© 2005-2006 the athena consortium. cross- organizational business processes - interoperability...

© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.

Cross-Organizational

Business Processes - Interoperability

Issues and Concepts

Ulrike Greiner, SAP

Sonia Lippe, SAP

2© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.

Course Structure

1. Introduction

2. Business Example

3. Privacy / Visibility Issues and Concepts

4. Modelling Issues and Concepts

5. Execution and Monitoring Issues and “High Level Architecture”

6. Detailed Architectures


Introduction


BPM in a Nutshell

BPM includes – methods, – techniques, – tools and – services

to support the – Modeling– Execution– Management and– Analysis

of Business Processes!

Separation of Process Logic!

BusinessProcess

Management

ApplicationComponents

DatabaseManagement

ProcessLogic

BusinessLogic

DataLogic

Configure,Coordinate,Collaborate,Integrate

Execute

Persist

UserInterfaces

PresentationLogic

Present,Interact


BPM Conceptual Model

ProcessRepository

ProcessEnactment

Engine

ProcessModeling

Administration

Monitoring,Viewing, and

Analysis

Participant Manager

WorklistHandler

EventHandler

ApplicationHandler

CoalitionWeaver

Process models can be fully predefined (static business process models), not predefined (ad-hoc business process models) partially predefined (flexible business process models), or include other organization’s entities (cross-organizational business process models).

The enactment engine instantiates and executes business process models. It invokes applications and automated activities and generates work items and work lists for users.


ATHENA CBP Objectives

• Interoperability of applications at business process level

• Multi-layered modelling of business processes • Model-driven execution of business processes• Controlled visibility of internal business processes• Reference architecture and infrastructure for process-

based interoperability

Enhancing BPMS technologies to support interoperability of enterprise applications!


Relevant Issues

Modeling of Processes

Privacy / Visibility

Execution Monitoring


Questions

No Question Option A Option B Option C Option D

1.1 What are the different models of BPM

Static BPM Adhoc BPM Flexible BPM Cross Organizational

BPM

1.2 Business process management supports

Modeling of Business Processes

Execution

of Business Processes

Management of Business Processes

Analysis of Business

Processes

1.3 Business process management separates

Process logic from applications

Data logic from applications

Data logic from user interfaces

1.4 The issues identified after conducting an analysis of

various business scenarios

Privacy Validation Process Definition

Execution

1.5 Please name 3 main components of a BPM system: ___ , ___ , ___.

[Solution: e.g. process modeling, participant manager, process enactment engine]


Course Navigation

Recommended next section:● Business Example

You can also continue with:● Privacy / Visibility Issues and Concepts● Modelling Issues and Concepts● Execution and Monitoring Issues and “High

Level Architecture”


Business Example


Furniture eProcurement

• 4 Participants:– Retailer– Manufacturer Sales– Manufacturer Procurement– Supplier

• 2 Sub processes:– Selling Process– Procurement Process


Furniture eProcurement (2)

Interior Decoration Project

MANUFACTURER

RETAILER

SUPPLIER

R1: Request for Quotation

R2: Quotation

R3: Order

R4: Order Confirmation

M1: Request for Quotation

M2: Quotation

M3: Order

M4: Order Confirmation

• Goal:– improve integration of sales and

procurement process• reduction of order fulfillment time

–support the seamless integration with different suppliers


Procurement Process

M2. Quotation

M1. Request for Quotation

M3.

Ord

er

M4.

Ord

er C

on

firm

atio

n

MANUFACTURER

SUPPLIER

M5. Delivery Note

Delivery


Course Navigation

Recommended next section:● Privacy / Visibility Issues and Concepts

You can also continue with:● Modelling Issues and Concepts● Execution and Monitoring Issues and “High



Privacy / Visibility Issues and Concepts


Privacy / Visibility Issues

Requirements:– End-to-end linkage of private business processes in a common

cross-organizational business process (CBP) – Privacy vs. Visibility: Make existing business processes visible to

partners while securing private processes– Scalable Exposition of Internal Processes – Simplified Process Adoption: Ability to interact with different

partners vs. static internal processes

Concept: Process View Approach


ATHENA CBP Approach

CBP1 CBP2 CBP3

Organization A Organization B Organization C

VP1 VP2

PP1 PP2

VP3 VP4

PP3

VP5 VP6

PP5 PP6

AS AS AS

CBP: Cross-OrganizationalBusiness ProcessesVP: View ProcessesPP: Private ProcessesAS: Applications and Services

A Cross-Organizational Business Process defines the interactions between two or more business entities. These interactions take place between the defined view processes and are defined as a sequence of message and/or other material input/output exchange.

