Upload
michael-zur-muehlen
View
8.421
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presented at the IIR Enterprise Architecture Conference, April 9th, 2008.
Citation preview
Michael zur Muehlen, Ph.D.Center of Excellence in Business Process InnovationHowe School of Technology ManagementStevens Institute of TechnologyHoboken [email protected]
Business Process Management StandardsAn Overview
1
2
Private university, founded 1870‣ 1800 undergraduate, 2600 graduate students‣ Located in Hoboken, NJ
Four Schools‣ Technology Management‣ Engineering‣ Systems and Enterprises‣ Arts & Sciences
Rankings:‣ Top 5 technology management program, on par with Stanford,
MIT, CMU, Babson (Optimize Magazine)‣ #1 for best distance learning program (Princeton Review)‣ Top 25 for most connected Campus (Sloan Foundation)
http://howe.stevens.edu
3
‣ BPM Education Offerings‣ Graduate Certificate (Online/On-site/On Campus)
‣ Master’s Degree in Information Systems
‣ Executive Education
‣ BPM Research Activities‣ Modeling in the Large
‣ Management of BPM Projects
‣ Integration of Process and Rule Modeling
‣ Standards & Social Networks
‣ Next Generation BPM Technology
http://howe.stevens.edu/BPM
4
Agenda
What are BPM Standards?
Modeling Standards?
Which Standards affect us?
What will happen next?
5
What’s in a Standard?Technical Standard: Agreed upon specification for a way of communicating or performing actions.
Internet Standard: Protocols through which people and programs interact over the Internet.
Built on top of TCP/IP, and mostly HTTP
Use of most standards is discretionary:Developers: Direct choice of which standard to implement
Customers: Indirect choice of which standards-compliant product to use
User’s vote with their feet, developers with their hands
6
Why Should We Care?Potentially large impact of Standards
Standards making is risky: Choosing the wrong technology may be counterproductive, incompatible, and lead to lack of adoptionSubmitters open their technology to external review
Standards adoption is risky: Choosing the wrong standard may obstruct technology upgrade paths, limit business partner connectivity, and force resource training in (obsolete) technologyJust ask anybody with an HD-DVD Player
Compatible?
Compatibility between:
Different Standards
Different Versions of the same Standard
Different Implementations of the same Standard
7
DiffusionAdoption
Standardization Phases
8
RatificationDevelopmentInception
Inception Phase
9
Who initiates standards?
Government-sanctioned standardization (e.g. COSO / SOX)
User-initiated standardization (typically vertical)
Vendor-initiated standardization (often horizontal)
Developer-initiated standardization (e.g. first IETF RFPs)
When does a specification emerge?
Industry practice: Develop 80% of specification outside, then submit
Rare: Define charter, then seek out ideas
Unsolicited (IETF) vs. solicited (OMG) specifications
DiffusionAdoptionRatificationDevelopmentInception
Development Phase
10
Rules of the organization
Strict procedural and voting rules
Loose cooperation
Virtual vs. physical meetings
Outside input
Openly available drafts vs. closed sessions
Invited experts
Other standards groups
Implementation before ratification
DiffusionAdoptionRatificationDevelopmentInception
Standardization Phases
11
Votes
Microsoft OOXML case
Participating vs. voting organizations
Role of the advisory board/steering committee
Form of the specification
Recommendation
Request for Comments
Standard
Validity of the specification
DiffusionAdoptionRatificationDevelopmentInceptionInception
Diffusion
Adoption Phase
12
Adoption by submitters
Adoption by other companies
Adoption by open source community
Mandatory vs. recommended standards
Check-list compliance vs. usable implementation
AdoptionRatificationDevelopmentInceptionInception
Diffusion Phase
13
Use of standards-compliant products by end users
Presence in the market place
“Management by Magazine”
DiffusionAdoptionRatificationDevelopmentInceptionInception
14
Business Process Management
Business Process Automation
Business Process Innovation
Business Process Monitoring
NotationStandard
Integration Standards
InteractionStandards
StandardMetrics
AuditStandards
15
Modeling Standards
The Interoperability ProblemThe Process Analyst:
has identified the best tool for modeling the business processes.
is building a large library of processes.
The Development Team:has identified the best tool to implement such applications.are trained and experienced on it.
These tools use incompatible formats!
