<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>BCIT: A Tool to Recommend Compliant Business Processes based on Process Adaption</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Tobias Seyffarth</string-name>
          <email>tobias.seyffarth@wiwi.uni-halle.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Kai Raschke</string-name>
          <email>kai.raschke@wiwi.uni-halle.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>06108 Halle (Saale)</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Business process compliance (BPC) denotes the execution of business processes in adherence to applicable compliance requirements. Compliance requirements can be satisfied by compliance processes that are integrated into the business process. There are numerous relations between compliance requirements, business processes, compliance processes, and supporting IT components. Thus, the change of one of those elements can lead to the nonexecutability of a compliance process and thus lead to a violation of BPC. To further ensure BPC, the business process has to be adapted by a compliance process that is still executable. Consequently, we extended our prototype BCIT (Business Process Compliance and IT) through a feature to recommend compliant business processes. The adaptation is based on previously modeled alternative compliance processes that satisfy the same compliance requirement.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Adaptation</kwd>
        <kwd>Business process compliance</kwd>
        <kwd>Change</kwd>
        <kwd>Compliance process</kwd>
        <kwd>IT component</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Business process compliance (BPC) denotes the execution of business processes to
applicable compliance requirements [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. On top of that, information technology (IT)
that supports business activities may also be affected by compliance requirements.
Thus, a change of one of those elements can lead to a violation of BPC [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. In
dynamic markets, both the fast identification of a compliance violation and the adaptation of
a business process to avoid these violations are important tasks. However, due to
complex relations between compliance requirements, business processes, and IT
components, the manual adaptation of business processes is a time-consuming task.
      </p>
      <p>There are numerous process modeling tools, such as ARIS Architect, Bizagi
Studio, Camunda Modeler, and Signavio Process Manager or flexible workflow
management systems, such as AristaFlow and KitCom. However, to the best of our
knowledge, there is a lack of a tool that recommends compliant business processes
despite changes to business processes and IT components.</p>
      <p>
        Thus, the goal is a software prototype that recommends compliant business
processes in case of an identified compliance violation due to change. In order to reach
this goal, we have added the feature of recommending compliant business processes
when determining a compliance violation to our existing prototype BCIT [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>In Section 2, we motivate the problem statement and briefly describe the method to
recommend compliant business processes. In Section 3, we describe our tool before
we discuss the maturity in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 concludes the contribution.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Business Process Compliance and Change</title>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Identify Compliance Violations</title>
        <p>
          Removing either an IT component or compliance process may result in a compliance
violation [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ]. In this example, the removal of the IT component “ERP MM” means
the compliance process can no longer be executed. Consequently, the compliance
requirements “internal payments policy” and “legal obligations to keep records” are
violated, and the compliance requirement “logical access” becomes obsolete. In order
to further ensure BPC, the business process must be adapted by a compliance process
that also satisfies the violated compliance requirements and is still executable.
2.2
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Recommend Compliant Business Processes</title>
        <p>
          The elaboration of proposals for business process adaptation to further ensure BPC is
based on three main ideas [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ]. First, compliance processes are modeled and stored
separately from the business process and integrated into the business process at design
time. Second, alternative compliance processes that meet the same requirements are
modeled. Third, alternative compliance processes are differentiated by their
characteristics, such as type of execution, which can be manual or automatic [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>As shown in Figure 2, the compliance requirement “internal payments policy” is
satisfied by the compliance process pattern “N-way-match.” The compliance process
pattern is specialized by three different compliance process: “check invoice,”
“manually check invoice,” and “check payment order.” They differ by the trigger and the IT
component that may be necessary for the execution of the compliance process. Each
alternative compliance process can satisfy the compliance requirement, which results
in three recommendations for compliant business processes.</p>
        <p>Internal Payments Policy
XOR</p>
        <p>N-Way-Match</p>
        <p>Check Invoice
Manually
Check Invoice
PaymCehnetcOkrder
...</p>
        <p>Trigger: Delivery
has arrived
Further Requirement:
ERP MM
Trigger: Delivery
has arrived
Further Requirement:
none
Trigger: Create
payment order
Further Requirement:
ERP FI</p>
        <p>Send
Purchase
Requisition</p>
        <p>Send
Purchase
Requisition</p>
        <p>Send
Purchase
Requisition
BCIT is a single-page application based on React.js and Node.js. A tutorial document,
a video, and the tool are available at: https://github.com/tobiasseyffarth/bcit
From a user perspective, BCIT offers the following four features:</p>
        <p>
          Model compliance requirements, business process model, and IT components in
one common model. The compliance requirements, business process model, and IT
architecture model are imported as XML files, BPMN process models, and TOGAF
architecture models. The interrelations between them must be modeled manually by
the user. The resulting model is technically represented as a directed graph, as
explained in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2 ref3">2, 3</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>
          Model alternative compliance processes. The user must model alternative
compliance processes that satisfy the same compliance requirement, too. Alternative
compliance processes specify a generic compliance process pattern and are differentiated by
both their required IT components and predecessor business activity [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4 ref5">4, 5</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>
          Identify compliance violations. In order to identify compliance violations, the user
can define every compliance requirement, IT component, or process activity as the
element to be removed. Based on a graph search, BCIT automatically identifies
violated compliance requirements and presents the cause-effect relation [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2 ref3">2, 3</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>
          Recommend compliant business processes. In case of a compliance violation, BCIT
queries automatically for alternative compliance processes, checks whether they can
be executed, and, if possible, integrates them in the business process model [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ].
