Intelligent Decision Support through Synchronized Decomposition of Process and Objectives Structures

Transcription

1 Intelligent Decision Support through Synchronized Decomposition of Process and Objectives Structures Dina Neiger, Leonid Churilov School of Business Systems, Monash University {dina.neiger, Abstract The need for business processes to fulfill multiple business objectives simultaneously is paramount to the overall success of the business. In earlier papers, authors introduced the basic principles of process decomposition using business objectives as the guiding business criteria. In this paper, these principles have been complemented by a comprehensive mapping of workflow patterns to objectives patterns to enable business process design to be guided by business objectives. The objectives patterns are based on the value-focused thinking framework that enables identification and structuring of multi-objective decisions. The process patterns are based on the generic patterns and are illustrated using event-driven process chains (EPC) workflow language. The mapping enables intelligent decision support for process engineering through synchronized decomposition of business process and objectives and. 1. Introduction The importance of ensuring that the business process is designed so that it fulfils organizational objectives has been highlighted by many authors (e.g. [15]; [18]). The expression paving of the cow path ([21], p. 16) is one of the more colourful references to the potential problems of ignoring business objectives when modeling business processes. More mundane descriptions include difficult alignment to specific requirements of the enterprise [and] high possibility of cultural clash ([18], p. 181), workflow inflexibility ([6], p. 1) and inability to meet both effectiveness and efficiency requirements of the organization (e.g. [4], p. 195). Goal-oriented business process modeling approaches (e.g. [6]) focus on identification of goals, corresponding constraints and measurement criteria and transformation of goals into activities. However, these approaches stop short of providing the link from processes to decision modeling tools and consequently do not utilize the full potential of objectives modeling for intelligent decision support of business process engineering activities. In this paper, it is proposed to address this gap by extending traditional approaches to goal-oriented business process modeling through the use of classical decision support methodology as represented by the valuefocused thinking (VFT) framework [11] to complement existing business process modeling tools such as event-driven process chains (EPC) methodology ([19],[20]) in a way that connects the notion of goal and the notion of business process ([6]), p. 1). This connection enables process engineering tools to take advantages of classical decision modeling and support capabilities in order to meet both effectiveness and efficiency requirements of an organization ([8], pp ). In earlier papers, the links between objectives within the VFT framework and EPC representation of the process have been established (e.g. [16]). The objective of this paper is to describe how these links can be used to enable synchronized decomposition of objectives and processes to facilitate engineering of processes that meet organizational objectives. Accordingly, the rest of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section, a brief background to the EPC and VFT methodologies is provided. This is followed in Section 3 by the discussion of the links between objectives and processes in the context of requirements for synchronized decomposition. In Section 4, the principles of synchronized decomposition are introduced and illustrated with examples. The paper is concluded with a brief summary and directions for future research /06/$20.00 (C) 2006 IEEE 1

2 2. Background 2.1. Event-driven Process Chain An Event-driven Process Chain (EPC) is an intuitive graphical business process description targeted to describe processes on the level of their business logic, not necessarily on the formal specification level, and to be easy to understand and use by business people ([1], p. 4). Keller, Nuttgens and Scheer (in [20], p. 125) developed EPC methodology using concepts of stochastic networks and Petri nets. Initially EPC representation was limited to informal graphical representations. Since then, a number of formal models for the representation of the EPC have been proposed including the semantics of Nuttgens and Rump ([2] p. 71) and EPC Markup Language [14]. Within an EPC model, business activities are represented as the movements between states with each activity originating from and resulting in a change in the state of a business as described by the event (e.g. [1], p. 4). Each event provides a qualitative description of a change to one state variable that is important to the control flow of the process rather than providing a complete representation of changes to each of the business state variables. For example, consider activity file [job] application in the context of engineering a recruitment process within an organization. This activity may be triggered by an event application received and followed by an event application filed. The two events reflect the changes to the state of the application (from received to filed). Changes to