What is BPMN?Graphical Notation for Describing Business Processes
The “Look” of a process diagram
Flowchart based
Activity Network – Nodes and transitions
Sequential, Parallel and Conditional Paths
Arbitrarily complex diagrams
The BPMN will provide businesses with the capability of defining and understanding their internal and external business procedures through a Business Process Diagram, which will give organizations the ability to communicate these procedures in a standardized manner.
17
Uses of BPMNTargeted at creating different types of Business Processes
Allows the creation of end-to-end business processes
Three basic types of sub-model within an end-to-end BPMN Model
Private (Internal) Business Processes
Internal to a specific organization
Abstract (Public) Processes
Represents interaction between a private business process and another process or participant
Only activities used to communicate outside the private business process are included
Collaboration (Global) Processes
Represents interactions between two or more entities
Sequence of activities representing message exchange between entities 18
BPMN 1.1
19
Mainly cosmetic changes
New symbol for Multiple Event and Gateway (used to be star,now pentagram)
New Signal Event
Separation of “catching” and “throwing” events
0
25
50
75
100N
orm
al F
low
Task
End
Eve
ntS
tart
Eve
nt /
Eve
ntP
ool
Dat
a-B
ased
XO
R (X
)S
tart
Mes
sage
Text
Ann
otat
ion
Mes
sage
Flo
wP
aral
lel F
ork/
Join
Lane
sD
ata-
Bas
ed X
OR
(bla
nk)
Sub
-Pro
cess
(Col
laps
ed)
Ass
ocia
tion
Dat
a O
bjec
tIn
term
edia
te T
imer
Inte
rmed
iate
Mes
sage
End
Ter
min
ate
Sub
-Pro
cess
(Exp
ande
d)E
nd L
ink
Def
ault
Flow
Incl
usiv
e D
ecis
ion/
Mer
geA
ctiv
ity L
oopi
ngE
xcep
tion
Task
Sta
rt L
ink
End
Mes
sage
End
Exc
eptio
nC
ompl
ex D
ecis
ion/
Mer
geE
vent
-Bas
ed X
OR
Mul
tiple
Inst
ance
Gro
upTr
ansa
ctio
nIn
term
edia
te E
vent
End
Can
cel
Com
pens
atio
nIn
term
edia
te C
ompe
nsat
ion
Con
ditio
nal F
low
Exc
eptio
n Fl
owIn
term
edia
te L
ink
Sta
rt T
imer
Off-
page
con
nect
orS
tart
Rul
eIn
term
edia
te R
ule
Inte
rmed
iate
Mul
tiple
End
Com
pens
atio
nS
tart
Mul
tiple
Inte
rmed
iate
Exc
eptio
nIn
term
edia
te C
ance
lE
nd M
ultip
leC
ompe
nsat
ion
Ass
ocia
tion
Practical Use of BPMN Symbols
20
21
BPMN Working Group22
Process Design EcosystemThere will be an ecosystem of process tools at the design level
Business oriented and developer oriented modelers
Simulation tools & optimization tools
Analysis tools
Professional business modeling tools
Conversions to/from other formats like Visio
Need a standard interchange format between these tools
But tools have special capabilities
May not be supported by all tools
Tools can understand a common subset of each other
All tools understand the basics; the graphical diagram
23
Standards enable Interaction
24
Vendor FVendor E
SOA DesignWorkflow Design
Vendor C Vendor DVendor BVendor A
Process Risk Mgmt Process Simulation
Process Execution
Process Modeling
Process Model Repository
Process Optimization
Process Execution
Executable Model Repository (e.g. BPEL)
Executable Model Repository (e.g. BPEL)
Process Integration
Limited PortabilityXPeople Integration
Runtime Interaction
(e.g. Service Choreography)
e.g. Focus on human-centric
processes
e.g. Focus on technical
processes
Process D
eploym
ent (typically one-w
ay)Needs Risk/Control
InformationNeeds Ownership/Issue Information
Needs Resources/Time Information Needs Goals
Tool- specific
Capabilities
User Needs
Process Structure is shared by all
tools
Execution environments have different strengths, no
model exchange at this level
Design vs. Executable Format
BPM Engines have proprietary executable formats
Unique requirement on execution environment
Custom design tool understands this requirement
Even BPEL engines have proprietary extensions
It is generally NOT possible to:Exchange executable formats between engines
But exchange between design tools is possible
XPDL
is a design interchange format
represents the graphical diagram
includes metadata about executable aspects
80% to 95% of semantics will translate
25
26
27
Interoperability Standards
What is Work?
