Beyond rigidity – dynamic process lifecycle support

A Survey on dynamic changes in process-aware information systems
Special Issue Paper

Abstract

The economic success of an enterprise increasingly depends on its ability to react to changes in its environment in a quick and flexible way. To cope with emerging business trends, responsiveness to change is a significant competitive advantage. Similar to the lifecycle in conventional information systems development, studies on lifecycle support for business processes are often sweeping the issues of runtime change management under the banner of maintenance. However, the pervasiveness of dynamic changes in business processes warrants targeted attention. This paper presents a detailed review of challenges and techniques that exist for the lifecycle management of dynamic processes. For each of the lifecycle phases we discuss the needs and deliberate on various developments from both academia and industry.

Keywords

Business Process Management   Dynamic Process  Business Process Lifecycle   Process-aware Information System 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams M, ter Hofstede A, Edmond D, van der Aalst W (2006) Worklets: A service-oriented implementation of dynamic flexibility in workflows. In: Proc. Coopis’06, LNCS 4275, pp 291–308Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams M, ter Hofstede A, Edmond D, van der Aalst W (2007a) Dynamic and extensible exception handling for workflows. Tech. Rep. BPM-07-03, BPMcenter.orgGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adams M, ter Hofstede A, van der Aalst W, Edmond D (2007b) Dynamic, extensible and context-aware exception handling for workflows. In: Proc. CoopIS’07, LNCS 4803Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bassil S, Keller R, Kropf P (2004) A workflow-oriented system architecture for the management of container transportation. In: Proc. BPM’04, LNCS 3080, pp 116–131Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bobrik R, Bauer T, Reichert M (2006) Proviado – personalized and configurable visualizations of business processes. In: Proc. EC-WEB’06, LNCS 4082, pp 61–71Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bobrik R, Reichert M, Bauer T (2007) View-based process visualization. In: Proc. BPM’07, LNCS 4714, pp 88–95Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casati F (1998) Models, semantics, and formal methods for the design of workflows and their exceptions. PhD thesis, University of MilanoGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casati F, Fugini MG, Mirbel I (1999) An environment for designing exceptions in workflows. Inf Syst 24(3):255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dadam P, Reichert M, Kuhn K (2000) Clinical workflows – the killer application for process-oriented information systems? In: Proc. BIS’00, Poznan, pp 36–59Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Domingos D, Rito-Silva A, Veiga P (2003) Authorization and access control in adaptive workflows. In: Proc. ESORICS’03, pp 23–38Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dumas M, ter Hofstede A, van der Aalst W (eds) (2005) Process Aware Information Systems. Wiley Publ, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eder J, Liebhart W (1996) Workflow recovery. In: CoopIS’96, pp 124–134Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golani M, Gal A (2006) Optimizing exception handling in workflows using process restructuring. In: Proc. BPM’06, LNCS 4102, pp 407–413Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Günther C, Rinderle S, Reichert M, van der Aalst W (2006) Change mining in adaptive process management systems. In: Proc. CoopIS’06, LNCS 4275, pp 309–326Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Günther C, Reichert M, van der Aalst W (2008a) Supporting flexible processes with adaptive workflow and case handling. In: Proc. WETICE’08Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Günther C, Rinderle-Ma S, Reichert M, van der Aalst W, Recker J (2008b) Using process mining to learn from process changes in evolutionary systems. Int J Bus Proc Integ Manage, Spec Issue Bus Proc Flex 3(1):61–78Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hagen C, Alonso G (2000) Exception handling in workflow management systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26(10):943–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hallerbach A, Bauer T, Reichert M (2008a) Context-based configuration of process variants. In: Prof. TCoB’08, pp 31–40Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hallerbach A, Bauer T, Reichert M (2008b) Managing process variants in the process lifecycle. In: Proc. ICEIS’08, Barcelona, pp 154–161Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harmon P (2003) Business Process Change – A Manager’s guide to Improving, redesigning and Automating Processes. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kloppmann M, König D, Leymann F, Pfau G, Roller D (2008) Business process choreography in WebSphere. combining the power of BPEL and J2EE. IBM Syst J 43(2):270–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Küster J, Ryndina K, Gall H (2007) Generation of business process models for object life cycle compliance. In: BPM’07, LNCS 4714, pp 165–181Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lenz R, Reichert M (2007) IT support for healthcare processes – premises, challenges, perspectives. Data Knowl Eng 61(1):39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Leoni M, Mecella M, de Giacomo G (2007) Highly dynamic adaptation in process management systems through execution monitoring. In: Proc. BPM’07, LNCS 4714, pp 182–197Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li C, Reichert M, Wombacher A (2008a) Discovering reference process models by mining process variants. In: Proc. ICWS’08, Beijing, pp 45–53Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li C, , Reichert M, Wombacher A (2008b) Mining process variants: Goals and issues. In: Proc. SCC’08, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp 573–576Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li C, Reichert M, Wombacher A (2008c) On measuring process model similarity based on high-level change operations. In: Proc. ER’08, Barcelona, LNCS 5231, pp 248–264Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lu R (2008) Constraint based flexible business process management. PhD thesis, School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lu R, Sadiq S (2006) Managing process variants as an information resource. In: Proc. BPM06, pp 426–431Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lu R, Sadiq S (2007) On the discovery of preferred work practice through business process variants. In: Proc. ER’07Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luo Z, Sheth A, Kochut K, Miller J (2000) Exception handling in workflow systems. Appl Intell 13(2):125–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Malone T, Crowston K, Herman G (2003) Organizing Business Knowledge – The MIT Process Handbook. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mendling J (2007) Detection and prediction of errors in epc business process models. PhD thesis, Vienna Univ. of Economics and Business AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Minor M, Schmalen D, Koldehoff A, Bergmann R (2007a) Structural adaptation of workflows supported by a suspension mechanism and by case-based reasoning. In: Proc. WETICE’07, pp 370–375Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Minor M, Tartakovski A, Bergmann R (2007b) Representation and structure-based similarity assessment for agile workflows. In: Proc. ICCBR’07, pp 224–238Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Minor M, Tartakovski A, Schmalen D, Bergmann R (2008) Agile workflow technology and case-based change reuse for long-term processes. Int J Intell Inform Technol 1(4):80–98Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Müller D, Herbst J, Hammori M, Reichert M (2006) IT support for release management processes in the automotive industry. In: Proc. BPM’06, LNCS 4102, pp 368–377Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Müller D, Reichert M, Herbst J (2007) Data-driven modeling and coordination of large process structures. In: Proc. CoopIS’07, LNCS 4803, pp 131–149Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Müller D, Reichert M, Herbst J (2008) A new paradigm for the enactment and dynamic adaptation of data-driven process structures. In: Proc. CAiSE’08, LNCS 5074, pp 48–63Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Müller R, Greiner U, Rahm E (2004) AgentWork: A workflow system supporting rule–based workflow adaptation. Data Knowl Eng 51(2):223–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mutschler B, Reichert M, Bumiller J (2008a) Unleashing the effectiveness of process-oriented information systems: Problem analysis, critical success factors and implications. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyb (Part C) 38(3):280–291Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mutschler B, Weber B, Reichert M (2008b) Workflow management versus case handling – results from a controlled software experiment. In: Proc. SAC’08, pp 82–89Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Netjes M, Mansar S, Reijers H, van der Aalst W (2007) An evolutionary approach for business process redesign – towards an intelligent system. In: Proc. ICEIS (3), pp 47–54Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pande P, Neuman R, Cavanagh R (2000) The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola, and Other Top Companies are Honing Their Performance. Mc-Graw Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pesic M, Schonenberg M, Sidorova N, van der Aalst W (2007) Constraint-based workflow models: Change made easy. In: Proc. CoopIS’07, LNCS 4803, pp 77–94Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Porter M (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Reichert M (2000) Dynamische Ablaufänderungen in Workflow-Management-Systemen. PhD thesis, Universität UlmGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Reichert M, Dadam P (1998) ADEPTflex – supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. J Intell Inform Syst 10(2):93–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Reichert M, Dadam P, Bauer T (2003a) Dealing with forward and backward jumps in workflow management systems. Softw Syst Model 