A View Process combines different Private Processes to an abstract level that enables companies to hide critical information from unauthorized partners.

Private Processes are internal to a specific organisation and are the types of processes that have been generally called workflow or BPM processes.


ViewProcesses

Private Processes

ViewProcesses

CBP 1

CBP 2

Selected Process Visibility - Concept


CBP Example

Select Supplier

Create RFQ

Compare Quotations

Private Process

Su

pp

lier

Man

ufa

ctu

rer

Book GoodsReceipt

Create Order

Calculate Production

Plan

Create Quotation

Receive Order

Private Process

ManufactureMaterial

SendDelivery

Note

Create Order

Response

Process RFQ

Process Order

View Process

SendDelivery

Note

Receive Order

Response

Create RFQView Process Create Order

Book GoodsReceipt

Receive Order

Response

Create RFQ

Create Order

CBP ProcessRFQ

Process Order

Book GoodsReceipt

Send Delivery

Note

Receive Order

Response


Modelling procedure: Inside-Out

33

2 2

CBP

1 1

View Process A View Process B

Private Process A Private Process B

Select Supplier

Create RFQ

Process Quotation

Create Order …

Create RFQ

Create Order …

Calc. Prod. Plan

Create Quotation

Receive Order

Send OrderResp.

…Manuf.Material

ProcessRFQ

Process Order …

Create RFQ

Create Order …

ProcessRFQ

Process Order …


Modelling procedure: Outside-In

2 2

CBP

3 3

Private Process A Private Process B

11

View Process A View Process B

Select Supplier

Create RFQ

Process Quotation

Create Order …

Create RFQ

Create Order …

Calc. Prod. Plan

Create Quotation

Receive Order

Send OrderResp.

…Manuf.Material

ProcessRFQ

Process Order …

Create RFQ

Create Order …

ProcessRFQ

Process Order …


Questions


3.1 What are the main privacy/visibility requirements

in Cross organisational workflow

White box exposition of

internal processes

Make existing business

processes visible to the partners

Make private process visible

Make private processes

secure

3.2 What are the modeling procedures for generating

CBPs?

Inside-out Outside-in Hybrid In-and-out

3.3 The process view approach combines

Several private tasks in one view

task

Several view tasks in one private tasks

nothing

3.4 Process view approach, which of the following statements

are true

A systematic way to

selectively expose internal

information

Reveals internal data of an

organisation

Linked up in cross-organizational

business processes modelling the

cooperation between partners

One CBP links the view

processes from two or more

partners


Course Navigation

Recommended next section:● Privacy / Visibility Issues and Concepts

You can also continue with:● Modelling Issues and Concepts● Execution and Monitoring Issues and “High



Issues and Concepts for Modelling of

CBPs


Modelling Requirements

• A collaborative and integrated CBP modeling framework should be offered

• A Common Collaboration Environment should be offered

• Modeling of the CBP business context– goals, objectives, expectations of an operational

business situation• Support for modeling at the CBP design level • Support for modeling at the CBP execution level• Support of efficient CBP assembly:

– builds on private and public process components– input and output flow in the CBP– information flow in the CBP– CBP interfaces


3-Level Modeling Approach

• Business level:– business view on cooperation– processes are not executed

• Execution level:– executable business processes– platform specific

• Technical level:– specifies complete control

and message flow– platform independent

Execution Engine

Technical Level Processes

Business Description

Business Reality

Business Level Processes

xxxx

<variables> <variable name="request"

"/> ... </variables> ... <flow> <receive name="receive1" partner="customer" portType="apns:loanApprovalPT" operation="approve" variable="request"





Execution Level Processes


State of the Art Approaches

• Event-Driven Process Chains (EPC)• Integrated Enterprise Modelling (IEM) method• SAP Business Scenario Maps• Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM)• Unified Modelling Language (UML)• ebXML (ebXML)• RosettaNet (RosettaNet)• Business Process Modelling Language (BPML)• XML Process Definition Language (XPDL)• Web Services Business Process Execution

Language (WS-BPEL) / Web Services Choreography Definition Language (WSCDL)

Sufficient support for CBP assembly in most of the languages

Insufficient support for modeling of process abstraction and linking up internal processes to CBPs

Need for a collaborative and integrated modeling framework comprising all levels of abstraction


Evaluation of State of the Art (2)