Consider a process where three activities need to be performed.
But…
The workflow system does not do the work! It only coordinates the work of others.
And..
The workflow system did not initiate the process, it is merely performing in response
RequestPurchase
Approval
Initiate Purchase
Process and Activity Decomposition
RequestPurchase
Approval
Initiate Purchase
PurchaseSupplies
Processes as Services
The BPMS acts as an intermediary
Complete process can be controlled through standardized interfaces
Process can control activities through standardized interfaces
BPMS
31
Tight Coupling
32
Loose Coupling (REST)
Wf-XMLInteroperability Sematics for Cross-System Business Processes
Successor to Simple Workflow Access Protocol (SWAP)
Based on Asynchronous Service Access Protocol (ASAP)
REST-style Interaction with externally hosted processes (Wf-XML) or long-running services (ASAP)
33
ProcessDefinition Tools
Administration & Monitoring Tools
Interface 1
Interface 4 Interoperability
Interface 5Workflow Enactment Service Other Workflow
Enactment Service(s)
WorklistHandler
Interface 3Interface 2
InvokedApplications
Tool Agent
Process Definition Import/Export
WorkflowEngine(s) Workflow
Engine(s)
see: www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/tc003v11.pdf
The Workflow Reference Model
ClientApps
ProcessDefinition Tools
Administration & Monitoring Tools
Interface 1
Interface 4 Interoperability
Interface 5Workflow Enactment Service Other Workflow
Enactment Service(s)
WorklistHandler
Interface 3Interface 2
InvokedApplications
Tool Agent
Process Definition Import/Export
WorkflowEngine(s) Workflow
Engine(s)
see: www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/tc003v11.pdf
TypicallyWeb Services
BPMN
XPDL
Wf-XML
SOAP
BPEL
The Workflow Reference Model
ClientApps
35
Integration Standards
No BPM = Monolithic Enterprise Application
Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
User Interface
Program and Logic
Internal Protocols are Proprietary C, C++, Visual Basic, Etc.
Built as a unit, Internals not visible
User Interface built in for all functions
In order to “extend” to a new function, need to call in a programmer...
Swenson (2007)
BPM 1990: Workflow in the Brain
Background Check
Conform
ance Guidelines
ApplicationLogic in
MonolithicProgram
UI“Screens”
Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
Swenson (2007)
BPM 1993: Task Management
backgroundcheck
createaccount
checkguidelines
LaunchesUI
User accessesoriginal UI directly
Human BPM/Workflow:
Background Check
Conform
ance Guidelines
ApplicationLogic in
MonolithicProgram
UI“Screens”
Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
Swenson (2007)
BPM 1996: Workflow Routing
backgroundcheck
LaunchesUI
User accessesoriginal UI directly
Human BPM/Workflow:
Background Check
Conform
ance Guidelines
ApplicationLogic in
MonolithicProgram
UI“Screens”
Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
createaccount
checkguidelines
Swenson (2007)
BPM 2002: Services Integration
EnterInformation
Background Check
Conform
ance Rules
ApplicationLogic and
SOA
ServicesInterfaces
Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
Reviewrules check
backgr. check
create accoun
UI connects user to BPMS, not the back-end
applications
Swenson (2007)
BPM 2007: Composite Services
EnterInformation
Background C
heck
New
Rules
ApplicationLogic and
SOA
Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
ReviewCheck Create accoun
ESB/BPELComposite
Service
Swenson (2007)
BPM 2007: Composite Services
EnterInformation
Background C
heck
New
Rules
ApplicationLogic and
SOA Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
ReviewCheck Create accoun
ESB/BPELComposite Services
Swenson (2007)
BPM 2007: Composite Services
EnterInformation
Background C
heck
Rules
ApplicationLogic and
SOA Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
ReviewCheck Create account
ESB/BPELComposite Services
BPM 2007: Composite Services
EnterInformation
Background C
heck
New
Rules
ApplicationLogic and
SOA Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
ReviewCheck Create account
ESB/BPELComposite Services