other state variables, for example variables associated with the use of resources used by the process and the quality of the process outcomes, are not reflected by the event object. The name of the model event-driven process chain epitomizes the representation of business processes as a sequence (chain) of events, functions (also referred to as activities or tasks), and rules (also referred to as logical connectors) with the events being function triggers and the results (i.e. process drivers) ([1], [9], [19], [20]). Within an EPC model, functions are represented as rounded rectangles, events as hexagons and logical connectors as circles that include the rules labeled as /\ (AND), \/ (OR) and X (XOR). Solid lines with arrows on the line destination are used to show the control flow of the process and are sometimes referred to as arcs or control flow links. In an extended EPC model (e- EPC), objectives that functions are aimed at achieving are represented as a pentagon. In Figure 1, the e-epc notation is illustrated by a 2-level process structure with each event triggering one activity, and one of the activities resulting into two possible outcomes followed by further activities. Various process structures that can be represented with the EPC model have been documented in [3] and are referred to as workflow patterns. 1st level Recruitment request received Max no. of applicants 2nd level Recruitment request received Min source costs Advertising medium selected Advertise Recruitment objective Undertake Recruitment Decide on advertising method Employment agency selected... Contact Agency Offer made Optimize advertising methodology Max quality of applicants Offer made Figure 1. EPC notation illustration Each activity within an EPC model can itself be described as a process and in turn be represented by an EPC model creating a hierarchical decomposition structure of EPC models that can be used to simplify and clarify presentation of complex business processes (in Figure 1 this is illustrated with the decomposition of the recruitment function into lower level functions). Process decomposition using an EPC model is defined by Davis ([9], p. 229) as either horizontal segmentation into manageable chunks which link together or hierarchical decomposition required for complex processes, to enable modeling at different levels of detail. Levels within the hierarchical decomposition are linked using directional process decomposition links. Within the horizontal segmentation, the functional flow is decomposed using the rules (also referred to as logical operators) summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Interpretation of logical connectors within an EPC from Davis ([9], p. 119, table 7.3) Rule OR (\/) XOR (X) AND (/\) Interpretation for a functional flow split one or more possible paths will be followed as a result of the function immediately preceding the connector only one of the possible paths will be followed process flow splits into two or more parallel paths 2

3 While EPC only includes three types of business objects (events, functions and connectors), extended- EPC (e-epc) introduced by Scheer ([19], [20]) expanded the scope of the EPC model to incorporate comprehensive descriptions of objects and flows associated with the process and integrates a number of different business modeling tools under one roof. For example, objectives are linked to functions that are responsible for their achievement within an e-epc model and accordingly, are often referred to as functional objectives that are assumed to be known to the modeler ahead of process engineering task (e.g. [16], [20]). The integration within an e-epc is achieved through seamless links between graphical symbols which represent elements of business processes (such as objectives and functions) and database objects which are then themselves shared by models representing different aspects of business process (e.g. organizational structure, information flow, flow of activities, etc). This ensures consistency and reusability of data and models ([10]) and allows a large range of models to be integrated within the single conceptual framework of ARIS House ([19], [20]). The resulting intuitive graphical representation of the business process by the EPC and e-epc models, has been used (e.g. [13], p. 3) for: business process re-engineering (BPR), definition and control of workflows, configuration of standard software, software development, activity-based costing (ABC), quality-related documentation of processes according to the requirements of ISO900x Value-Focused Thinking The main premise of the VFT framework ([11], p. 3) is that focusing early and deeply on values [in a sense of what we care about ] when facing difficult problems will lead to more desirable consequences, and even to more appealing problems than the ones we currently face resulting in better solutions for the business as a whole. While values represent general principles used for evaluation of actual or potential consequences of action and inaction ([11], p. 6), objectives are more concrete propositions of what we are aiming for or in Keeney s words ([12], p. 34) [qualitative] statements of something that one wants to strive towards. Keeney separates between two classes of objectives: fundamental and means objectives. Although, when the contexts of two decision problems are related, the