What Automated Planning Can Do for Business Process Management

Business Process Management (BPM) is a central element of today organizations. Despite over the years its main focus has been the support of processes in highly controlled domains, nowadays many domains of interest to the BPM community are characterized by ever-changing requirements, unpredictable environments and increasing amounts of data that influence the execution of process instances. Under such dynamic conditions, BPM systems must increase their level of automation to provide the reactivity and flexibility necessary for process management. On the other hand, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) community has concentrated its efforts on investigating dynamic domains that involve active control of computational entities and physical devices (e.g., robots, software agents, etc.). In this context, Automated Planning, which is one of the oldest areas in AI, is conceived as a model-based approach to synthesize autonomous behaviours in automated way from a model. In this paper, we discuss how automated planning techniques can be leveraged to enable new levels of automation and support for business processing, and we show some concrete examples of their successful application to the different stages of the BPM life cycle

Model-driven Enterprise Systems Configuration

Enterprise Systems potentially lead to significant efficiency gains but require a well-conducted configuration process. A promising idea to manage and simplify the configuration process is based on the premise of using reference models for this task. Our paper continues along this idea and delivers a two-fold contribution: first, we present a generic process for the task of model-driven Enterprise Systems configuration including the steps of (a) Specification of configurable reference models, (b) Configuration of configurable reference models, (c) Transformation of configured reference models to regular build time models, (d) Deployment of the generated build time models, (e) Controlling of implementation models to provide input to the configuration, and (f) Consolidation of implementation models to provide input to reference model specification. We discuss inputs and outputs as well as the involvement of different roles and validation mechanisms. Second, we present an instantiation case of this generic process for Enterprise Systems configuration based on Configurable EPCs

Ontology: Core Process Mining and Querying Enabling Tool

Ontology permits the addition of semantics to process models derived from mining the various data stored in many information systems. The ontological schema enables for automated querying and inference of useful knowledge from the different domain processes. Indeed, such conceptualization methods particularly ontologies for process management which is currently allied to semantic process mining trails to combine process models with ontologies, and are increasingly gaining attention in recent years. In view of that, this chapter introduces an ontology-based mining approach that makes use of concepts within the extracted event logs about domain processes to propose a method which allows for effective querying and improved analysis of the resulting models through semantic labelling (annotation), semantic representation (ontology) and semantic reasoning (reasoner). The proposed method is a semantic-based process mining approach that is able to induce new knowledge based on previously unobserved behaviours, and a more intuitive and easy way to represent and query the datasets and the discovered models compared to other standard logical procedures. To this end, the study claims that it is possible to apply effective reasoning methods to make inferences over a process knowledge-base (e.g. the learning process) that leads to automated discovery of learning patterns and/or behaviour

Forum Session at the First International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC03)

The First International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC) was held in Trento, December 15-18, 2003. The focus of the conference ---Service Oriented Computing (SOC)--- is the new emerging paradigm for distributed computing and e-business processing that has evolved from object-oriented and component computing to enable building agile networks of collaborating business applications distributed within and across organizational boundaries. Of the 181 papers submitted to the ICSOC conference, 10 were selected for the forum session which took place on December the 16th, 2003. The papers were chosen based on their technical quality, originality, relevance to SOC and for their nature of being best suited for a poster presentation or a demonstration. This technical report contains the 10 papers presented during the forum session at the ICSOC conference. In particular, the last two papers in the report ere submitted as industrial papers

Design Space Exploration for Building Automation Systems

In the building automation domain, there are gaps among various tasks related to design engineering. As a result created system designs must be adapted to the given requirements on system functionality, which is related to increased costs and engineering effort than planned. For this reason standards are prepared to enable a coordination among these tasks by providing guidelines and unified artifacts for the design. Moreover, a huge variety of prefabricated devices offered from different manufacturers on the market for building automation that realize building automation functions by preprogrammed software components. Current methods for design creation do not consider this variety and design solution is limited to product lines of a few manufacturers and expertise of system integrators. Correspondingly, this results in design solutions of a limited quality. Thus, a great optimization potential of the quality of design solutions and coordination of tasks related to design engineering arises. For given design requirements, the existence of a high number of devices that realize required functions leads to a combinatorial explosion of design alternatives at different price and quality levels. Finding optimal design alternatives is a hard problem to which a new solution method is proposed based on heuristical approaches. By integrating problem specific knowledge into algorithms based on heuristics, a promisingly high optimization performance is achieved. Further, optimization algorithms are conceived to consider a set of flexibly defined quality criteria specified by users and achieve system design solutions of high quality. In order to realize this idea, optimization algorithms are proposed in this thesis based on goal-oriented operations that achieve a balanced convergence and exploration behavior for a search in the design space applied in different strategies. Further, a component model is proposed that enables a seamless integration of design engineering tasks according to the related standards and application of optimization algorithms.:1 Introduction 17 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.3 Goals and Use of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.4 Solution Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.5 Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2 Design Creation for Building Automation Systems 25 2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2 Engineering of Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3 Network Protocols of Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . 33 2.4 Existing Solutions for Design Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.5 The Device Interoperability Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.6 Guidelines for Planning of Room Automation Systems . . . . . . 38 2.7 Quality Requirements on BAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.8 Quality Requirements on Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.8.1 Quality Requirements Related to Project Planning . . . . 42 2.8.2 Quality Requirements Related to Project Implementation 43 2.9 Quality Requirements on Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.10 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3 The Design Creation Task 47 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.2 System Design Composition Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.2.1 Abstract and Detailed Design Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.2.2 Mapping Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.3 Formulation of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.1 Problem properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.3.2 Requirements on Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4 Solution Methods for Design Generation and Optimization 59 4.1 Combinatorial Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.2 Metaheuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.3 Examples for Metaheuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.1 Simulated Annealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.2 Tabu Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.3.3 Ant Colony Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.3.4 Evolutionary Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 4.4 Choice of the Solver Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.5 Specialized Methods for Diversity Preservation . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.6 Approaches for Real World Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.6.1 Component-Based Mapping Problems . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.6.2 Network Design Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.6.3 Comparison of Solution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5 Automated Creation of Optimized Designs 79 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.2 Design Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.3 Component Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 5.3.1 Presumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.3.2 Integration of Component Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.4 Design Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.4.1 Component Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.4.2 Generation Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 5.5 Design Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5.5.1 Problems and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5.5.2 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5.5.3 Application Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5.6 Realization of the Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.6.1 Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.6.2 Individual Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5.7 Automated Design Creation For A Building . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5.7.1 Room Spanning Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5.7.2 Flexible Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 5.7.3 Technology Spanning Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 5.7.4 Preferences for Mapping of Function Blocks to Devices . . 132 5.8 Further Uses and Applicability of the Approach . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 6 Validation and Performance Analysis 137 6.1 Validation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 6.2 Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 6.3 Example Abstract Designs and Performance Tests . . . . . . . . 139 6.3.1 Criteria for Choosing Example Abstract Designs . . . . . 139 6.3.2 Example Abstract Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 6.3.3 Performance Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 6.3.4 Population Size P - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 6.3.5 Cross-Over Probability pC - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.3.6 Mutation Probability pM - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 6.3.7 Discussion for Optimization Results and Example Designs 168 6.3.8 Resource Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6.3.9 Parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.4 Optimization Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.5 Framework Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 6.5.1 Components and Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 6.5.2 Workflow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6.5.3 Optimization Control By Graphical User Interface . . . . 180 6.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7 Conclusions 185 A Appendix of Designs 189 Bibliography 201 Index 21