BPM 2007: Composite Services
EnterInformation
Background C
heck
New
Rules
ApplicationLogic and
SOA Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
ReviewCheck Create account
ESB/BPELComposite Services
ExtraAudit
Separation of ResponsibilityBusiness Retains Control of
Assignment of ResponsibilityGroups, Roles, SkillsDeadlinesAlerts, Reminders, EscalationsOrder of TasksAddition of Manual TasksUser Interface
44
IT Retains Control ofComputational LogicData RepresentationsScalability / PerformanceInteroperabilityMaster Data Management
EnterInformation
Background C
heck
New
Rules
Enterprise Application “Account Management”
listAccts
newAcct
updateAcct
deleteAcct
ReviewCheck Create account
ESB/BPEL
Swenson (2007)
45
BPM Standardization1995
1 standardization group for workflow
Reference model + 5 interface standards
Size of the average specification ~40 pages
2008
10+ working groups with interest in BPM
7+ standards for process models alone
Size of the average specification ~150 pages
46
World Views - WfMC
WfMC: Life-Cycle View of BPMGoal: Provide integration standards for different phases of the BPM lifecycle
Components in place: Reference model, XPDL, Wf-XMLNext step: Evolve XPDL
BPM Experience: “Grandfathers” of BPM
XPDL: Process Definition InterchangeAllow tools to exchange process models between
components in a Workflow/BPM Products
different BPM/Workflow Products
Process Modeling / Simulation tools and BPM/Workflow Products
Implemented by commercial products
Full support for BPMN 1.0 in XPDL 2.0
Interoperability demonstrated at public events
Support in the Open Source Community
47
48
World Views - OMG
OMG: Model-driven ArchitectureGoal: Specify applications starting with a model of the business context, generate running code from the models
Components in place: OMA, UML, CORBA
Next step: Business Process Definition Meta Model
BPM Experience: CORBA Workflow Facility, BPMN, BPDM
Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM)
Designed to supplement BPMN with a formal metamodel of its modeling constructs
BPMN 1.0 did not contain a formal metamodel specification
OMG mindset of MDA is based on multiple levels of metamodels
BPDM replaces efforts to create a UML profile for BPMN
BPDM contains more constructs than BPMN 1.0/1.1
Mapping to MOF and XMI
Envisioned to become persistency format for BPMN
BPMN 2.0 = BPMN + BPDM + possibly other notations
There may be a UML profile for BPDM
49
SBVRSemantics of Business, Vocabulary and Rules
Formally defined taxonomy to describe elementary business operations and rules
Metamodel expressed in UML
Business-level specification aims at enterprises to formally express their operations
50
51
52
World Views - OASIS
OASIS: XML-centric standardsGoal: Provide transparent venue for standards that can be used by both vertical and horizontal interest groups
Components in place: ebXML, BPELNext step: updated ebXML components, ASAP, WS Resource Model
BPM Experience: workgroup-specific
BPEL – Execution Language
BPEL is an “executable” languageIncludes only executable operations
Does not contain the graphical diagram
Many Engines have proprietary formatsThey have a design tool
Some BPEL engines have proprietary extensions
It is typically not possible to design a process with a tool from one vendor and execute it in another vendor’s engine
But exchange between design tools is possible
53
54
BPEL extension for Human TasksSource: Agrawal et al. (2007)
!!!!!!"#$%&'!())&!#*+%$#+),-!!!
!!!!./(012,3*45)&+#+%3&6!
!!!!.(01273869:0;./(0127386!
!!./(012)<1%8#+%3&6!
!!!!!!!!!
./(012=*"),4>),?*+%3&=6!
!"#!$%&'(%)*+,-.-,
"#$!%&'!()**'
/)0%12.-&3)245)6,2,%)73248-,-&48)
+',%!$%-%'$!"*!%&'!.'"./'!-0%)1)%2!-,(!$%-%'!%+-,$)%)",$!#)%&!
,(!0",()%)",$3!-,(!-0%)",$!%"!4'!.'+*"+5'(!#&',!
%+-,$)%)",$!%-6'!./-0'7!!
!
9-:;3%)<=)6,2,%)5-2:32>)&?),1%)'%&'(%)2+,-.-,/)
!
&',!%&'!.+"0'$$!'8'09%)",!),$%-,%)-%'$!-!.'"./'!-0%)1)%2!%&)$!-0%)1)%2!%+)::'+$!%&'!
0+'-%)",!"*!-!%-$6!),!$%-%'!!"##$#%7!;.",!+'0')1),:!-!+'$.",$'!*+"5!%&'!%-$6<!%&'!
.'"./'!-0%)1)%2!0" ),-/!$%-%'!
&'()*+*,7!!
%"!
!-,(!%&'!$%-,(-+(!*-9/%!&3&@)*3$)8#(>)A8838!)$!%&+"#,!),!%&'!