fundamental objectives in one context may be means objectives in another context ([11], p. 87). Fundamental objectives concern the ends that decision makers value in a specific decision context ([12], p. 34) and are therefore closely related to business values as they are important just because rather than as a means to achieve some other objective. The first step in the identification of objectives within the VFT framework is the identification of the overall fundamental objective that characterizes the reason for interest in the decision situation and defines the breadth of concern ([11], p. 77). Once this objective is identified, it can be drilled down into other (lower level) fundamental objectives that help articulate the dimensions of the higher level objective by answering the question what aspects of the high level objective are important. Keeney ([11], p. 79) suggests the use of categories to assist with the identification of more specific fundamental objectives. Means objectives have the role of explaining what causes the fundamental objectives to be achieved ([12], p. 34) e.g. mentoring will cause an increase in client management skills thus causing the fundamental objective to be achieved. Therefore, means objectives are structured as an objectives network at the next level of abstraction within the VFT framework. To assist with the identification of objectives within the VFT framework, Clemen and Reilly ([7], p. 49) provided a set of simple questions (Table 2) that can be used to build the structure in a top-down or bottom-up manner. Once the objectives are stated, these questions are used to distinguish between fundamental and means objectives and to relate objectives to each other ([12], p. 34). Table 2. Identification of objectives according to Clemen and Reilly ([7], p. 49, fig. 3.3) Fundamental Means To move: ask: To move: ask: Objectives downward in the hierarchy: What do you mean by that? upward in the hierarchy: Of what more general objective is this an aspect? Objectives Away from fundamental objectives: How could you achieve this? Toward fundamental objective: Why is that important? Keeney uses the term means-ends objectives network to describe the means objectives network. The means-ends objectives network does not aim to 3

4 be a collectively exhaustive representation of the means to the high-level ends as some causes are outside of the scope of business operations (e.g. weather, war, interest rates, etc). Unlike a hierarchical structure, the network structure allows complex interrelationships between objectives ([11], p. 78). Within the VFT framework, the structure and measurement of the means objectives is primarily aimed at assisting development of the structure and forming an understanding of the fundamental objectives hierarchy as well as providing a link between alternatives and fundamental objectives. Therefore, the means-ends network contains only a limited representation of logical or influencing relationships between means objectives. For example, it is assumed that all lower level means objectives need to be satisfied in order for the parent objective to be satisfied. Neiger and Churilov ([17]) extended the VFT framework to include more complex relationships between objectives (refer to Table 3). Table 3. Interpretation of logical connectors within modified VFT framework from [17] Rule OR (\/) XOR (X) AND (/\) Interpretation for a objectives split objective preceding the connector can be achieved by different non-mutually exclusive means objective preceding the connector can be achieved by different mutually exclusive means objective preceding the connector can be split into more than one objective, all of which have to be met before the process can proceed One of the key advantages of the VFT methodology is that it provides a seamless link between qualitative decision support methodology concerned with identification and structuring of decision objectives and quantitative decision support tools such as multi-attribute utility theory (e.g. [11]). However, the link between the objectives and the processes responsible for their execution is not clearly made within the context of the VFT. This gap is addressed in the next section. 3. Links between the VFT and EPC in the context of the synchronization requirements Within the EPC environment, each business process is decomposed into a set of functions and can itself be a function within a higher-level process. Even at the top of the functional tree within the EPC environment, processes and functions are identically defined. According to the definition of functional objective (e.g. [20]), this implies that both functions and processes must have at least one business goal associated with them. Furthermore, these goals are linked directly to the activities responsible for them. Within the VFT framework, means objectives can be linked directly to the activities responsible for them ([11], p. 205), while the fundamental objectives are linked to activities only via the network of means objectives. From this it is concluded that the only objectives that are common to the VFT and the EPC environment are means objectives [16]. This conceptual relationship between the VFT framework and EPC environment is illustrated with the help of a Venn diagram in Figure 2. fundamental objectives means objectives VFT framework functional goals