Amoeba

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Amoeba: A methodology for modeling and evolving cross-organizational business processes

Full text

Pdf (1.37 MB)

Source

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) archive
Volume 19 , Issue 2 (October 2009) table of contents

Article No. 6

Year of Publication: 2009

ISSN:1049-331X

Authors

Nirmit Desai	IBM Research, Bangalore, India
Amit K. Chopra	North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Munindar P. Singh	North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 193, Downloads (12 Months): 193, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1571629.1571632 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Business service engagements involve processes that extend across two or more autonomous organizations. Because of regulatory and competitive reasons, requirements for cross-organizational business processes often evolve in subtle ways. The changes may concern the business transactions supported by a process, the organizational structure of the parties participating in the process, or the contextual policies that apply to the process. Current business process modeling approaches handle such changes in an ad hoc manner, and lack a principled means for determining what needs to be changed and where. Cross-organizational settings exacerbate the shortcomings of traditional approaches because changes in one organization can potentially affect the workings of another.

This article describes Amoeba, a methodology for business processes that is based on business protocols. Protocols capture the business meaning of interactions among autonomous parties via commitments. Amoeba includes guidelines for (1) specifying cross-organizational processes using business protocols, and (2) handling the evolution of requirements via a novel application of protocol composition. This article evaluates Amoeba using enhancements of a real-life business scenario of auto-insurance claim processing, and an aerospace case study.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Anderson, S. and Felici, M. 2001. Requirements evolution from process to product oriented management. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement. 27--41.
	2	Bergenti, F., Gleizes, M.-P., and Zambonelli, F., Eds. 2004. Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems. Kluwer, Boston, MA.
	3	BPEL. 2007. Web services business process execution language, version 2.0. http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/.
	4	Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., and Mylopoulos, J. 2004. Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. J. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 8, 3 (May), 203--236.
	5	Browne, S. and Kellett, M. 1999. Insurance (motor damage claims) scenario. Document Identifier D1.a, CrossFlow Consortium.
	6	Bussler, C. 2001. The role of B2B protocols in inter-enterprise process execution. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Technologies for E-Services. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2193. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 16--29.
	7	Cheong, C. and Winikoff, M. 2009. Hermes: Designing flexible and robust agent interactions. In Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models, V. Dignum, Ed. IGI, Hershey, PA, Chapter 5, 105--139.
	8	Chung, L., Nixon, B. A., and Yu, E. 1995. Using non-functional requirements to systematically support change. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. 132--139.
	9	Cleland-Huang, J., Settimi, R., BenKhadra, O., Berezhanskaya, E., and Christina, S. 2005. Goal-centric traceability for managing non-functional requirements. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. 362--371.
	10	Dam, K. H. and Winikoff, M. 2004. Comparing agent-oriented methodologies. In Agent-Oriented Information Systems, P. Giorgini, B. Henderson-Sellers, and M. Winikoff, Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 3030, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 78--93.
	11	DAML-S. 2002. DAML-S: Web service description for the semantic Web. In Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2342. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 348--363. Authored by the DAML Services Coalition, which consists of (alphabetically) Anupriya Ankolekar, Mark Burstein, Jerry R. Hobbs, Ora Lassila, David L. Martin, Drew McDermott, Sheila A. McIlraith, Srini Narayanan, Massimo Paolucci, Terry R. Payne and Katia Sycara.
	12	DeLoach, S. A. 2004. The MaSE methodology. In Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems, F. Bergenti, M.-P. Gleizes, and F. Zambonelli, Eds. Kluwer, Boston, MA, Chapter 6, 107--126.
	13	Desai, N., Chopra, A. K., and Singh, M. P. 2006. Business process adaptations via protocols. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 103--110.
	14	Desai, N., Chopra, A. K., and Singh, M. P. 2007. Representing and reasoning about commitments in business processes. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). 1328--1333.
	15	Desai, N., Mallya, A. U., Chopra, A. K., and Singh, M. P. 2005. Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31, 12 (Dec.), 1015--1027.
	16	Desai, N. and Singh, M. P. 2007. A modular action description language for protocol composition. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). 962--967.
	17	Desai, N. and Singh, M. P. 2008. On the enactability of business protocols. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). 1126--1131.
	18	ebBP. 2006. Electronic business extensible markup language business process specification schema v2.0.4. docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-bp/2.0.4/OS/.
	19	Etien, A. and Salinesi, C. 2005. Managing requirements in a co-evolution context. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirements Engineering. 125--134.