2(1):37–58Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Reichert M, Rinderle S, Dadam P (2003b) On the common support of workflow type and instance changes under correctness constraints. In: Proc. CoopIS’03, LNCS 2888, pp 407–425Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Reichert M, Rinderle S, Kreher U, Dadam P (2005) Adaptive process management with ADEPT2. In: Proceedings ICDE’05, pp 1113–1114Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Reijers H, Limam S, van der Aalst W (2003) Product-based workflow design. MIS 20(1):229–262Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Reijers H, Mans R, van der Toorn R (2009) Improved model management with aggregated business process models. Data Knowl Eng 68(2):221–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rinderle S (2004) Schema evolution in process management systems. PhD thesis, University of UlmGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rinderle S, Reichert M (2006) Data-driven process control and exception handling in process management systems. In: Proc. CAiSE’06, LNCS 4001, pp 273–287Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rinderle S, Reichert M, Dadam P (2004a) Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems – a survey. Data Knowl Eng 50(1):9–34Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rinderle S, Reichert M, Dadam P (2004b) Disjoint and overlapping process changes: Challenges, solutions, applications. In: Proc. CoopIS’04, LNCS 3290, pp 101–120Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rinderle S, Reichert M, Dadam P (2004c) Flexible support of team processes by adaptive workflow systems. Distrib Parall Database 16(1):91–116Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rinderle S, Reichert M, Dadam P (2004d) On dealing with structural conflicts between process type and instance changes. In: Proc. BPM’04, LNCS 3080, pp 274–289Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rinderle S, Weber B, Reichert M, Wild W (2005) Integrating process learning and process evolution – a semantics based approach. In: Proc. BPM’05, LNCS 3649, pp 252–267Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rinderle S, Reichert M, Jurisch M, Kreher U (2006a) On representing, purging, and utilizing change logs in process management systems. In: Proc. BPM’06, LNCS 4102, pp 241–256Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rinderle S, Wombacher A, Reichert M (2006b) Evolution of process choreographies in DYCHOR. In: Proc. CoopIS’06, LNCS 4275, pp 273–290Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rinderle S, Jurisch M, Reichert M (2007) On deriving net change information from change logs – the DELTALAYER-algorithm. In: Proc. BTW’07, LNI P-103, pp 364–381Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rinderle-Ma S, Reichert M (2007) A formal framework for adaptive access control models. J Data Semant IX:82–112, LNCS 4601Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rinderle-Ma S, Reichert M (2008) Managing the life cycle of access rules in CEOSIS. In: Proc. EDOC’08, Munich, pp 257–266Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rinderle-Ma S, Reichert M, Weber B (2008a) On the formal semantics of change patterns in process-aware information systems. In: Proc. ER’08, LNCS 5231, pp 279–293Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rinderle-Ma S, Reichert M, Weber B (2008b) Relaxed compliance notions in adaptive process management systems. In: Proc. ER’08, LNCS 5231, pp 232–247Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    la Rosa M, Lux J, Seidel S, Dumas M, ter Hofstede A (2007) Questionnaire-driven configuration of reference process models. In: Proc. CAiSE’07, LNCS 4495, pp 424–438Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rosemann M, van der Aalst W (2007) A configurable reference modelling language. Inf Syst 32(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rummler GA, Brache AP (Year) Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space in the Organization Chart. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Russell N, ter Hofstede A, Edmond D, van der Aalst W (2004a) Workflow data patterns. Tech. Rep. FIT-TR-2004-01, Queensland University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Russell N, ter Hofstede A, Edmond D, van der Aalst W (2004b) Workflow resource patterns. Tech. Rep. WP 127, Eindhoven Univ. of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Russell N, van der Aalst W, ter Hofstede A (2006) Exception handling patterns in process-aware information systems. In: Proc. CAiSE’06, pp 288–302Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sadiq S (2000) Handling dynamic schema changes in workflow processes. In: Proc. 11th Australian Database ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sadiq S, Sadiq W, Orlowska M (2005) A framework for constraint specification and validation in flexible workflows. Inf Syst 30(5):349–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    SAP (2008) Sap solution maps: www.sap.com/solutions (last visited April 15th 2009)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Scheer AW (1994) Business Process Engineering: Models for Industrial Enterprises. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York TokyoGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Schonenberg H, Mans R, Russell N, Mulyar N, van der Aalst W (2008a) Process flexibility: A survey of contemporary approaches. In: CIAO! / EOMAS, pp 16–30Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Schonenberg H, Weber B, van Dongen B, van der Aalst W (2008b) Supporting flexible processes through log-based recommendations. In: Proc. BPM’08, LNCS 5240, pp 51–66Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    SEI (2008) Capability maturity model: www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi (last visited April 15th 2009)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Subramaniam S, Kalogeraki V, Gunopulos D, Casati F, Castellanos M, Dayal U, Sayal M (2007) Improving process models by discovering decision points. Inf Syst 32(7):1037–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Thom L, Reichert M, Iochpe C (2009) Activity patterns in process-aware information systems: Basic concepts and empirical evidence. Int J Bus Proc Integ Manage (IJBPIM), ISSN 1741-8763 (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    van der Aalst W (1998) The application of petri nets to workflow management. J Circ Syst Comput 8(1):21–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    van der Aalst W, Jablonski S (2000) Dealing with workflow change: Identification of issues an solutions. Int J Comput Syst Sci Eng 15(5):267–276Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    van der Aalst W, ter Hofstede A (2005) YAWL: Yet another workflow language. Inf Syst 30(4):245–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    van der Aalst W, ter Hofstede A, Kiepuszewski B, Barros A (2003) Workflow patterns. Distrib Parall Database 14(1):5–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    van der Aalst W, Weske M, Grünbauer D (2005) Case handling: A new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl Eng 53(2):129–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    van der Aalst W, Reijers H, Weijters A, van Dongen B, de Medeiros AA, Song M, Verbeek H (2007) Business process mining: An industrial application. Inf Syst 32(1):713–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    van der Aalst W, Dumas M, Gottschalk F, ter Hofstede A, la Rosa M, Mendling J (2008) Correctness-preserving configuration of business process models. Proc. FASE’08, pp 46–61Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Vanderfeesten I, Reijers H, van der Aalst W (2008) Product based workflow support: A recommendation service for dynamic workflow execution. Tech. Rep. BPM-08-03, BPMcenter.orgGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Weber B, Reichert M (2008) Refactoring process models in large process repositories. In: Proc. CAiSE’08, LNCS 5074, pp 124–139Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Weber B, Wild W, Breu R (2004) CBRFlow: Enabling adaptive workflow management through conversational CBR. In: Proc. ECCBR’04, LNCS 3155, pp 434–448Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Weber B, Reichert M, Wild W, Rinderle S (2005) Balancing flexibility and security in adaptive process management systems. In: CoopIS’05, LNCS 3760, pp 59–76Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Weber B, Reichert M, Rinderle S, Wild W (2006a) Towards a framework for the agile mining of business processes. In: BPM’05 Workshop Proceedings, 1st Int’l Workshop on Business Process Intelligence (BPI’05) in conjunction with (BPM ’05), LNCS 3812, pp 191–202Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Weber B, Reichert M, Wild W (2006b) Case-base maintenance for CCBR-based process evolution. In: Proc. ECCBR’06, LNCS 4106, pp 106–120Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Weber B, Rinderle S, Reichert M (2007) Change patterns and change support features in process-aware information systems. In: Proc. CAiSE’07, LNCS 4495, pp 574–588Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Weber B, Reichert M, Rinderle-Ma S (2008) Change patterns and change support features – enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data Knowl Eng 66(3):438–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Weber B, Reichert M, Wild W, Rinderle-Ma S (2009) Providing integrated life cycle support in process-aware information systems. Int J Coop Inf Syst 18(1):115–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Weske M (2000) Workflow management systems: Formal foundation, conceptual design, implementation aspects. University of Münster, Habil ThesisGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Weske M (2001) Formal foundation and conceptual design of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system. In: Proc. HICSS-34Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Weske M (2007) Business Process Management: Concepts, Methods, Technology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Xerox (1997) InConcert Technical Product OverviewGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniv. of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.School of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.Institute of Databases and Inf. SystemsUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations