
Limited, 2006.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
250
Some steps have taken place to meet the request, but not all. The request is at a
particular status. At the end of the process is the requests last status transition,
which realises the outcome. The request is a structural element of the process.
This structure is apparent in administration or service processes like insurance,
banking, legal and general administration
10
but it is also obvious in (say) pur-
chase order processing. An order is a paradigm case of request, which initiates
and then travels through the process. This order is not a paper document, or its
digitised image. It is the request entity itselfa dataset of request parameters.
In a life assurance new business process the request entity is the application. In
an insurance claim process it is the claim. Either may or may not be on a physi-
cal form, which may or may not then be digitised.
Rules
Having identified the request entity the next step is straightforward. This is to de-
fine the rules at logical level, including rules specifying the sequence in which the
other rules should be applied. A typical sequence might be:
First: rules about what is and is not a well-formed request. Until these rules have
been met it may not be clear what type of request it is, and therefore what type of
process should start.
Second: authorization rules. Each type of request may have rules about who can
authorise it and what proof is needed. For example an order may need to be on
an order form signed by a known representative of a customer organisation.
Third: rules about carrying out the request.
Rules like these define the process at logical level. At this level the process is the
rules. A process diagram could show six steps in (eg) BPMN symbols:
Take
order
+
Check
credit
rating
+
Match
against
stock
+
Authorise
order
+
Despatch
order
+
Check
order
+
Figure 1
But these are rules which could equally be stated in words:
First, take the order.
Then, check the order.
Then, check credit rating.
...etc.
Within each step will be rules prescribing how to check the order, how to check
credit rating etc. To qualify as a well-formed order it may need to be either from a
known customer or, if from a new customer, it may need certain customer details.
Check credit rating may also include IF...THEN... rules, eg:
IF
Cash with order
THEN
Pass to Match against stock
ELSE
10
David Hollingsworth (1995), op cit.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
251
IF
Order amount <= available credit
THEN
Pass to Match against stock
ELSE
...etc.
The relationship between the rules and the request entity is key. The rules must
allow for every possible value of the relevant attributes of the extended dataset
defined by the request entity. For example an order will have a date, a customer,
details of what is ordered. The customer will have a current available credit and
maybe a discount calculation rule. The products will have a price. If the rules do
not cover every possible value of every attribute, the process will not cover every
possible request. There could be manual and/or discretionary catch-alls, eg:
ELSE
Refer to credit manager for approval
...etc.
This is a perfectly sound rule, but it will need to be unpacked:
How is a credit manager identified?
What happens if approval is not granted?
...etc.
Eventually the rules will be complete, when they cover every possible contingency.
There will be rules within rulesrules inside the boxes Take order, Check order
etc. The steps may change when the rules are defined at a more granular level.
For example the Figure 1 process flow may need to change to:
Take
order
+
Check
credit
rating
+
Match
against
stock
+
Authorise
order
+
Despatch
order
+
Check
order
+
Figure 2
Here Check credit rating and Match against stock are in parallel, and both must
complete before Authorise order. It is not that one process flow is better than the
otherit is purely what the organisation decides its rules are.
I must acknowledge that some of what is being said here is at odds with current
business rules orthodoxy. For example to quote Ronald Ross:
Processes are processes, and rules are rules. They are not the same. A fun-
damental principle of the business rule approach is that each is a primitive.
Formally, one primitive can never decompose to another primitive. So proc-
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
252
esses never decompose into rules, and rules never decompose into proc-
esses...
11
And:
...business rules are not "process" in any sense of the word. Roger Burlton re-
cently expressed the business rule message this way: "Separate the know
from the flow." Business rules represent the "know" part of that -- the stuff
that guides the "flow." Guidance means following rules, of course -- hence the
name "business rules."
12
What idea of business process does this assume? Rosss best definition is:
Business process: the tasks required for an enterprise to satisfy a planned re-
sponse to a business event from beginning to end with a focus on the roles of ac-
tors, rather than the actors day-to-day job.
13
Rules and business processes interact (Ross quoting Roger Burlton again):
...business processes "...transform inputs into outputs according to guidance -- poli-
cies, standards, rules, etc...."
14
The process is the flowa scriptand the rules are the know which guide the
flow. So for example in making a cake, the script might be:
1. Combine flour, water, milk, and eggs in a large bowl.
2. Mix until batter is consistent but not entirely free of lumps.
This recipe represents a perfectly acceptable (albeit very simple) procedure or script.
... Now lets ask, what rules do we need?
Potential rules to provide appropriate control might include the following:
Milk must be fresh.
Bowl must be large enough so that contents do not spill out when stirred.
Batter may be considered "entirely free of lumps" only if there are no visible
masses of congealed batter larger than 2 cm in diameter.
These rules represent business knowledge that must be present when the proce-
dure or script is performed. ...I want both a script to follow ... and rules to guide me
in doing the work. But most importantly, I want the script and the rules to be sepa-
rate.
15
There is also the concept of surrogates:
How does any model of the business (including its processes) differ from any model
for the design of an information/knowledge system (including its processes)?
John Zachman
16
describes the crucial difference this way. A business model "... is
about real-world things." A system model, in contrast "... involves surrogates for the
11
Ronald G. Ross, "Do Rules Decompose to Processes or Vice Versa?", Business Rules Journal, Vol. 4,
No. 12 (Dec. 2003), URL: http: http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2003/b155.html
12
Ronald G. Ross, WHAT IS A BUSINESS RULE? March 2000, URL:
http://www.brcommunity.com/b005.php
13
Ronald G. Ross, "How Rules and Processes Relate ~ Part 2. Business Processes", Business Rules
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 11 (Nov. 2005), URL: http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2005/b256.html. The
quotation is from Janey Conkey Frazier.
14
Ronald G. Ross: ibid.
15
Ronald G. Ross, Principles of the Business Rule Approach, Addison Wesley Professional, Boston, MA,
2003.
16
John A. Zachman, The Zachman Framework: A Primer for Enterprise Engineering and Manufactur-
ing (electronic book). Zachman International (2002).
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
253
real-world things so that the real-world things can be managed on a scale and at a
distance that is not possible in the real world. These surrogates are the things
making up ... systems...." [emphasis added]. The most obvious kind of surrogate for
real world things is data. A system process includes actions that manipulate data
in various ways...
...A process in an information/knowledge system ... can manipulate other kinds of
surrogates as well, for example:
The supervisors work queue is actually a surrogate for a face-to-face interac-
tion between a supervisor and an order clerk each time a special order is re-
ceived.
The supervisors GUI for displaying orders in the queue is actually a surro-
gate for the flesh-and-blood order clerk.
A system process then is all about manipulating surrogates standing in for real-
world things. A business process, in contrast, should never include tasks or steps
for manipulating surrogates. Thats a big difference...
17
I have no problem with the idea of surrogate as representationin the sense that
(say) a customer data record is a surrogate for a flesh-and-blood customer. But it
does not follow that a supervisors work queue is a surrogate for a face-to-face
interaction between a supervisor and an order clerk each time a special order is
received or that a supervisors GUI for displaying orders in the queue is a surro-
gate for the flesh-and-blood order clerk. The analogy does not hold. The flesh-
and-blood customer exists, and the customer record represents the real-world
entity. But the customer record does not replace, or provide an alternative imple-
mentation of, the real customer. To see system functionality as primarily repre-
senting concrete entities and their relationships pertaining to a specific (and per-
haps historically prior) process implementation is to fall into the trap of automat-
ing the as-is which has bedevilled IT since its early days.
Some of the rules for the suppliers order process will be criteria for deciding if an
order is special. At a point in its history the supplier may have implemented its
order process by having a flesh-and-blood order clerk and a flesh-and-blood su-
pervisor. The order clerk would have applied those criteria and referred special
orders to the supervisor via face-to-face interaction. But consider an alternative
where the order clerk only captures the order, and stored system rules decide if
an order is special and, if so, route it to the supervisor. There is no face-to-face
interaction for the supervisors work queue to be a surrogate for. Or another im-
plementation where customers capture their own orders, there is no flesh-and-
blood order clerk, but there is a flesh-and-blood supervisor complete with work
queue. Or no flesh-and-blood order clerk and no flesh-and-blood supervisor, and
instead of routing to the supervisors work queue, special orders invoke special
processing requesting references direct from banks and/or special credit checks
direct from credit agencies.
Sequencing the scenarios like this may suggest an evolution of improvement.
History may have been like this, but it may not have been. There may never have
been an order clerk or a supervisor. These are just different implementations with
different features, costs and technical feasibilities in different contexts. Even if
things had happened in the order the scenarios were presented, a later scenario is
17
Ronald G. Ross, "How Rules and Processes Relate ~ Part 4. Business Processes vs. System Proc-
esses," Business Rules Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan. 2006), URL:
http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2006/b265.html
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
254
not a surrogate for an earlier one. Something cannot be a surrogate for something
which may never have existed.
The false analogy of process surrogates is of a piece with the best definition of
business process quoted above in terms of
tasks required for an enterprise to satisfy a planned response to a business
event from beginning to end with a focus on the roles of actors.
Why should there be actors? There may be actors, and if so they are likely to have
roles. But to assume actors and roles are necessary to the business process is as
unwarranted as to assume system functionality is necessarily a surrogate for a
more concrete (or flesh-and-blood!) implementation which must have preceded it.
It is possible that assumptions like these are behind the statement that a busi-
ness process should never include tasks or steps for manipulating surrogates. (Is
there an echo here of Hollingsworths two domains?)
What do seem to be necessary components of business processes on the other
hand are rules. To that extent I agree with Ross and Burlton that business proc-
esses transform inputs into outputs according to guidancepolicies, standards,
rules, etc. But I see no residue of script which is not rules. Flow is also know. It
is arbitrary to see Milk must be fresh as a rule but Combine flour, water, milk,
and eggs in a large bowl as part of a script, and therefore not a rulejust be-
cause I want both a script to follow ... and rules to guide me in doing the work
and I want the script and the rules to be separate.
At an empirical level, there may be contexts where The really rapid change is in
the rules ... not in the business processes
18
, where the steps themselves and
their sequence do not change much, but things like authorisation limits and role
assignments do. But equally, and particularly in pursuit of automation efficiency,
a process implementation could change significantly (eg withdrawing cash from
an ATM rather than cashing a cheque) while the fundamental rules stay the same
(account and amount must be specified; withdrawal must be by a person author-
ised to withdraw from that account; withdrawal amount subject to limits; etc).
Far from separating process from rules a more helpful paradigm would be to see
process completely in terms of rules. In terms of strict logical typing it may be
that process and rule are different primitives, as computation is not number
and vice versa. But it does not follow that the steps and their sequence which
make up the entire content of the process are not rules. (In fact I lean to the view
that perhaps a business process itself is a rule at a logical level. Structurally there
can be rules within rules. And for an organisation to see the data set an event
represents as a request which it then intentionally honours is effectively to follow
a rule it has been given or has given itself.)
A more helpful distinction would be between the process itself at logical (rule) level
and any particular implementation of itin terms of systems, people, roles,
manuals, rule books etc. It is not that the process stays the same and the rules
change. Some rules are volatile; some hardly change. Sometimes the physical im-
plementation stays unchanged for a long time: because it works; because it is too
expensive or disruptive to change it; because no one thought of changing it or
that it could change. Sometimesparticularly for cost and/or quality (and there-
fore competition) reasonsthe physical implementation has to change.
18
Roger T Burlton, quoted in: Ronald G. Ross, "How Rules and Processes Relate ~ Part 2. Business
Processes," Business Rules Journal, Vol. 6, No. 11 (Nov. 2005), URL:
http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2005/b256.html
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
255
To show how artificial it is to separate process from rule consider a familiar ad-
ministration process. There could be a rule that a particular document or data
item must be available. What if it is missing? We do not suddenly move out of a
rule domain (x is needed) into a process domainwhich would then detail how
to get the missing information. The stipulation that the information is required is
a rule; and the statement of where to get it from is also a rule. We could imagine
an implementation where on finding the information is missing the requirement
rule immediately leads to generating correspondence to request the outstanding
information from the intended recipient. This is process, but it is also rules.
To return to the process meta-model, talk of rules not satisfied means we should
qualify the statement that the outcome is precisely the thing requested. Yes the
request is for the outcome in that, for example, an application (request) for a
passport is an application for a passport (outcome). But not every passport appli-
cation leads to a passport. There are eligibility rules, and if the applicant cannot
eg produce a birth certificate proving place of birth the passport will not be
granted. Strictly speaking the outcome is not necessarily a passport, but a well-
formed result in line with passport application rules. The paradigm well-formed
outcome will be a passport. But because it must be possible for rules to be not
satisfied, the requested outcome may not be the actual outcome.
Far from refuting the model this is actually a crucial implication. Exceptions and
error conditions are the bread and butter of business process, because rules are.
So what are rules? We have said a lot about them but not yet tried to define them.
This was deliberate. The meta-model only needs an operational definition: some-
thing is a rule if it is used as a rule. This is almost circular but not quite. It re-
flects the same thread of intentionality as request does.
This may be heresy to some business rule theorists. I have no objection to the
view that there is a significant subset of business rules which are best expressed
declaratively; which can more formally be expressed in predicate calculus format;
which can be categorised as rejectors, projectors and producers; and for which
it is true that rules build on facts, and facts build on concepts as expressed by
terms.
19
But I am unconvinced that there is anything about first, take the order,
then check the order, then check credit rating which disqualifies it as a state-
ment of rules. The development of systems and therefore the implementation of
business processes may be facilitated by a specially designed logicbase (consist-
ing of a factbase plus a rulebase) whose contents conform to rules about format,
atomicity etc. But this assumes we know what our process (our script) already is,
and our intention is to make it as efficient and as flexible as possible by providing
optimised support and guidance from an optimised store of rules. This is fine as
long as the script itself is optimal. If it is not how do we know? Because it is more
expensive or slower than our competitors? Because its error rate is higher? Be-
cause it is therefore not best practice? But this may only focus on how the script
is followed, not on the script itself. Where does the script come from? As soon as
we ask that question we open ourselves to possible ways of analysing the process
itself; and I suggest that a helpful way to do this is in terms of rules, without pre-
supposing any criteria as to what a rule is, other than its being used as a rule.
There are many reasons a statement (typically in imperative or indicative mood)
may be used as a rule. It could be an internal fact about the organisation or a fact
19
Ronald G. Ross, Principles of the Business Rule Approach, Addison Wesley Professional, Boston, MA,
2003.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
256
about the universe beyond it. It could be something true by definition or some-
thing the organisation or some other body wants to hold true by definition. It
could be a control the organisation wants in place, temporarily or permanently, to
mitigate risk, to ensure survival or compliance, to monitor or maintain or improve
its competitive position or its quality or its profitability. And so on.
Many rules will be reasons why current implemented processes are how they are.
Some rules may be better served (now or in future) if the processes were different.
Some processes may be how they are because the rules are believed to be what
they are. Some explicit or implicit rules may no longer make sense or may never
have made sense.
Clearly the intention should beat least ideally, and assuming the opportunity
existsto establish what the rules are and should be, regardless of what is actu-
ally taking place in the organisation, including everything that is or should be
used as a rule, and excluding nothing on grounds of content or format. Then the
processes can be logically defined.
If formulations like first, take the order, then check the order, then check credit
rating can qualify as rules, then there can be rules within rules. There can also
be rules within rules within rulesand so on. But this does not mean the logical
process flow itself needs to allow indefinite hierarchies. The request-process-
outcome model provides a compelling argument for recognising just three levels.
Process, subprocess and task
The top level, process, is that of the model itself. A request of a particular type (eg
purchase order) initiates an instance of a particular process type (eg order proc-
ess). The model allows us to define a process unambiguously. It is not an arbi-
trary string of process fragments, nor an arbitrary stretch of an end-to-end proc-
ess delivery chain. It is from the request to the well-formed outcome.
The second level, subprocess, is that of the steps already identified: Take order,
Check order etc. Subprocess here means one of these steps. High-level rules like
First, take the order; then check the order; then check the customers credit rat-
ing etc indicate status changes which are important to the business. These busi-
ness status changes apply to all orders, irrespective of their attributes. It is this
generality which defines the subprocess level.
This is key. The request must qualify as a request of a particular type. Because it
is of that type, a particular set of rules applies to it. That set of rules is the proc-
ess. Because the rules are sequenced (according to sequencing rules!), the request
will undergo changes in business status, reflecting what rules have already been
applied, and what rules are yet to be applied. The subprocess level is the level ap-
plying to all requests of the particular type, regardless of any characteristics or
contingencies of the individual request itself.
The third level, task, reflects those individual characteristics and contingencies.
Different request datasets will follow different nested sets of rules and different
routing because of their different attribute values. Every order will make the sub-
process-level transition from status awaiting Check credit rating to status await-
ing Match against stock (or, in Figure 2, status awaiting Authorise order). But
different orders may make that transition in different ways.
Assume for example that these are the rules for Check credit rating:
1 An order may pass Check credit rating if accompanied by a cash payment
greater than or equal to the total order value.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
257
2 An order may pass Check credit rating if the customer is not in arrears and
the total order value is less than or equal to the customers total current un-
used credit.
3 Any credit increase where the total order value is greater than the customers
total current unused credit and the customer has not sent cash with the or-
der (but the customer is not in arrears and the order is accompanied by a
bank reference justifying the credit increase) must be manually approved.
4 A customer who is in arrears and has sent in an order unaccompanied by
cash must be written to requesting payment before the order can be accepted.
5 A customer who is not in arrears, but has sent in an order greater than the
total current unused credit and unaccompanied by sufficient cash must pro-
vide a bank reference justifying the credit increase before the order can be ac-
cepted.
Some of these rules allow the subproc-
ess to be passed automaticallyfor
example if the order meets the criteria
of either rule 1 or rule 2.
Because of rule 3, the subprocess will
need to accommodate manual ap-
proval.
Rules 4 and 5 need the subprocess to
include writing to the customer; and
therefore both recording and acting on
the customers reply or, if the customer
does not reply, some sort of follow-up.
The subprocess could therefore have a
task structure as in Figure 3.
Automatic credit check, Manual
credit check, Manual record docu-
ments and Automatic follow up are
tasks. As the names suggest, Auto-
matic credit check and Automatic fol-
low up are automatic tasks, needing
the application of business rules but
not human intervention. Manual
credit check and Manual record
documents on the other hand are
tasks requiring human intervention.