EPC environment U functions & processes Figure 2. Relationship between VFT and EPC The following conclusions are made with respect to conceptual links between functions and objectives within the VFT and EPC methodologies (e.g. [16]): fundamental objectives are not directly linked to processes and functions and can only be associated with the business processes and functions via the means objectives; and functional objectives within the EPC environment can be represented as the means objectives within the VFT framework. These conclusions imply that means objectives that are also functional objectives must link directly to the functions responsible for them. Accordingly, the sequence of states through which EPC and VFT models pass, is represented as the levels within their respective structures. In this context, synchronization requirement can be stated as follows: the decomposition structure of the business process model and the objectives model cannot be independent of each other. Two types of synchronization must be considered: (a) flow synchronization defined as: functional objectives derived from the EPC structure are sufficient to meet the high level objectives (taking into account aspects of high level objectives that are not process driven); and (b) component synchronization defined as: each attribute of a (process related) means objectives is inherited by at 4

5 least one of the means objectives contributing to it. When process and objectives models are completely synchronized, their histories become intertwined. Furthermore, the synchronization, as it has been defined here, ensures that the functions inherit objectives from the process that they are participating in as is required by the EPC methodology. This synchronization is achieved by firstly creating an objective refinement corresponding to each function and then connecting these refinements into a logical structure that reflects the logical structure of the process flow. The logical structures are described with the help of the patterns referred to in [5] (p. 2) as high-level annotations of the business process. In the context of goal-oriented business processes Andersson et al ([5], p.2) defined five requirements that the patterns must satisfy. The principles of synchronization that satisfies these requirements are introduced in the next section. 4. Synchronized decomposition To enable synchronized decomposition, the combined model must include the atomic link and rules that enable two components of the model (EPC and VFT) to be constructed in tandem. As can be seen from Figure 1, the compound structures are built up from constructs of atomic elements. The number of constructs within each structure is limited. For example, the means-ends network has only three constructs (described in Section 2.2): AND-refinement, OR-refinement and XORrefinement. An EPC, on the other hand, may have as many as 26 constructs with different levels of complexity [3]. In addition, each function within an EPC may itself be decomposed into another (lowerlevel) EPC [9]. Without loss of generality, rules for synchronized decomposition can be split according to the EPC construct type into: (a) rules for modularizing intentions corresponding to a single activity, or in other words, rules for deriving objectives constructs from an atomic EPC construct (these rules will be referred to as Single function Pattern abbreviated to SP); and (b) rules for mapping the execution order of activities to the order of achievement of objectives, or in other words, rules for deriving objectives constructs from EPC activities in compound form (these rules are referred to as Workflow Pattern abbreviated to WP). Consistent with the terminology used in the formal models of the VFT and the EPC, the term elementary function is used to refer to atomic work activities; hierarchically ranked function or process are used to refer to functions that are decomposed into lower level functions within the EPC structure; and functional goal is used to refer to the intention of a function Modularizing goals of a single function The convention for pattern description used by Aalst et al [3] that includes pattern name, pattern description, pattern treatment and pattern illustration, is adapted to describe the relationship between the e- EPC and means-ends network constructs. Pattern name is used to provide a short description of the pattern, e.g. elementary function linked to single objective. Since all patterns in this section are single function patterns they are labeled as SP patterns. The pattern description heading is used to describe the e- EPC construct, while the pattern treatment heading is used to describe the rules for deriving the means-ends network construct corresponding to the e-epc construct. Both constructs are illustrated graphically and with an example under the pattern illustration heading. Objectives that are part of the objectives pattern and also included in the process pattern are represented using EPC notation illustrated in Figure 1, all other objectives are represented as rectangles. SP1 elementary function linked to single objective (fig. 3) e1 f1 e2 Figure 3. Atomic link Pattern Description: A single goal corresponds to a single elementary function. Pattern Treatment: This pattern is included solely for the purposes of completeness; no rules are required as the link is made at the atomic level within both the EPC and VFT structures. Illustration: A low level function within an HR context may be to send rejection letters to the unsuccessful applicants with the only objective for this function to be to minimize the time delay between the decision and notification of applicants. SP2 elementary function linked to multiple objectives (fig. 4) Pattern Description: Multiple goals corresponding to a single elementary function. 5

