Multi-channel provisioning of public services - Department of ...

developing a dynamic process model, the aim is a model that can be adapted with few modelling
efforts at run-time (Gottschalk and La Rosa, 2010). At run-time, it is not possible to add behaviour that
has not been modelled or prepared beforehand (i.e. adaptive workflow, as opposed to
emergent workflow). The execution phase, can however, in addition to allowing for the designed
flexibility of the model, support exception handling and flexibility by changes to the process instance.
Weber et al. (2009) provides a structured overview of different approaches to flexibility on a PAIS, a
summary of the approach types is provided in Table 1. An important aspect of the execution phase is
to provide execution and change logs to monitor performance and to support process evolution. One
output of monitoring is redesign and remodelling for improved process execution.
On the design side, distributed processes designed using an event driven approach have the potential
of higher flexibility than that of the traditional SOA. This is due to lightweight nature of the requests
not carrying the payload data itself. In an event driven environment, actors subscribing to events will
be notified and are responsible for collecting data based on occurring events (Klievink et al., 2008).
Approach Description Risk
Modelling phase
Granularity control
Ignoring details of modelling and
creating black boxes.
Reduced transparency, monitoring
and automation.
Flexibility by enumeration Creating models of all possible
flows.
Model redundancy, increased
complexity and maintenance
Process configuration
Adding alternative flows into the
model using conditional branches
and external variables. Flow is
further decided by context or user
interaction (questions).
Late binding
Leaving the resource allocation or
service instance of a given activity
undecided in the process schema.
Making sure that the selected
resource for the activity is fit for
the process at hand.
Late modelling/
Pocket flexibility
Execution phase
Dealing with expected exceptions
Dealing with unanticipated changes
Leaving parts of the model open for
runtime modelling.
Adding exception-handling patterns
as part of modelling.
Structural remodelling of process
instance.
Table 1 Approaches to process flexibility adapted from Weber et al. (2009)
4.3 Challenges and requirements
Limited control depending on
constraints.
Adds complexity.
Making sure that the modifications
does not affect later process flow.
Switching to a process-oriented approach for service provisioning requires at least an investment in
IT-infrastructure and competencies, in addition to the potential reorganisation of the service providing
agencies. A PAIS requires support from the information infrastructure with databases and existing
legacy applications to function, this requires that the existing operation be transformed to support a
SOA approach. Today, most COTS applications come with predefined web-service interfaces. But
still, the help of consultants to configure custom interfaces to match the institutional facts (Iannacci,
2010) for the given agency is required. Strategy definitions or process design should also be related to
documented patterns, and business and knowledge rules should be formulated. Due to the nature of
process design documents that result from business strategic planning and articulation, achieving a fit
(lossless transition) is a task requiring great expertise (Weber et al., 2009) not likely to be found within
government agencies. This being said, the first challenges to catering for a dynamic process
environment are found within establishing the first working representation, or base process
(Hallerbach et al., 2010), for the process-oriented service organisation. It is further expected that the
process instances will be monitored and that the base process will evolve continuously. A dynamic
process environment requires that new roles and responsibilities be established (Janssen et al., 2006).
6