We said above that the task level is
there because the request datasets go-
ing through the subprocess may be
different, and therefore different things may need to happen to them before the
objective of the subprocess is achieved.
A subprocess like Check credit rating could start with an automatic task which
processes the requests it can process, and re-routes the ones it cannot.
So Automatic credit check applies all five rules. If the order passes either 1 or 2,
it can go on to the next subprocess, Match against stock. If the order meets the
criteria of rule 3, then it would route to a manual task to allow the increased
credit to be approved.
Check credit rating
Automatic
credit
check
Manual
credit
check
Automatic
follow up
Manual
record
documents
meets criteria
of 3, 4 or 5
approved
(rule 3)
pass
1 or 2
written to
customer
(rule 4 or 5)
From
Check
order
To
Match
against
stock
Figure 3
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
258
For simplicity it will be assumed that the same manual task could allow for both
approval (rule 3), and also writing to the customer (rules 4 and 5). So if the order
met the criteria for either rule 4 or rule 5, it would route to the same manual task.
In the case of just approval (rule 3), then the order would route back to the auto-
matic task, which would then route it to the next subprocess. (Or this action
could be taken in the manual task.) If the customer needs to be written to (rules 4
and 5), then we need two additional tasks: a manual task to act on the customers
reply; and an automatic follow-up to loop if no reply after n days.
The details of the tasks need not concern us. The number, nature and configura-
tion of tasks and the routing between them will be determined by the business
rules governing the process itself, and applicable to the particular subprocess.
With this meta-model we do not start with what people do and the order they do it
in. We do not start with actors or roles, however abstract. This is where we may
end up. But we start with rules.
This example also shows that although the subprocess level is important for
analysis and design, as far as implementation is concerned (other than for man-
agement information and control purposes) it is technically redundant. All the
work of the subprocess is contained in its tasks, and the routing between them. A
process is a set of tasks strung together with routing pathways.
Can the task break down further? Yes and no. If we consider its functionality
then clearly the task could break into components and components of compo-
nents. But from a pure process and control perspective a task is a unit. A task
cannot partially complete, since the request (eg the order) must exit in a well-
formed way so as to route to the next task correctly. This is because everything
that happens in a task can happen together: in the case of an automatic task it is
a set of rules which can be applied in one go (in a defined sequence if necessary);
in the case of a manual task it is a set of things it makes logical sense for one per-
son at a particular skill and authority level to do in the same session.
In the case of a manual task it is obviously possible for a user to stop halfway
perhaps capture only part of the data the manual task is there for. It must be
possible to exit the task at that point, and either lose everything done so far or
leave things in a partially-updated state. The task itself has completed in a well-
formed way, and subsequent routing will take account of the abandoned or par-
tial updateeg by looping back to the same task to redo or finish the update.
We have now introduced an important feature of the meta-model: the distinction
between the process component (the task) and any functionality component(s)
needed to implement it. From a process and control perspective a task, like a
subprocess, is a transition in the business status of the request. The task is a
transition from one status to one or more possible statuses representing possible
subsequent routings. To achieve those transitions functionality is neededand
there could be many different ways of implementing the task.
The task as process component is a unit with attributes like:
Task name
Input status and possible output statuses
Whether automatic or manual
If manual:
What roles and/or skill levels required
and so on.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
259
Automatic and manual tasks will call for different types of functionality. A manual
task may display and accept data via an interface, while both classes of task may
run rules and update data. But as nodes in a process flow they are equivalent, as
in taking the request from one input status to one of a number of possible output
statuses. In theory at least a manual task is replaceable by an automatic task
with the same outcome, or vice versa. (In practice incremental automation is more
likely to involve increasing the proportion of requests handled by automatic tasks,
than replacing manual tasks one-for-one by automatic tasks. Removing a manual
task will more likely involve rationalising routing within the whole subprocess
rather than just replacing the task with a single equivalent automatic task.)
We should therefore think of task-as-process-component as something separate
from but loosely coupled with the functionality component(s) which implement it.
The relationship could be many-to-many: one task could be implemented by a set
of functionality components (possibly linked together hierarchically) and/or the
same functionality component could implement more than one task. (Task al-
most corresponds to the more familiar WfMC activity, but task here is unambi-
guously a process component rather than something incorporating both process
and functionalityor something which is primarily functionality.)
It could be objected that at this task level the model stops being purely logical
(what) and becomes physical (how). Perhaps the process could be implemented
with different tasks; or in a different way entirely, not needing tasks? Perhaps.
But we recall that task arose in the metamodel by considering the impact of the
subprocess rules on the range of possible attribute values of the request dataset
passing through the subprocess (including relevant external contingencies). An
additional assumption is that tasklike process and subprocessis a control
unit at the appropriate level. The process is the control unit responsible for taking
the request through to the well-formed outcome. The subprocess takes the re-
quest from one business status to the next, defined by business rules applicable
to all requests of the initiating type, regardless of individual case characteristics.
Tasks are the minimum control units required so that any possible request can
make the status transition defined at subprocess level.
Control unit should be construed at a management/process information/state
description level. Since these are business processes there will be different stake-
holders interested in knowing for example where each request is, or perhaps just
knowing this information exists.
If task seems more solution and less purely logical this could come from the
real world nature of the last two axiomsincluding all possible cases (and there-
fore all the more complex aspects such as handling exceptions and various error
conditions
20
); and the nodes being unambiguously defined control units.
But it is really a question of what the meta-model is, and so what is inside it and
what is outside it. The meta-model is a coherent set of inter-related concepts
which can be used to design process models at logical level, models which can
then be implemented in solution architecture.
We have already alluded to the two analogies of the relational data meta-model
and the double-entry paradigm in accounting.
The relational meta-model provides a set of inter-related concepts (entity, rela-
tionship, attribute, primary key, foreign key etc) which can be used to design data
models at logical level, models which can then be implemented in physical data-
20
David Hollingsworth (2004), op. cit.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
260
bases. It guides, but does not prescribe, design choices. It does not say what enti-
ties to recognise. A real-world data domain could be represented in two or more
equally valid logical data models, equally aligned with relational principles. The
different data models could reflect different business and strategic priorities, and
different assumptions about future flexibility. But there would be a vast and in-
definite number of invalid data designs, ignoring or flouting relational principles.
The strength of the meta-model is its principles for identifying the relatively small
number of good data models and choosing between them.
Like the relational model (and also like the double-entry paradigm, which does
not impose a particular chart of accounts but guides accounting design) the proc-
ess meta-model provides building blocks for creating a logical process design. It
does not say what the rules should be; or what requests an organisation should
honour and so what processes it should support. It does not say what controls
and break points and therefore what status transitions to recognise. It does not
prescribe ranges of values for request data sets. But it provides a related set of
concepts which, given an organisations business context and objectives, help it
make rational choices as to what its processes should be, how they should inter-
act, what intervention would repay technology investment, and how processes
should be designed and implemented to maximise return on that investment.
It does this not by viewing technology implementations in increasingly generic
and abstract terms, but by providing tools to identify and then represent the fun-
damental logic of its processes in terms of their rules. The eventual configuration
of tasks will depend on the scope of the particular process initiative and the stra-
tegic priorities of the organisation. Just as there may be more than one possible
logical data model for a given context there could be more than one possible proc-
ess model. But none need assume a particular technology implementation.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE META-MODEL
The meta-model implies and facilitates a logical process architecture. More sim-
ply: it is a logical process architecture.
To illustrate this I shall indicate how the model might inform some of the process
issues raised in Hollingsworths paper.
Process fragment
First the process fragment. The process itself is seen as
a combination of process fragments which can be recombined in various
ways to deliver new or modified business capability. This has become impor-
tant to support business agility and follows from the increasingly integrated
business relationships between trading organizations.
The internal view defines the actual or intended internal behavior of the
process fragmentit includes not just the activities and transitions between
them but, also [significantly] the internal resources required to support enact-
ment of the process. It will also identify the boundaries of the fragment in
terms of interactions with other process fragments or outside objects.
The external view defines the behaviour of the fragment as a black box,
addressed through its interfaces. This view sees the process fragment very
much as a source and sink of messages or events of different types.
Other than the need for agility because of increasingly integrated business rela-
tionships, there is little discussion of business context. What about ownership,
governance, accountability? We need to think through what integrated business
relationships might mean in the real world.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
261
A possible way to integrate two or more businesses is where a process owned by
one business needs participation by another business. Life assurance company A
decides to outsource its new business underwriting to company B. This could
translate into the meta-model by having a new business process owned, defined
and implemented by A, but with manual underwriting tasks available to users in
company B. Company A may pursue greater agility by outsourcing the under-
writing of different products to different underwriting companies. For example
manual underwriting task instances for products 1, 3 and 5 might be available to
users in company B and those for products 2 and 4 to users in company C. The
meta-model would support thisbut not impose a particular solution.
In this scenario (eg where users access task instances over the web) the function-
ality used by companies B and C might not qualify as process fragments, as the
whole process is supplied and owned by company A. But it could be different.
Company A could send details of new business applications to companies B and
C by post or email; and get back underwriting decisionsagain by an agreed me-
dium. This would be similar to a company A process generating correspondence
to a customer or agent and then handling the response. It would be more like
where process fragments take place at company B and company C.
If the details of the new business application were in a file or data packet input
into (say) company Bs underwriting system, then this may be even closer to a
process fragmentas company Bs system functionality would be performing
part of company As process. Perhaps company B also handles company As
claims underwriting, and interacts in the same way. Then the data packets from
company A might need to contain process type indicators so company B can
identify them as new business or claims. If company B did underwriting for other
life assurance companies then the data packet might need a client attribute indi-
cating which life assurance company it was from. This approaches a world where
standards are neededso multiple clients like company A and multiple suppliers
like B and C can interact in the same way. We may need a choreography
to identify the valid sequences of messages and responses across and be-
tween the participating process fragments. The choreography requires each
process fragment to exhibit a set of prescribed external behaviours in re-
sponse to such message sequences.
But company A may want a more structured and arms-length relationship with
B and C, more like the customer-supplier relationship it in fact is. A disadvantage
of the B2B acronym is that it can obscure business-architectural features by
over-focus on technology and the drive to agility. There is a risk of overlooking
B2B fundamentals like ownership, accountability and governance.
Figures 4 and 5 below show alternative ways in which companies B and C might
interact with company A in respect of new business underwriting. Both diagrams
use BPMN symbols, and both are aligned with the proposed meta-model.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
262
Issue
policy
+
Underwriting
Automatic
underwriting
Manual
underwriting:
company B
Needs
manual
u/w by B
No
manual
u/w o/s
Check
application
+
Capture
application
+
Check
documents
+
Manual
underwriting:
company C
Needs
manual
u/w by C
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
A
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
B
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
C
Figure 4
Figure 4 fits a scenario where all new business process functionality is supplied
and owned by company A. An automatic underwriting task identifies cases need-
ing no manual underwriting (or which have now been underwritten) and passes
them to the Issue policy subprocess. It splits the others between companies B
and C according to rules, perhaps based on product type. The two manual un-
derwriting tasks are made available to companies B and C respectively.
Issue
policy
+
Underwriting
Automatic
underwriting
Needs
manual
u/w by B
No manual
u/w o/s
Check
application
+
Capture
application
+
Check
documents
+
Needs
manual
u/w by C
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
A
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
B
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
C
Auto receive
response
Underwriting:
company B
+
Underwriting:
company C
+
u/w
request
u/w
request
u/w
outcome
u/w
outcome
Figure 5
Figure 5 shows a different relationship. Here company As new business process
excludes manual underwriting. The automatic underwriting task again splits the
cases into ones needing no manual underwriting (or which have now been un-
derwritten); ones for company B; and ones for company C. But instead of routing
to manual underwriting tasks in the same process, underwriting request mes-
sages travel to company B or C as appropriate. These initiate instances of under-
writing processes in B or C respectively, and generate outcome messages which
travel back to company A where the Auto receive response task processes them.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
263
The two processes Underwriting: company B and Underwriting: company C can
be completely black box as far as company A is concerned, as long as they can
read the right request messages and generate the right outcome messages. Un-
derwriting: company B and Underwriting: company C can also be completely
different from each other internally.
Examples like these show an important feature of the meta-model in B2B and
B2C contexts. Process relationships can be depicted at a logical, business-
architectural, level without (at one extreme) showing the process so abstractly
that it and all its components float in space, not supplied, owned or governed by
any entity; or (at the other extreme) showing ownership etc only in terms of physi-
cally implemented processes. This is because the request is from a customer, and
the outcome is for a customer: the process itself is fundamentally from the sup-
plier perspective. But customer and supplier are construed broadly enough to
cover any B2B or B2C relationship.
So the meta-model allows us to simplify and sharpen our language. In Figure 5
company As new business process (from Capture application to Issue policy) is
a process. A process has an internal logical structure (subprocess, then task). A
process can interact with other processes and/or with itself. Company As process
initiates process Underwriting: company B and process Underwriting: company
C by generating appropriate requests. If it has issued a request message for com-
pany B it will suspend itself until it receives an appropriate outcome message
from company B, when it then carries on to completion. We do not need to call
company As process an end-to-end process delivery chain; or see Underwriting:
company B and Underwriting: company C as process fragments. The meta-
model defines them all as (business) processes.
Nesting and re-use
Some models allow nested or hierarchical relationships at subprocess or task (ac-
tivity) level. For example the WfRM nested subprocess construct
allows a process executed in a particular workflow domain to be completely encap-
sulated as a single task within a (superior) process executed in a different workflow
domain. A hierarchic relationship exists between the superior process and the en-
capsulated process, which in effect forms a sub-process of the superior.
21
The meta-model proposed here may at first sight appear more restrictive. It ac-
knowledges nesting between functionality components, and re-use of functionality
components between tasks. But the only nesting it allows at process component
level is between processes themselves, as in the process interactions mentioned
above. The reason is logical. The process is everything from initiating request to
outcome; the subprocess is a transition in business status of the request across
all possible requests; the task structure allows for status transitions for all possi-
ble attribute values of the extended request dataset. A task is therefore a status
transition of a specific request type, at a particular point in a particular process. It
cannot at the same time be another transition of another request type, or of the
same request type at a different point in the process. Nor would anything be
gained by allowing this kind of re-use. The actual functionality (by definition) is
contained in the functionality component(s) implementing the task, and function-
ality components can be re-used and nested with complete freedom.
21
David Hollingsworth (1995), op. cit.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
264
There could be nesting between task and processin effect at process level. The
model defines process as everything from initiating request to outcome, so a
process needs a request entity to start it. It is perfectly in order for a task P1Tn in
process P1 (initiated by request R1) to create another request R2 initiating process
P2. (See Figure 7 under Process interactions and agility below.) But P2 cannot
be initiated by the same request R1 otherwise R1s outcome (O1) could be gener-
ated by P2, and by definition it must be generated by P1. This is true purely logi-
cally, and therefore cannot be a practical limitation. It is more a strength of the
meta-model that it insists on definition of request entities. It achieves the same
practical result as the WfRMs nested subprocess construct, but in the context of
formal rigour. (See also Process interactions and agility below.)
Work management
A perhaps more clearly practical strength of the model is its incorporation of in-
ternal work management into the same control structure as external interactions
with customers, agents, suppliers and other partners. In Figures 4 and 5 sub-
processes Capture application and Check application represent data entry and
validation work internal to company A, and subprocess Check documents repre-
sents that part of the process (again internal to company A) where applications
are checked to ensure no supporting documents are outstanding. A mature proc-
ess architecture would integrate these into the same work management/work
delivery functionality. With web deployment there is no reason why (in Figure 4)
this should not also extend to tasks Manual underwriting: company B and
Manual underwriting: company C. Figure 5 assumes different interaction and
ownership choices, but the interactions themselves (generation of requests and
processing of outcomes) can be incorporated into the same (internal) work man-
agement/work delivery functionality as the rest of company As process. There is
no logical or architectural reason why B2B and B2C interactions should be in a
different control domain to internal work management, and every reason why
they should not. We do not have to risk
ignoring the organizational and human aspects of the business process, in fa-
vour of a resource model wholly based on web services.
An effective process model can cover every part of every business process
including both (i) fully internal and (ii) web-deployed interactive and indetermi-
nately resourced processes and parts of processes.
Insofar as the meta-model implies (is) a logical process architecture, it can also
inform and guide a physical solution architecture capable of integrating process
control, work management and application system functionality in the most im-
mediate waysuch that the business process design and the application system
design are one and the same.
22
There only need to be two domains when imple-
mentation technology determines (and therefore constrains) business process.
When the horse is before the cart, and business process determines implementa-
tion technology, there is only one domainprocess implemented in technology
calling for one holistic mindset, one holistic skill set, one holistic methodology.
Late binding
Figure 5 also indicates how the model can handle late binding of resource to task
and/or dynamic discovery [of services] at fragment execution time. Trawling cy-
berspace for underwriting services may be far-fetched, but if it did make business
sense then the u/w request message would only need to be unspecific to either
22
Chris Lawrence, Make work make sense, Future Managers, Cape Town, 2005.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
265
company B or company C, and instead conform to a standard format and be
transmitted to an appropriate broking service (resource directory) which would
link it up with an underwriting service provider capable of handling the request
and generating an u/w outcome message in an equally standard format.
For a less far-fetched example, subprocess Match against stock in the earlier or-
der process (Figure 1 or Figure 2) could be not an internal subprocess but a set of
tasks for issuing standardised request messages destined for appropriate whole-
sale suppliers (again via an appropriate broking service/resource directory) and
deciding (on eg price and lead-time criteria) which outcome messages to confirm
and therefore which (perhaps previously unknown) suppliers to contract with.
Process and data
Under the heading Information and its relationship to process and organiza-
tion Hollingsworth sees a distinction between process-based and information
based architectures:
Process-based architectures tend to emphasise process as the dominant di-
mension; processes consume, generate or transform information, behaving in
accordance with a set of corporate governance rules. By contrast, information
based architectures emphasise the information dimension, viewing processes
as operations that are triggered as a result of information change.
23
Does this have to be true? Must we
choose between process- and informa-
tion-based architectures? Remember-
ing the distinction between task (as
process component) and the function-
ality component(s) implementing the
task, then what sort of thing is a task?