6 Pattern Treatment (AND): As the elementary function is aimed at meeting multiple goals, the function cannot be said to have achieved its objectives unless all of these goals are met. Therefore, these goals can be represented within the VFT framework as an AND-refinement of a high-level means objective that is indirectly linked to the elementary function. Illustration: Minimizing source costs and maximizing number of applicants objectives were both assigned to the single business activity advertise in Figure 1. Both objectives must be met in order to meet the overall objective of that activity. The overall objective in Figure 4 is not included in the original process structure in Figure 1 but can be included in the objectives structure using generic wording such as advertising objectives. e1 primarily at minimizing the number of applicants to be interviewed by using referees to establish how closely each applicant meets the criteria. e1 e2 Functional Tree f1 f2 f1 f2 Figure 5. Hierarchically ranked functions with direct links f1 f2 f1 f2 f1 f1 SP4 hierarchically ranked function linked to single objective that implies the achievement of lower-level functional objectives (fig. 6) f1o2 f1 f1o2 e1 e2 PO Figure 4. Multiple objectives PO SP3 hierarchically ranked function directly linked to lower level functional objectives (fig. 5) Pattern Description: A hierarchically ranked function is decomposed into a set of lower level functions each with their own lower level objectives with the hierarchically ranked function linked to each of these lower level objectives. Pattern Treatment (AND): This pattern is similar to the SP2 pattern. In the SP2 pattern, a single elementary activity had two objectives, whereas in this pattern (SP3), the function is decomposed into two activities that are each responsible for one of those objectives. In both cases, an AND-refinement should be used within the means-ends network to connect lower level objectives to an implied overall objective of the function. Illustration: For example, in the context of a recruitment process a shortlist applicants function may have two objectives: min. number of applicants to be interviewed and max. quality of applicants. The function can be decomposed into two separate activities: develop shortlisting criteria and interview referees, the first function is aimed primarily at maximizing the quality of applicants through ensuring that the criteria are closely matched to job requirements and the second function is aimed e2 Functional Tree f1 f2 Figure 6. Hierarchically ranked functions with single objectives Pattern Description: A hierarchically ranked function is linked to a functional goal that is different from the lower-level functional goals. Pattern Treatment (AND): This pattern is another variation on the SP2 pattern with the main difference being that the overall functional objective is explicitly stated (rather than implied) within the EPC structure. Consequently, the AND-refinement is used to link the lower level functional goals to the goal of the hierarchically decomposed function. Illustration: Refer to example in SP3. o2 o2 6

7 SP5 hierarchically ranked function linked to multiple objectives that imply achievement of lower-level functional objectives (fig. 7) Pattern Description: A function with multiple objectives is hierarchically decomposed into lowerlevel functions. Pattern Treatment (AND): Case 1: if hierarchical decomposition does not introduce any additional objectives, then the SP1 pattern should be used to represent multiple objectives of the high level function. Case 2: if each of the lower-level objectives contributes to no more than one of the high level objectives, then the SP2 pattern should be used to link lower level objectives to each of the high level objectives and the SP1 pattern should be used to link the high level objectives together (in cases where only one lower level objective contributes to the higher level objective, the AND-connector may be omitted). Case 3: if some or all of the lower level objectives contribute to more than one of the higher level objectives an AND-joint refinement is used to link them. Within the AND-joint refinement the AND connector is used to both merge the hierarchically ranked function s objective and as an ANDrefinement for the lower level objectives. To simplify the presentation of the objectives network, it is recommended that higher level function s objectives are combined into a single objective and the SP4 pattern is used for the combined objective. Illustration (Case 3): For example, consider a process of selecting a recruitment agency with multiple objectives of maximizing quality of applicants and minimizing recruitment costs. e1 Functional Tree e2 PO f1 f2 P Po2 P Po2 o2 Figure 7. AND-joint This high level process select recruitment agency may be decomposed into two functions: interview representatives from the recruitment agencies with the objective of maximizing the knowledge about the recruitment process used by an agency and decide on the best agency with the objective minimize the gap PO o2 between the organizational requirements and agency capabilities. Both these functions have objectives that contribute to the quality of applicants and recruitment costs objectives of the high-level function. Therefore, the AND-joint pattern should be used. In an alternative representation, the two higher level objectives are first combined into a single objective of efficient and effective recruitment (SP1) and the two lower level objectives are represented as an AND-refinement of that objective (SP2). The five patterns discussed allow any combination of objectives linked to a single function to be composed into a single objective that corresponds to that function. This simplifies the discussion of the rules that map the execution order of activities to the order of achievement of objectives as it is now possible to assume (without loss of generality) that each function within the EPC (irrespective of whether it is elementary or hierarchically decomposed) is linked to a single functional objective. Once the execution mapping is complete, composite objectives of single functions can be easily decomposed into elementary objectives using the rules described in SP1-SP Mapping workflow patterns to the order of achievement of objectives The execution order of activities has been described by Aalst et al [3] as a set of workflow patterns grouped into the following categories: Basic Control Patterns, Advanced Branching and Synchronization Patterns, Structural Patterns, Patterns Involving Multiple Instances, State-based Patterns and Cancellation Patterns. These patterns are used to annotate the order of activities within the process and have been represented in Petri-net based notation and in neutral terminology [3]. The analysis of how these patterns support EPCs was undertaken by Mendling, Neumann and Nuttgens [14] resulting in extensions to the EPCs that are supported by the EPML and include (p. 13) introduction of the empty connector, the inclusion of a multiple instantiation concept for both simple functions as well as for hierarchical functions and process interfaces; and the inclusion of a cancellation concept. Neither the generic patterns introduced in [3], nor extensions for the EPCs introduced in [14] reference business goals. The contribution of this section is the mapping of the generic patterns introduced in [3] to the meansends network structure in order to link the execution order of activities to the order of achievement of objectives. Due to the page limit requirements of the conference it is not possible to illustrate graphically 7

8 and with examples the mappings for all workflow patterns documented in [3]. Therefore the mappings of the workflow pattern to the corresponding goal pattern are structured as follows: a brief description of the workflow pattern (abbreviated as WP) is quoted from [3]; this is followed by the analysis of the pattern from the objectives modeling point of view; and the definition of the objective pattern corresponding to the workflow under consideration. Some general remarks with respect to workflow patterns and their relationship to goal modeling need to be made before individual patterns are discussed. Remark 1 Goal patterns are not aimed to mirror the process flow but rather to reflect the relationships between objectives, taking process structure into account. This means that some workflow patterns do not need to be mapped to goal patterns. For example, empty process branches (i.e. do nothing branches) that do not include a function (e.g. [9], pp ) do not have to be reflected in the goal pattern. Remark 2 Similar to SP patterns, in case of the WP patterns it is assumed that that there exists an objective O that corresponds to a set of functions (f 1,, f n ) that are structured in a pattern P, where for each i, there exists an objective o i such that f i is aimed at achieving o i with an exception of a do nothing function or empty process branch that may have a null objective can be represented in the means-ends structure by a full stop symbol. Remark 3 It is acknowledged that: objectives other than those relating to the process can also contribute to the goal pattern but are not included in the mapping as they are not relevant to the relationship between functional and objectives structure; the network nature of the objectives structure implies that individual objective can contribute to more than one pattern; and functional objectives do not have to be unique to the specific function although unique objectives make the goal-pattern structure easier to read and reconcile with the workflow pattern. Remark 4 Goal constructs are considered in the context of process decomposition. In this context only single inputs, multiple outputs operators are included (i.e. only those that decompose the process). In other words, workflow patterns corresponding to process mergers and synchronization are not included in the goal patterns, with the only exception to this being an orphaned merger which is defined as mergers within the process that do not have a corresponding split earlier in the process (e.g. processes having multiple start events requiring action before the process flow is merged). Remark 5 For ease of