Execution Engine


Business Description

Business Reality

Business Level Processes

xxxx








• EPC, IEM/UEML, Business Scenario Maps

• BPDM/BPMN, UML, ebXML, RosettaNet, BPML

• WS-BPEL/WS-CDL, XPDL, UML


ATHENA CBP Modeling Approach


Business Level Processesxxxx








Private Process

Private Process

Private Process

View Process

View Process

View Process

CBP

CBP

Transformation automated

Transformation semi-automated with manual steps

Mapping with tool support


Questions


4.1 Which of the following are CBP modeling requirements?

Common collaboration environment

Hiding private processes

Efficient CBP assembly including input / output flow

Multi-cast interactions

4.2 What are the different modeling levels in the 3-Level Modeling approach

Business Processes

Non-Technical Processes

Technical Processes

Executable Processes

4.3 Which statements about the modeling levels are true?

Business level processes are

executed

Execution level processes are

platform specific

Execution level processes are

platform independent

Technical level processes are

platform independent

4.4 Transformation are executed between

Business level and execution

level

Business level and technical

level

Execution level and technical level

Technical level and execution

level

4.5 Please name 3 State of the Art approaches ___ , ___ , ___.


Course Navigation

Recommended next section:● Modelling Issues and Concepts

You can also continue with:● Execution and Monitoring Issues and “High



Execution and Monitoring Issues and “High Level

Architecture”


Execution Issues (1/2)

• CBP Collaboration Environment for operating CBPs• Different interoperability strategies and means:• Notification to different business (work) tools• Authentication, access control, and system scopes• Multi-cast interactions• Automatic transformation of business documents• Constraints and quality of service parameters• Dry runs, simulation, and animation of CBPs to validate

business processes before deployment

Architecture must support the CBP collaboration to observe, regulate (incl. change), and execute (send, receive and broker), the running CBPs. Architecture must support both passive and active execution of CBPs.

CBP partners must be able to choose among different internal architecture alternatives.

Functionality to send an e-mail or sms to a human participant in case of critical events should be provided.

Support for more complex interactions between collaborators than just binary interactions is required.

Automatic transformation of business documents in the data-interchange between CBP partners is needed. The architecture must use schema definition mechanism to support the interchange.

Capture and consider physical operational constraints (such as message persistence and re-polling of requests) and contractual aspects of collaborations between parties in a CBP.


Execution Issues (2/2)

• Alternatives for building blocks of the enactment architecture:

• Scalable enactment architecture • Integration of different internal realizations of processes• Advanced issues such as dynamic execution / behaviour

of a sub processes or exception handling / undo and redo of CBPs

Regarding the building blocks of the enactment architecture for execution of CBPs several alternatives could be considered. Distributed execution approaches as well as centralized approaches should be evaluated. The enactment architecture also needs to take into account that CBPs itself are not executed; only the private processes and the exposed views. Furthermore should the building blocks dealing with CBP modelling be clearly separated from the building blocks dealing with the execution of CBPs.

The enactment architecture should also be scalable in terms of adaptability depending on the size of the enterprise and the number of running process instances.

The enactment architecture for the execution of CBPs should integrate different internal realizations of processes, including services, legacy systems, and various applications (cp. Figure 3). It should support interoperability of enterprise applications at business processes level.

Advanced issues that should be addressed are for instance, dynamic execution / behaviour of a sub process depending on the context, ability to execute “incomplete” CBPs, and Exception handling / undo and redo of CBPs.


Monitoring Issues

• Hide details about internal process and their realization from the partners

• Allow monitoring the execution of the overall CBP• Progress of a CBP must be globally visible• Encapsulated private processes must be

prevented from being tracked


Enactment Architecture: Big Picture

Company Internal Components

CBP Components

Interface Components CBP and View Modeling Tool

CBP Monitoring and Analysis

CBP Repository(CBPs)

Enactment Engine View Processes

View Processes Repository

(VPs)

Event and Document Correlation

Contain all building blocks which are encapsulated inside the company and which are not accessible by partners. For instance, these are all components that are linked to the modelling and execution of private processes or to the invocation of internal applications

Represent the information that has to be shared between partners in order to define and execute CBPs. They can also contain information that is necessary to monitor and analyze the CBP execution if this is required in a particular business scenario.

Represent the information that is published by the companies in order to take part in CBPs, for instance view processes of the partners’ private processes.