In an implemented process-architected
solution the relevant entities might be
related as in a logical data model
something like Figure 6.
Note the repeating typeinstance pat-
tern. A process model (of a business or
business area) is at type level, where
the rules are. Each instance is an en-
tity created as required for the individ-
ual case (RequestInstance) and con-
forming to the rules for its type. For
example an automatic credit check TaskInstance (for eg order number 001) will
behave as determined by the automatic credit check TaskType.
Stepping through this data model, a request (RequestInstance) is of a particular
RequestType, identifying the correct ProcessType. A ProcessInstance is created of
that ProcessType. The ProcessType defines a set of SubprocessTypes which are
the subprocesses for that process. (SubprocessType and SubprocessInstance are
shown in broken lines because of their possible redundancy at implementation
level.) SubprocessType and/or ProcessType identify the set of TaskTypes for each
relevant SubprocessType/ProcessType. TaskInstances are created as required, as
23
David Hollingsworth (2004), op. cit.
Process
Type
Process
Instance
Subprocess
Instance
Subprocess
Type
Task
Type
Task
Instance
User Access
Functionality
Component
Task-
Component
Request
Type
Request
Instance
Routing
Figure 6
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
266
not every ProcessInstance will need instances of every TaskType. But typically a
TaskInstance for the first TaskType will be needed to start the process.
The (first) TaskInstance will run by causing the relevant FunctionalityCompo-
nent(s) to run. The relationship between TaskType and FunctionalityComponent
is many-to-many, but there would typically be one controlling FunctionalityCom-
ponent responsible for starting the task and calling other FunctionalityCompo-
nents as required. If the TaskType is a manual task then Access will define the
User(s) able to perform the TaskInstance.
Routing is an intersection entity with rules as to what next task(s) are possible
for each task. Attributes would be eg From TaskType (ie this TaskType), To
TaskType (ie next TaskType) and Condition (ie exit condition under which the
From TaskType would lead to the To TaskType).
In a physical implementation many of these actions and links would be by generic
process functionality operating against process control type data and creating
process control instance data as required. This generic functionality, along with
the type and instance process data, is typically referred to as a process engine.
A summary like this demonstrates that components like process, subprocess and
task are best thought of as data entities to control, guide and implement the be-
haviour of a process-based system. So a sophisticated process-based architec-
ture is one treating process as data at logical level and implementing process as
data at physical level. Conversely a sophisticated information-based architecture
is one which extends its reach to include process entities. If process is a subset
of information, why distinguish between process- and information-based archi-
tectures? An information-based architecture which viewed processes only as op-
erations triggered as a result of information change could be described as an
incomplete information-based architecture. Conversely a process-based architec-
ture which saw processes only as things which
consume, generate or transform information, behaving in accordance with a
set of corporate governance rules
thereby missing the point that business processes themselves can and should
be modelled and implemented as datacould be described as an incomplete proc-
ess-based architecture.
We do not have to compromise. We can take business process seriously, by tak-
ing seriously its representation in data. Hollingsworth admits the WfRM
does embrace all three dimensions [process, information and organization]
but takes a relatively simplistic view of the information dimension.
This simplistic view could be a reason it is often a challenge to extend proprietary
workflow packages to provide true process control functionalitydespite vendor
claims. Process control is about rules, and rules are data.
Process interactions and agility
This is a convenient point to return to the discussion of process interactions
important because of implications for process agility.
The model lets us distinguish two kinds of interaction. One (Figure 7) is men-
tioned under Nesting and re-use above, where eg a task P1Tn in process P1 cre-
ates a request R2 to initiate process P2.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
267
Next
subprocess
+
Subprocess
Task P1Tn
Request
R2
Process P1
Process P2
+
Initiate
Figure 7
Next
subprocess
+
Subprocess
Task P3Tn
Process P3
Next
subprocess
+
Subprocess
Task P4Tn
With update
Process P4
Task P4Tm
Without update
Business
data
update
read
Figure 8
Another (Figure 8) is where task P3Tn in process P3 merely creates or changes
business data so that when a rule in task P4Tn in process P4 runs it has a differ-
ent result than would have happened before the update.
On the functionality component level there is no distinction, as P1Tn in process
P1 creating request R2 could be described as creating or changing business
data. The difference is of course that the business data in Figure 7 is a request,
and request is a structural component of the process meta-model.
Consider now a familiar version of Figure 8 where the data task P3Tn updates is
control data implementing a business rule. An example might be where process
P4 is an order process, the affected subprocess is Authorise order, task P4Tn is
Automatic authorisation and task P4Tm is Manual authorisation.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
268
In Figure 9 the automatic authorisation task passes orders where the values are
within limits stored on the Authorisation limits file. Authorisation limits could
hold maximum values for, say, different product types and/or customer catego-
ries. Any order within these limits passes to the next subprocess. Any order ex-
ceeding one or more limits routes to a manual authorisation task.
The authorisation limits themselves are updated by a separate Parameter update
process. For a particular product/customer category combination the Parameter
update process could increase the limit from 100 to 120. Before the update an
order for 110 for that same product/customer category combination routes to
manual authorisation. After the update an identical order would pass automatic
authorisation.
Next
subprocess
+
Subprocess
Update
authorisation
limits
Parameter update process
Next
subprocess
+
Subprocess: Authorise order
Auto
authorisation
Within limits
Order process
Manual
authorisation
Exceeds limit(s)
Authorisation
limits
update
read
Figure 9
The meta-model supports this kind of agility. The order process itself has not
changed, but its manifest behaviour has because a rule implemented as control
data has been changed dynamically.
It is perhaps a relatively tame kind of agility. But even so its dynamic nature has
implications which need acknowledging. Do we worry about equitable treatment?
Two orders from two customers in the same category could arrive on the same
day for the same amount of the same product. One is delayed by an earlier sub-
process so that by the time it gets to subprocess: Authorise order it is automati-
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
269
cally approved, because of the update. The other order is not delayed, and has to
be manually approved because it gets in before the update. Does this matter? Or
should the effective date of the parameter update be compared with the date the
order is received, rather than the parameter update taking effect at run time? If so
the old authorisation limits would need to persist for a while alongside the new.
The impact of rule and control data changes will depend on business context.
Questions like these are commonplace in administration, and are unproblematic
when human beings provide the integration between work management and
administration systems. The challenge comes with increasing automationan
architecture integrating business process with business functionality.
Consider the impact of an agile change to the behaviour of the automatic under-
writing task in Figure 5. Perhaps we want to add another company (D) to share
the underwriting on product 4, and also move the whole of product 1 from com-
pany B to company D.
In Figure 10 the U/W company parameters file holds details about what com-
pany can underwrite what product, and rules about how to split underwriting on
a product between more than one underwriting company. The Automatic under-
writing task will need to read this file to know which company to generate the
underwriting request for. The Auto receive response task may also need to read
the file to validate an underwriting outcome.
Company B may have received underwriting requests for product 1 but not yet
completed them. So although, following the update, company B is no longer al-
lowed to underwrite product 1, an outcome from company B for a product 1 re-
quest issued before the update should be treated as valid.
But there could be more to it than this in a real business context. If company A
changes its rules so that underwriting work for products 1 and 4 is now out-
sourced to company D, company D must expect to receive these requests, and
companies B and C must also expect changes in their incoming requests. Do we
assume the U/W parameter update process handles some or all of this corre-
spondence, or is it just an internal data update process? What does just an in-
ternal data update process mean? What if the strategic intent is to implement as
many business processes as possible seamlessly, transparently and explicitly in
application technology, as this was seen to maximise effectiveness and efficiency?
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
270
Issue
policy
+
Underwriting
Automatic
underwriting
No manual
u/w o/s
Check
application
+
Capture
application
+
Check
documents
+
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
A
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
B
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
C
Auto receive
response
Underwriting:
company B
+
Underwriting:
company C
+
u/w
outcome
u/w
outcome
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
D
U/W company
parameters
update
read
Needs manual
u/w by
B or C or D
u/w
request
Underwriting:
company D
+
u/w
outcome
read
U/W parameter
update process
+
New business process
Figure 10
The overall business process could be like this:
Change/new
outsource contract
+
New/changed
contract
implemented
Request for
new/changed
contract
Figure 11
The customer in this case is actually the supplier or potential supplier. Or per-
haps the customer is internal to company Aa department responsible for con-
tracting with underwriting providers. The point is that the Underwriting parame-
ter update process of Figure 10 could be seen more holistically as part of a busi-
ness process to set up a new outsource contract and/or change an existing one.
(The big difference between system process and business process is not so much
an ontological distinction between surrogate and what the surrogate represents.
24
It is more a question of how holistically we choose to see the process.)
There may need to be three instances of the process: one to remove product 1
from company Bs contract; one to set up a new contract for company D to be sole
underwriter for product 1 and pooled underwriter for product 4; and one to
change company C from sole underwriter to pooled underwriter for product 4.
The process could also be responsible for generating and receiving correspon-
dence: eg new/amended contracts for signature and return.
24
Ronald G. Ross, "How Rules and Processes Relate ~ Part 4. Business Processes vs. System Proc-
esses," Business Rules Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan. 2006), URL:
http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2006/b265.html
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
271
The amount of automation (and system support generally) appropriate for a busi-
ness process like this has more to do with its economics than with its logic or
purpose. Company A may have functionality to update underwriting company
parameters in one of its IT systems, but no functionality other than that to sup-
port changes in outsource contracting. But its business processes should not be
seen in terms of the systems it happens to haveunless of course they were suc-
cessfully process-architected, in which case the processes and their system im-
plementation would be one and the same. I accept the idea that a data entity is a
surrogate for the real-world entity it represents, but it does not follow that
any model of the business (including its processes)... [has to] ...differ from any
model for the design of an information/knowledge system (including its proc-
esses).
25
The reason for discussing scenarios like these is to stress that it is often not so
much what technology we need to maximise agility, but how exhaustive we want
(or can afford) our impact analysis to be. Automation at any level ushers in a new
world. Run-time opportunities for human intervention and ingenuity are reduced
by design, so the intervention and ingenuity must be supplied at design time.
Two things are often expected from a process engine or a BPMS. One is process
flexibility: being able to change a process at the click of a button. The other is
rule-based routingbeing able to store and change business rules controlling
how work travels through a business. Both are possible, but come at a price.
We have spoken about the run-time impact of rule and control data changes, and
said that process, subprocess and task themselves are best considered as data.
With process being treated as type and instance data entities manipulated by
generic functionality, a useful approach to agility (and to constraints against agil-
ity) is by way of data-model crows feet (Figure 12).
In general the higher an entity is the more
impact changing an attribute value has, as
it may affect lower entities. In a one:many
relationship the one affects the many,
but the many tends not to affect the one.
Higher Lower
Figure 13
Even
higher
In Figure 13 Even higher will impact Higher, which in turn will impact Lower.
So Even higher will generally indirectly impact Lower as well.
A classic example of an Even higher entity is Frequency, with values of monthly,
annual, half-yearly etc. Frequency is important in many business contexts but it
is not a process entity like ProcessType, TaskInstance etc. Consider the impact
of adding a new frequency, eg quarterly. In many financial services and general
commercial contexts this would not be possible without adding or changing func-
tionalityeg for calculating charges and/or interest. Another complication is ex-
ternal impact: there may be an implicit assumption that an internal Frequency
value is also allowable externally, eg for bank debit orders or standing orders. A
new internally allowable Frequency value may not be allowable in all external
25
Ronald G. Ross, ibid.
Higher Lower
Figure 12
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
272
contexts. Functionality changes may therefore need to be made to prevent un-
foreseen consequences. In view of the position of Frequency in the data model the
changes could be extensive.
Removing a Frequency value could have even greater impact. If we make half-
yearly invalid, what happens to historic half-yearly transactions? We cannot pre-
tend they never happened. There will also be customers who have been used to
having (say) half-yearly statements and must now be told they cannot any longer.
The impact of changing processes is similar to that of changing (other) control
data. A process change can mean different things depending on what actual data
is changing.
Often all that is intended is the sort of parameter change where an authorisation
limit is increased. This has process implications, but relatively untraumatic.
Another fairly innocuous type of process change would be a change to the Access
entity in Figure 6eg removing access for a particular TaskType from one set of
users and granting it to another. Such a change could have high impact: re-
routing categories of work from one department to another, say. So it should be
made in a coherent and controlled way, with full regard to training, accountability
etc. But it would be unproblematic from an architectural perspective.
What happens though if we want to change the process structure itself, for exam-
ple the sequence of subprocesses in the order process in Figure 1? Some changes
would make little sense, eg putting Check order before Take orderunless of
course the change had a special meaning:
Check order = manual check that the order was correct and complete;
Take order = capturing the order in a system, which can only be done (or
which we only want to do) with orders which have been manually checked
to ensure they are correct and complete.
What if Despatch order came before Authorise order? This would mean implicitly
authorising every order, and make the final Authorise order redundant. Unless
the supplier had a special relationship with its customers, who would be happy to
return any order not authorised after despatch.
A more plausible example might be if Match against stock and Authorise order
were to change places, as this might represent an equally valid (if more cautious)
way of doing business. There are a number of areas of possible impact.
What about previous process instancesbefore the change? Are our systems,
databases and people able to handle two types of history records: old ones con-
flicting with the new process and new ones matching it? Is there anything about
any aspect of the business infrastructure to force old cases to be interpreted as
new ones? Consider a customer claiming not to have got exactly what was or-
dered, and whether a supplier employee might try to resolve the query differently
if it was an old case or a new case. What if it was hard to tell old from new?
Another issue is process instances already started but not finished at the time of
the process change. A sequence could be:
1 Order matched against stock.
2 Order process changed.
3 Order authorised.
4 Order matched against stock (again).
Easily resolved (in concept at least) by only applying the process change to new
orders. But this means either having two process models in existence for a time,
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
273
or having to empty the system of all old orders first before making the change.
This could delay new orders while old ones are completing.
Quite apart from timing issues there is the business impact of the change itself.
In the old process someone responsible for manual authorisation would know
the order had already been matched against stock. We shall assume this means
both ensuring there was stock to fulfil the order and allocating specific stock so
that a subsequent order cannot be matched against the exact same stock. In the
old process an authorised order could be immediately despatched. If a customer
queried his order status a supplier employee could see the order was authorised
and confirm it was on its way. An order which was not authorised however would
need its stock allocation de-allocated, to make it available for subsequent orders.
The new process has different logistics. The supplier employee answering the cus-
tomer query cannot confirm the order is on its way just because it has been
authorised, as the stock may not yet be available. An order which is not author-
ised however will not need stock de-allocated, as none would have been allocated.
Scenarios like these are fairly mundane but they are what process and process
changes are about. The more process control is automated and integrated the
more agility is about thinking through the logistics of what a process change
means in practice. Not so much how agile can we be, and what technology solu-
tion will make us more so, but what do we need in place and what thinking and
designing and testing must we do so that agility (like changing a few data items
on the Routing entity in Figure 6) does not result in chaos.
USING THE META-MODEL
This section considers ways in which the meta-model can guide process design
and translation between different process representations and implementations.
Guiding process design
Much of the material in previous sections has been about this. In summary: the
model provides concepts and criteria for identifying processes, and for knowing
where they start and stop and how they interact. The key is to define the request
entity for each process. This sets the level the process is at (account, customer,
claim etc); what constitutes completion (outcome); and what sequence and struc-
ture of rules are needed on the way to completion. A process may trigger other
processes, and the triggering process may or may not depend on their completion.
The request entity will undergo status transitions related to the sequential and
structured application of rules. The meta-model guides the identification of these
status transitions first at subprocess then at task level. So it is a coherent meth-
odology for designing task structure. Once the tasks have been designed at a
process logic level, the functionality they require can be designed and built
(and/or found and adapted from existing applications). The details will vary de-
pending on what solution architecture is assumed.
The request entity identifies an extended data set. The implications of the interac-
tions between that data set and the process rules are what determine the process
design. The request entity is therefore a crucial process design component.
Treatment of process is aligned and intertwined with treatment of data.
Because a subset of tasks may be manual, the meta-model draws work man-
agement into the same holistic logical architecture. (There are further implica-
tions for strategic change, benefits realisation etc which are explored elsewhere.
26
)
26
Chris Lawrence, Make work make sense, Future Managers, Cape Town, 2005.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
274
Process translation
Examples of this are
to enable the integration of different process design products with different
execution products or to allow simple migration of existing process definitions
to a different design/execution product.
27
Because the meta-model derives from an analysis of what it is to be a business
process, rather than what it is to be a workflow system or a BPMS, it provides
grammar and semantics to represent the essential structure of a business proc-
ess at logical level. Because a process implementation is a how to the what of the
logical representation, the grammar and semantics of the meta-model can also be
used to represent the implemented process. How this might be done would de-
pend on the implemented process and the intention behind the representation.
Translation involves mapping. The process meta-model will support translation if
different process designs (including both conceptual and executable models) can
map to it. The intention could be (i) to store the essential features of an imple-
mented process, however successful or unsuccessful, in an independent language
or format so as to implement that same process in different technology and/or
architecture. A translation like this would need to go via a conceptual model. Or,
more in line with Hollingsworths diagram of a BPM component model
28
, the in-
tention could be (ii) to have a common conceptual model capable of translation
into different executable models appropriate to different implementation architec-
tures. Or in a B2B context (iii) two or more organisations interacting at the proc-
ess level might want to share an understanding of their interactions.
A first observation is that scenarios like these will rarely feature a single proc-
esswith process defined as the meta-model defines it. In all three scenarios the
unit will typically be of a set of linked processes, as this would be a more likely
scope of a practical business intervention than a single process.
In scenario (i) the essential features of an implemented process set need to be
stored in an independent format so as to support a different implementation of
that same process set. The implemented process set is effectively to be reverse-
engineered into a conceptual model. Regardless of what the implementation was
like (perhaps a single, explicit, generic, process engine controlled the process set
in its entirety, or choreographed messaging was used) I would want to under-
stand the process set in business terms. This would involve identifying the re-
quest entities, and therefore the outcomes, and therefore where each process be-
gins and ends. In the case of a messaging solution, it is possible that some of the
messages and responses may be requests and outcomes, but perhaps not all.
Also not every request and outcome may be explicit in the implementation.
