Klassifisering av arbeidsflyt. Oversikt over forelesningen. Arbeidsflytmodellering, med fokus på. fleksible arbeidsflytsystemer

Transkript

1 rbeidsflytmodellering, med fokus på fleksible arbeidsflytsystemer Oversikt over forelesningen Introduksjon til arbeidsflyt - Carlsen Klassifisering av arbeidsflyt Management Coalition - standardisering Modellering av arbeidsflyt Emergent Planning and Performance of Process Instances - Jørgensen/Carlsen ctive for Cooperative Information Systems - Jørgensen/Krogstie Evaluating Flexible Systems - Carlsen/Krogstie/Lindland/Sølvberg Klassifisering av arbeidsflyt der og Marshak Produksjonsorientert Formell, lite variasjon, høy kontroll, ytelse Saksbehandling bank & finans dministrativ Veldefinerte adm. prosedyrer, ytelse mindre viktig Reiseregninger, innkjøp... Kollaborativ d-hoc Mindre rigide prosedyrer, samarbeids-støtte Felles strukturert dokumentutarbeidelse Ingen forhåndsdefinert prosedyre; instans-spesifikk John Krogstie Professor II ved IDI, NNU Seniorforsker, SINEF Kjapp bruker-definering av ruting og arbeidstrinn Oppgave Finn i diskusjon med sidemannen eksempler på prosesser du har som student som er av de ulike typene over Hvilke type arbeidsflyt er mest fremrtredende nå? Hvordan tror du dette blir når du begynner å jobbe? Klassifisering av arbeidsflyt radisjonelle bbot og Sarin (99) Mail vs. database-drevet Design vs. runtime Dokument vs. prosessorientert Silver (99) Document-centered Group-centered Production Real market today Future Growth Potential Reach, Delrina, ction, Xerox IBM, ViewStar, Wang, FileNet, Plexus, NCR mass market d-hoc bsorbed into ? Lotus, Microsoft, Beyond Documentation, Keyfile, Odesta

2 Klassifisering av arbeidsflyt Derek Miers, Process Product Watch ) 3 organisasjons-dimensjoner... echnology Challenge Empowerment Position dhocracy rusting Professional Empowering Bureaucracy Divisional Form Unbounded Paternalistic Machine Knowledge sharing Bureaucracy Dynamic process linkage Linked sub-processes Simple djoined Functions Depth of utocratic Structure Relationship Data & ransactions Direct Standard Standard Standard Mutual Controlling Supervision Processes Outputs Input Skills djustment Bounded Co-ordination Mechanisms Constraining Facilitating Klassifisering av arbeidsflyt Oppsummering Produksjonsorientert vs. d-hoc Viktigste skille-linjen; samfaller ofte med Statisk vs. Dynamisk Statisk har adskilt buildtime / runtime Prosessmodellen kan ikke endres under utførelse Dynamisk arbeidsflyt Prosessmodell kan endres og detaljeres under utførelse Virksomhets- vs. rbeidsgruppe-orientering renger ikke være noen motsetning! Rutiner kan ha vage deler Ulike aktører har ulike endrings-rettigheter Klassifisering av arbeidsflyt Derek Miers, Process Product Watch ).. overlagret 3 teknologi-dimensjoner echnology Challenge daptibility Case Complete Control Specific Personal Fragments Process Fragments Controlled Limited Case Handling Integrated Repository Reprogramming Case Data Select Next State Integration Simple Forms pproach Minimal No Change Electronic Filing Cabinets Simple Conditional Interpretive Routing Routing & Roles Role Interactions Flexibility & Support WfMC Management Coalition Leverandører, konsulenter, etc. erminologi Referansemodell for arbeidsflyt-systemer, grensesnitt (PIer) Interoperabilitet På tvers av tekniske løsninger (leverandør-uavhengighet) Mellom organisasjoner

3 # " WfMC!3 Generisk produktstruktur Definition ool Generates May reference Process Definition Interpreted by References Organisation/ Role Model Data maintain may WFM control Engine(s) data Invokes refer to pplication(s) Enactment Service (Supervisor) dministration & Control Work List Worklist Handler Interact via use Relevant Data Invokes update pplication(s) Manipulate pplication Data User Interface Software component System control data External product/data WfMC Referansemodell Process Definition ools Interface dministration & Monitoring ools Interface 5 PI and Interchange formats Enactment Service Engine(s) Interface Other Enactment Service(s) Engine(s) Interface Interface 3 Client pplications Invoked pplications WfMC erminologi Business Process (i.e.. what is intended to happen ) is defined in a is managed by a Process Definition Management System (a representation of what (controls automated aspects is intended to happen) used to create of the business process) Sub-Processes & manage via composed of Process Instances (a representation of what ctivities is actually happening) which may be include one or more or Manual ctivities utomated ctivities ctivity Instances (which are not managed as during execution which part of the System) are represented by include and/or Invoked Work Items pplications (tasks allocated to a (computer tools/applications workflow participant) used to support an activity) WfMC Kritikk Standardiseringsarbeidet går sent Fokus på produksjonsorientert arbeidsflyt Markedsdominans Felles, generisk prosess meta-modell vanskelig Synes opptatt av automatisering

4 * )( I 5 >, )( B O BD C D K(, > = K > W( 5 U 9 5 _ B 5 C ; E K R => a K R > C ] BD D ; C E 6 BD Z *, h ( K &( 9 >> & 9 E Z, ' > & +m > R,- & > ( ; C 5 G,= =, n> ( K -> & ( ' 'mk,- W > ( -- _ M B 5p r B B B $ IPO vs. alehandling Sammenlikning (Center et al., 993) tributt IPO alehandling ; ,-. / +( % &' ' 9 3 D 5 HB G C 55 9 G 5F E 9 D CB < ')( 9 P D 9 E MN, )L K( J K EE 9 B 3 HB? C U S5 N C * ( Q ) R G55 G55 G E Z Y G E C 9 X 9 G H 0?, & V=' 3 D Modellering av arbeidsflyt Ulike tilnærminger... radisjonell, transformasjonsorientert IPO Input-Process-Output (f.eks DFD, IDEF0) alehandlingsbasert Koordinering gjennom samtaler Rolle-modellering RIN og RD; sistnevnte brukt i BPR System-tenkning / System-dynamikk Uvesentlig for aktiv prosess-støtte (eksekvering)? Føringsbaserte representasjoner Constraints 55 5 HB SGC ;? 9 E 9H, )L ) ')( K V L[ ] 9 G 9 E D E5` EYH G C \ 5 G ] ^ Y C ; 9 O M E B 55 C ; H f 5 G 9 C b P D j U G5 e 55 Y C 9 S C K( > )( - ( +( ' d, )L ) Q > )c ; I i C g W c Y G C 95 ] ; C E C C X 9 5 D k _ E B ] ^ G H & K [ & ') V )' 5 E 3 33f Y C ; C 9 e C ; G D X ; 59 ] P C C G H, )L K( l m G H G D E G 9 P D j ; f E5D e E C ; G j C Y ;, )L +Ko,- ) >>'( Q [ G f G5 9 e 3 Uq i 0 S 55 C E C CB E ; 59 ] E C ; G C 5 3 5F e 9 ] D ; _, K( ( l m ' d O E B e CB ; C Y G E C Emergent Planning and Performance of Process Instances Summary Objective o support flexibility in knowledge-intensive project work. og ctive Models for Cooperative Information Systems Emergent workflow Unique process instances, Modelled by end-users, Integrated process definition and enactment, Interactive workflow enactment, Process knowledge management.

5 # " Support of flexibility s5 Preferences Personal and group tailoring Exceptions General Local changes System-changes Reuse Evolution Knowldege management, organisational learning Interaction rticulation Interaktiv modell Domain ctivation Interactive models Models used while operating the application Control application behaviour vailable for users to change Examples Ontologies Informasjon retrieval Product models ctivation Parts of activation 3 types Initiative Interpretation ction Manual he user interpret and act utomatic he system interpret and act Interactive he user and the system co-operate Interaktiv modell Information Resources ools Process Organisation

6 What is Emergent? Process definition as articulation work. n activity that is part of the process it defines. Dynamic, incomplete and ambiguous models. Process definition at the instance level. Change is the rule of the game. Projects are unique processes. Simplify dynamic adaptation. emplates as resources for adaptation. Model reuse as process knowledge management. Static dynamic/adaptive emergent workflow. t6 EXERNLs Infrastructure MEIS Enterprise modelling and visualization Workware Work process support XCHIPS Synchronous cooperation Interaktiv modell SimVision Prosject simulation Dokumenter Prosess Organisation Verktøy Static production workflow daptive, Dynamic workflow Emergent workflow Process model changes during enactment Not supported. Exception handling. Some changes allowed. Changes are normal, mostly handled at the instance level. ctivation and interpretation of the process model utomated enactment Mostly automated. Some interaction at the model level. Interactive. Interaction at model and enactment level. Coordination utomated sequencing of tasks. utomated sequencing of tasks utomated sequencing; shared worklists and awareness for mutual adjustment. Reuse approach hrough instantiation, "Play it again, Sam". hrough instantiation. Some copy and paste. Combinable process templates available as resources for situated planning. Harvesting of local innovation from instances into new templates. Research challenges ransaction management, scalability, security, systems integration etc. Dynamic change problem; making running instances follow a new, changed specification. Exception handling. Modelling by end users, model reuse, enactment of incomplete models, integration of model-based functionality (in addition to enactment). Workware Prototype emergent workflow system first developed in the IS project, further extended in EXERNL Internet-based. Components ask manager. asklists for persons and projects. Worktops for each task. Shared workspace for each task. Interactive workflow engine. Modelling language in MEIS. wareness monitor.