reference, the naming and numbering convention adapted in this section retained the workflow patterns labels assigned in [3]. However, only those workflow patterns that are relevant in the context of mapping to goal constructs are included in this section. For example, WP3 (synchronization) pattern ([3]) is excluded in accordance with the previous remark. WP1 Sequence Description ([3], p. 10): An activity in a workflow process is enabled after the completion of another activity in the same process. Analysis: The overall objective O of this pattern P cannot be achieved unless all functions within the pattern have been executed and, therefore, individual objectives of these functions have been completed. This is consistent with the definitions of ANDrefinement in Table 3. Objectives Pattern (AND): Similar to the definition of the OR-refinement pattern by (e.g. [18]), this objective pattern is formally defined as follows: to fulfill O all sub goals o 1, o 2,,o n must be fulfilled. WP2 Parallel Split Description ([3], pp ): A point in the workflow where a single thread of control splits into multiple threads of control which can be executed in parallel thus allowing activities to be executed simultaneously or in any order. The process can be split following or preceding functions. Analysis: Activities corresponding to each thread within the pattern must be completed before the process can continue and is consistent with the definition of the AND-refinement in Table 3. Objectives Pattern (AND): The objective structure corresponding to these workflow patterns is the same as the objectives structure in WP1. WP4 Exclusive Choice Description ([3], pp ): A point in the workflow process where, based on a decision or workflow control data, one of several branches is chosen. Analysis: When mapping the concept of exclusive choice to a goal pattern it is important to separate between the following types of EPC constructs: 1. XOR- do nothing function: in some cases an XOR may split a process into branches one of which will not have its own objective (e.g. in a do/don t do scenario, the don t do branch does not need an explicit objective). 8

9 2. XOR-single instance: single instance process where the choice is made between mutually exclusive alternatives so that within a single execution the process only ever goes through one of the XOR paths (e.g. a vacancy is filled either with an external or an internal applicant). This is consistent with the definition of the XOR- refinement in Table XOR-multiple instance: multiple instance process where within a single execution the process would go through an XOR split more than once, following different paths depending upon the outcome of the decision. In this case the XOR-split operates on mutually exclusive (non-empty) sets of instances. However, all alternatives paths will be utilized at some point in the process. To accommodate the XORmultiple instance split, the means decomposition subset link is defined. This link is used to indicate that both objectives are met for a subset of process instances. A goal pattern that includes this link is mapped to the exclusive choice process structure. The funnel links are used to represent the means decomposition subset link in the graphical representation of the goal pattern. Objectives Pattern ( do nothing function): In these cases, the split should still be represented in the goal pattern. However, the branch corresponding to the function without its own objective should have a null objective rather than the functional objective. Objectives Pattern (XOR-single instance): XORrefinement is used when the pattern objective O can be achieved by mutually exclusive means o 1, o 2,, o n and only one of those means is evoked within a single execution of the process. Objectives Pattern (XOR-multiple instance): means decomposition subset links are used describe the situation where a pattern objective O applies to multiple instances within a single process, and is achieved by objectives o 1, o 2,, o n that operate on mutually exclusive sets of these instances. Note that the XOR-multiple instance split applies to multiple records and multiple cases, in other words, it also applies when multiple runs of the single-instance process are expected. WP6 Multi Choice Description ([3], pp ): A point in the workflow process where, based on a decision or workflow control data, a number of branches are chosen. Analysis: According to the workflow pattern description, branches can be executed in parallel or individually with any combination of branches allowable (i.e. they are not mutually exclusive). This is similar to the definition of an OR-refinement within the Requirements Engineering context (e.g. [18]) and is consistent with definitions in Table 3. Note that in order to avoid an ambiguous pattern definition, the definition of the OR-refinement can be further clarified as the same intention but different means ([18], p. 192). As with the workflow pattern, the OR-refinement within the objectives pattern can be represented by a combination of AND- and XORrefinements and null objectives (e.g. [3],[9]). Objectives Pattern (OR): OR-refinement is used when the pattern objective O can be achieved by at least one of the o 1, o 2,, o n objectives. WP10 Arbitrary Cycles (Loops, Interactions, Cycles) Description ([3], pp ): A point in a workflow process where one or more activities can be done repeatedly. Analysis: Depending on the activity within the loop and the nature of the exit decision, the exit decision may be treated as a null-objective. If the exit decision does have its own objective then that objective has to be included for both the loop and the rest of the process objectives branches as the count function appears in both paths. Within the workflow pattern, the loop is represented using an XOR connector with the joint occurring before the corresponding split to allow activities to be repeated. Since the order and timing of the joint are not relevant to goal-patterns (Remark 1), the workflow loop pattern can be represented using an XOR-multiple instance goal-pattern. Objectives Pattern (XOR-multiple instance): The XOR-multiple instance pattern as discussed in WP4. By applying the patterns described in this section the process structure described in Figure 1 is mapped to an objectives structure described in Figure 8. Optimize advertising methodology Recruitment objective Max quality of applicants SP 4, WP 1 Source objectives Max no. of applicants WP6 Advertising objectives SP 2 Min source costs Figure 8. Objectives structure for Figure Summary and future directions Identification and structuring of objectives is commonly used in the decision support context. In 9

10 this paper the question of how to operationalise these objectives through business processes without loosing decision support capabilities was addressed by integrating existing workflow patterns with principles of objectives modeling. The resulting principles of synchronized decomposition contribute towards purposeful process engineering i.e. process engineering that leads to processes that are congruent with organizational value and objectives. The need to empirically test and implement the synchronized decomposition principles within an information system so that their feasibility and benefits within a practical context can be assessed is recognized as one of the key future directions for this research. 6. References [1] Aalst W. M. P. van der, Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains, Information and Software Technology, 41 (10), 1999, [2] Aalst W. M. P. van der, Desel J. and Kindler E., On the semantics of EPCs: a vicious circle, in Nuttgens M. and Rump F. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of EPK 2002 Workshop, Trier November 21-22, 2002, [3] Aalst W. M. P. van der, Hofstede A. H. M. ter, Kiepuszewski B. and Barros A. P., Workflow patterns, Distributed and Parallel Databases, 14 (1), 2003, 5-51 [4] Ackermann F., Walls L., Meer R. van der and Borman M., Taking a strategic view of BPR to develop a multidisciplinary framework, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50, 1999, [5] Andersson B., Bider I., Johannesson P. and Perjons E., Towards a formal definition of goal-oriented business process patterns Business Process Management Journal, 11 (6), 2005, (forthcoming) [6] Bider I. and Johannesson P., A special issue on goaloriented business process modeling: call for papers Business Process Management Journal, 2002, (accessed 01/03/05) [7] Clemen R. T. and Reilly T., Making hard decisions with DecisionTools (2nd rev. ed.), Duxbury, Pacific Grove, 2001 [11] Keeney R. L., Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1992 [12] Keeney R. L., Creativity in decision making with value-focused thinking, Sloan Management Review, 35 (4), 1994, [13] Loos P. and Allweyer T., Process orientation and object-orientation an approach for integration UML and Event-Driven Process Chains (EPC) Paper 144 Publication of the Institut fur Wirtschaftsinformatik University of Saarland, Saarbrucken, Germany, 1998 [14] Mendling J., Neumann G. and Nuttgens M., Towards workflow patterns support of event-driven process chains (EPC), Proceedings of the Second GI-Workshop XML for Business Process Management (XML4BPM 2004), 2005, Kartsruhe, Germany [15] Muehlen M. zur, Workflow-based process controlling. Foundation, design and implementation of workflow-driven process information systems, Logos, Berlin, 2004 [16] Neiger, D. and Churilov, L., Structuring business objectives: a business process modeling perspective, in van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A. and Weske, M. (eds.), Business Process Management LNCS 2678, Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, [17] Neiger, D. and Churilov, L., Goal-oriented decomposition of Event-Driven Process Chains with Value- Focused Thinking, in Proceedings of the 14th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2003), Perth, WA, 2003 [18] Rolland C. and Prakash N., Bridging the gap between organisational needs and ERP functionality Requirements Engineering, 5, 2000, [19] Scheer A.-W., ARIS business process frameworks (3rd ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999 [20] Scheer A.-W., ARIS business process modelling (3rd ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000 [21] Yu E. S. K., Mylopoulos J. and Lesperance Y., AI models for business process reengineering IEEE Expert 1996, [8] Daellenbach H. G., Systems and decision making: a management science approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1994 [9] Davis R., Business process modelling with ARIS: a practical guide, Springer, London, 2001 [10] IDS Scheer, ARIS toolset, IDS Scheer website, 2004, (accessed 01/03/05) 10