Just because that was what I would want to do does not mean it has to be done.
It depends on the objective behind the translation. A description of an imple-
mented process set could, in certain circumstances, be translated completely me-
chanically into the terms of the meta-model. Anything identified as a process
would be translated as a process, and anything which starts a process would be
translated as a request.
27
David Hollingsworth (2004), op cit.
28
David Hollingsworth (2004), op cit.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
275
Manual
function MF1
Automatic
function AF1
Manual
function MF2
Manual
function MF3
Manual
function MF4
Automatic
function AF2
Yes No
Request
R1
Outcome
O1
Manual task
MT1
Automatic
task AT1
Manual task
MT2
Manual task
MT3
Manual task
MT4
Automatic
task AT2
Yes No
Request
R1
Outcome
O1
Figure 14
The result may not be a very good conceptual model, or much of an advance on
the previous description. But it would be in a conceptual format where coherent
methodological principles could be applied to improving and optimising it.
Having identified the request entities and start and end points of the processes in
the process set (either analytically or mechanically) I would identify subprocess-
level status transitions and then the task structure.
But again how analytical this would be would depend on the translation objec-
tives, and how much of a conceptual model or specification already existed. If
there was no intention to rationalise or improve the process set, then the as-is
components and routing could be transferred one-to-one into manual and auto-
matic tasks, perhaps with no attempt at logical analysis via subprocesses. Rules
would not be exposed, they would just be assumed to be correct and correctly
belong where they are in the implemented components: see Figure 14.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
276
Figure 16
AF2 AT2
MF4 MT4
MF1 MT3
MF2 MT2
AF1 AT1
MF1 MT1
Component Task
Task-Component
AF2 AT2
MF4 MT4
MF1 MT3
MF2 MT2
AF1 AT1
MF1 MT1
Component Task
Task-Component
In accordance with the meta-model however the as-is components would not
transfer across as tasks themselves: an automatic or manual task would corre-
spond to each component, but with a Task-Component (or equivalent) record
linking it to the appropriate Task record (see Figure 6 and Figure 15 ).
It may however be that the components for (say) tasks MT1 and MT3 are or could
be identical. The correspondence could then be rationalised as in Figure 16.
Further changes could be made, depending on whether there was any need or
intention to improve or optimise the model. For example the interaction between
implemented rules and process flow might be improved by altering the configura-
tion of AT1 and MT2 as in Figure 17.
It might then be decided that further improvement might be served by recognising
a subprocess level, as in Figure 18. But none of these changes are mandatory,
and they can be made incrementally. The extent of the rationalisation would de-
pend on the scope and objectives of the exercise.
Reverse-engineering a logical data model from a physical file structure is often an
occasion for critiqueeg discovering that a repeating group inappropriately limits
entity instances, or that denormalisation compromises data integrity. In the same
way deriving a rigorous conceptual model from an as-is implementation will often
expose anomalies, incompleteness and faults. For example a common omission in
process environments based on proprietary workflow implementations is that
automatic tasks are under-represented, awkwardly or inexplicitly engineered, or
just plain absent. This can happen when process is seen in terms of sequences
of manual activities rather than sequences of rules.
Figure 15
AF2 AT2
MF4 MT4
MF3 MT3
MF2 MT2
AF1 AT1
MF1 MT1
Component Task
Task-Component
AF2 AT2
MF4 MT4
MF3 MT3
MF2 MT2
AF1 AT1
MF1 MT1
Component Task
Task-Component
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
277
Manual task
MT1
Automatic
task AT1
Manual task
MT2
Manual task
MT3
Manual task
MT4
Automatic
task AT2
Yes No
Request
R1
Outcome
O1
Figure 17
Manual task
MT1
Automatic
task AT1
Manual task
MT2
Manual task
MT3
Manual task
MT4
Automatic
task AT2
Yes No
Request
R1
Outcome
O1
Subprocess
1
Subprocess
2
Subprocess
3
Subprocess
4
Figure 18
The more reverse-engineering is mechanised the
less opportunity there would be for this.
I would express the conceptual model in BPMN
assuming BPMN continues as the standardbut
in the knowledge that the same information could
be expressed in a different format, eg in a popu-
lated database (see Figure 6). One implication of
using BPMN is that process, subprocess and task
all use the same symbol. So each box must be
carefully named to indicate whether it was a proc-
ess, subprocess or task.
Again depending on the objectives of the exercise
there are possible extensions. One would be to document human actors and/or
roles involved in the processsimply by populating entities equivalent to Access
and User in Figure 6. Figure 19 shows a possible population of Access.
Taken together these two extensions would be
Figure 19
Clerk2 MT4
Clerk2 MT3
Supervisor MT2
Clerk1 MT1
User Task
Access
Clerk2 MT4
Clerk2 MT3
Supervisor MT2
Clerk1 MT1
User Task
Access
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
278
specifying the work resources associated with the process work items, or ac-
tivities.
29
Much of what has been said is also relevant to scenario (ii), except that reverse-
engineering does not apply. For that reason it should be safe to assume an inten-
tion to get as pure a conceptual model as possible. It should therefore not be too
simplistic to see translation into different executable models as in theory mostly a
matter of different population of entities like Access, User, FunctionalityCom-
ponent and Task-Component (Figures 6, 15, 16 and 19).
Adopting a meta-model is ultimately a choice to see a particular domain in a par-
ticular way. So in the B2B scenario (iii) it is for the participants to decide how they
want to see their process interactions.
Although the shared scope will also typically be a set of linked processes, we need
not and cannot assume one conceptual model both to represent that set of proc-
esses and be shared by the participating organisations. More key is that where
organisations interact, they understand the interactions in the same way, and
that the interactions make sense to each participant in terms of its own individual
process model. This is more likely if the participants share the same meta-model,
either explicitly or implicitly (by subscribing to the same agreed standards).
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show two different ways in which the participants might
interact. It is worth drawing out some implications for meta-model sharing.
In Figure 4 the process in a sense belongs to company A. A familiar implementa-
tion would be where the new business process from Capture application to Issue
policy is defined in company As process or workflow application. The two tasks
Manual underwriting: company B and Manual underwriting: company C would
be part of that same application belonging to company A. It is just the users with
access to the two tasks that belong to company B and company C respectively.
Even if the linking between the tasks in the new business process was based on
(say) messaging, then Figure 4 could still apply: the diagram does not assume any
particular technology.
It does however make an ownership assumption. Even if the process control
technology used messaging, Figure 4 assumes company A owns (supplies, de-
fines, supports etc) the two manual underwriting tasks. Companies B and C are
suppliers to company A but (in this context) not by way of a business process.
They supply resources. The mechanism by which this was set up was no doubt a
business process (eg contracting), but in Figure 4 companies B and C are not re-
ceiving a request from company A which they are meeting by starting a process.
Instead they are participating in company As process, as that is the agreement.
Figure 5 could also be physically implemented using messaging technology, but
the relationships between the interacting companies are different.
As far as meta-model sharing is concerned, in Figure 4 companies B and C may
or may not share, understand, or subscribe to the process meta-model company
A employs in its business architecture. As long as B and C supply underwriters
and fulfil their service agreement, the process will work. The scenario in Figure 5
however would be helped if companies A, B and C shared the same meta-model
at least implicitly, by conforming to the same standards. It would be even better if
the participants explicitly shared, and knew they were explicitly sharing, the
meta-model underpinning those standards and providing their rationale.
29
David Hollingsworth, ibid.
BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE AND THE WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL
279
Two organisations interacting commercially generally share an understanding of
double-entry. Communication would be more difficult if not. On a slightly less
universal level, communication between two organisations transferring data be-
tween each other is easier if both can assume they both understand the princi-
ples of the relational model in the same way.
Two organisations interacting with each others processes are more likely to find
those interactions go smoothly if, implicitly or explicitly, they subscribe to the
same process meta-model. At the very least, seeing interactions in term of re-
quests and outcomes means identifying customer and supplier roles and, by
extension, ownership and accountability. In a business process outsource (BPO)
context sharing a meta-model is almost mandatory, not only between the BPO
provider (providing the white-label process shell) and its clients; but also between
the separate clients who all use the same process shell as if it was their own.
SUMMARY
It is possible to derive an effective logical and generic meta-model for business
processes from the concept of a request. The request is implicit or explicit, from
an internal or external customer. Because it is for a specific outcome and of a
specific type it unambiguously determines the end-to-end process. The process
starts at the request and ends at either the requested outcome or an alternative
outcome according to the rules of the process.
By applying process rules to the request dataset regardless of the range of possi-
ble attribute values, the process is analysed to subprocess level. Each subprocess
is a business status transition of the request. So is each task. The task structure
is defined from the minimum set of status transitions required for all possible re-
quests to achieve the subprocess status transition. (Subprocess level is important
for analysis and design and valuable for management information and control,
but is technically superfluous in production.) As status transitions process, sub-
process and task are primarily control units. Conceptually at least the task would
be loosely coupled to any functionality component(s) which implement it.
Process components (request, process, subprocess, task) are seen as databoth
type entities (RequestType, ProcessType etc) and instance entities (RequestIn-
stance, ProcessInstance etc). The process model of an organisation is defined at
type level (ProcessType, SubprocessType, TaskType, plus all routing and interac-
tions), and is itself ultimately a structure of rules.
Processes can interact with each other (and with themselves) in a number of
ways. One type of interaction happens when functionality in one process updates
data which influences what happens in another process. But a task in one proc-
ess can also generate a request to initiate another process instancea new in-
stance of the same process type or of another process type.
The meta-model is independent of any implementation technology. However since
it is a logical business process architecture, it can guide the successful design
and implementation of process-architected business solutions.
30
Different imple-
mented processes and process-modelling formats can also be mapped to it, be-
cause it represents the underlying what of the business process.
30
Chris Lawrence, Make Work Make Sense, Future Managers, Cape Town, 2005.
Section 3
Appendices
283
WfMC Structure and
Membership Information
WHAT IS THE WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT COALITION?
The Workflow Management Coalition, founded in August 1993, is a non-
profit, international organization of workflow vendors, users, analysts and
university/research groups. The Coalitions mission is to promote and de-
velop the use of workflow through the establishment of standards for soft-
ware terminology, interoperability and connectivity among BPM and work-
flow products. Comprising more than 250 members spread throughout the
world, the Coalition is the primary standards body for this software market.
WORKFLOW STANDARDS FRAMEWORK
The Coalition has developed a framework for the establishment of workflow
standards. This framework includes five categories of interoperability and
communication standards that will allow multiple workflow products to co-
exist and interoperate within a users environment. Technical details are in-
cluded in the white paper entitled, The Work of the Coalition, available at
www.wfmc.org.
ACHIEVEMENTS
The initial work of the Coalition focused on publishing the Reference Model
and Glossary, defining a common architecture and terminology for the in-
dustry. A major milestone was achieved with the publication of the first ver-
sions of the Workflow API (WAPI) specification, covering the Workflow Client
Application Interface, and the Workflow Interoperability specification.
In addition to a series of successful tutorials across the U.S., Asia and
Europe, the WfMC spent many hours over 2006 helping to drive awareness,
understanding and adoption of XPDL. As a result, it has been cited as the
most deployed BPM standard by a number of industry analysts, and contin-
ues to receive a growing amount of media attention.
In "Open Formats and Transparency in Business Process Definition" pub-
lished in the Enterprise Open Source Journal, WfMC Executive Director Na-
thaniel Palmer discusses the merits of XPDL as means for ensuring process
definition transparency and portability. XDPL is being adopted as a require-
ment for BPM workflow RFPs, with the most recent examples cited as a large
federal government project and that of a telecommunications firm.
In November the WfMC Interface 1 Committee met to review enhancements
and extensions for XPDL 2.1 to be released in the first half of 2007.
WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT COALITION STRUCTURE
The Coalition is divided into three major committees, the Technical Commit-
tee, the External Relations Committee, and the Steering Committee. Small
working groups exist within each committee for the purpose of defining
workflow terminology, interoperability and connectivity standards, confor-
mance requirements, and for assisting in the communication of this informa-
tion to the workflow user community.
The Coalitions major committees meet three times per calendar year for
three days at a time, with meetings usually alternating between a North
American and a European location. The working group meetings are held
during these three days, and as necessary throughout the year.
MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DETAILS
284
Coalition membership is open to all interested parties involved in the crea-
tion, analysis or deployment of workflow software systems. Membership is
governed by a Document of Understanding, which outlines meeting regula-
tions, voting rights etc. Membership material is available at www.wfmc.org.
COALITION WORKING GROUPS
The Coalition has established a number of Working Groups, each working on
a particular area of specification. The working groups are loosely structured
around the Workflow Reference Model which provides the framework for
the Coalitions standards program. The Reference Model identifies the com-
mon characteristics of workflow systems and defines five discrete functional
interfaces through which a workflow management system interacts with its
environmentusers, computer tools and applications, other software ser-
vices, etc. Working groups meet individually, and also under the umbrella of
the Technical Committee, which is responsible for overall technical direction
and co-ordination.
WORKFLOW REFERENCE MODEL DIAGRAM
WHY YOU SHOULD JOIN
Being a member of the Workflow Management Coalition gives you the unique
opportunity to participate in the creation of standards for the workflow in-
dustry as they are developing. Your contributions to our community ensure
that progress continues in the adoption of royalty-free workflow and process
standards.
MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES
The Coalition has three major categories of membership per the membership
matrix following. All employees worldwide are welcome to attend all meet-
ings, and will be permitted access to the Members Only area of our web site.
Full Membership is appropriate for Workflow and Business Process Man-
agement (BPM) vendors, analysts and consultants. You may include up to
MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DETAILS
285
three active members from your organization on your application and these
may be replaced at any time by notifying us accordingly.
Full
Member
Associate
/Academic
Member
Individual
Member
Fellow
(by election
only)
Visitor
Annual fee $3500 $1500 $500 $0 $100 per
day
Hold office Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Nominate
somebody for
office
Yes Yes No No No
Committee
membership
Yes Yes Yes Yes Observer
Voting right
on standards
Yes Yes Active
Participants
only
Active
Participants
only
No
Voting right
on WfMC.org
business
Yes Current
officers
only
Current
officers only
Current
officers only
No
Company
reps in Meet-
ings without
visitor fee
4
(transfer-
able)
1
(transfer-
able)
individual
only
individual
only
Fee
required
FULL MEMBERSHIP
This corporate category offers exclusive visibility in this sector at events and
seminars across the world, enhancing your customers' perception of you as
an industry authority, on our web site, in the Coalition Handbook and
CDROM, by speaking opportunities, access to the Members Only area of our
web site, attending the Coalition meetings and most importantly within the
workgroups whereby through discussion and personal involvement, using
your voting power, you can contribute actively to the development of stan-
dards and interfaces.
Full member benefits include:
Financial incentives: 50 percent discount all brochure-ware (such as
our annual CDROM Companion to the Workflow Handbook, advertising
on our sister-site www.e-workflow.org), $500 credit toward next years fee
for at least 60 percent per year meeting attendance or if you serve as an
officer of the WfMC.
Web Visibility: a paragraph on your company services/products with
links to your own company website.
User RFIs: (Requests for Information) is an exclusive privilege to all full
members. We often have queries from user organizations looking for
specific workflow solutions. These valuable leads can result in real
business benefits for your organization.
Publicity: full members may choose to have their company logos
including collaterals displayed along with WfMC material at conferences
/ expos we attend. You may also list corporate events and press releases
(relating to WfMC issues) on the relevant pages on the website, and have
a company entry in the annual Coalition Workflow Handbook
MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND DETAILS
286
Speaking Opportunities: We frequently receive calls for speakers at
industry events because many of our members are recognized experts in
their fields. These opportunities are forwarded to Full Members for their
direct response to the respective conference organizers.
ASSOCIATE AND ACADEMIC MEMBERSHIP
Associate and Academic Membership is appropriate for those (such as IT
user organizations) who need to keep abreast of workflow developments, but
who are not workflow vendors. It allows voting on decision-making issues,
including the publication of standards and interfaces but does not permit
anything near the amount of visibility or incentives provided to a Full Mem-
ber. You may include up to three active members from your organization on
your application.
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP
Individual Membership is appropriate for self-employed persons or small
user companies. Employees of workflow vendors, academic institutions or
analyst organizations are not typically eligible for this category. Individual
membership is held in one person's name only, is not a corporate member-
ship, and is not transferable within the company. If three or more people
within a company wish to participate in the WfMC, it would be cost-effective
to upgrade to corporate Associate Membership whereby all employees world-
wide are granted membership status.
FELLOWS
The WfMC recognizes individuals from within its existing membership who
have made sustained and outstanding contributions to WfMC objectives far
and above that expected from normal member representation.
VISITORS
We welcome visitors at our meetings; it is an excellent opportunity for you to
observe first hand the process of creating standards and to network with
members of the Coalition. Your role will be as an observer only, and you are
not eligible for a password, or for special offers available to WfMC members.
You must pre-register and prepay your Visitor attendance fee. If you decide
to join WfMC within 30 days of the meeting, your membership dues will be
credited with your visitor fee.
HOW TO JOIN
Complete the form on the Coalitions website, or contact the Coalition Secre-
tariat, at the address below. All members are required to sign the Coalitions
Document of Understanding which sets out the contractual rights and ob-
ligations between members and the Coalition.
THE SECRETARIAT
Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC)
Nathaniel Palmer, Executive Director,
99 Derby Street, Suite 200
Hingham, MA 02043
+1-781-923-1411 (t), +1-781-735-0491 (f)
wfmc@wfmc.org.
287
WfMC Officers 2007
STEERING COMMITTEE
Chairman Jon Pyke Fellow, UK
Vice Chairman
(Europe) Justin Brunt TIBCO, UK
Vice Chairman
(Americas) Keith Swenson
Fujitsu Computer
Systems, USA
Vice Chairman
(Asia-Pacific)
Yoshihisa
Sadakane NEC Soft, Japan
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Chair Emeritus David Hollingsworth Fujitsu Software, UK
Committee Chair
Keith Swenson
Fujitsu Computer
Systems, USA
Vice Chairman
(Europe) Philippe Betschart W4, France
Vice Chairman
(Americas) Mike Marin Fellow, USA
Vice Chairman
(Asia-Pacific) Dr. Yang Chi-Tsai Flowring, Taiwan
EXTERNAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
Chairman Ken Mei Global 360, USA
Vice Chairman
(Europe) Martin Ader W&GS, France
Vice Chairman
(Americas) Bob Puccinelli DST Systems, USA
Vice Chairman
(Asia-Pacific) Dr Kwang-Hoon Kim
BPM Korea, South Ko-
rea
SECRETARY / TREASURER Cor Visser
Work Management
Europe, Netherlands
INDUSTRY LIAISON CHAIR
Philip Larson
Appian Corporation,
USA
USER LIAISON CHAIR Charlie Plesums Fellow, USA
288
WfMC Country Chairs
ARGENTINA
Federico Silva
PECTRA Technology, Inc.
USA: +1 (713) 335 5562
ARG (BA): +54 (11) 4590 0000
ARG (CBA): +54 (351) 410 4400
fsilva@pectra.com
AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND
Carol Prior
MAESTRO BPE Limited
Tel: +61 2 9844 8222
caprior@ozemail.com.au
BRAZIL
Vincius Amaral
iProcess
Phone: +55 51 3211-4036
vinicius.amaral@iprocess.com.br
CANADA
(Open)
FRANCE
Raphal Syren
W4 Global
Tel: +(331) 64 53 17 65
raphael.syren@w4global.com
GERMANY
Tobias Rieke
University of Muenster
Tel: [49] 251-8338-072 -
istori@wi.uni-muenster.de
ITALY
Luca Oglietti
Stratos
Tel. +39.011.9500000 r.a.
l.oglietti@gruppostratos.com
JAPAN
Yoshihisa Sadakane
NEC Soft
Tel: +81-3-5569-3399
sadakane@mxw.nes.nec.co.jp
KOREA
Kwang-Hoon Kim
Kyonggi University
Tel: 82-31-249-9679
Fax: 82-31-249-9673
kwang@kyonggi.ac.kr
POLAND
Boguslaw Rutkowski
PB Polsoft
Tel: +48 61 853 10 51
Boguslaw.Rutkowski
@pbpolsoft.com.pl
SINGAPORE & MALAYSIA
Ken Loke
Bizmann System (S) Pte Ltd
Tel: +65 - 6271 1911
kenloke@bizmann.com
SOUTH AFRICA
Marco Gerazounis
TIBCO Software Inc.
Tel: +27 (0)11 467 3111
mgerazou@tibco.com
SPAIN
Elena Rodrguez Martn
Fujitsu Software, Madrid.
Tel. +34 91 784 9565
ermartin@mail.fujitsu.es
THE NETHERLANDS
Fred van Leeuwen
DCE Consultants
Tel: +31 20 44 999 00
leeuwen@dceconsultants.com
TAIWAN
Erin Yang
Flowring Technology Co. Ltd.
Tel: +886-3-5753331 ext. 316
erin_yang@flowring.com
UNITED KINGDOM
<open>
USA (WEST)
Bob Puccinelli
DST Systems
Tel: +1 816-843-8148
rjpuccinelli@dstsystems.com
USA (EAST)
Betsy Fanning
AIIM International
Tel: 1 301 755 2682
bfanning@aiim.org
289
WfMC Technical Committee
Working Group Chairs 2007
WG1PROCESS DEFINITION INTERCHANGE MODEL AND APIS
Chair: Robert Shapiro, Fellow
Email: rshapiro@capevisions.com
WG2/3CLIENT / APPLICATION APIS
open
WG4WORKFLOW INTEROPERABILITY
Chair: Keith Swenson, Fujitsu Computer Systems, USA
Email: kswenson@us.fujitsu.com
WG5ADMINISTRATION & MONITORING
Chair: Michael zur Muehlen, Stevens Institute of Technology
Email: mzurmuehlen@stevens.edu
WG ON OMG
Chair: Ken Mei, Global 360
Email: ken.mei@global360.com
CONFORMANCE WG
Chair: Michael zur Muehlen, Stevens Institute of Technology
Email: mzurmuehlen@stevens.edu
WGRMREFERENCE MODEL
Chair: Dave Hollingsworth, Fujitsu
david.hollingsworth@uk.fujitsu.com
WG9RESOURCE MODEL
Chair: Michael zur Muehlen, Stevens Institute of Technology
Email: mzurmuehlen@stevens.edu
290
WfMC Fellows
The WfMC recognizes individuals who have made sustained and outstanding
contributions to WfMC objectives far and above that expected from normal
member representation.
WFMC FELLOWFACTORS:
To be considered as a candidate, the individual must have partici-
pated in the WfMC for a period of not less than two years and be
elected by majority vote within the nominating committee.
Rights of a WfMC Fellow: Receives guest member level of email sup-
port from the Secretariat; pays no fee when attending WfMC meet-
ings; may participate in the work of the WfMC (workgroups, etc), may
hold office.
Martin Ader
France
Robert Allen
United Kingdom
Mike Anderson
United Kingdom
Wolfgang
Altenhuber
Austria
Richard Bailey
United States
Justin Brunt
United Kingdom
Emmy Botterman
United Kingdom
Katherine Drennan
United States
Layna Fischer
United States
Mike Gilger
United States
Michael Grabert
United States
Shirish Hardikar
United States
Paula Helfrich
United States
Hideshige Hasegawa
Japan
Dr. Haruo Hayami
Japan
Nick Kingsbury
United Kingdom
Klaus-Dieter
Kreplin
Germany
Mike Marin
United States
Emma Matejka
Austria
Dan Matheson
United States
Akira Misowa
Japan
Roberta Norin
United States
Sue Owen
United Kingdom
Jon Pyke
United Kingdom
Charles Plesums
United States
Harald Raetzsch
Austria
Michele Rochefort
Germany
Joseph Rogowski
United States
Michael Rossi
United States
Sunil Sarin
United States
Robert Shapiro
United States
Dave Shorter
(Chair Emeritus)
United States
David Stirrup
United Kingdom
Keith Swenson
United States
Tetsu Tada
United States
Austin Tate
United Kingdom
Cor Visser
The Netherlands
Rainer Weber
Germany
Alfons Westgeest
Belgium
Marilyn Wright
United States
Michael zur Muehlen
United States
291
Workflow Management Coalition
Membership Directory
WfMCs membership comprises a wide range of organizations. All members in good stand-
ing as of January 2007 are listed here. There are currently two main classes of paid mem-
bership: Full Members and Associate Members (which includes Academic). Individual Mem-
bers are not listed. Each company has only one primary point of contact for purposes of the
Membership Directory. Within this Directory, many Full Members have used their privilege
to include information about their organization or products. The current list of members
and membership structure can be found on our website, wfmc.org.
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC.
Full Member
345 Park Avenue, San Jose CA 95110, USA
Steve Rotter, Senior Product Marketing Manager
Tel: [1] 408-536-6000
srotter@adobe.com
Adobe revolutionizes how the world engages with ideas and information. For more than two
decades, the companys award-winning software and technologies have redefined business,
entertainment, and personal communications by setting new standards for producing and
delivering content that engages people virtually anywhere at anytime. From rich images in
print, video, and film to dynamic digital content for a variety of media, the impact of Adobe
solutions is evident across industries and felt by anyone who creates, views, and interacts
with information. With a reputation for excellence and a portfolio of many of the most re-
spected and recognizable software brands, Adobe is one of the worlds largest and most
diversified software companies. As demand for digital content skyrocketed, Adobe solutions
provided a catalyst for moving ideas from concept through creation to delivery across any
digital device. The appointment of Bruce Chizen as Adobes Chief Executive Officer in 2000
further strengthened the companys market leadership, as Adobe delivered on strategies to
move from a desktop software company to a platform provider for enterprises. With its ac-
quisition of Macromedia, Inc. in 2005developer of the ubiquitous Flash technology and
a pioneer in multimedia and web developmentAdobe expanded its strong technology
foundation and portfolio of customer solutions.
ADVANTYS SOLUTIONS LTD.
Full Member
1250 Rene Levesque West, Suite 2200 Montreal, Quebec, H3B 4W8 Canada
Alain Bezancon, President
Tel: [1] 514-989-3700
alain.bezancon@advantys.com
Since 1995 ADVANTYS provides organizations worldwide with a range of innovative, power-
ful, robust, affordable and easy-to-use web based software through a practical approach to
technology. ADVANTYS' solutions are used daily by hundreds of customers worldwide to
automate processes, publish web sites, collaborate and develop web applications.
Today's ADVANTYS' flagship product is the WorkflowGen BPM / Workflow software already
deployed by more than 250 clients internationally. The WorkflowGen BPM / Workflow soft-
ware is fully web based and enables the end users to complete and monitor processes
online. .Net Web Forms and PDF forms can be used as electronic forms. The design and
implementation of the workflows are realized online via a graphical mapping interface with-
out programming. The WorkflowGen BPM / Workflow software is based around a practical
technical solution integrating tried and tested development standards. WorkflowGens scal-
able architecture, and its ability to incorporate additional development, provides for easy
integration with existing databases and applications including Microsoft Sharepoint and
SAP. WorkflowGen is available in 10 languages and distributed in 30 countries
AIIM INTERNATIONAL
Full Member
1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100, Silver Springs, MD, 20910 United States
www.aiim.org
APPENDIX-MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
292
Betsy Fanning, Director, Standards & Content Development
Tel: [1] 240-494-2682 / Fax:[1] 301-587-2711
bfanning@aiim.org
AIIM International is the global authority on Enterprise Content Management (ECM). The
technologies, tools and methods used to capture, manage, store, preserve and deliver in-
formation to support business processes. AIIM promotes the understanding, adoption, and
use of ECM technologies through education, networking, marketing, research, standards
and advocacy programs.
APPIAN CORPORATION
Full Member
8000 Towers Crescent Drive, 16th Floor, Vienna, VA. 22182 United States
www.appian.com
Philip Larson, Director of Product Management
Tel: [1] 703-442-1057
larson@appian.com
Founded in 1999 and headquartered in Vienna, VA, Appian is the first business process
management (BPM) company to deliver advanced process, knowledge management, and
analytics capabilities in a fully-integrated suite. Designed to extend the value of your exist-
ing systems, Appian's process-centric, context-driven solutions align business strategy with
execution, and drive quantifiable improvements in business performance. Fortune 500
companies, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations have deployed Ap-
pians award-winning platformAppian Enterpriseto gain unprecedented visibility and con-
trol over their strategic business processes and enable customers to make better-informed
decisions about their business.
ARMA INTERNATIONAL
Associate Member
13725 West 109th Street Suite 101, Lenexa, KS 66215 United States
Peter R Hermann, Executive Director & CEO
Tel: [1]913-217-6025 / Fax: [1]913-341-3742
phermann@arma.org
BEA SYSTEMS
Full Member
2315 North First St., San Jose, California, 95131 United States
www.bea.com
Mike Amend, Deputy CTO
Tel: [1] 408-570-8000 / Fax:[1] 408-570-8901
mike.amend@bea.com
BEA Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: BEAS) is a world leader in enterprise infrastructure software.
BEA delivers the unified SOA platform for business transformation and optimization in order
to improve cost structures and grow new revenue streams.
BEA AquaLogic BPM Suite, an integrated component of BEAs SOA platform, is a market
leading software suite that allows enterprises to integrate modeling, execution and meas-
urement of end-to-end business processes involving complex interactions between people
and IT systems. BEA customers across the world have achieved greater efficiency, control
and agility by using AquaLogic BPM Suite to optimize the business process lifecycle and
improve alignment between business and IT.
BIZMANN SYSTEM (S) PTE LTD
Associate Member
73 Science Park Drive, #02-05, CINTECH I, Singapore Science Park I, Singapore 118254
www.bizmann.com
Ken Loke, Director
Tel: [65] +65-62711911
kenloke@bizmann.com
Bizmann System (S) Pte Ltd is a Singapore-based company with development offices in Sin-
gapore and Malaysia, developing business process management (BPM) solutions and provid-
ing business process consultation services within the ASIA region. Bizmann develops and
implements business improvement solutions based on leading development engine such as
APPENDIX-MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
293
award winner BPM software, Bizflow. To further increase functionalities and to provide com-
plete end-to-end deliverables, Bizmann enhance Bizflow development engine by developing
additional intelligent features and integration connectors. Bizmann System has set up a Re-
gional PROCESS KNOWLEDGE HUB for the Asia market. Bizmann introduces Best Practices
through the Process Knowledge Hub and emphasizes quick deployment. All business process
designs/templates are developed by Bizmann as well as imported from the United Sates and
other advanced countries to facilitate cross knowledge transfers. Bizmann develops and im-
plements BPM applications across all industries. Unlike conventional solutions, BPM solu-
tions address the fundamental of process challenges that all companies face. It allows com-
panies to automate and integrate real and disparate business processes safely, and securely
extend processes to a wide variety of users via the Web. Bizmann BPM solutions rapidly ac-
celerate time-to-value with configure-to-fit process templates and Bizmanns best-in-class
business services, designed to address the unique challenges that companies face.
BPM KOREA SOFTWARE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION [KOSA]
Full Member
Green B/D. 11F, 79-2, Garakbon-Dong, Songpa-Gu, Seoul 138-711 South Korea
www.sw.or.kr
Kwang-Hoon Kim
Tel: [82] (2) 4054535 / Fax: [82] 2-405-4501
kosainfo@mail.sw.or.kr
BRAINWARE STRATEGIES CONSULTING GMBH
Associate Member
Sonnengass 15 Grafenstein, Carinthia, A-9131 Austria
Roel Krageten
Tel: [43] 664.3070865
brainware@brainware-at.com
CACI PRODUCTS COMPANY
Associate Member
Advanced Simulation Lab, 1455 Frazee Road Suite #700, San Diego, CA 92108
Mike Engiles, SIMPROCESS Product Mgr
Tel: [1] 703-679-3874
mengiles@caci.com
CAPTARIS
Full Member
10085 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 400, Bellevue, WA. 98004 United States
www.captaris.com
Eric Bean, Senior Director, Products Group
Tel: [1] 425-638-4181
ericbean@captaris.com
Captaris, Inc. is a leading provider of software products that automate business processes,
manage documents electronically and provide efficient information delivery. Our product
suite of Captaris RightFax, Captaris Workflow and Captaris Alchemy Document Manage-
ment is distributed through a global network of leading technology partners. RightFax is a
proven market leader in enterprise fax server and electronic document delivery solutions.
Alchemy gives organizations the power to manage and use all of their fixed content
including images, faxes, email, PDFs, and COLDthroughout the information lifecycle
management (ILM) stages, with an integrated and scalable set of tools that are easy to de-
ploy and even easier to use. And Workflow provides easy, flexible and integrated business
process workflow for organizations, enabling productivity, accountability and compliancy.
CCLRC
Associate Member
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton Didcot Oxon OX11 0QX United Kingdom
www.cclrc.ac.uk
Trudy Hall, Solutions Developer
Tel: 44]-1235-821900
t.a.hall@rl.ac.uk
APPENDIX-MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
294
CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTORS INTL. COMPANY
Associate Member
62B Kifissias, Marroussi Athens Attiki 15125 Greece
www.ccc.gr
Aref Boualwan, Product Manager
Tel : [30] 6932415177
aboualwan@ccc.gr
DST TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Full Member
330 W. 9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64105 United States
www.dstawd.com
Bob Puccinelli, Director of Marketing AWD
Tel: [1] 816 843-8148 / Fax: [1] 816 843-8197
rjpuccinelli@dstawd.com
AWD (Automated Work Distributor) is a comprehensive business process management,
imaging, workflow, and customer management solution designed to improve productivity
and reduce costs. AWD captures all communication channels, streamlines processes, pro-
vides real-time reporting, and enables world-class customer service. For more than a dec-
ade, AWD has been improving processes in industries including banking, brokerage,
healthcare, insurance, mortgage, mutual funds, and video/broadband. Today, AWD is li-
censed by more than 400 companies worldwide with nearly 140,000 active users. AWD is
provided by the DST Technologies subsidiary of DST Systems, Inc. In business since 1969,
DST Systems was ranked as one of Americas Most Admired Companies by Fortune maga-
zine for 2006.
FLOWRING TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.
Full Member
12F,No.120, Sec.2, Gongdao 5th Rd., Hsinchu City, 300 Taiwan
www.flowring.com.
Chi-Tsai Yang, VP and CTO
Tel: [886] 3-5753331 / Fax:[886] 3-5753292
jjyang@flowring.com
FORNAX CO
Associate Member
Taltos u. 1. Budapest 1123 Hungary
www.fornax.hu
Balazs Ferenc Toth, Business Development Consultant
Tel: [36] 1-457-3000 / Fax:[36] 1-212-0111
tamas.vizmathy@fornax.hu
FUJITSU SOFTWARE CORPORATION
Full Member
3055 Orchard Drive, San Jose, CA, 95134-2022, United States
www.i-flow.com
Keith Swenson, Chief Architect
Tel: [1] 408-456-7963 / Fax: [1] 408-456-7821
kswenson@us.fujitsu.com
Fujitsu Software Corporation, based in San Jose, California, is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Fujitsu Limited. Fujitsu Software Corporation leverages Fujitsu's international scope and
expertise to develop and deliver comprehensive technology solutions. The company's prod-
ucts include INTERSTAGE(tm), an e-Business infrastructure platform that includes the
INTERSTAGE Application Server and i-Flow(tm); and Fujitsu COBOL. i-Flow streamlines,
automates and tracks business processes to help enterprises become more productive, re-
sponsive, and profitable. Leveraging such universal standards as J2EE and XML, i-Flow
delivers business process automation solutions that are easy to develop, deploy, integrate
and manage. i-Flow has a flexible architecture that seamlessly integrates into existing envi-
ronments. This allows you to leverage your IT infrastructure investments and allows you to
easily adapt to future technologies.
GLOBAL 360, INC
APPENDIX-MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
295
Full Member
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd. Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 United States
www.global360.com
Ken Mei, Director, International Sales Support
Tel: 1-603-459-0924
ken.mei@global360.com
Global 360 BOS is Process Intelligence for BPM, providing bottom-line BPM benefits with-
out the risk and cost of a BI project, and without relying on a competing application infra-
structure that attempts to obviate existing investments. While most BPM Suites are not
designed to address the management of processes that lie outside of their direct control,
Global 360 BOS is unique because it offers an independent layer that can integrate with
BPM Suites and other applications for providing end to end process visibility and align-
ment. Global 360 BOS benefits are focused in four distinct areas:
Visibility: End-to-end visibility into processes that span multiple organizational
functions and supporting system infrastructures.