7 w v v v v Requirements and Challenges u Dynamic and uncertain environment. llow modification of plans. Support semi-autonomous work groups. modelling by end-users. Integrated planning and performance. Incomplete models. Interactive workflow enactment. Learn from experience. Reuse of effort. Process knowledge management. ask One concept for Process, ctivity, ask etc. WorkItem name Input Output Resources tomic, composite, or workflows, Depending on current state in lifecycle. Modelling by End-Users Semi-autonomous workgroups will plan and coordinate their own work. End-users must own process definitions. User-oriented workflow language Simple, Extensible, User-oriented concepts, Multiple user-defined views. he same objects in definition and enactment. From asks to s Objectives minimal set of concepts for workflow enactment. Simple behavioral semantics of process models. llow dynamic, incomplete process definitions. Flow of work, not information. Simpler models. Information as resources. Information objects in shared workspaces.

8 # " w x + & Flows and Connectors Flows represent a dependency B means should finish before B start. Strict flow interpretation simplifies enactment. Decision connectors allow branching. Choice (XOR) Parallelism (ND) mbiguity asks have one input and one output decision connector. asklist Process Model Example Sequence/Precedence w before w, w3 Choice w or w3, not both Parallelism w, w5 in parallel either might start before the other Synchronization both w, w5 finished before w6 can start Evaluate proposal w + Handle Workware Change Requests Reject proposal w Prepare Changes w3 & Implement GUI Changes w Implement Server Changes w5 ccept new version w6 & + Flexible, Integrated Support Dynamic plans and decentralised decisionmaking. Integrate, not separate definition and enactment. Instance modelling simplifies adaptation Local change, Possibly generalised into templates, through process knowledge management.

9 z v Interactive Enactment y9 Incomplete process models. engine as an interaction machine. Interpretation of the process definition is carried out in cooperation between users and the engine. Connectors represent decision points in the workflow. Some decisions can be predefined and automated, Others must be resolved by humans. Coordination and wareness Coordination Standardisation of process, utomated in workflow enactment, + Mutual adjustment by informed actors. wareness Notifies you about the actions of others. rigger proactive actions. flow represent a dependency to be coordinated Opportunistic involvement Flow as a channel for awareness. wareness and enactment both utilise process models for coordination. Decisions and User Involvement Fallback mechanism When the model is inconclusive, a user is asked to make the decision. Decisions also capture important exceptions Users may make a decision that overrides the planned flow of work. Inconsistent states are captured. Opportunistic involvement Starting work although not all inputs are ready. Process Knowledge Management Process modelling as dynamic knowledge creation. Process models as explicit knowledge. Created through a social process, With a rich background of tacit knowledge. Externalisation of process plans. Instance focus allows more accurate capture. Combination of model fragments and templates. Harvesting past experience into new templates. bstraction, generalisation, modularization etc.

10 w " # { 0 Further Work Interactive enactment In addition to developing algorithms for adaptive workflow, we should study how to involve users in the process. est the prototype in real-world projects. 3 cases in EXERNL Summary Objective o support knowledge-intensive project work. Emergent workflow Unique process instances, Modelled by end-users, Integrated process definition and enactment, Interactive workflow enactment, Process knowledge management. Paper overview Quality evaluation framework Process Models Process Modeling Languages pplied to sample products Process knowledge management. More powerful enactment rules. Resource brokers. More flexible routing of awareness information. Dynamic workflow InConcert eamwre Flow Obligations Static workflow ( build-time ) ction WooRKS Research opportunities Evaluating Flexible Systems Steinar Carlsen#, John Krogstie, rne Sølvberg, Odd Ivar Lindland* SINEF elecom and Informatics, Norwegian University of Science and echnology #Computas *Price Waterhouse Coopers

