© 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
© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Introduction
4© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
5© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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.
6© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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!
7© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Relevant Issues
Modeling of Processes
Privacy / Visibility
Execution Monitoring
8© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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]
9© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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”
© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Business Example
11© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Furniture eProcurement
• 4 Participants:– Retailer– Manufacturer Sales– Manufacturer Procurement– Supplier
• 2 Sub processes:– Selling Process– Procurement Process
12© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
13© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
14© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
Level Architecture”
© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Privacy / Visibility Issues and Concepts
16© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
17© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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.
18© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
ViewProcesses
Private Processes
ViewProcesses
CBP 1
CBP 2
Selected Process Visibility - Concept
19© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
20© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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 …
21© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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 …
22© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Questions
No Question Option A Option B Option C Option D
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
23© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
Level Architecture”
© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Issues and Concepts for Modelling of
CBPs
25© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
26© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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"
<variables> <variable name="request"
"/> ... </variables> ... <flow> <receive name="receive1" partner="customer" portType="apns:loanApprovalPT" operation="approve" variable="request"
<variables> <variable name="request"
"/> ... </variables> ... <flow> <receive name="receive1" partner="customer" portType="apns:loanApprovalPT" operation="approve" variable="request"
Execution Level Processes
27© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
28© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Evaluation of State of the Art (2)
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"
<variables> <variable name="request"
"/> ... </variables> ... <flow> <receive name="receive1" partner="customer" portType="apns:loanApprovalPT" operation="approve" variable="request"
<variables> <variable name="request"
"/> ... </variables> ... <flow> <receive name="receive1" partner="customer" portType="apns:loanApprovalPT" operation="approve" variable="request"
Execution Level Processes
• EPC, IEM/UEML, Business Scenario Maps
• BPDM/BPMN, UML, ebXML, RosettaNet, BPML
• WS-BPEL/WS-CDL, XPDL, UML
29© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
ATHENA CBP Modeling Approach
Technical Level Processes
Business Level Processesxxxx
<variables> <variable name="request"
"/> ... </variables> ... <flow> <receive name="receive1" partner="customer" portType="apns:loanApprovalPT" operation="approve" variable="request"
<variables> <variable name="request"
"/> ... </variables> ... <flow> <receive name="receive1" partner="customer" portType="apns:loanApprovalPT" operation="approve" variable="request"
<variables> <variable name="request"
"/> ... </variables> ... <flow> <receive name="receive1" partner="customer" portType="apns:loanApprovalPT" operation="approve" variable="request"
Execution Level Processes
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
30© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Questions
No Question Option A Option B Option C Option D
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 ___ , ___ , ___.
31© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Course Navigation
Recommended next section:● Modelling Issues and Concepts
You can also continue with:● Execution and Monitoring Issues and “High
Level Architecture”
© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Execution and Monitoring Issues and “High Level
Architecture”
33© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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.
34© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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.
35© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
36© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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.
37© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
38© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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
39© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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.
40© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Questions
No Question Option A Option B Option C Option D
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
41© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Course Navigation
Recommended next section:● Detailed Architectures
© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Detailed Architectures
43© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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.
Company Internal Components
Interface Components
Enactment Engine View Processes
Integrated Repository (PP, VP)
Event and Document Correlation
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.
44© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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.
Company Internal Components
Interface Components
Enactment Engine View Processes
View Processes Repository (VPs)
Event and Document Correlation
Private Process Monitoring and
Analysis
Internal Applications / Business Services
Partner Interface Components
Private Process Modeling Tool
Private Repository (PPs)
CBP Components
CBP and View Modeling Tool
CBP Monitoring and Analysis
CBP Repository(CBPs)
45© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
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.
Company Internal Components
Interface Components
Enactment Engine View Processes
View Processes Repository (VPs)
Event and Document Correlation
Private Process Monitoring and
Analysis
Internal Applications / Business Services
Partner Interface Components
Private Process Modeling Tool
Private Repository (PPs)
CBP Components
CBP and View Modeling Tool
CBP Monitoring and Analysis
CBP Repository(CBPs)
Enactment Engine Private Processes
46© 2005-2006 The ATHENA Consortium.
Questions
No Question Option A Option B Option C Option D
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.