Alignment: Alignment of operational processes with strategic business goals and
key performance indicators.
Efficiency: Identify optimal tradeoffs between time (service level) and cost, as well
as identify opportunities to increase utilization of human resources.
Agility: React to changing business conditions in real time and ultimately predict
and proactively address issues such as service level degradation.
HANDYSOFT GLOBAL CORPORATION
Full Member
1952 Gallows Road, Suite 200, Vienna, VA 22182, USA
www.handysoft.com
Robert Cain, Product Manager
Tel:[1] 703-442-5635
rcain@handysoft.com
HandySoft Global Corporation is leading the way for companies worldwide to develop new
strategies for conducting business through the improvement, automation, and optimization
of their business processes. As a leading provider of Business Process Management (BPM)
software and services, we deliver innovative solutions to both the public and private sectors.
Proven to reduce costs while improving quality and productivity, our foundation software
platform, BizFlow, is an award-winning BPM suite of tools used to design, analyze, auto-
mate, monitor, and optimize business processes. By delivering a single-source solution,
capable of improving all types of business processes, HandySoft empowers our clients to
leverage their investment across whole departments and the entire enterprise, making
BizFlow the Strategic Choice for BPM.
HITACHI LTD. SOFTWARE DIVISION
Full Member
5030 Totsuka-Chou, Tosuka-Ku, Yokohama, 2448555, Japan
Ryoichi Shibuya, Senior Manager
Tel: [81] 45 826 8370 / Fax:[81] 45 826 7812
shibuya@itg.hitachi.co.jp
Hitachi offers a wide variety of integrated products for groupware systems such as e-mail
and document information systems. One of these products is Hitachis workflow system
Groupmax. The powerful engine of Groupmax effectively automates office business such as
the circulation of documents. Groupmax provides the following powerful tools and facilities:
A visual status monitor shows the route taken and present location of each document in a
business process definition. Cooperative facilities between servers provide support for a
wide area workflow system Groupmax supports application processes such as consultation,
send back, withdrawal, activation, transfer, stop and cancellation. Groupmax is rated to be
the most suitable workflow system for typical business processes in Japan and has pro-
vided a high level of customer satisfaction. Groupmax workflow supports the Interface 4.
INTERWOVEN INC
Full Member
18 East 41st Street, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10017 United States
www.interwoven.com
APPENDIX-MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
296
Steve Tynor
Tel: [1] 212-213-5056 / Fax:[1] 212-213-5352
steve.tynor@scrittura.com
Interwoven Inc delivers an integrated Java language web-based suite of Business Process
Management (BPM), Workflow and Document Management components that are designed
to optimize and streamline the legal, trading and operations areas of financial services insti-
tutions that are burdened with high levels of complex contractual documentation.
IVYTEAM-SORECOGROUP
Associate Member
Alpenstrasse 9, P.O. BOX, CH-6304, Zug, Switzerland
www. ivyteam.ch
Tel: +41 41 710 80 20
heinz.lienhard@ivyteam.ch
Standard-based independent BPMS: easy deployment of run-time
solution directly from BPMN graphical process model. Rich Web interfaces besides
classical HTML make it the tool of choice for process-oriented Rich Internet Applications.
METODA S.P.A.
Associate Member
Via San Leonardo, 52, Salerno 84131 Italy
Giuseppe Callipo
Tel : [39] 0893067-111 / Fax : [39] 0893067-112
g.callipo@lineargruppo.it
NEC SOFT LTD.
Full Member
1-18-6, Shinkiba, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 136-8608, JAPAN
www.nec.com
Yoshihisa Sadakane, Sales and Marketing Senior Manager
Tel: [81]3-5569-3399 / Fax: [81]3-5569-3286
sadakane@mxw.nes.nec.co.jp
OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
Association Member
140 Kendrick Street, Bldg A, Suite 300 Needham, MA. 02494 United States
Jamie Nemiah
www.omg.org
Tel: [1] 781-444-0404
nemiah@omg.org
OPENWORK
Full Member
Via Conservatorio 22, Milano, 20122 Italy
www.openworkBPM.com
Francesco Battista, Marketing Director
Tel: [39] 02-77297558
francesco.battista@openworkBPM.com
openwork is a pure Independent Software Vendor concentrating all efforts exclusively on its
openwork Business Process Management suite. openwork features an original method-
ology that makes use of daily business, non-technical language and approach, introducing
high-abstraction tools to map, share and maintain organizations shape and working rules.
Those agile tools also allow to reflect organizations evolutions, keeping them always aligned
with changing business needs. openwork is then able to act as an interpreter of graphic
representation of organizations shape and working rules, enabling paper manual processes
to become alive into finalized real-world web applications. openwork is the final solution of
a crucial problem: modelling business organizations and processes, getting at the same
time suitable fitting-like-a-glove BPM web applications, cutting down low added-value activi-
ties, technical complexity and costs. openwork suite including also Workflow Manage-
ment, Document Management and Business Activity Monitoring capabilities, has already
been used to build hundreds of complete solutions for customer companies of any sector
and size.
APPENDIX-MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
297
PECTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Full Member
2425 West Loop South Suite 200, Houston TX 77027, USA
www.pectra.com
Federico Silva, Marketing Manager
fsilva@pectra.com
Tel: [1] 713-335-5562
PECTRA Technologys award-winning Business Process Management system, PECTRA
BPM Suite, is a powerful set of tools enabling discovery, design, implementation, mainte-
nance, optimization and analysis of business processes for different kinds of organizations.
PECTRA BPM Suite is an application that automates the processes and the most critical
tasks in the organization, generating optimum levels of operational effectiveness. It fulfills
all requirements demanded by todays organization, quickly and efficiently. Furthermore, it
increases the return on previous investments made in technology by integrating all existing
applications. Based on BPM technology it incorporates the concepts of: BAM (Business Ac-
tivity Monitoring) providing management with user-friendly graphic monitoring tools, to
follow up any deviation in the organization's critical success factors, with capabilities to
control and coordinate the organization's performance by means of graphic management
indicators; WORKFLOW offering powerful tools to automate and speed the organization's
business processes, improving communication and work-flow between people working in
different areas; carrying out the work more efficiently and producing customer satisfaction,
lower levels of bureaucracy and cost-reductions in day-to-day operations; EAI (Enterprise
Application Integration) enabling integration with all existing technologies in the organiza-
tion, regardless of their origin or platform, coordinating them to help the organization
achieve its goals more efficiently; and B2Bi (Business to Business Integration) enabling the
control and coordination of each and every link in the organization's value chain, providing
robust tools for business process management, and enterprise application integration, mak-
ing it possible to totally integrate suppliers, clients and partners in an easy and flexible way.
PEGASYSTEMS INC.
Full Member
101 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 United States
www.pegasystems.com
Rosalind Morville, Sr. PR Manager
Tel: [1] 617-374-9600 ext. 6029
pr@pega.com
Pegasystems Inc. (Nasdaq: PEGA) provides software to automate complex, changing busi-
ness processes. Pegasystems, the leader in unified process and rules technology, gives
business people and IT departments the ability to use best processes across the enterprise
and outperform their competition. Our new class of Business Process Management (BPM)
technology makes enterprise systems easy to use and easy to change. By automating policy
manuals, system specifications and lines of manual coding with dynamically responsive
updates, Pegasystems powers the world's most sophisticated organizations to "build for
change. Pegasystems award-winning, standards-based BPM suite is complemented with
best-practice solution frameworks to help leaders in the financial services, insurance,
healthcare, life sciences, government and other markets drive growth and productiv-
ity. Headquartered in Cambridge, MA, Pegasystems has regional offices in North America,
Europe and the Pacific Rim.
PEARSON PLC
Associate Member
1 Lake Street, #3F18, Upper Saddle River NJ 07458 United States
www.pearson.com
Yonah Hirschman, Senior Analyst
Tel: [1] 201-236-7836
Yonah.Hirschman@PearsonEd.Com
PERSHING LLC
Associate Member
One Pershing Plaza, 8th Fl., Jersey City, NJ. 07399 United States
Regina DeGennaro, VP - Workflow Solutions
APPENDIX-MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
298
Tel: 201-413-4588
rdegennaro@pershing.com
PROJEKTY BANKOWE POLSOFT
Full Member
Plac Wolnosci 18, Poznan, 61-739 Poland
Boguslaw Rutkowski
Tel: [48] 61-859-93-11
boguslaw.rutkowski@pbpolsoft.com.pl
Projekty Bankowe Polsoft company is part of ComputerLand Group, second in size IT com-
pany group in Poland offering high quality services and products for industry and public
sector. PB Polsoft offers BPB Workflow technology, highly scalable standard-based workflow
system with strong EAI capabilities, especially for WebServices, rich process and form
(XForms) modeling tools as well as set of components for building workflow client portal
applications based on java portlet technology. BPB Workflow was developed in J2EE tech-
nology and can be used as both an embedded or a standalone server working in EJB con-
tainer. It has well defined Java WAPI and WebServices interface and offers web-based ad-
ministration and modeling tools. The workflow engine is cluster aware and has robust
build-in process fail-over and recovery capabilities.
SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS
Associate Member
51 Valley Stream Parkway, Mail Stop B9C, Malvern, PA. 19355 United States
Anup Raina
Tel: [1] 610-219-6300
anup.raina@siemens.com
SOFT SOLUTIONS
Full Member
East 33rd Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10016, USA
4950, Yonge Street, Ste 400, Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K1, Canada
2, Allee Lavoisier, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France 59650
http://softsolutionsus.com
Walid Daccache, Project Manager
[Tel : 33] (3) 2 04 14 19 0 / Fax : 33] (3) 2 04 14 19 9
daccache.walid@softsolutions.fr
Founded in 1989, Soft Solutions is today a leading provider of web-based retail merchan-
dise management and decision-support software, with more than 80,000 active users
worldwide.
Soft Solutions Suite includes a full range of business applications that support the mer-
chandise management functions in the retail business, including Assortment planning,
Pricing and Promotions management, Global Data Synchronization, Forecasting, Advanced
analytics, Optimization and Vendor Funds management. These applications share a com-
mon retail business model foundation, the most flexible and the most comprehensive in the
industry. And, by way of ensuring consistent and auditable execution of business func-
tions, Soft Solutions also provides a fully integrated set of tools such as User and Security
Management, Workflow Management, Data integration, Reporting and Translation.
The companys worldwide client base consists of multi-divisional, multi-format, Tier-1 re-
tailers such as Carrefour, CVS pharmacy, Canadian Tire, Auchan, FNAC, Groupe Louis
Delhaize, Intermarch, Casino, FNAC, Galeries Lafayette, Castorama, Kingfisher, Cham-
pion, Match, Provera, Pinault-Printemps-Redoute, Monoprix, and Cora. Soft Solutions ap-
plication suite is completely based on Java/J2EE technology, conforms to the latest indus-
try and technology standards (including GS1), and is compatible with multiple databases,
industry application server packages and EAI solutions.
SOURCECODE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC.
Full Member
4042 148
TH
Ave NE, Redmond, WA 98039, United States
http://www.k2workflow.com
Leah Clelland
Tel: 1 (425) 883-4200 / Fax: 1 (425) 671-0411
Leah@k2workflow.com
APPENDIX-MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
299
TELECOM ITALIA SPA
Associate Member
Via G. Reiss Romoli 274, Torino, Italy 10148
Giovanna Sacchi
Tel: [0039] (01) 12288040
giovanna.sacchi@telecomitalia.it
TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC.
Full Member
3303 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA
http://www.tibco.com/software/process_management/default.jsp
Justin Brunt, Sr. Product Manager
Tel: [44] (0) 1793 441300 / Fax: [44] (0) 1793 441333
jbrunt@tibco.com
TIBCO Software Inc. (NASDAQ:TIBX) provides enterprise software that helps companies
achieve service-oriented architecture (SOA) and business process management (BPM) suc-
cess. With over 3,000 customers, TIBCO has given leading organizations around the world
better awareness and agilitywhat TIBCO calls The Power of Now. TIBCO provides one of
the most complete offerings for enterprise-scale BPM, with powerful software that is capable
of solving not just the challenges of automating routine tasks and exception handling sce-
narios, but also the challenges of orchestrating sophisticated and long-lived activities and
transactions that involve people and systems across organizational and geographical
boundaries.
TOGETHER TEAMLSUNGEN GMBH
Associate Member
Elmargasse 2-4, Wien, A-1191, Austria
www.together.at
Alfred Madl, Geschaftsfuhrer
Tel: [43] 5 04 04 122 / Fax:[43] 5 04 04 11 122
a.madl@together.at
UNISYS CORPORATION
Full Member
1000 Cedar Hollow Road
Malvern, PA 19335
Shane C. Gabie, Technology Research Director
Tel: +1-610-648-2731
Shane.Gabie@unisys.com
Unisys Corporation (NYSE: UIS) is a worldwide technology services and solutions company.
Our consultants apply Unisys expertise in consulting, systems integration, outsourcing,
infrastructure, and server technology to help our clients achieve secure business opera-
tions. We build more secure organizations by creating visibility into clients business opera-
tions. Leveraging the Unisys 3D Visible Enterprise approach, we make visible the impact of
their decisions ahead of investments, opportunities and risks. For more information, visit
www.unisys.com.
VIGNETTE CORPORATION
Full Member
1601 South MoPac Expressway, Building 2
Austin, TX, 78746-5776, United States
www.vignette.com
Clay Johnson, Staff Engineer
Tel: [1] 512-741-1133 / Fax:[1] 512-741-4500
chjohnson@vignette.com
Vignette is the leading provider of content management solutions used by the most suc-
cessful organizations in the world to interact online with their customers, employees and
partners. By combining content management with integration and analysis applications,
Vignette enables organizations to deliver personalized information wherever it is needed,
integrate online and enterprise systems and provide real-time analysis of the customer ex-
perience. Vignette products are focused around three core capabilities that meet the needs
APPENDIX-MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY
300
of today's e-business organizations: Content Management - the ability to manage and de-
liver content to every electronic touch-point. Content Integration - the ability to integrate a
variety of e-business applications within and across enterprises. Content Analysis - the
ability to provide actionable insight into the customer's relationship to a business.
W4 (WORLD WIDE WEB WORKFLOW)
Full Member
4 rue Emile Baudot, 91873 Palaiseau Cedex, France
www.w4global.com
Philippe Betschart, Marketing Director
Tel: [33] 1 64 53 19 12 / Fax:[33] 1 64 53 28 98
Philippe.Betschart@w4global.com
W4, one of the leading European software vendors specialized in Business Process Man-
agement , supplies more than 270 customers, serving more than 1 million people. For al-
most 10 years W4 has been widely acclaimed for its expertise in Human Workflow, which
guarantees transparently, via its functional architecture, task follow-up and traceability:
who does what, when and how. Whatever the particular need, there is a package available
allowing customers to take full advantage of the powerful W4 technology: Manage the
automation of any kind of process: W4 BPM Suite 2006 is a complete package, from
modelling to monitoring, dedicated to the enterprise process automation. This BPM package
is capable of managing the automation of complex work procedures involving high volumes
of users, as well as support procedures (finance, HR, etc.) and company-specific proce-
dures. Dedicated to end-users, W4 BPM Suite 2006 provides them with an easy tool for
modelling their processes. It also offers managers reporting and supervision functionalities.
Optimize how internal business needs are handled: W4 Ready for Business are out-of-
box packages that capitalize upon W4 BPM Suites powerful and consulting services to
deliver applications that correspond well to each individual customers particular way of
doing business. Thanks to W4 Ready for Business, companies can optimize how to handle
purchase, training and recruitment requests.
Embed an OEM component: W4 Embedded Edition is a collection of embeddable soft-
ware components for business process management (BPM), targeted at software vendors
working on all standard market platforms (ERP, Content management, EAI) Just some of
those who accelerate their business every day thanks to W4 are Barclays Bank, BNP
Paribas, Alcatel Space, Siemens Transportation Systems, Volvo Portugal, EMI Music
France, Cap Gemini, Teleca Solutions Italia, TNT, etc.
WORK MANAGEMENT EUROPE
Associate Member
Postbus 168, 3830 AD Leusden, The Netherlands
www.wmeonline.com
Cor H. Visser, Managing Director
Tel: [31] (33) 433 2223 / Fax: [31] (33) 433 2224
cvisser@wmeonline.com
WORKFLOW & GROUPWARE STRATEGIES
Associate Member
37 rue Bouret, Paris 75019 France
Martin Ader
Tel: [33] (1) 4 23 80 81 5
martin.ader@wngs.com
XIAMEN LONGTOP SYSTEM CO., LTD
Associate Member
15/F, Block A, Chuangxin Building, Software Park, Xiamen, 361005, P.R. China
Shou Sheng Ye, R&D Director
Tel: [86] (5) 922-396888
xyyang@longtop.com
301
Author Biographies
Our sincere thanks go to the authors who kindly gave their time, effort and expertise into
contributing papers that cover methods, concepts, case studies and standards in busi-
ness process management and workflow. These international industry experts and
thought leaders present significant new ideas and concepts to help you plan a successful
future for your organization. We also extend our thanks and appreciation to the members
of WfMC Review Committee who volunteered many hours of their valuable time in the
selection of the final submissions and who helped guide the content of the book.
LUIS JOYANES AGUILAR
[ljoyanes@fpablovi.org]
Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Campus Madrid, Spain.
P Juan XXIII, 3 - 28040 Madrid (Spain)
Phone: (34)667438400
Lus Joyanes Aguilar (Jan, Spain) holds a PhD in Computer Science (1997) and in Soci-
ology (1996) from Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca en Madrid. He has a bachelor de-
gree en Physics (1977) and Military Sciences (1970). Since 1991, he is the Systems and
Languages Department Director and Software Engineering in the Universidad Pontificia
de Salamanca en Madrid. Since 2001, he is Director of Master and PhD Programs in this
University. Actually he leads the research groups in Multidisciplinary Computer Re-
searches, Knowledge Management and Knowledge Society. He is author of more than 30
books and more than 70 communications in scientific magazines and conferences.