Architecture Alternatives

Database

Database

Database

Application Components

Business Services

Private Business Process Engine

Application Components

View Process and Private Process

Implemented in one Engine

View Process Engine View Process Engine

Cross-Organizational Business Processes

Application Components with Embedded Private

Business Processes


Physical Architectures: Peer-to-Peer

Process Engine Partner A

Process Engine Partner B

Process Engine Partner CSynchronous communication, which means a

communication between two partners is only possible, if both partners are available. Data necessary to communicate, like addresses, has to be known by the partners, because there is no central system. Only point-to-point communication is possible


Physical Architecture: Mediated

• Appropriate physical architecture option depends on the business scenario: – Market place for oil & gas: marketplace acts as a mediator as all messages

between the buyer and the seller are sent through the marketplace– Forecast integration scenario: supply chain partners collaborate peer-to-peer

to make predictions about important future developments in their network (e.g. future market demand, future market supply)

Process Engine Partner B

Process Engine Partner A

Process Engine Partner C

Mediator

It is possible to send a message later on, if a partner is not available at the moment. A mediator knows the necessary data to deliver messages. Such data is knowledge about addresses and also knowledge about CBPs. This architecture supports point-to-point and point-to-multipoint communication. All partners trust the mediator and can be used for authentication issues. The architecture can for example be established with message broker or message queuing technologies.


Questions


5.1 What are the different types of executions that are supported by the enactment architecture for Cross Organisational

Business Processes

Active only Passive only Both (active and passive) None of the three

5.2 What mechanism/method does the CBP architecture use in data interchange

between CBP partners

Automatic Manual Schema definition Process definition

5.3 What are the main monitoring issues faced in CBP

Hiding details of internal processes

from partners

Achieve privacy requirements of

partners

Hiding progress of CBP Preventing tracking of encapsulated private

processes

5.4 What are the other terms used for mediation

Orchestration Choreography Intervention Brokering

5.5 What are the characteristics of peer to peer architecture

There is a central system component

Partners communicate directly

Point-to-Point communication with partners

Point to point communication is not

possible

5.6 What are the characteristic of mediated architecture

There is a central system component

Partners communicate directly

Partners communicate with mediator

Doesn’t support handling of messages


Course Navigation

Recommended next section:● Detailed Architectures


Detailed Architectures


ATHENA View Process Engine

This engine executes private processes and view processes and invokes internal applications directly. It is provided as a complete tool that has to be set up and customized to link it appropriately with the existing applications.


Interface Components


Integrated Repository (PP, VP)


Private Process Modeling Tool

Internal Applications / Business Services

Partner Interface Components

The ATHENA View process engine can be used in a mediated as well as in a peer-2-peer physical architecture. In a peer-to-peer distribution, each partner would run an ATHENA view process engine and the engines would communicate with each other as shown above. If a mediator is needed the engines would not communicate directly but through the mediator. The mediator would forward the messages and status updates between the partners. If total anonymity is needed and the partners should not be informed about the status of the other partners, this information can be suppressed by the mediator.


Direct Application Integration

A set of components for the execution of the view processes is provided. These have to be linked to existing internal applications and events have to be

exchanged between the view engine and the applications.




View Processes Repository (VPs)


Private Process Monitoring and

Analysis




Private Repository (PPs)

CBP Components

CBP and View Modeling Tool




Internal Engine Integration

A view process engine is linked to an internal process engine that executes the private processes. The execution state of the process has to be communicated between the two

engines.




View Processes Repository (VPs)


Private Process Monitoring and

Analysis




Private Repository (PPs)

CBP Components

CBP and View Modeling Tool



Enactment Engine Private Processes


Questions


6.1 Which of the following statements are true for the enactment engine for view

processes?

Is responsible for executing the views that make up a CBP

Not an important part of architecture

Communicates with internal business services representing

the private processes

Exchange messages with partners

6.2 Which of the following are the main CBP components?

CBP & View Modelling tool only

CBP Monitoring & Analysis tool only

Both a. and b. None of the above

6.3 What are possible internal system landscapes that are addressed by the

CBP enactment architecture?

No process enactment engine,

but possibility to buy one

Only internal applications

BPM system for private processes

Only databases

6.4 Which physical architectures are supported by the ATHENA View process

engine?

Only peer-to-peer distribution

Only mediated distribution

Both a and b None of the three

6.4 How is the CBP executed in the ATHENA CBP enactment architecture?

The CBP is not executed itself

The CBP is executed itself

The CBP is executed through the view processes

The CBP is executed through the private

processes.

© 2005-2006 the athena consortium. cross- organizational business processes - interoperability...

Documents