=):9+'!>!$&
-$$"0)-%'(!%+)::'+$!?'1',%$!-
!"#$%&'(
)*""&"+
,-./0(%(12#&0(1 3(4.&"#%(1567-0(%(
,0-7(1
8)(#$9(1:6;:"#'&+#%&-"<
=("1:4(>*(7%:%-:%9(:%#7?@:/#77:"(A:B=CD3:$-"%(E%
83#7?:4(%*4"7:4(7/-"7(<
,-"%&"*(:"#'&+#%&-"
83#7?:4(%*4"7:#//0&$#%&-":F#*0%<
394-A:#//0&$#%&-":F#*0%
83(4.&"#%&-":7&+"#0:4($(&'(1<
=("1:GB=CD3:HE&%G
8B=CD3:7?&//(1<
,-"%&"*(:"#'&+#%&-"
8HE/&4#%&-":7&+"#0:4($(&'(1<
=("1:GB=CD3:HE&%G
8I4-$(77:(E&%7<
=("1:GB=CD3:HE&%G8B=CD3:F#*0%<
394-A:G"-")($-'(4#60(H44-4G
@
5./'%'$!$900'$$*9//2!-,(!)%$!$%-%'!0&-,:'$!),%"!%&'!*
-
A*!%&'!%-$6!+'%9+,$!-!*-9/%<!%&'!.'"./'!-0%)1)%2!0"5./'%'$!9,$900'$$*9//2!-,(!5"1'$!
*),-/!$%-%'!./$)*,!-,(!%&'!*-9/%!)$!%&+"#,!),!%&'!$0".'!',0/"$),:!%&'!.'"./'!-0%)1)%27!A*!
%&'!%-$6!'8.'+)',0'$!-!,",B+'0"1'+-4/'!'++"+<!%&'!.'"./'!-0%)1)%2!0"5./'%'$!
9,$90'$$*9//2
',0/"$),:!$0".'7!!
C&'!.'"./'!-0%)1)%2!:"'$!%"!*),-/!$%-%'!012&)*+*!)*!%&'!%-$6!)$!$6)..'(7!!
$2:%))<@)&?)A<)
ebXML Business Process (ebBP)Also known as ebXML Business Process Specification Schema(BPSS)
V 2.0.4 released in December 2006
Complements ebXML document definitions, Collaboration Partner Protocols, and Collaboration Partner Agreements
55
Standards Landscape
Near Completion
Stable
Under Development
Ideation Stage
Collaboration Agreement
Process Model Diagram
UML Activity Diagrams BPMN 1.0
Repository & Discovery
UDDI
Assurance
WS-Security SAML
Process Model Definition/Storage Formats
ebXML BPSS ebXML CPA/CPP
Transport Reliability
ebXML-RM WS-RM ...
Transport Layer
HTTP JMS ...
EncodingSOAP / Attachments
WS-Addressing
Data Definition
XML-Schema
Service End Point Definition
WSDL
Service Orchestration
Choreography Definition
WS-CDLBPEL
Monitoring & Audit
WfMC CWAD (IF5 1.0)
Runtime Interaction
Wf-XML 1.0 WfMCWAPI
Presentation
XForms
Service/Human
InteractionBPEL4People
BPMN 1.1
Process Model Semantics
BPDM 1.0
Proprietary (e.g. MQSeries)
Wf-XML 2.0
WfMC BPAF (IF5 2.0) BPRI
BPMN 2.0 (BPDM 2) JSF WS-RP
XPDL 2.1
RosettaNet PIPs
TakeawaysBPM Standards address different needs
Drawing Process Diagrams: BPMN
Moving Process Diagrams Around: XPDL (and future BPDM)
Programming Processes: BPEL
Calling other Processes: Wf-XML
No single organization has all the answers
Need to complement with organization-specific guidelines
Value is not in standards, but in their application
59
Standards should be discovered, not invented
60
Vincent Cerf, in: Haffer, Lyon: “Where the Wizards stay up late”, 1998 p. 254
Michael zur Muehlen, Ph.D.Center of Excellence in Business Process InnovationHowe School of Technology ManagementStevens Institute of TechnologyCastle Point on the HudsonHoboken, NJ 07030Phone: +1 (201) 216-8293Fax: +1 (201) 216-5385E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.cebpi.orgslides: www.slideshare.net/mzurmuehlen
Thank You - Questions?
61