Basically, three different results are possible. First, there is exactly one alternative
compliance process. Second, there is more than one alternative compliance process. In this
case, BCIT recommends all resulting compliant business processes. Third, there is no
alternative compliance process. In this case, BCIT replaces the violated compliance
process by its related compliance process pattern.
4
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Maturity</title>
      <p>
        We conducted several case studies in order to evaluate the perceived usefulness of
BCIT. Each case study had the same structure. First, we presented a scenario to
motivate the challenge of business process compliance and change that can be solved by
BCIT. Second, we briefly presented the main ideas of our methods to recommend
compliant business processes in order to solve the scenario. Third, we presented a
solution to the challenge through BCIT. Lastly, we collected the opinions on the
perceived usefulness of BCIT by means of a questionnaire. The questionnaire includes
the statements of the technology acceptance model [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ] on the perceived usefulness.
The case study participants were domain experts in the field of compliance
management, business process management, and IT architecture management. Finally, we got
an overall 24 responses. The questionnaire and the responses are available at:
https://github.com/tobiasseyffarth/bcit/tree/master/resources/3-evaluation.
      </p>
      <p>Overall, BCIT was evaluated to be useful and helpful. The participants liked the
feature for the fast identification of cause-effect relations and getting
recommendations for compliant business processes. The latter point was also considered as a
competitive advantage. Nevertheless, some participants expressed their concern that the
effort of modeling of both business/compliance process and IT architecture may
exceed the benefit.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Conclusion and Future Work</title>
      <p>In this paper, we presented BCIT, a tool to recommend compliant business processes
based on process adaption. The recommendations for compliant business processes
are based on alternative compliance processes that are modeled and stored separately
from the business process.</p>
      <p>In a next step, we plan to add the data and resource perspective on a business
process to our algorithm. Further, we plan to integrate unsupervised machine learning
techniques, such as frequent pattern analysis (e.g., an FP-Growth algorithm), into
BCIT to propose possible alternative compliance processes without explicit prior
modeling.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Governatori</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sadiq</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The Journey to Business Process Compliance</article-title>
          .
          <source>Handbook of research on business process modeling</source>
          ,
          <fpage>426</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>454</lpage>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Seyffarth</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kühnel</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sackmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Business Process Compliance and Business Process Change. An Approach to Analyze the Interactions</article-title>
          .
          <source>Business Information Systems. BIS 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing</source>
          ,
          <fpage>176</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>189</lpage>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Seyffarth</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Raschke</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <string-name>
            <surname>BCIT</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A Tool for Analyzing the Interactions between Business Process Compliance and Business Process Change</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of the Dissertation Award and Demonstration, Industrial Track at BPM</source>
          <year>2018</year>
          ,
          <volume>81</volume>
          -
          <fpage>85</fpage>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Seyffarth</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kühnel</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sackmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A Taxonomy of Compliance Processes for Business Process Compliance</article-title>
          .
          <source>15th International Conference on Business Process Management</source>
          ,
          <article-title>Business Process Management Forum</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP)</source>
          ,
          <fpage>71</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>87</lpage>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Seyffarth</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kühnel</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sackmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Business Process Compliance despite Change. Towards Proposals for a Business Process Adaption</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information Systems Engineering in Responsible Information Systems. CAiSE 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing</source>
          , vol
          <volume>350</volume>
          .,
          <fpage>227</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>239</lpage>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Davis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          : Perceived Usefulness,
          <article-title>Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology</article-title>
          .
          <source>MIS Quarterly</source>
          <volume>13</volume>
          ,
          <issue>319</issue>
          (
          <year>1989</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>