A design pattern for integration of business process management systems

A cross-domain workflow application may be constructed using a standard reference model such as the one by the Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC) [7] but the requirements for this type of application are inherently different from one organization to another. The existing models and systems built around them meet some but not all the requirements from all the organizations involved in a collaborative process. Furthermore the requirements change over time. This makes the applications difficult to develop and distribute. Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) based approaches such as the BPET (Business Process Execution Language) intend to provide a solution but fail to address the problems sufficiently, especially in the situations where the expectations and level of skills of the users (e.g. the participants of the processes) in different organisations are likely to be different. In this paper, we discuss a design pattern that provides a novel approach towards a solution. In the solution, business users can design the applications at a high level of abstraction: the use cases and user interactions; the designs are documented and used, together with the data and events captured later that represents the user interactions with the systems, to feed an intermediate component local to the users -the IFM (InterFace Mapper) -which bridges the gaps between the users and the systems. We discuss the main issues faced in the design and prototyping. The approach alleviates the need for re-programming with the APIs to any back-end service thus easing the development and distribution of the applications

Reflective practice: the enduring influence of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory

Since 1984 David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) has been a leading influence in the development of learner-centred pedagogy in management and business. It forms the basis of Kolb’s own Learning Styles’ Inventory and those of other authors including Honey and Mumford (2000). It also provides powerful underpinning for the emphasis, nay insistence, on reflection as a way of learning and the use of reflective practice in the preparation of students for business and management and other professions. In this paper, we confirm that Kolb’s ELT is still the most commonly cited source used in relation to reflective practice. Kolb himself continues to propound its relevance to teaching and learning in general. However, we also review some of the criticisms that ELT has attracted over the years and advance new criticisms that challenge its relevance to higher education and its validity as a model for formal, intentional learning.

Reflection is alive and well, but not what you think

More and more, Business and Management students (and those in other disciplines) are being asked to undertake written reflection upon their learning as part of assessed course-work. This paper examines this trend and explores the thinking behind it: why lecturers see reflection as valuable to students, whether they undertake reflection themselves, what theoretical underpinning they perceive as justifying and explaining their views. The results of a survey undertaken among Business and Management lecturers are reported, which appear to show that the most influential writer on the subject of reflection in learning – the one most frequently cited by the respondents – is David A. Kolb, author of the well-known Experiential Learning Theory (1984), and one of the moving forces behind experiential learning in general. His ideas have attracted a good deal of criticism, but are still current, having been suitably updated and defended, (2005). The paper critically re-examines Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory, challenging its relevance to most of Higher Education, as characterised by Peter Jarvis in his useful table of learning situations as “formal and intended” (2004; 108). Other criticisms of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory are advanced that are entirely new. Returning to the survey, the papers discusses the reasons lecturers believe reflection is valuable to students and concludes that Kolb’s model, and others such as Schön’s (1987), fail to adequately explain or even identify them.