FRANCESCO BATTISTA
[francesco.battista@openworkBPM.com]
Marketing Director,
openwork
Via Conservatorio, 22, Milan 20122 Italy
Francesco BATTISTA, Computer Science graduated, since 1994 worked for Procter &
Gamble as Management Systems Project Manager in Italian and international projects,
than moved to major IT consultancy companies with account and project management
responsibilities for process reorganizations involving SAP and web technologies. Since
2004 Francesco is Marketing Director for openwork, the Italian BPM company, leading
also corporate communications. Published author, he is active speaker in BPM related
events.
ARNAUD BEZANCON
(arnaud.bezancon@advantys.com]
Chief Technical Officer,
ADVANTYS Solutions Ltd., Canada
1250 Rene Levesque West, Suite 2200 Montreal, Quebec H3B 4W8
Arnaud Bezancon, IT Engineer (Orsay, France), is the CTO of ADVANTYS (France) which
he co-founded in 1995 with his brother Alain (BBA, HEC, Montreal). ADVANTYS is a
leading ISV offering the Smart Enterprise Suite (SES). As a CTO, Arnaud manages the
software division of ADVANTYS and launched the SES listed in a Gartner Magic Quad-
rant in 2004. Arnaud designed ADVANTYS flagship product-the WorkflowGen work-
flow management system. Arnaud has developed a pragmatic approach of technology
based on real life experience. ADVANTYS' software are used by hundreds of major corpo-
rations worldwide.
ROBERT CAIN
[rcain@handysoft.com]
Sr. Product Manager,
APPENDIXAUTHORS
302
HandySoft Global Corporation
1952 Gallows Road, Suite 200,Vienna, VA. 22182 USA
Robert Cain is the Sr. Product Manager at HandySoft Global Corporation, where he is
responsible for managing the delivery of BizFlow, the companys award-winning BPM
platform, as well as the Compliance (SOX), and OfficeEngine
TM
BPM solutions. Robert
plays a lead role in defining the product roadmap for customers based on leading BPM
standards, methodologies and current customer needs. Robert has provided consulting
on requirements, re-engineering, implementation and maintenance of BPM projects, and
has delivered training on leading BPM methodologies. Prior to joining HandySoft Global
Corporation, he held positions at Booz Allen Hamilton and Parsons as Project Manager
for the US Air Force Environmental Restoration Program. His experience with environ-
mental restoration and IT technology was used to support various congressional and
presidential budgets. Robert holds a MS (Environmental Management) and BS (Biology)
from George Mason University, and MS from Marymount University.
JORGE CARDOSO
[jcardoso@uma.pt]
Departamento de Matemtica e Engenharias
Universidade da Madeira 9000-390
Funchal Portugal
Jorge Cardoso joined the University of Madeira (Portugal) in March 2003. He received his
Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Georgia (EUA) in 2002. Dr. Cardoso
organized the First, Second, Third, and Fourth International Workshop on Semantic and
Dynamic Web Processes. He has published over 65 refereed papers in the areas of work-
flow management systems, semantic Web, and related fields. He has also edited 3 books
on semantic Web and Web services. He is also on the Editorial Board of several journals.
LINUS K CHOW
[linus.chow@bea.com]
Principal Systems Engineer, Business Interaction Division,
BEA Systems, Inc.
8444 Westpark Drive 6th Floor McLean, VA 22102
Linus Chow is the Principal Systems Engineer for Business Process Management (BPM)
for the Public Sector at BEA systems. He has over 14 years of leadership and manage-
ment experience in information technology internationally with 7 years in workflow and
BPM. Currently, Linus, leads the adoption of BPM solutions for BEA Public Sector cus-
tomers. Prior to BEA he was in senior manager positions in BPM Services Delivery, Prod-
uct Management, Marketing, and General Management. He has played crucial roles in
expanding the growth of BPM and workflow adoption first in the US and then interna-
tionally from Australia to Switzerland.
He is published author and an active speaker on the Best Practices of BPM worldwide.
He is very active with the BPM industry frequently engaging with Brainstorm, WfMC,
BPMI, BPMG, IQPC, AIIM, and other industry organizations. A decorated former US
Army Officer, Linus has an MBA, MS in Management Information Systems, and BS in
Mathematics, as well as several industry certifications.
JONATHAN EMANUELE
[jonathan.emanuele@siemens.com]
Lead Analyst
Siemens Medical Solutions
51 Valley Stream Pkwy, Malvern, P A. 19355 USA
Jonathan Emanuele has a B.S. in Operations Research & Industrial Engineering and a
M.Eng. in Computer Science from Cornell University. He is currently the lead analyst for
the Siemens healthcare workflow management team. His poster entitled "Workflow Tech-
nology in Healthcare" won a distinguished poster award at the 2006 AMIA Spring Con-
gress.
APPENDIXAUTHORS
303
LAYNA FISCHER
[layna@wfmc.org]
Editor and Publisher,
Future Strategies Inc.,
2436 North Federal Highway, #374, Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 USA
www.futstrat.com
As the Official Editor and Publisher to WfMC and Director of the annual Global Awards
for Excellence in BPM and Workflow, Layna Fischer works closely with WfMC to promote
the mission of the WfMC with respect to industry awareness and educational content. Ms
Fischer was also the Executive Director of the Business Process Management Initiative
(now merged with OMG) and is on the board of BPM Focus (previously WARIA, Workflow
And Reengineering International Association), where she was CEO since 1994. Future
Strategies Inc., (www.futstrat.com) publishers of books and papers on business process
thought leadership specializes in dissemination of information about BPM and workflow
technology, business process redesign and electronic commerce. As such, the company
contracts and works closely with individuals and corporations throughout the USA and
the world.
Future Strategies Inc., is the also publisher of the business book series New Tools for
New Times, as well as the annual Excellence in Practice volumes of award-winning case
studies and the annual Workflow Handbook, published in collaboration with the WfMC.
Her experience in the computer industry includes being the president and CEO of a
multi-million dollar high-technology export company for seven years, during which time
she also founded an offshore franchise distribution company called Computer Direct. Ms.
Fischer was also a senior editor of a leading computer publication for four years and has
been involved in international computer journalism and publishing for over 20 years. She
was a founding director of the United States Computer Press Association in 1985.
GABRIEL FRANCIOSI
[gfranciosi@pectra.com]
Consulting Manager,
PECTRA Technology, Inc., USA
2425 West Loop South, Suite 200, Houston, Texas. USA
Gabriel Franciosi is Consulting Manager of PECTRA Technology. Gabriel Franciosi is an
IT specialist with more than 8 years of experience in the field. He currently manages
PECTRA Technology Consulting Services worldwide. He is also one of the leading mentors
of PECTRA Technology. He is responsible for the consulting and deployment areas of
PECTRA BPM Suite. He has also worked in several IT projects in Spain, Chile, Colombia,
Mexico, and Argentina. Gabriel Franciosi is 27 years old and he has earned a degree on
System Engineering issued by Crdoba State University. He has lectured and given
courses on BPM, EAI, and Workflow in different countries, such as Spain, Chile, Colom-
bia and Mexico. He also teaches at different universities in Argentina, and has attended
events, seminars, training courses, and conferences all over the world.
DR. SETRAG KHOSHAFIAN
[setrag@pega.com]
VP of BPM Technology,
Pegasystems Inc.
101 Main Street Cambridge, MA. 02142 United States
Setrag is one of the earliest pioneers and recognized experts in Business Process Man-
agement. He has been a senior executive for the past 15 years. Currently he is Vice Presi-
dent of BPM Technology at Pegasystems Inc. He is the strategic BPM technology and
thought leader at Pega. He is involved in numerous initiatives, including BPM Technology
Directions, Enterprise Content Management and BPM; Enterprise Service Bus and BPM;
Collaboration and BPM; Enterprise Performance Management and BPM; Service Oriented
Architectures (SOA); Six Sigma for continuous improvements in BPM projects; and BPM
Maturity Models. Setrag is the lead author of nine books and has numerous publications
APPENDIXAUTHORS
304
in business as well as technical periodicals. He has given seminars and presentations in
conferences, to technical and business communities. Setrag has also been a professor for
the past 20 years. He has taught graduate and undergraduate courses in several univer-
sities around the world where he provides his students a unique combination of aca-
demic depth combined with industry experience. Setrag holds a PhD in Computer Sci-
ence from the University of Wisconsin Madison. His latest book is Service Oriented En-
terprises, Auerbach Publications, ISBN 0849353602.
RAY HESS
[rhess@cchosp.com]
V.P., Information Management,
The Chester County Hospital
701 E. Marshall Street W. Chester, PA 19380 United States
Ray Hess is the Vice President for Information Management at the Chester County Hospi-
tal, a 225 bed community hospital in suburban Philadelphia, PA. He has clinical experi-
ence having provided patient care and rehabilitation for eight year. He has administrative
experience having managed Cardiology Services for four years and has received a master
degree in Healthcare Administration. He has an Information Management and Process
Improvement background having overseen Decision Support Services for fourteen years,
Health Information Management for six years, and Workflow automation/Clinical Deci-
sion Support efforts for over six years. He has spoken to audiences throughout the
United States and internationally on Healthcare Process Management theory, concepts,
and implementation techniques. He is currently devoting his efforts to workflow automa-
tion and clinical decision support efforts associated with the installation of a comprehen-
sive EMR and CPOE system at Chester County Hospital.
LAURA KOETTER
[laura.koetter@siemens.com]
Software Product Analyst,
Siemens Medical Solutions
51 Valley Stream Pkwy, Malvern, PA 19355, USA
Laura Koetter has a B.B.A. in Operations & Information Technology and was The College
of William and Marys Most Distinguished Graduate. She is currently an analyst for Sie-
mens healthcare workflow management, developing clinical process workflows for the
hospital community. Laura previously worked as the lead analyst in a clinical environ-
ment, defining and implementing process optimization and patient safety improvement
workflows for Riverside Health System, a multi-hospital enterprise. Laura has presented
at conferences on the topic of healthcare workflows and has been heavily involved in BPM
efforts in the healthcare industry for several years.
CHRISTIAN KUPLICH
[christian.kuplich@boc-de.com]
Senior Consultant at BOC Germany
Vossstrasse 22, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Christian Kuplich studied Information Systems in Berlin, Germany. Since 2002 he has
been responsible for the customizing and development activities of BOC Germany. As
senior consultant he is involved in several projects in the context of process based appli-
cation development mainly developing methods for model based specification and imple-
mentation of process based applications following the MDA approach.
SALVATORE LATRONICO
[salvatore.latronico@openworkBPM.com]
BPM Consultancy Director, openwork
Via Conservatorio, 22, Milan 20122 Italy
Salvatore LATRONICO, Physics graduated, is one of the founders and inventors of open-
work, the Italian BPM company born in 1998. Starting from methodology and architec-
APPENDIXAUTHORS
305
ture definition, he always played a basic role in the evolution of the openwork BPM suite
both for theoretical & high abstraction tools definition and technical matters. Salvatore is
now BPM consultancy Director for openwork, coordinating all BPM projects resources:
published author, he is active speaker in BPM related events.
CHRIS LAWRENCE
[ergonology@iafrica.com]
Business architecture consultant,
Old Mutual South Africa
PO Box 66, Cape Town 8000, South Africa
Chris left England for Cape Town in 1996 to co-found Global Edge, a business-
enablement competency in support of international financial services group Old Mutual.
He is now an independent business architecture consultant, specializing in business
process architecture and holistic delivery and change methodologies. His book 'Make
Work Make Sense' was published in 2005 (Future Managers, Cape Town;
www.makeworkmakesense.com), and he has also contributed to international publica-
tions on workflow and enterprise architecture. Chris has designed and implemented solu-
tions in the UK, US and Southern Africa, and holds Masters degrees from Cambridge
and London.
KYEONG EON LEE
[kelee@ktf.com]
Manager, e-Management Team
KTF, IT Service Group at IT Planning & Operation Office
Currently responsible for managing and developing KTF's BPM solution using HandySoft
BizFlow. He has interests in standardizing business resources and developing a reposi-
tory of business processes which can be utilized like a library. He received a Bachelor's
degree in Computer Engineering from ChungBuk University and, in 2001, joined
KTFreetel due to the corporate merger with KTM.com where he was responsible for man-
aging EIP (Enterprise Information Portal) and Workflow system. BPM-related projects
include EKP (Enterprise Knowledge Portal), upgrade of BPM system (HandySoft
BizFlow), Project Leader of BPM Advancement Project, Project Leader for Process Asset
Library project, and team member of the e-Management Team in the IT Service Depart-
ment at KTF.
HEINZ LIENHARD
[heinz.lienhard@ivyteam.ch]
Founder of ivyTeam,
Soreco-ivyteam
Alpenstrasse 9 , P.O.Box Zug CH-6304, Switzerland
Heinz Leinhard lives and works in Switzerland at the lovely lake of Zug. With ivyTeam he
has successfully brought together the web application and the workflow world. He re-
ceived a Masters degree in electrical engineering from the ETH (Switzerland), a Masters
degree in mathematical statistics from Stanford University (California, USA) and the Dr.
h.c. from the informatics department of ETH, Lausanne (Switzerland). For many years he
headed the central R&D labs of Landis&Gyr Corp., now part of the Siemens group, where
he built up important R&D activities in system theory, automatic control, informatics and
microtechnology.
DR. AMBUJ MAHANTI
[am@iimcal.ac.in]
Dean (Planning and Administration) and Professor - Management Information Systems,
Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata -
700104, West Bengal, India.
Dr. Ambuj Mahanti works as a Professor of Computer Science and Management Informa-
tion Systems at Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Kolkata, India. His specializa-
APPENDIXAUTHORS
306
tions are in the area of Artificial Intelligence and Heuristic Programming, and Business
Intelligence. He has published extensively in international journals and conferences in-
cluding several publications in Journal of ACM, Theoretical Computer Science, Artificial
Intelligence, Information Processing Letters, etc. His current research interest includes
Combinatorial Auctions, Data Mining, Recommendation Systems, Business Intelligence,
and Workflow Verification.
CHARLES "FLIP" MEDLEY
[charles.medley@bea.com]
Senior Engineer, World Wide Field Operations,
BEA Systems
8444 Westpark Drive, McLean, VA 22105 USA
Charles "Flip" Medley is a Senior Engineer for Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) solu-
tions at BEA Systems. He has been managing and supporting successful SOA, J2EE,
and java solutions since 1995. Currently at BEA, he guides the strategic SOA invest-
ments made by Federal Agencies and ensures their success across an entire stack of SOA
products from service bus, to directory services, security, etc. He regularly engages with
systems integrators large and small on multi-year projects of significant value.
JAN MENDLING
[jan.mendling@wu-wien.ac.at]
Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Institute of Information
Systems and New Media, Augasse 2-6, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
Institute of Information Systems and New Media WU Wien - Vienna University of Eco-
nomics and Business Administration
Jan Mendling is a PhD student at the Institute of Information Systems and New Media at
the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. His research interests
include business process management, enterprise modeling, and workflow standardiza-
tion. Jan has published more than 50 papers and article and served as program commit-
tee member in several workshops and conferences. He is co-author of the EPC Markup
Language (EPML) and co-organizer of the XML4BPM workshop series.
DR. ING. JUAN JOS MORENO
[jmoreno@lithium.com.uy]
Director.
LITHIUM Software.
Av. Libertador Lavalleja 1532 Of. 1526. Montevideo - Uruguay
Juan J. Moreno is cofounder of Lithium Software (www.lithium.com.uy), a Business
Process Management and Workflow focused company, holding the intellectual property of
its DocFlow Workflow Management System and PROSimfony Business Process Manage-
ment Suite. He is also professor and researcher at the Engineering and Technologies
Faculty of the Universidad Catlica del Uruguay. He holds a PhD in Computer Science,
specialized in Software Engineering, from the Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, in
Spain. He has dozens of technical and arbitrated publications, and has been recognized
with the third price of Innovator of the Year 2003 in his country, Uruguay.
NATHANIEL PALMER
[nathaniel@wfmc.org]
President, Transformation+Innovation and
Executive Director, Workflow Management Coalition
99 Derby Street, Suite 200, Hingham, MA 02043 USA
Nathaniel Palmer is President of Transformation+Innovation, as well as the Executive
Director of the Workflow Management Coalition. Previously he was Director, Business
Consulting for Perot Systems Corp, and also spent over a decade with Delphi Group as
Vice President and Chief Analyst. He is the author of over 200 research studies and pub-
lished articles, as well as The X-Economy (Texere, 2001). Nathaniel has been featured
APPENDIXAUTHORS
307
in numerous media ranging from Fortune to The New York Times. He is on the advisory
boards of many relevant industry publications, such as E-DOC, Business Integration
Journal and Business Transformation Journal, as well as the Board of Directors of Asso-
ciation of Information Management (AIIM) NE, and was nominated to represent the Gov-
ernor of Massachusetts on the Commonwealths IT Advisory Board.
SINNAKKRISHNAN PERUMAL
[krish@iimcal.ac.in]
Doctoral Student,
Indian Institute of Management Calcutta
C-302, Tagore Hall, IIM Calcutta, Diamond Harbour Road,
Joka Kolkata West Bengal 700104 India
Sinnakkrishnan Perumal is currently doing doctoral research in the area of workflow
verification at Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Kolkata, India. He has published
many book chapters, and presented papers in various conferences. His research interests
include Workflow Verification, Business Process Management, Process Improvement, E-
Governance, Enterprise Architecture and Artificial Intelligence.
ALEXANDER PETZMANN
[alexander.petzmann@boc-eu.com]
Mag,
BOC
Wipplingerstrae 1, Vienna, 1010 Austria
Alexander Petzmann was born in 1971 and studied business administration in Vienna,
Austria and Los Angeles, USA. In 1997, he joined BOC and focused since then on busi-
ness process management from the business view as well as from the technical view as a
consultant. Currently Mr. Petzmann is focusing on business process and performance
portals and takes responsibility for a team of consultants in this field at BOC.
