Analyzing requirements and approaches for sourcing software based services

Increasingly, software is no longer developed as a single system, but rather as a smart combination of so-called software services. Each of these provides an independent, specific and relatively small piece of functionality, which is typically accessible through the Internet from internal or external service providers. To the best of our knowledge, there are no standards or models that describe the sourcing process of these software based services (SBS). We identify the sourcing requirements for SBS and associate the key characteristics of SBS (with the sourcing requirements introduced). Furthermore, we investigate the sourcing of SBS with the related works in the field of classical procurement, business process outsourcing, and information systems sourcing. Based on the analysis, we conclude that the direct adoption of these approaches for SBS is not feasible and new approaches are required for sourcing SBS.

Analyzing requirements and approaches for sourcing software based services

Increasingly, software is no longer developed as a single system, but rather as a smart combination of so-called software services. Each of these provides an independent, specific and relatively small piece of functionality, which is typically accessible through the Internet from internal or external service providers. There are no standards or models that describe the sourcing process of these software based services (SBS). The authors identify the sourcing requirements for SBS and associate the key characteristics of SBS (with the sourcing requirements introduced). Furthermore, this paper investigates the sourcing of SBS with the related works in the field of classical procurement, business process outsourcing, and information systems sourcing. Based on the analysis, the authors conclude that the direct adoption of these approaches for SBS is not feasible and new approaches are required for sourcing SBS.

The design environment

This chapter provides an overview of the Editor, which is the core modeling component of the YAWL system. Specifically, it shows how to specify control-flow, data and resourcing requirements in a YAWL workflow model. Moreover, it describes the error reporting capabilities of the Editor and the features of its interchange format.

Open source software for workflow management : the case of YAWL

"This column is distinguished from previous Impact columns in that it concerns the development tightrope between research and commercial take-up and the role of the LGPL in an open source workflow toolkit produced in a University environment. Many ubiquitous systems have followed this route, (Apache, BSD Unix, ...), and the lessons this Service Oriented Architecture produces cast yet more light on how software diffuses out to impact us all." Michiel van Genuchten and Les Hatton Workflow management systems support the design, execution and analysis of business processes. A workflow management system needs to guarantee that work is conducted at the right time, by the right person or software application, through the execution of a workflow process model. Traditionally, there has been a lack of broad support for a workflow modeling standard. Standardization efforts proposed by the Workflow Management Coalition in the late nineties suffered from limited support for routing constructs. In fact, as later demonstrated by the Workflow Patterns Initiative (www.workflowpatterns.com), a much wider range of constructs is required when modeling realistic workflows in practice. YAWL (Yet Another Workflow Language) is a workflow language that was developed to show that comprehensive support for the workflow patterns is achievable. Soon after its inception in 2002, a prototype system was built to demonstrate that it was possible to have a system support such a complex language. From that initial prototype, YAWL has grown into a fully-fledged, open source workflow management system and support environment

Surmounting BPM challenges : the YAWL story

The field of Business ProcessManagement (BPM) has evolved considerably over the past decade. Many proposals for business process modelling and/or execution have emerged and some of these have faded into oblivion again. The Workflow Patterns Initiative aimed at achieving a more structured approach to language comparison and development. The patterns that were distilled served as the basis for YAWL (Yet AnotherWorkflow Language). In this paper YAWL is positioned with respect to historical developments in BPM and current challenges in the field.

Designing a workflow system using coloured petri nets

Traditional workflow systems focus on providing support for the control-flow perspective of a business process, with other aspects such as data management and work distribution receiving markedly less attention. A guide to desirable workflow characteristics is provided by the well-known workflow patterns which are derived from a comprehensive survey of contemporary tools and modelling formalisms. In this paper we describe the approach taken to designing the newYAWL workflow system, an offering that aims to provide comprehensive support for the control-flow, data and resource perspectives based on the workflow patterns. The semantics of the newYAWL workflow language are based on Coloured Petri Nets thus facilitating the direct enactment and analysis of processes described in terms of newYAWL language constructs. As part of this discussion, we explain how the operational semantics for each of the language elements are embodied in the newYAWL system and indicate the facilities required to support them in an operational environment. We also review the experiences associated with developing a complete operational design for an offering of this scale using formal techniques.

newYAWL : Towards Workflow 2.0

The field of workflow technology has burgeoned in recent years providing a variety of means of automating business processes. It is a great source of opportunity for organisations seeking to streamline and optimise their operations. Despite these advantages however, the current generation of workflow technologies are subject to a variety of criticisms, in terms of their restricted view of what comprises a business process, their imprecise definition and their general inflexibility. As a remedy to these potential difficulties, in this paper we propose a series of development goals for the next generation of workflow technology. We also present newYAWL, a formally defined, multi-perspective reference language for workflow systems.

Of ivory towers and boundary spanners

We all live in a yellow submarine… When I go to work in the morning, in the office building that hosts our BPM research group, on the way up to our level I come by this big breakout room that hosts a number of computer scientists, working away at the next generation software algorithms and iPad applications (I assume). I have never actually been in that room, but every now and then the door is left ajar for a while and I can spot couches, lots (I mean, lots!) of monitors, the odd scientist, a number of Lara Croft posters, and the usual room equipment you’d probably expect from computer scientists (and, no, it’s not like that evil Dennis guy from the Jurassic Park movie, buried in chips, coke, and flickering code screens… It’s also not like the command room from the Nebuchadnezzar, Neo’s hovercraft in the Matrix movies, although I still strongly believe these green lines of code make a good screensaver).

