The support of Decision Modeling features and concepts in tooling

Transcription

1 Leuven Institute for Research on Information Systems (LIRIS) Department of Decision Sciences and Information Management The support of Decision Modeling features and concepts in tooling Jan Vanthienen Thibaut Bender Faruk Hasić 17/09/2018 1

2 Presented by Jan Vanthienen KU Leuven Faculty of Economics and Business Business Information Systems Group Research and teaching: Business rules, processes and information systems Decision models & tables Business intelligence & Analytics Information & Knowledge Management IBM Faculty Award Belgian Francqui Chair 2009 at FUNDP - Bpost bank Research Chair - Colruyt-Symeta Research Chair Smart Data and Decisions - IBM Fund Intelligent Business Decision Making - Microsoft Research Chair on Intelligent Environments - PricewaterhouseCoopers Chair on E-Business jan.vanthienen@kuleuven.be 17/09/2018 2

3 Outline 1. Research context, problem statement, analysis methodology 2. Tools and tests 3. Results 4. Limitations and conclusions 17/09/2018 3

4 Research context Decision Modeling and Notation (DMN) 17/09/2018 4

5 Problem Statement To which extent are important Decision Model and Notation (DMN) features and concepts supported by tooling? Not a tool comparison Not an alternative for the automated DMN Technology Compatibility Kit TCK ( Goal Which DMN elements (decision requirements diagrams, decision logic specifications, the expression language) are commonly present in current decision modeling/execution tools. Which modeling features are considered important by tool vendors. 17/09/2018 5

6 Analysis methodology 13 tool vendors responded positively to participate in the research and provided access (and documentation) to their tool. We promised anonymity of test results. We built/executed a number of decision models in each of the tools. We manually modeled in the 13 tools: Decision Requirements Diagram = graphical model Decision Tables Friendly Enough Expression Language (FEEL) = data types and functions 17/09/2018 6

7 13 out of 19 tools (Decision Management Community) Actico AlfrescoActivity Avola BizzDesign Blueriq Camunda DecisonsFirstModeler Drools Fico Flexrule IBM IDIOM Onedecision OpenRules RapidGen Sapiens Signavio Sparkling logic Pencil modeller TrisoTech 17/09/2018 7

8 Decision requirements (10/13 tools) 100,000% 80,000% 60,000% 40,000% 20,000%,000% DRD elements 75,000% Decision object Input object Knwoledge source Business knowledge object Information Requirement Knwoledge Requirement Authority Requirement (Text Annotation) + Association Results based on tools supporting DRD Link between object & requirement is 100% Support relatively good (AVG 75%) Figure 1: Decision Requirement Diagram support per element Tools are elements of this category when they comply with at least one feature of the standard developed for modeling decisions. 17/09/2018 8

9 Decision tables 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Unique Any First Priority Output Order single hit Decision Table elements Rule order Multiple hit Collect Decision table hit policies No general (uniform) 100% supported policy Figure 2: Decision Table elements: % support over all DMN tools 17/09/2018 9

10 Decision table features Decisio n Logic Decision Table single hit Unique 83,33% 79,17% Any 83,33% First 75,00% Priority 75,00% Multiple hit Output Order 75,00% 73,81% Rule order 83,33% Collect list 58,33% + 75,00% < (min) 75,00% > (max) 75,00% # (count) 75,00% Average 50,00% rules as rows 100,00% rules as colums 0,00% crosstab 0,00% Multiple output 83,33% Standard Hit policy table notation 41,67% 17/09/

11 S-Feel S-Feel 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Average Empty symbol (-) number string boolean days & time duration months & years date Figure 3: S-Feel % Adoption 17/09/

12 comparison of ranges double values expression = FOR / IF disjunction "or" conjunction "and" comparison addition + substraction - multiplication * division / exponential arithmetic negation!= < > <= >= open interval start = closed interval start = open interval end = closed interval end = Boolean literal = if expression = "if", expression, expression, "in", date time literal = ( FEEL syntax 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FEEL syntax Figure 4: FEEL elements and their % support by DMN applications 17/09/

13 FEEL functions String functions List functions Numeric functions Numeric Functions FEEL functions Boolean Functions 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% String Functions not(negand) substring(string, start position, length?) string length(string) upper case(string) lower case(string) substring before (string, match) list contains(list, element) count(list) min(list) max(list) sum(list) mean(list) and(list) or(list) sublist(list, start position,length?) decimal(n, scale) floor(n) ceiling(n) List Functions substring after (string, match) replace(input, pattern,replacement, flags?) append(list, item ) concatenate(list ) insert before(list,position, newitem) contains(string, match) remove(list, position) starts with(string, match) reverse(list) index of(list, match) Figure 5: FEEL functions average support for each function category ends with(string, match) matches(input, pattern, flags?) union(list ) distinct values(list) flatten(list) 17/09/

14 Clustering Clustering: modeling and decision table elements 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Figure 6: Clustering k=5 implementation Cluster 2(modelling) & 3 (decision table ) elements cluster 0: most FEEL functions are covered. cluster 1: covers extra functionalities that vendors implemented and text annotations. cluster 2: is mostly focused on the modeling functions of DMN cluster 3: decision table functionalities like most hit policies are also covered in this cluster. cluster 4: The last cluster implements data elements specified in the S-FEEL and FEEL standard for basic calculations or representations of intervals. 17/09/

15 Overall results Tool A Tool B Tool C Tool D Tool E Tool F Tool G Tool H Tool I Tool J Tool K Tool L Tool M Average total 83,4% 84,0% 30,4% 91,0% 47,7% 48,9% 40,3% 92,3% 70,5% 31,0% 46,1% 77,0% 44,4% 60,5% DRD 100,0% 93,2% 22,7% 100,0% 47,7% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 93,2% 70,5% 70,5% 93,2% 0,0% 60,8% Decision Table 96,8% 77,8% 36,5% 96,8% 42,9% 96,8% 93,7% 96,8% 93,7% 0,0% 11,1% 81,0% 96,8% 70,8% S-FEEL 72,8% 87,7% 72,8% 100,0% 74,1% 87,7% 87,7% 87,7% 0,0% 0,0% 74,1% 100,0% 87,7% 71,7% FEEL 18,1% 69,5% 18,1% 51,2% 43,8% 68,9% 22,8% 65,5% 0,0% 0,0% 34,1% 14,4% 41,5% 34,4% XML 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 46,2% 17/09/

16 Limitations Only 13 tools Manual testing 17/09/

17 Summary DMN category support XML total 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% DRD FEEL Decision Table S-FEEL Tool A Tool B Tool C Tool D Tool E Tool F Tool G Tool H Tool I Tool J Tool K Tool L Tool M Average Figure 9: support by tool against DMN categories 17/09/

18 Conclusions FEEL support is low Still a gap between Requirements modeling tools and Decision table execution tools No hit policy has a 100% support Vertical and crosstab formats are not supported Hit policy is only indicated in 42% of the tools 5 tools do well 17/09/

19 Final verdict Distribution Tool scoring [0-25%[ [25-50%[ [50-75%[ [75-100%[ 17/09/

20 Thank you 17/09/