	20	Harker, S. D. P. and Eason, K. D. 1993. The change and evolution of requirements as a challenge to the practice of software engineering. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. 266--272.
	21	Henderson-Sellers, B. and Giorgini, P., Eds. 2005. Agent-Oriented Methodologies. Idea Group, Hershey, PA.
	22	Juan, T., Pearce, A., and Sterling, L. 2002. ROADMAP: Extending the Gaia methodology for complex open systems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Joint conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM Press, New York, NY, 3--10.
	23	Kongdenfha, W., Saint-Paul, R., Benatallah, B., and Casati, F. 2006. An aspect-oriented framework for service adaptation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing. ACM Press, New York, NY, 15--26.
	24	Krüger, I. H., Mathew, R., and Meisinger, M. 2006. Efficient exploration of service-oriented architectures using aspects. In Proceeding of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 62--71.
	25	Lam, W. and Loomes, M. 1998. Requirements evolution in the midst of environmental change: A managed approach. In Proceedings of the Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. 121--127.
	26	Lormans, M. 2007. Monitoring requirements evolution using views. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. 349--352.
	27	Maamar, Z., Benslimane, D., and Sheng, Q. Z. 2007. Towards a two-layered framework for managing web services interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 87--92.
	28	Mallya, A. U. and Singh, M. P. 2006. Incorporating commitment protocols into Tropos. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Agent Oriented Software Engineering, J. P. Müller and F. Zambonelli, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3950. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 69--80.
	29	Mazouzi, H., Seghrouchni, A. E. F., and Haddad, S. 2002. Open protocol design for complex interactions in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). ACM Press, New York, NY, 517--526.
	30	Narendra, N. C. and Orriëns, B. 2007. Modeling Web service composition and execution via a requirements-driven approach. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM Press, New York, NY, 1642--1648.
	31	OMG. 2006. The Object Management Group's Model Driven Architecture (MDA). http://www.omg.org/mda/.
	32	Padgham, L. and Winikoff, M. 2005. Prometheus: A practical agent-oriented methodology. In Agent-Oriented Methodologies, B. Henderson-Sellers and P. Giorgini, Eds. Idea Group, Hershey, PA, Chapter 5, 107--135.
	33	SAWSDL. 2007. Semantic Annotations for WSDL--SAWSDL. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/.
	34	Singh, M. P. 1999. An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artific. Intell. Law 7, 97--113.
	35	Singh, M. P., Chopra, A. K., and Desai, N. 2009. Commitment-based service-oriented architecture. IEEE Comput. 42. In press. Draft available at http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/mpsingh/papers/.
	36	Singh, M. P. and Huhns, M. N. 2005. Service-Oriented Computing: Semantics, Processes, Agents. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, U.K.
	37	Smith, H. and Fingar, P. 2002. Business Process Management: The Third Wave. Megan-Kiffer Press, Tampa, FL.
	38	Sturm, A. and Shehory, O. 2004. A comparative evaluation of agent-oriented methodologies. In Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems, F. Bergenti, M.-P. Gleizes, and F. Zambonelli, Eds. Kluwer, Boston, MA, Chapter 7, 127--150.
	39	Sudeikat, J., Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., and Lamersdorf, W. 2004. Evaluation of agent-oriented software methodologies: Examination of the gap between modeling and platform. In Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, P. Giorgini, J. P. Müller, and J. Odell, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3382. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 126--141.
	40	SWSF Committee. 2005. SWSF: Semantic Web services framework (W3C submission). http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/.
	41	Tran, Q.-N. N. and Low, G. C. 2005. Comparison of ten agent-oriented methodologies. In Agent-Oriented Methodologies, B. Henderson-Sellers and P. Giorgini, Eds. Idea Group, Hershey, PA, Chapter 12, 341--367.
	42	van Aart, C. J., Chabera, J., Dehn, M., Jakob, M., Nast-Kolb, K., Smulders, J. L. C. F., Storms, P. P. A., Holt, C., and Smith, M. 2007. Usecase outline and requirements. Document Identifier D6.1, IST-CONTRACT Project. http://tinyurl.com/6adejz.
	43	Vitteau, B. and Huget, M.-P. 2004. Modularity in interaction protocols. In Advances in Agent Communication, F. Dignum, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2922. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 291--309.
	44	Winikoff, M. 2007. Implementing commitment-based interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, Columbia, SC, 868--875.
	45	Winikoff, M., Liu, W., and Harland, J. 2005. Enhancing commitment machines. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies (DALT). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3476. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 198--220.
	46	Wooldridge, M. 2002. An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
	47	WS-CDL. 2005. Web services choreography description language version 1.0. www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/.
	48	WSMO Committee. 2004. WSMO: Web services modeling ontology. http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d2/v1.2/.
	49	Yolum, P. and Singh, M. P. 2002. Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). ACM Press, New York, NY, 527--534.
	50	Yu, E. S.-K. 1996. Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
	51	Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N. R., and Wooldridge, M. 2003. Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 12, 3, 317--370.
	52	Zowghi, D. and Offen, R. 1997. A logical framework for modeling and reasoning about the evolution of requirements. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. 247--257.