Re-engineering project planning processes : a best practice model for managing project phase integration issues

Competitive markets are increasingly driving new initiatives for shorter cycle times resulting in increased overlapping of project phases. This, in turn, necessitates improving the interfaces between the different phases to be overlapped (integrated), thus allowing transfer of processes, information and knowledge from one individual or team to another. This transfer between phases, within and between projects, is one of the basic challenges to the philosophy of project management. To make the process transfer more transparent with minimal loss of momentum and project knowledge, this paper draws upon Total Quality Management (TQM) and Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) philosophies to develop a Best Practice Model for managing project phase integration. The paper presents the rationale behind the model development and outlines its two key parts; (1) Strategic Framework and (2) Implementation Plan. Key components of both the Strategic Framework and the Implementation Plan are presented and discussed.

Workflow support for scheduling in surgical care processes

Real-world business processes rely on the availability of scarce, shared resources, both human and non-human. Current workflow management systems support allocation of individual human resources to tasks but lack support for the full range of resource types used in practice, and the inevitable constraints on their availability and applicability. Based on past experience with resource-intensive workflow applications, we derive generic requirements for a workflow system which can use its knowledge of resource capabilities and availability to help create feasible task schedules. We then define the necessary architecture for implementing such a system and demonstrate its practicality through a proof-of-concept implementation. This work is presented in the context of a real-life surgical care process observed in a number of German hospitals.

Green, Greener, BPM?

I am sure you’ve heard it too: Green is the new Black. While this was true back in the days when Henry Ford introduced process standardization with his assembly line for the Ford Model T (over 15 million of these were sold!), Green is also the color of choice for many business organizations, private and public. I am not talking about the actual color of their business shirts or their logo 2.0.; I am referring to the eco-aware movement that has pushed sustainability into the top ten list of business buzz-words. What used to be a boutique market for tourism and political activists has become the biggest business revolution since the e-commerce boom. Public and private organizations alike push towards “sustainable” solutions and practices. That push is partly triggered by the immense reputational gains associated with branding your organization as “green”, and partly by emerging societal, legal and constitutional regulations that force organizations to become more ecologically aware and sustainable. But the boom goes beyond organizational reality. Even in academia, sustainability has become a research “fashion wave” (see [1] if you are interested in research fashion waves) similar to the hype around Neuroscience that our colleagues in the natural sciences are witnessing these days. Mind you, I’m a fan. A big fan in fact. As academics, we are constantly searching for problem areas that are characterized by an opportunity to do rigorous research (studies that are executed to perfection) on relevant topics (studies that have applied practical value and provide impact to the community). What would be a better playground than exploring the options that Business Process Management provides for creating a sustainable, green future? I’m getting excited just writing about this! So, join me in exploring some of the current thoughts around how BPM can contribute to the sustainability fashion parade and let me introduce you to some of the works that scholars have produced recently in their attempts to identify solutions.

A conceptual decision-making framework for the delivery of innovative change in organisations

Research found that today’s organisations are increasingly aware of the potential barriers and perceived challenges associated with the successful delivery of change — including cultural and sub-cultural indifferences; financial constraints; restricted timelines; insufficient senior management support; fragmented key stakeholder commitment; and inadequate training. The delivery and application of Innovative Change (see glossary) within a construction industry organisation tends to require a certain level of ‘readiness’. This readiness is the combination of an organisation’s ability to part from undertakings that may be old, traditional, or inefficient; and then being able to readily adopt a procedure or initiative which is new, improved, or more efficient. Despite the construction industry’s awareness of the various threats and opportunities associated with the delivery of change, research found little attention is currently given to develop a ‘decision-making framework’ that comprises measurable elements (dynamics) that may assist in more accurately determining an organisation’s level of readiness or ability to deliver innovative change. To resolve this, an initial Background Literature Review in 2004 identified six such dynamics, those of Change, Innovation, Implementation, Culture, Leadership, and Training and Education, which were then hypothesised to be key components of a ‘Conceptual Decision-making Framework’ (CDF) for delivering innovative change within an organisation. To support this hypothesis, a second (more extensive) Literature Review was undertaken from late 2007 to mid 2009. A Delphi study was embarked on in June 2008, inviting fifteen building and construction industry members to form a panel and take part in a Delphi study. The selection criterion required panel members to have senior positions (manager and above) within a recognised field or occupation, and to have experience, understanding and / or knowledge in the process of delivering change within organisations. The final panel comprised nine representatives from private and public industry organisations and tertiary / research and development (R&D) universities. The Delphi study developed, distributed and collated two rounds of survey questionnaires over a four-month period, comprising open-ended and closed questions (referred to as factors). The first round of Delphi survey questionnaires were distributed to the panel in August 2008, asking them to rate the relevancy of the six hypothesised dynamics. In early September 2008, round-one responses were returned, analysed and documented. From this, an additional three dynamics were identified and confirmed by the panel as being highly relevant during the decision-making process when delivering innovative change within an organisation. The additional dynamics (‘Knowledge-sharing and Management’; ‘Business Process Requirements’; and ‘Life-cycle Costs’) were then added to the first six dynamics and used to populate the second (final) Delphi survey questionnaire. This was distributed to the same nine panel members in October 2008, this time asking them to rate the relevancy of all nine dynamics. In November 2008, round-two responses were returned, analysed, summarised and documented. Final results confirmed stability in responses and met Delphi study guidelines. The final contribution is twofold. Firstly, findings confirm all nine dynamics as key components of the proposed CDF for delivering innovative change within an organisation. Secondly, the future development and testing of an ‘Innovative Change Delivery Process’ (ICDP) is proposed, one that is underpinned by an ‘Innovative Change Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF), an ‘Innovative Change Delivery Analysis’ (ICDA) program, and an ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG).