IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v14y2012i2d10.1007_s10796-009-9179-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models

Author

Listed:
  • Jörg Hoffmann

    (SAP Research)

  • Ingo Weber

    (The University of New South Wales)

  • Guido Governatori

    (NICTA)

Abstract

Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis.

Suggested Citation

  • Jörg Hoffmann & Ingo Weber & Guido Governatori, 2012. "On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-177, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:14:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s10796-009-9179-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mustafa Hashmi & Guido Governatori & Moe Thandar Wynn, 2016. "Normative requirements for regulatory compliance: An abstract formal framework," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 429-455, June.
    2. Shazia Sadiq & Michael Muehlen & Marta Indulska, 2012. "Preface," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 119-121, April.
    3. Anastasia Papazafeiropoulou & Konstantina Spanaki, 2016. "Understanding governance, risk and compliance information systems (GRC IS): The experts view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1251-1263, December.
    4. Norris Syed Abdullah & Marta Indulska & Shazia Sadiq, 2016. "Compliance management ontology – a shared conceptualization for research and practice in compliance management," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 995-1020, October.
    5. Chulhwan Chris Bang, 2015. "Information systems frontiers: Keyword analysis and classification," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 217-237, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:14:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s10796-009-9179-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.