MICHAEL PUNCOCHAR
[michael.puncochar@boc-at.com]
Senior Consultant, Managing Director
BOC Unternehmensberatung GmbH,
Rabensteig 2, Vienna, 1010 Austria
Michael Puncochar was born in 1973 and studied business informatics in
Vienna, Austria. After his studies he worked in a process oriented
e-learning project at the department for knowledge engineering
(University of Vienna). In this project Michael was responsible for the
implementation of a metamodeling tool, which was used to design learning
processes. In 2003, he joined BOC and focused on projects in the context
of process oriented software engineering mostly based on the MDA
approach. Besides this he built up a competence team for IT Service- and
Architecture Management in BOC, as well as a team focusing on process
oriented software engineering.
JON PYKE
[jpyke@theprocessfactory.com]
Chairman WfMC
CTO, TheProcessFactory
Faris Lane, Woodham Surrey KT15 3DN United Kingdom
Jon was the Chief Technology Officer and a main board director of Staffware Plc from
August 1992 until was acquired by Tibco in 2004. He demonstrates an exceptional blend
of Business/People Manager; a Technician with a highly developed sense of where tech-
nologies fit and how they should be utilized. Jon is a world recognized industry figure; an
exceptional public speaker and a seasoned quoted company executive.
APPENDIXAUTHORS
308
As the CTO and Executive Vice President for Staffware Plc, Jon was responsible for a
development team geographically split into two countries (USA and the UK) and four loca-
tions. Jon also had overall executive responsibility for the product strategy, positioning,
public speaking etc. Finally, as a main board director he was heavily involved in PLC
board activities including merges and acquisitions, corporate governance, and board di-
rector of several subsidiaries. Jons final piece of work for Staffware was to conceive, de-
sign and oversee the development of the IProcess Engine.
Jon has over 30 years experience in the field of software development. During his career
he has worked for a number of software and hardware companies as well as user organi-
zations. When Jon joined Staffware in 1992 as the Technical Director Staffware was a
privately held company employing approximately 18 people with an annual turnover of
1.2 million during Jon's tenure with the company, it was taken public by floating on
the London Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in 1995 followed by a full listing on the
London Stock Exchange in 2000. The company achieved year on year growth of more
than 50% (CAGR) employing some 400 people in 16 countries with 40 million turn over.
Jon has written and published a number of articles on the subject of Office Automation,
BPM and Workflow Technology. More recently Jon has co-authored a book covering both
technical and business aspects of BPM. The book is published by Cambridge University
Press and is called Mastering you Organizations Processes.
Jon is a frequent speaker at international events and he regularly quoted in the National
and Industry press. Jon has excellent relationships with the analysts community and
senior figures in the Computer industry.
Jon co-founded and is the Chair of the Workflow Management Coalition. He is an AiiM
Laureate for Workflow and was awarded the Marvin Manheim award for Excellence in
workflow in 2003.
HAJO A. REIJERS
[h.a.reijers@tm.tue.nl]
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven,Department of Technology Management,
PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Hajo A. Reijers is an assistant professor of Business Process Management at
Eindhoven University of Technology. He received his Ph.D. and M.Sc. in
Computer Science from the same institute and has worked for several
management consultancy firms, most recently as a manager within Deloitte.
His research interests include Business Process Redesign, workflow
management systems, and discrete event simulation. He published articles in
Information Systems, Journal of Management Information Systems, Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, Omega: The International Journal of Management Science,
Computers in Industry, and other journals.
CLAY RICHARDSON
[crichardson@ppc.com]
Practice Leader, Business Process Management Practice,
Project Performance Corporation
1760 Old Meadow Rd. 4th Floor, McLean, VA 22102 USA
Clay Richardson currently leads Project Performance Corporation's award-winning busi-
ness process management practice, where he directs process improvement and automa-
tion efforts for public and private sector clients, including the U.S. Housing and Urban
Development, Government of Bermuda, and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Prior to
joining Project Performance Corporation, Mr. Richardson served as Director of Profes-
sional Services with HandySoft Global Corporation, a pure-play BPM software vendor.
Mr. Richardson also served as Principal and Co-founder of StrictlyBizness, an e-business
consultancy that specialized in developing automated web-based solutions for private
and public sector clients. Mr. Richardson is a graduate of Boston Universitys highly re-
garded Business Process Management Certificate Program and is a regular presenter at
BPM industry conferences and events. In addition, he regularly facilitates business proc-
ess strategy and architecture workshops for public- and private-sector clients.
APPENDIXAUTHORS
309
STEVE ROTTER
[srotter@adobe.com)
Director of Product Marketing,
Adobe Systems Inc
345 Park Avenue, San Jose CA 95110
Steve Rotter is the Director of Product Marketing for Adobe Systems Enterprise and De-
veloper Solutions Business Unit. Steve Rotter has been helping organizations with their
business process management initiatives for almost 2 decades. Currently, Mr. Rotter is
the Director of Product Marketing with Adobe Systems where he helps drive the market-
ing strategy for Adobes process management and Rich Internet Application technologies.
Prior to joining Adobe, Mr. Rotter was co-founder and Vice President of Marketing of Q-
Link Technologies (which Adobe acquired in 2004), one of the pioneers in Business Proc-
ess Management software. Previously, Mr. Rotter was Managing Partner with Paradigm
Research, a business consulting firm specializing in process management and reengi-
neering strategies for the Global 2000. At Paradigm Research, Mr. Rotter led the organi-
zations practice area focused the developing process reengineering methodologies and
delivering process re-design solutions. Mr. Rotter has also held numerous industry man-
agement positions including Worldwide Marketing Manager within Motorolas Cellular
Infrastructure Group where his organization received the prestigious CEO Quality Award.
Mr. Rotter is a published author and frequently speaks on the subject of process man-
agement at industry events. Mr. Rotter holds a Masters degree from Northwestern Uni-
versity\'s Kellogg Graduate School of Management and serves as a volunteer on the Mar-
keting Advisory Board and Vision Council for World Vision, a non-profit, Christian relief
and development organization dedicated to helping children and their communities
worldwide. Mr. Rotter can be reached at srotter@adobe.com.
DAVID ORENSANZ SANTOS
David Orensanz Santos
[david.orensanz@boc-es.com]
Senior Consultant and Managing Director
BOC, Spain Velzquez, 71 Madrid, 28006 Spain David Orensanz was born in 1973 and
studied Computer Sciences at Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca. Madrid. In 1998, he
joined BOC to develop the company in Spain working as business and IT consultant.
Currently Mr. Orensanz is the resposible for projects in all Spain, Portugal and Latino-
amrica regarding Business Processes, ITIL and Performance Management (Balanced
Scorecards and KPIs).
MOHAMMED SHAIKH
[mohammed@imagexx.com]
Image X
6144 Calle Real #200, Santa Barbara, CA 93117
Mohammed Shaikh received his Bachelor of Technology and Master of Technology degree
from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay India. He received his MBA and PhD from
University of Utah and also completed Master of Information Technology requirements
offered by AIIM. He is at present president of Image X and has been responsible for tech-
nical development of Image X's Document Management and Workflow system. He re-
ceived patent no.7,035,830 for "Method and apparatus for remote filing and recordation
of documents". Using the patented technology Image X has developed Electronic Filing.
Image X also developed "Digital Advanced Care Directive" in collaboration with CMA (Cali-
fornia Medical Association) and MedePass.
FEDERICO SILVA
[fsilva@pectra.com]
Marketing Manager,
PECTRA Technology, Inc., USA
2425 West Loop South, Suite 200, Houston, Texas. USA
APPENDIXAUTHORS
310
Federico Silva is Marketing Manager of PECTRA Technology, Inc. He is responsible for the
marketing strategy and corporate communications of PECTRA Technology and leads the
overall operations dealing with the positioning of all products, services and solutions of-
fered at different markets. Federico carries out marketing-related activities and actions,
including corporate communications, internal communications, branding, promotions
and advertising.
Federico joined PECTRA Technology in April, 2003, to assist and collaborate with US and
Canada operations, reporting directly to the CEO.In January 2004, he started to carry
out new markets' research and reorganizing the communications contents and channels.
In May 2004, he became head of the marketing area.
Before joining PECTRA Technology, Federico worked in the media. For over 10 years he
was responsible for editing, producing and hosting several TV and radio shows, writing
for the press, as well.
A graduate from the Crdoba State University (Argentina), Federico has a degree in
Communications, specializing in print media and institutional communications. He is 30-
years old and is fluent in Spanish, English and Italian.
KAI A. SIMON, PHD
[kai@instant-science.net]
Business Process Manager
ALTANA Pharma AG - a Nycomed company
Byk-Gulden-Str. 2, 78467 Konstanz, Germany
Kai Simon has been a member of the BPM community for almost 15 years. He has held
positions in academia, research, consulting and industry in various European countries.
Kai holds a doctoral degree in Informatics from Gteborg University (Sweden).
KEITH SWENSON
[kswenson@us.fujitsu.com]
VP of R&D,
Fujitsu Computer Systems
1250 Arques Ave. , Sunnyvale, CA. 94085 USA
Keith Swenson is Vice President of Research and Development at Fujitsu Computer Sys-
tems Corporation for the Interstage family of products. He is known for having been a
pioneer in web services, and has helped the development of standards such as WfMC
Interface 2, OMG Workflow Interface, SWAP, Wf-XML, AWSP, WSCI, and is currently
working on standards such as XPDL and ASAP. He has led efforts to develop software
products to support work teams at MS2, Netscape, and Ashton Tate. He is currently the
Chairman of the Technical Committee of the Workflow Management Coalition. In 2004 he
was awarded the Marvin L. Manheim Award for outstanding contributions in the field of
workflow.
Mr. Swenson holds both a Masters degree in Computer Science and a Bachelors degree
in Physics from the University of California, San Diego.
From 1995 to 1997 he served as Vice Chairman of the ACM Special Interest Group for
Group Support Systems (SigGROUP). In 1996, he was elected a Fellow of the Workflow
Management Coalition. In 2004 he was awarded the Marvin L. Manheim Award for out-
standing contributions in the field of workflow.
DR. JUAN J. TRILLES
[juanjo.trilles@grupoauraportal.com]
President,
AuraPortal BPMS
Germanias 84, Gandia 46702, Spain
Dr. Juan J. Trilles is Ph.D in Engineering and Science. He is also Master in Business
Administration for Madrid University. In 1980 he founded Dimoni Software, which be-
came a very respected Spanish software company.
APPENDIXAUTHORS
311
Today, he is President and Chief Software Architect of AuraPortal BPMS,
(www.auraportal.com) a company with presence in more than 15 countries in Europe
and America that, for the last 6 years has been developing a BPMS with Business Rules
and Document Handling that executes Processes directly from its model without any pro-
gramming effort. Important customers like PEMEX (Petroleos Mexicanos), one of the 50
largest corporations in the world, use AuraPortal BPMS to manage its processes.
Dr. Trilles has authored several papers on innovative ideas (i.e. Domain Cellular Account-
ing) applied today in enterprise management, which have been published in several
countries.
WIL VAN DER AALST
[w.m.p.v.d.aalst@tue.nl]
Technische Universitet Eindhoven, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Prof.dr.ir. Wil van der Aalst is a full professor of Information Systems at
the Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (TU/e) having a position in both the
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science and the department of
Technology Management. Currently he is also an adjunct professor at
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) working within the BPM group. His
research interests include workflow management, process mining, Petri nets,
business process management, process modeling, and process analysis.
Professor Wil van der Aalst has published more than 60 journal papers, 10
books (as author or editor), 150 refereed conference publications, and 20
book chapters.
IRENE VANDERFEESTEN
[i.t.p.vanderfeesten@tm.tue.nl]
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Department of Technology Management,
PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Irene Vanderfeesten is a Ph.D. student in Eindhoven University of Technology. She re-
ceived her Master's of Science degree in Computer Science from the same university
(2004) and is now working on the project "Intelligent software tools for workflow process
design" in the Information Systems group of the Department of Technology Management.
Her research interests include workflow management, business process redesign, prod-
uct based workflow design, and human aspects of information systems. She has received
the BPTrends Best Student Paper Award 2004 and has published papers at several con-
ferences and workshops.
313
Additional Workflow and
BPM Resources
NON-PROFIT ASSOCIATIONS AND RELATED STANDARDS RESEARCH ONLINE
AIIM (Association for Information and Image Management)
http://www.aiim.org
AIS Special Interest Group on Process Automation and
Management (SIGPAM)
http://www.sigpam.org
BPR On-Line Learning Center
http://www.prosci.com
BPM Focus
http://bpmfocus.org/
Business Process Management Initiative
http://www.bpmi.org see Object Management Group
IEEE (Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.)
http://www.ieee.org
Institute for Information Management (IIM)
http://www.iim.org
ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
http://www.iso.ch
Object Management Group
http://www.omg.org
Open Document Management Association
http://nfocentrale.net/dmware
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
Standards
http://www.oasis-open.org
Society for Human Resource Management
http://www.shrm.org
Society for Information Management
http://www.simnet.org
Wesley J. Howe School of Technology Management
http://attila.stevens.edu/workflow
Workflow And Reengineering International Association (WARIA)
http://www.waria.com now BPMFocus
Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC)
http://www.wfmc.org
Workflow Portal
http://www.e-workflow.org
315
Index
A
Advance Medical Directives, 174
ALTANA Pharma, 147, 150, 155
ASAP, 11, 13
Asynchronous Service Access Protocol. See ASAP
B
BAM, see Business Activity Monitoring
Base Subgraph, 228
Basel II, 211, 212, 216, 222
Bed Management workflow, 134
BPDM, 11
BPEL, see Business Process Execution Language
BPEL4People, 28
BPM Center of Excellence, 73-79, 81, 84
BPM COE, see BPM Center of Excellence
BPM Maturity Model Strategy, 83
BPM Maturity Models, 73
BPM Reference Model, 8
BPMN, see Business Process Management Notation
BPMS Suite, 75
BPRI, see Business Process Runtime Interfaces.
Business Activity Monitoring, 69, 127, 136, 147, 209
Business Agility, 128, 129
Business Architecture, 91
Business Intelligence, 73
Business Intelligence, 73
Business Monitoring Framework, 110
Business Performance Management, 67
Business Process Execution Language, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,179, 186
Business Process Management Notation, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 179, 193,
195, 248, 250, 261, 277
Business Process Management Suites, 75, 85, 93, 203
Business Process Oriented Architecture, 85
Business Process Reengineering, 147, 156
Business Process Runtime Interfaces, 11
Business Rules, 211, 212, 221
C
Case Based Reasoning, 204
INDEX
316
Clinical Decision Support, 158
COE Roles, 76
Cohesion/cohesion metric, 180, 182, 190
Conformance checking, 185
Control-Flow Complexity, 182
Core processes, 56
Coupling /Coupling-cohesion ratio, 180, 182
CRM, 60
D
Decision points, 228
Definition
Business Process, 18
Business Process Management, 19
Workflow, 18
Degree metrics, 181
Density, 181
departmental workflows, 86
Digital Certificate, 167
Document Management System, 118
E
ebXML BPSS, see ebXML Business Process Specification Schema
ebXML Business Process Specification Schema, 11, 170
EKP, see Enterprise Knowledge Portal
electronic signature, 118
Emergency Department workflows, 146
Enterprise Architecture, 191, 192, 193, 202
Enterprise Knowledge Portal, 60
Enterprise Performance Management, 60, 66, 73, 84
Enterprise Performance Management, 73, 84
enterprise service bus, 46
ERP, see Enterprise Performance Management
Execution Graph, 108
F
Federal Enterprise Architecture, 52
Forrester Research, 17, 27
G
Gartner, Inc., 159
Global Excellence Awards for BPM and Workflow, 133
Global Justice XML Data Model, 170
Graph reduction rule method, 227
INDEX
317
H
Health Level 7 Organization, 170
Healthcare BPM Process Opportunities, 161
healthcare industry, 157, 158, 159, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171
HIPAA compliance, 167
Hollingsworth, David, 8, 243
Human Interaction Management, 30
Human Workflow, 85
I
Infection Control workflow, 134,139, 140, 145
Infinite loops, 225
Integrated Design Environment, 39
Integration with BPM, 59-66
Iteration table, 232
K
Kane County, 100
Key Performance Indicators, 67
Knowledge Maps, 205
Knowledge-Intensive Business Processes, 28
KT Freetel Co. Ltd., 55, 65
L
Lack of synchronization, 225, 231, 239
Lines of Code (LOC), 183
M
Mahanti-Sinnakkrishnan Cyclic Workflow Verification (MSCWV) Algorithm,
227, 228
Managing process change, 58
McCabe's cyclometric number, 182
MDA, 105
Model-based analysis, 185
Modularity, 180
N
natural language, 208
Node Constructs, 224
O
OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (ODF), 9
Object Management Group, 105
Object Oriented Programming, 35
ODF. See OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications
INDEX
318
OOP. See Object Oriented Programming
open standards, role of, 9
Oversight and Performance Assurance, 59
P
Patterns, 205
performance indicators, 72
Petri Net, 227
pharmaceutical industry, 147
PMLC, 103, 104
Process Classification, 57
process instance pattern, 205
Process Management Life Cycle, 103
Process mining, 185
Process Prioritization, 57
Process Selection criteria, 57
processes to automate first, 56
process-is-software approach, 129
Product Data Model, 182
R
Random graph generator, 238
RAROC, 212, 218
real-time prototyping, 117
retirement tsunami, 33
RIAs. See Rich Internet Applications,
Rich Internet Applications, 97-102, 202
S
sales order workflow process, 231
Sarbanes-Oxley-Act, 149
Service Oriented Architecture, 28, 33-37, 44-53, 73, 81, 84, 85, 91-96, 106,
147, 193
Service Oriented Enterprise (SOE), 73
Services Process Management, 28
Shorter, David, 7
SOA, see Service Oriented Architecture
SOAP, 92
standards
workflow, 283
stovepiped technologies, 60
Structural Conflict Errors, 224
structural correctness, 223
INDEX
319
T
The Workflow Reference Model 10 Years On, 243
TNT Global Express Italy, 117
U
Unified Modeling Language, 105
W
Weighting significance, 57
WF Nets, 227
Wf-XML, see Workflow eXtensible Markup Language
Workflow API (WAPI), 283
Workflow eXtensible Markup Language. 11, 13
Workflow Graph, 108
workflow graph, 223
workflow patterns, 227
Workflow verification, 223
Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC)
definition, 283
membership, 284
X
XML Process Definition Language, 160, 193, 246
XPDL. See XML Process Definition Language