You are on page 1of 15

Enterprise 2.

- Research Challenges and Opportunities -

Zakaria Maamar1⋆ , Noura Faci2 , Ejub Kajan3 , Khouloud Boukadi4
Sherif Sakr5 , Mohamed Boukhebouze6 , Soraya Kouadri Most´efaoui7
Vanilson Bur´egio8 , Inaya Yahya4 , Val´erie Monfort9 , and Romain Hennion10
Zayed University, Dubai, U.A.E
Universit´e Lyon 1, Lyon, France
State University of Novi Pazar, Novi Pazar, Serbia
University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
CETIC, Charleroi, Belgium
The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
University of Paris1 Panth´eon Sorbonne, Paris, France
10 ´
Ecole Centrale de Paris and Global Knowledge, Paris, France

Abstract. Blending Web 2.0 technologies with enterprise information
systems is setting up the stage for a new generation of information sys-
tems that will help enterprises open up new communication channels
with their stakeholders. Contrary to traditional enterprises with top-
down command flow and bottom-up feedback flow, the same flows in
Enterprise 2.0 cross all levels and in all directions bringing people to-
gether in the development of creative and innovative ideas. The power of
Web 2.0 technologies stems from their ability to capture real-world phe-
nomena such as collaboration, competition, and partnership that can be
converted into useful and structured information sources from which en-
terprises can draw information about markets’ trends, consumers’ habits,
suppliers’ strategies, etc. This paper discusses the research efforts that
our international research group has put into the topic of Enterprise 2.0
(aka Social Enterprise). In particular, our research group advocates that
existing practices for managing enterprise information systems need to
be re-visited in a way that permits to capture social relations that arise
inside and outside the enterprise, to establish guidelines and techniques
to assist IT practitioners integrate social relations into their design, de-
velopment, and maintenance efforts of these information systems, and
last but not least to identify and tackle challenges that prevent captur-
ing social relations.

Key words: Business Process, Social Design, Social Coordination, So-
cial Monitoring.

This paper is based on the 1st author’s invited talk at the 10th International Con-
ference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST’2014), April 3-5.
Barcelona, Spain.

1 Introduction With the recent boom in Web 2.0 [5. many enterprises recognize the need of rethinking their strategies and reevaluating their operating models. and social monitoring of business processes.0 topic from different perspectives with focus on social design. we conclude the paper in Section 4. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. social coordination. service comput- ing [12.0 technologies and applications to ensure that the social dimension of the enterprise (aka Enterprise 2.. Different studies have shown the value-added of weaving social computing into enterprise operations in terms of demystifying who does what. Despite the growing interest in enterprise 2.2 Maamar et al. Section 2 briefly describes a case study to be used for illustration purposes. 4]. the power of Web 2. In this paper.0 in general and SBPs in par- ticular. Some of these efforts’ results are reported in [10. .0 technologies stems from their ability to capture real-world phenomena such as collaboration. our international research group has put efforts into enterprise 2.g. JSON and AJAX) and applications (e. 2 “By the end of 2013. 16]) is not overlooked dur- ing BP design and enactment.23 bil- lion users worldwide. as the world is getting more “social” [3]. and social monitoring in this paper. In principle. there is a major trend in blending social computing with other forms of computing for instance.. etc. Finally.many large companies are embracing internal social networks. Over the last 2-3 years. This dimension sheds the light on the informal networks that co-exist perfectly with formal networks where relations like super- vision and substitution occur [9]. several limitations continue to hinder this interest. 10]. A recent study by Gartner reveals that “. how to equip BP engineers with the necessary methods and techniques that will assist them capture the requirements of SBPs. SBPs capitalize on Web 2. adding 170 million in just one year ”. and partnership that can be converted into useful and structured information sources from which enterprises can draw information about markets’ trends. 15] and mobile computing [2. social coordination. In particular.. Section 3 provides an overview of three of our initiatives that look into enterprise 2.0 technologies (e. but for the most part they’re not getting much from them” [8]. www. 17].0 concepts and technologies with enterprise computing that results into the development of Social Business Processes (SBP)s [6.0 from the following per- spectives: social design.theguardian. Moreover.0 technologies [18]. competition. consumers’ 13]. and even re-engineering processes [1. the same flows in Enterprise 2. Facebook2 and Twitter). suppliers’ strategies.g. we look into the blending of Web 2.. profiling customers.0 cross all levels and in all directions bringing people together in the development of creative and in- novative ideas. For instance. Enterprises are still unsure about the return-on-investment of Web 2. Contrary to traditional enterprises with top-down command flow and bottom-up feedback flow. Facebook was being used by 1.

m2 : ImageNow system.0 offers. To execute tasks and hence complete processes.e. Fig.perceptivesoftware. person (p). An advantage of this linkage is that different stakeholders like billing staff. Upon completion the scanned documentation is linked to the patient’s MEDITECH record. or mixed.0 applications’ capabilities such as reaching out to more customers. and pj : cashier.160 businesses and IT professionals reveals that ”only 22 percent of organizations believed that managers are prepared to incor- porate social tools and approaches into their processes. A task is a work unit that constitutes with other tasks a business process and that a person and/or machine resources are required (Section 3..0 from the following perspectives: social design. 1 illustrates a simple healthcare-driven BP along with some components for instance. [7]. two-thirds of respondents said they were not sure they sufficiently understood the impact these technologies would have on their organizations over the next three years” [20]. electronic access to the necessary information instead of waiting for the paper documentation to arrive. 3 www. A recent study of 1. collecting customers’ online posts. some business processes’ components (tasks.pdf. coders. In the following. 3.0 faces and tap into the opportunities that enter- prise 2. Prior to implementing the new system Ander- son Hospital faced different challenges such as paper records limit access to one user at a time and paper and manual processes hamper compliance with some healthcare standards. the execution nature of some tasks.2).1 Social-design research initiative According to Faci et al. Enterprise 2. persons and machines) and second. automatic. When a patient shows up at the hospital. We leverage this system to identify first. social coordination. we discuss three of these initiatives that look into enterprise 2. the necessary documentation is scanned into a system known as ImageNow.0 3 2 Illustrative case study Our case study refers to the electronic-patient-folder system at Anderson Hospi- tal that handles approximately 6000 annual inpatient admissions3 . the lack of design approaches for modeling SBPs is not helping enterprises capitalize on Web 2. and social monitoring of business processes. task (t). . i. and profiling customers. 3 Challenges and opportunities Our international research group has launched several initiatives to tackle the challenges that enterprise 2. Our initiative on BP social design sheds the light on the three components of a process as well as the relations that connect these components. and machine (m) [10]. t1 : scan doc- umentation. Moreover. and other authorized people have imme- diate. Task execution is either manual.