11 I Social Participant knowledge K Perceived semantic Social actor interpretation Physical Empirical Pragmatic Modeling domain D Semantic Model externalization M Syntactic Language extension L Pragmatic echnical actor interpretation Physical Externalization (of Participant Knowledge) Linked to Language Quality Domain appropriateness Comprehensibility appropriateness Knowledge externalizability appropriateness Internalizability (persistence & availability) Who is the model available for? When is the model available? Comparison of products Prosessmodell L / IPO ction- InConcert eamware Flow L IPO Hybrid L / IPO Posisjonering Virksomhet Virksomhet rbeidsgruppe Gjenbruk Maler, klipp og lim Maler, klipp og lim Virksomhet rbeidsgruppe Maler, klipp og lim Obligations WooRKS Hybrid L / IPO Virksomhet rbeidsgruppe IPO L for avvik Virksomhet rbeidsgruppe Formalisert, Maler, klipp og lim Delt arbeids-rom Nei Ja Ja (kollokvie) Svak Ja Dekking grafisk Ufullstendig Svak på skille Bra, forståelig Bra, kompleks Ufullstendig modell and/or fork/join Delegering Planlagt inn d hoc ruting, mutering Ja Ja Gjennom samtalestøtte Forhandling Planlagt inn Mutering Ja Ja Gjennom samtalestøtte Svak Organisasjonslæring Svak Svak Usystematisk; Prosessoppdagelse Mekanismer fins prosess-historie Syntactic Syntactic Correctness Error handling Detection, correction, prevention More complex for dynamic approaches & user-oriented models Enactment of error-free model parts Obligations Execution may proceed along error-free paths Less important for areas of the model that is only to be interpreted by humans?

12 Semantic Feasible Validity Feasible Completeness Domain Model Goals dynamic issues May be achieved at runtime by the dynamic approaches May sustain models of high Means variety & modifiability he dynamic approaches use templates (fragments) as building blocks Social Feasible agreement rgumentation support Not covered WooRKS Conversations do not influence process models eamwre Flow Collaborative planning a divide & conquer approach Mutual agreement vs. Mutual understanding eamwre Flow & Obligations Diversity & pluralism through local model adaptations and group templates Pragmatic Feasible Comprehension Model has been understood Executability, animation, simulation Explanation generation Opportunity Process model runtime availability Understanding work in context Use of shared workspaces Less need for information flow spect of complexity reduction Found in InConcert, eamwre Flow Knowledge Feasible knowledge validity Feasible knowledge completeness Dynamic approaches inclusion of newly created knowledge rticulation work as knowledge creation (externalization) Knowledge Management Harvesting of experience Process model template repositories Reuse beyond copy&paste Only supported by Obligations

13 # " Language Quality Domain ppropriateness!3 Many open issues Flow of work vs. flow of documents pproach to shared workspaces Modeling of document-routing necessary in addition? Interaction as part of process model? Process definition normative or a resource for situated action? Modellering av tilgangskontroll Enterprise vs. workgroup workflow Delegation In process model or as runtime concept Language Quality Executability ppropriateness Execution of hardwired models vs. Execution support for models that may change at runtime For a particular instance For several instances Both covered by Obligations Enactment of incomplete models Language QualityComprehensibility ppropriateness Comprehensibility / Executability tradeoffs Different ontologies (modeling paradigms) Ease of learning for unfamiliar ontologies and terminologies? Language ction contributions Processes as relationships Commitments and negotiations vailability of user-invokable acts Exception handling Language Quality Knowledge Externalizability ppropriateness Linked to rticulation work / situated actions Descriptive vs. prescriptive models Knowledge creation/process innovation Dynamic workflow needs Knowledge Management approach Diversity through fragments / variants Corporate, Group and Personal Harvesting of past experience Repository management Use of process model fragments

14 I $ Social Identified Research Opportunities Extensible meta-languages (domain) ailored model presentations (audience) Use of advanced IS validation techniques Model complexity reduction Explanation generation rgumentation support linked to process modeling Systematic approach to Knowledge Management Reuse, configuration management, harvesting Keep process models simple Suitable, integrated process modeling ontology Social actor interpretation Perceived semantic Participant knowledge K Pragmatic + Empirical + Physical Language extension Syntactic Semantic Modeling domain L - Model externalization M + + D - Pragmatic echnical actor interpretation Conclusions framework for understanding related to process models Systematic Social constructivistic approach rbeidsflytmodellering, med fokus på fleksible arbeidsflytsystemer John Krogstie pplied the framework as a basis for product/prototype survey Identified some gaps in desirable features as research opportunities professor II ved IDI, NNU Seniorforsker, SINEF