Embracing Business Process Compliance and Flexibility through Behavioral Consistency Checking in ACM

Process compliance and Flexibility 1
Article Review: How to Embrace Business Process Compliance And Flexibility Via
Behavioral Consistency Checking In ACM
Name
Tutor
University
Course
City/State
Date

Process compliance and Flexibility 2
How to Embrace Business Process Compliance and Flexibility through Behavioral
Consistency Checking in ACM
Introduction
The author of the article sought to examine how process compliance as well as flexibility
can be embraced via behavioral consistency monitoring in ACM (adaptive case
management). This review identifies the main areas of concern of the article in relation to the
topic of research. Researchers argue based on the flexibility being allowed in scenarios that
are not predictable with actions that have been done or created for this purpose as needed,
which the knowledge workers decide at runtime in ACM systems (Tran et al. 2014, p. 134).
There is criticism on how the process compliance and flexibility have been incorporate in the
BPM (business process management) systems. To solve the problems surrounding the BPM,
ACM has been proposed based on knowledge workers (KWs). The main findings of this
article are that ACM has proved to be an appropriate system to business process compliance
within organizations. The authors of the article conclude that users of the business have been
granted power to respond on the scenarios that are individually assessed within the guardrails,
which lie within the confines of compliance rules.
Claims
There is a need for a specific process compliance and flexibility to be embrace via
behavioral consistency checking in ACM. For instance, the authors of the article have
suggested a rigid process configuration, which would be helpful in making sure that
operations of the business are under control and as well, meet the requirements of compliance
in relation to regulations and law. The concept of consistency checking in ACM is evidenced
by its ability to automate the work that is done routine by predefined sub-processes at the
time of design and its execution done in an order, which is defined. It is also known for

Process compliance and Flexibility 3
being flexible by the activities’ free design as well as their order via ad hoc tasks and goals,
whose addition is made at runtime by the Knowledge workers (Thi Kim et al. 2016, p. 45).
There is also a claim that most of the firms are focusing on making sure that business
processes are compliant with the regulations. Many researchers have been encouraged by this
concern to conduct studies on such relationship. The reason for this claim is that there is a
need for the business process compliance, which would be helpful in offering the complete
coverage of the lifecycle of the business process, ranging from the plan of the compliance-
aware process to the evaluation of post-execution (Cabanillas, Resinas, & Ruiz-Cort ́es,
2011, p. 219). The coverage also takes into account the process of auditing.
Another claim is that there is a need for monitoring the runtime with a view to
watching and checking the behavior of the system keenly for a given period for the discovery
of the likely problems as argued by Babaee and Babamir (2013, p. 215). The monitors used
for this purpose aims at retaining two empowering attributes which include determination
and audition in relation to KWs. The article has placed its focus on compliance checking at
runtime, where there is creation of ad hoc actions by KWs to attain the main goal of the
system suggested in this study. Thi Kim et al. (2016, p. 43) further supports this reason by
positing that actions that are ad hoc as well as the shifts in the course of runtime has been
allowed in the principle of ACM which enables the users to act as KWs for the evolutions of
the processes of the business. Such processes have been expected to embrace both the
support of business scenarios that are predictable by use of well-defined sub-processes and
the business situations, which are not predictable (Maggi et al. 2011, p. 131; Thi Kim et al.
2016, p. 43).
Reasons for Conducting the Research