g.. 2 depicts examples of networks related to the case study that are gener- ated at run-time. Last and not least. and post- conditions. p: Person.g. 1. Pre-condition defines the rationale of establishing a social relation between a process’s components. e.g. p1: operator p1: operator pj: cashier t1: scan t2: update t3: set-up ti: prepare documentation records appointment bill Patient m1: scanner m2: ImageNow m3: App. Fig.. general practitioner transferring patient to emergency physician due to case severity). Finally post-condition indicates when to stop using a network. ti needs to be interchanged with tj that has different requirements (e. . scanner in main reception) and mj (e..4 Maamar et al. between machines. a network of machines is built to specify the backup relation between m1 (scanner) and m2 (three-function-printer) since both machines have similar capacities.Interchange: ti and tj engage in an interchange relation when both produce similar output with respect to similar input submitted for processing and ′ their requirements do not overlap (e.. t1 : scan documentation and t1 : enter patient details manually). a social net- work of persons is built to describe the peering relation between p2 (cashier) and p3 (financial-manager) since both persons have complementary capaci- .g.g. and between persons along with their respective pre-conditions. Example of a business process’s components In addition to the traditional execution relation that connects persons/machines to tasks. we establish social relations between tasks..g. For example. manual data entry). The following are examples of social relations [10]: . and be- tween machines. online data entry) cannot be met due to absence of executors and thus.Backup: mi (e. call-in-sick or risk of overload (e. m: Machine Fig. conditions. Table 2 summarizes the social relations between tasks. A configuration network of tasks is also constructed to express the interchange relation between t1 (scan-documentation) and t2 (enter-patient-details-manually). IS Business Process Legend t: Task. .Delegation: pi and pj engage in a delegation relation when both are already engaged in a substitution relation based on their respective capacities and pi decides to assign a task that she will execute or is now executing to pj due to unexpected changes in her status. The non-overlap condition avoids blockage when ti ’s requirements (e..2).. three-function printer in nurse station) engage in a backup relation when both have similar capacities. between persons.g. Both tasks produce similar out- put and their requirements do not overlap. Condition indicates when a network built upon a social relation is used so that solutions to conflicts that prevent a business process completion are addressed (Section 3.

backup/replacement machine found capacities cern over mi reliability for mi Cooperation mi and mj having similar concern over machine collec.. business process design completion joint business processes sign or concern over coupling or coupling level satisfaction level Interchange ti and tj producing similar ti lacking of executor who executor found for tj output in receipt of similar satisfies its requirements input mi .g. collective performance level satis- mentary capacities tive performance faction pi Coupling ti and ti participated in review of business process de.concern over machine collec.0 5 .pj Substitution pi and pj having similar ca. Table 1. urgent tasks to complete. delegate found for pi pacities ity (e. call-in-sick. Summary of social relations Between Types Pre-Conditions Conditions Post-Conditions ti . collective performance level satis- capacities tive performance faction Partnership mi and mj having comple.mj Backup mi and mj having similar mi unexpected failure or con.g. and risk of overload) Peering pi and pj having similar or concern over peering appro.pi expected unavailability substitute found for pi pacities (e. peer found for either pi or pj complementary capacities priateness Enterprise 2.pi unexpected unavailabil. annual leave and sick leave) or concern over pi availability Delegation pi and pj having similar ca.

Other vital aspects of the enter- prise need to be taken into account such as re-engineering business processes. additional conflicts exist due to time constraints and/or simultaneous access to limited and/or non-shareable resources. and finally analyze the appropriateness of certain networks of tasks/persons/machines for addressing these conflicts. their use/consumption does not lead into a decrease in their reliability/availability level and (ii ) phys- . agility of today’s enterprises should not be confined to the organizational borders of the enterprise. 3. A demo video is available at https://www. categorize conflicts on resources that arise between tasks. Coordination is the best way to address these ties that are necessary to achieve t5 (prepare. Our initiative on BP social coordination includes four steps [13]: categorize re- sources that tasks require for their execution. between machines. This social network ex- presses also a substitution relation between p3 (general-practitioner) and p4 (emergency-physician) since both have the same capacity. [7].6 Maamar et al. and between persons.. revisiting the practices of those executing these processes. Screenshot of the BP execution social analysis component. Fig. and CPU time) do not sometimes last forever and are not unlimited and/or shareable. These networks are established during BP social design as per Section 3.2 Social-coordination research initiative According to Faci et al.e.1. define how tasks/machines/persons of a BP bind to resources in order to achieve this execution. We categorize resources into (i ) logical.. 2. tasks and persons/machines need to coor- dinate the consumption and use of these resources so that conflicts are avoided and addressed. and redefining the na- ture of resources that are made available for these processes at run-time. Since resources (e. Besides regular conflicts in terms of data and pol- icy incompatibilities between enterprise systems. if they occur. power. data.

to be introduced later .Oxygen tank tient Non-shareable (ns) Check patient’s vitals Blood pressure tensiometer ical. and permits to establish a resource’s con- sumption cycle (cc) per property. The diagram is de- veloped independently of whether the resource is logical or physical. locked (reserved for a task in preparation for consumption).Surgical staple cartridge tient Shareable (s) Carry out surgery on pa.when a resource use/consumption either hits a certain thresh- old or is subject to constraints like temporal. 3 shows a state transition diagram of a resource. Enterprise 2. made available (ei- ther created or produced). the states (si ) of a resource include not made available (neither created nor produced yet). . Table 2 suggests some examples of resources per category and property. and non-shareable (ns ..e.when a resource use/consumption is mea- sured or a resource ceases to exist either in compliance with its use/consumption cycle .0 7 Table 2. in either case renewal is possible). not consumed (waiting to be bound by a task). Resource categories and examples Resource Tasks Examples Category Property of resources Logical Unlimited (ul) Put together medical Patient medical record (read team for surgery mode) Limited (l) Prepare on-call shifts Doctors’ weekly schedules (valid for one week only) Limited but renewable (lr) Prepare interns’ access File of interns (internship possi- rights to labs ble extension) Shareable (s) Prepare patient for Patient lab results surgery Non-shareable (ns) Report on surgery out. and done (up- 4 Replacement can be the result of degradation. On the one hand. i.or because of constraints like temporal). These properties are limited (l . We also define a set of properties that permit to describe a re- source. limited but renewable (lr . 1. consumed (bound by a task for ongoing performance). Fig. Unless stated a resource is by default unlimited (ul) and/or share- able (s). takes into account the properties of Table 2. withdrawn (ceased to exit after unbounding all tasks if necessary). unlocked (released by a task after consumption).Patient medical record (update come mode) Physical Unlimited (ul) Not applicable Not applicable Limited (l) Prepare patient for Anesthetic injection surgery Limited but renewable (lr) Carry out surgery on pa. their use/consumption does lead into a decrease in their reliabil- ity/availability level.when a resource simultaneous use/consumption has to be scheduled). This decrease requires resource replacement4 /replenishment at a certain stage. To identify these examples we rely on the business process of Fig.

and unbound by task). . waiting to be bound.r(ccul ): not made available −→ made available −→ not consumed consumption approval no−longer usef ul −→ consumed −→ withdrawn. dated as per relevant property if necessary.r(ccl1 ): not made available −→ made available −→ not consumed consumption approval consumption update consumption completion −→ consumed −→ done −→ withdrawn.g. start waiting to be bound . consumption completion. . renewable approval consumption start waiting Made available to be bound Not consumed rejection Withdrawn Legend no-longer consumption consumption Initial state completion useful approval lock Not made End state Locked consumption available approval Entry-point state release consumption Unlocked Consumed update Done consumption update Fig. patient list with contagious diseases) from any new or addi- tional tentative of consumption by tasks (e. the transitions (transj ) connecting a re- source’s states together include start..g. and no-longer useful. a resource takes on a new state. In done state a resource’s parameters (e. We list below some sequences of states (s) and transitions (trans) that repre- trans sent a resource’s consumption cycle per property denoted as r(ccproperty ) = si −→ i transi+1 transj−1 si+1 −→ si+2 . It should be noted that other states in a consumption cycle’s diagram can be adopted if dif- ferent properties are used without deviating from the aforementioned purpose of using this diagram.. consumption approval.8 Maamar et al.g. On the other hand. sj−1 −→ sj (subscripts in state and transition names are given for notational purposes. Upon a transition satisfaction. release. pa- tient medical record) remains available for additional consumption until the transition from consumed to withdrawn is satisfied (e. renewable approval. accuracy level such as patient list obsolete) are updated and the resource is detached (or unbound) from tasks. lock. The transition from done to made available permits to regenerate . The transition from done to withdrawn then end-of-state shields a resource (e. only). submit patient list to health- care authorities upon disease detection) after completing a consumption cy- cle.. start waiting to be bound . consumption rejection.g.r(cclr ): not made available −→ made available −→ not consumed consumption approval consumption update renewable approval −→ consumed −→ done −→ made available. State transition diagram of a resource start waiting to be bound . 3. The resource (e.g.. patient discharge). consumption update.

Potential conflicts on ri.0 9 a resource (e.. Because of tk failure.···} . due to delay in receiving approval from insurance provider) or failed. insurance provider approval).j that t{k.···}. in- ternship extension). pivot. we suggest solutions for these conflicts based on the networks that are established in Section 3. Enterprise 2. state(tj ): not-activated.. use). tj 9 rj .g.j is permitted (per type of property) but it turns out that several consumption cycles of ri.g.. blood sample no longer valid) before the execution of tj begins. ri. The following examines briefly how the interchange and coupling networks of tasks are used to address T -Conflict1 -Case a. b) Only one consumption cycle of ri.k.j is produced using tk′ that is ob- tained through the interchange network of tk .···} generalizes ri...···} ) because of the limited property of ri. state(ri. no rj is made available for tj ). and compensatable) that limit their re-execution in the case of failure [11].···} to produce r{k. tj waits for t{k.···}.j (and eventually r{i. Based on resource categories and their properties and how tasks/persons/machines bind to resources.j means that a resource produced by a certain task (resp. Because ti now takes on done state.j but this time the resource is shared between peer{j. and state(tk ): either activated (still under exe- cution) or failed with focus on the latter state below.j ): with- drawn.g..{j..k. After identifying the different task conflicts on resources. tj waits for t{k.g.j .···} to produce r{k.1. The following notation is adopted: ti /mi /pi → ri means that a resource is made available for a task/machine/person. direct patient to appropriate depart- ment) on top of the same relation between ti (e.···} produce. retriable..g. T -Conflict1 arises when (i ) a prerequi- site relation between ti and tj exists.. Current statuses of tasks and resources are: state(ti ): done. machine/person) is transferred to another similar (resp.j ).j are required to complete the execution of tj and finish the consumption of r{k. at least one tk either is still under execution or failed.j and ri. file of interns) for another round of consumption (e. and (iii ) tj needs ri.g.k.j . T -Conflict1 is an example of conflicts between tasks with emphasis on resource consumption and not data (inputs and outputs) and pol- icy incompatibilities between these tasks. This analysis is given in Table 3. a) ri. The objective is to re- produce ri. ri. only for illustration purposes.···} either is still under execution (e. we examine conflicts over resources between tasks. .e.j (or produce ri′ . include: – l: two cases result out of the prerequisite relation between t{k.···} (e.g. rk′ .k.j (e. (ii ) consume(ti . com- plete necessary paperwork) and tj (e.j with ti′ being obtained through the interchange network of ti ). pivot (canceling ti ) and retriable (re-executing ti ) transactional properties are excluded from the analysis of developing solutions to address resource conflicts.j (e. similar/different) peer for the needs of consumption (resp..···}.g. These solutions consider the fact that tasks are associated with transactional properties (e. check patient vitals) and tj : a) ri..g. (at least one) t{k. ri ) → produce(ti .g. ri.j ceases to exist before the execution of tj begins.j (i.···}. report on vital levels) ceases to exist (e. and.{j.

j − re-execute tk to produce rk. monitoring should also offer an organizational and social view over this progress in terms of who executes what.10 Maamar et al. either re-execute ti to re-produce ri. tk′ ) Retriable − compensate ti . ti′ ) replace ti with ti′ then execute ti′ to produce ri′ . Besides providing a real-time and end- to-end view of this progress.j N/A − re-execute tk to produce rk.j Interchange(tk . [7].j or Interchange(ti .j − replace tk with tk′ then execute tk′ to produce rk′ .j − either re-execute tk to produce rk. Fig.3 Social-monitoring research initiative According to Faci et al. Possible coordination actions for T -Conflict1 /limited property/case>a Transactional property Coordination actions Network ti tk involved Null Null − re-execute ti to re-produce ri.j or Interchange(ti . 4 illustrates a screenshot for an under-development proof-of-concept for a rule-based engine that focuss on implementing the strategies reported in Table 3. either re-execute ti to re-produce ri. ti′ ) replace ti with ti′ then execute ti′ to produce ri′ . either re-execute ti to re-produce ri. Table 3. who delegates to . tk′ ) tk′ then execute tk′ to produce rk′ .j Pivot Deadlock N/A Compensatable − compensate ti . 4. System’s screenshots 3.j Fig.j or replace tk with Interchange(tk . ti′ ) replace ti with ti′ then execute ti′ to produce ri′ .j Interchange(tk .j Pivot Deadlock N/A Compensatable Deadlock N/A Retriable − re-execute ti to re-produce ri.j − replace tk with tk′ then execute tk′ to produce rk′ .j or Interchange(ti . tk′ ) Compensatable Null − compensate ti . monitoring seems to be the commonly-used technique for tracking the execution progress of BPs.

g. looking for executors who have the capacities of satisfying the requirements of the replacement tasks. Our initiative on BP social monitoring aims of ensuring the successful comple- tion of BPs despite obstacles that could arise and hence. These exchanges lead into developing flows that help identify who supports whom. We recall that BP completion and hence. We associate each network with an authority component (Nauth . and the network level is linked to the navigation flow.. and/or support networks during a control-flow execution. between the control flow and networks) and hor- izontal (h. who sent what. task execution re- quires resources that are sometimes limited. Absence of necessary machines to execute tasks is an example of obstacle. Fig.0 11 whom. We develop specialized flows known as control. as well as the role of these patterns in BP improvement.. we examine the interactions between the social. Three levels along with their respective flows constitute this architecture. We identify two scenarios: task replacement (explained hereafter) and task delay and decompose the messages supporting network in- teractions into vertical (v.1). networks of machines. the navigation flow connects networks of tasks. not shareable. and when.1).2). an option consists of replacing tasks that cannot be executed with similar ones and then. These networks are established in the BP social design (Section 3. The communication flow connects the BP’s executors (machines and/or persons) together when they execute tasks. communication. to whom. lack of necessary machines that can execute tasks) and hence. The control flow connects tasks together with respect to the BP’s business logic. the execution level is linked to the communication flow. Obstacles that hinder BP suc- cessful completion are multiple (e. 5 illustrates the architecture of our flow-based approach for BP social monitoring.g. Assigning tasks (e. and who sends what. Finally. will impact the enterprise effectiveness (e. and/or not renewable (Section 3. between networks). The difficulty of measuring in- tangible and ad-hoc exchanges between people when executing tasks represents a major barrier to social interaction pattern recognition like collaboration and delegation. costly machine re-allocation). For . configu- ration. [14]). and navigation and enact the development of these flows in conjunction with the completion of a BP. and networks of persons together when the BP completion runs into difficulties. These inter- actions establish navigation flows as per the nature of scenario that shapes the progress of this execution. The process level is linked to the control flow.. BP social monitoring looks into the exchanges of messages that occur between tasks. to whom. delay this completion. In the following. and between networks during task execution and conflict resolution. between executors (persons/machines).. The way these exchanges should happen can be part of a social monitoring framework in which specialized flows connecting these messages are developed to detect anomalies. scan documentation and enter patient details manually) to potential executors (persons and/or machines) might turn out unsuccessful when the capacities of these executors do not satisfy the requirements of these tasks (Section 3.g. Enterprise 2.g. delay in delivery) and efficiency (e. and when. Using specific networks.

Cross-flow interactions for BP social monitoring illustration purposes. i. Prior to confirming t3 as a replacement for t1 the Nauth(interchange) sends the Nauth(coupling) a h-message asking to check for the coupling level between t3 and those tasks.and v-messages shown below. t1 now acts as an entry node in the interchange network: v-query( from : F lowc to : Nauth(interchange)/nt1 subject : findReplacement(t1 )) After screening the edges that connect t1 to other tasks in the interchange network. the control flow com- pares this level to a threshold that the BP engineer has set up earlier. for example.i̸=3 and that t1 ’s requirements are not satisfied.12 Maamar et al. t2 . Process Control flow level ta1 ta2 tai Interactions Execution level pe1 pe4 ma2 ma3 Communication flow Interactions Network level Social network Configuration Support network of persons network of tasks of machines Navigation flow Legend Flow Binding Fig.e. This message sending is shown below: h-query( from : Nauth(interchange) /nt1 to : Nauth(coupling) /nt3 subject : requestCouplingLevel(t3 . The control flow sends this network’s authority (Nauth(interchange) ) a v- message as shown below asking to find a replacement for t1 . 5. and ti. t2 )) Upon receipt of the coupling level from the Nauth(interchange) through the Nauth(coupling) using the h. that are dependent on t1 in the control flow. let us assume a control flow that consists of t1 . t2 . t3 is selected using the highest weight among all these edges as a se- lection criterion. First t1 needs to be replaced with another similar task using the interchange network.. Assuming .

h-reply( from : Nauth(coupling) /nt3 to : Nauth(interchange) /nt1 subject : couplingLevel(t3 .Trel )) v-reply( from : Nauth(substitution) /np3 to : F lowc ′ subject : substitute(p3 :p3 ) 2.0 13 the comparison is valid. For illustration purposes we assume that executors correspond to persons (p3 for t3 ). e. v-query( from : F lowc to : Nauth(substitution) /np3 subject : findSubstitute(p3 . t2 )) v-reply( from : Nauth(interchange) /nt1 to : F lowc subject : couplingLevel(t3 . Otherwise the search for another task continues. 6). .g. The aforementioned horizontal messages constitute a navigation flow in which states and transitions correspond to nodes in networks and messages between nodes. p3 . Delegation: if p3 turns out unavailable unexpectedly or will become over- loaded by receiving t3 for execution. Enterprise 2. Assuming a successful match between t3 ’s requirements and some executors’ capacities two exclusive cases arise. Vertical messages trigger the establishment of navigation flows (Fig. t2 )) After updating the control flow. respectively. This message along with its response are shown ′ below with p3 being the new executor for t3 . the next step is to identify executors for t3 . the Nauth(substitution) sends the delega- tion network’s authority (Nauth(delegation) ) a h-message asking for identifying ′ a delegate. 1. the con- trol flow sends the substitution network’s authority (Nauth(substitution) ) a v-message asking to find a substitute for p3 with respect to a certain avail- ability threshold (Trel ).. t3 is now confirmed as a replacement for t1 in the con- trol flow with t3 being connected to t2 . which means more messages need to be exchanged. Substitution: if there is a concern over pe3 ’s availability level. who could execute the task.

Y. Khovanskaya. and R. October 2009. between machines. IEEE Pervasive Computing. the interactions among people and nonhuman artifacts have significantly enhanced data scien- tists’ productivity” [19]. Supporting our claims that tasks and machines can to a certain extent socialize. state that “. These rela- tions led into developing specialized networks that are used to solve conflicts over resources as well as monitoring the enterprise performance. 2. Cunningham. Social BPM: Gateway to Enhanced Process Efficiency. Maamar. Fig. J. M. visited September 2012.. Designing for Engaging Experiences in Mobile Social-Health Support Systems. Gray. This blend results into the development of Social Busi- ness Processes (SBP)s. Cross. http://www. Currently. such as software components. most social networks connect people or groups who expose similar interests or features. References 1. . and last but not least between persons.virtusa. S. 2013. The Collab- orative Organization: How to Make Employee Networks Really Work. and workflows. Gay. Fall 2010. J. Showers. A SBP exposes the social relations that exist between tasks. S. P.. 4.. we expect that such networks will connect other entities. Adams. Tan et al. November 2011. and G. V. Can Enterprises Capitalize on Their Social Networks? Cutter IT Journal. S. Baumer. Partial navigation flow for an example of business process 4 Conclusion In this paper we discussed the blend of Web 2. P.14 Maamar et al. More importantly. P. Voida. D. putting tasks together and machines together suggests a lot of similarities with how persons behave in their daily life. 12(3). 3. Pollak. E. 6. P. Badr and Z. Although we acknowledges that tasks and machines cannot “socialize” (in the strict sense) like persons do in real life. In the near future. Web-based ser- R. MITSloan Management Review. data resources. Thomas.0 concepts and technologies with enterprise computing. 22(10). S. 51(1). Chandler.

php/archives/2008/04/enterprise-web-20-worth- 46-billion-in-2013. Trento. Italy. Kouadri Most´ need-to-get-social-in-2013. Granitzer. M. 9. Combining BPM and So- cial Software: Contradiction or Chance? Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice. Little. P. Communications of the ACM. Johannesson. 11.0 15 5. http://www. C. M. 19. Context-Awareness in Wireless and Mobile Computing Revisited to Embrace Social Networking. Thion. Y. Z. I. S. 2013. 6. Faci. W. S.0 Worth $4. H. March/April 2014. UK. 15. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Shar- ing (KMIS’2011). and S. and S. Visited September 2008.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. 18.php. 2012. 10. Anagnostou. N. A. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing. 2012. and M. Doolin. Riva del Garda. 12. N. M. 21 April 2008. Z. 2010. Maamar. Saleh. Research Roadmap for the Enterprise 2. Paris. Sheng. Grim-Yefsah. SETLabs Briefings Journal. Drupad. Kajan. I. Loo. S. N. P. Enterprise 2. Maamar. 2012. Maamar. S. E. 7. E. Faci.html. Scientific Publications of the State Univer- sity of Novi Pazar Series A: Applied Mathematics. Sheng. S. D. Maamar. Coventry. IEEE Internet Computing. 8. . Kajan. A. Happ. Q. M. Social-Network-Sourced Big Data Analytics. M. 18(2). 17. Boukadi. 2011. 2012. 22. Enterprise Web 2. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE’2013). Koschmider.0 . 50(6). and Q. Schmidt. N. 7(3). Jennings. IBM: Business Processes Need to Get Social in 2013. K. September/October 2013. Specifying and Implementing Social Web Services Operation Using Commitments. IEEE Communica- tions Magazine. S. In The Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’2012). C. Faci. Blake. Z. Vizard. M. E.6 Billion in 2013. and R. Kajan. Z. N. Faci. Z. Commitments to Reg- ulate Social Web Services Operation. 13. Informatics and Mechanics. MITSloan Management Review. and L. 46(10). March/April 2011. Kosmides. Benslimane. Seshadri. Bouloudis. Kalatzis. 14.0. Jantunen. Rossi. A. 16. Z. K. McAfee.Issues and Solutions. Jennings. Luck. and D. Dustdar. 47(3). 15(2).itbusinessedge. Hachimi. A. N. S. Yao. Hacid. IEEE Internet Computing. Searchviews. Faci. 20. IEEE Internet Computing. www. N. Network-based Conflict Resolution in Business Processes. M. E. Exploring Business and Collaboration with Web 2. 2014 (forthcoming). France. Roussaki. B. N. and S. Liampotis. Hunhs. How to Analyze Your Sales Processes on Efficiency versus Effectiveness. Transactions and Web Services. Tan. and V. October 2003. P. The Network-based Business Process. Erol.searchviews. Z. Maamar. Pljaskovic. Rosenthal-Sabroux. Z. Why Web Services Need Social Networks. Nurcan. Gartner report. B. Using Information of an Informal Network to Evaluate Business Process Robustness. 2006. 2014 (forthcoming). Maamar. Gartner. Enterprise 2. and E. Xynogalas. 17(5).