Advertisement

Distributed and Parallel Databases

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 55–83 | Cite as

A decentralized execution model for inter-organizational workflows

  • Vijayalakshmi AtluriEmail author
  • Soon Ae Chun
  • Ravi Mukkamala
  • Pietro Mazzoleni
Article

Abstract

Workflow Management Systems (WFMS) are often used to support the automated execution of business processes. In today’s networked environment, it is not uncommon for organizations representing different business partners to collaborate for providing value-added services and products. As such, workflows representing the business processes in this loosely-coupled, dynamic and ad hoc coalition environment tend to span across the organizational boundaries. As a result, it is not viable to employ a single centralized WFMS to control the execution of the inter-organizational workflow due to limited scalability, availability and performance. To this end, in this paper, we present a decentralized workflow model, where inter-task dependencies are enforced without requiring to have a centralized WFMS. In our model, a workflow is divided into partitions called self-describing workflows, and handled by a light weight workflow management component, called the workflow stub, located at each organization. We present a performance study by considering different types of workflows with varying degrees of parallelism. Our performance results indicate that decentralized workflow management indeed enjoys significant gain in performance over its centralized counterpart in cases where there is less parallelism.

Keywords

Decentralized workflow execution Self-describing workflow Workflow partition Dependency split Workflow stub Evaluation of workflow execution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adam, N.R., Atluri, V., Huang, W.-K.: Modeling and analysis of workflows using petri nets. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. Special Issue on Workflow and Process Management 10(2) (1998) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alonso, G., Agrawal, D., Abbadi, A.E., Mohan, C., Gunthor, R., Kamath, M.: EXotica/FMQM: a persistent message-based architecture for distributed workflow management. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Information Systems for Decentralized Organizations, Trondheim, August 1995 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atluri, V., Chun, S.A., Mazzoleni, P.: Chinese wall security for decentralized workflow management systems. J. Comput. Secur. 12(6), 799–840 (2004) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bandinelli, S., DiNitto, E., Fuggetta, A.: Supporting cooperation in the SPADE-1 environment. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 22(12), 841–865 (1996) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barbara, D., Mehrotra, S., Rusinkiewicz, M.: INCAs: Managing Dynamic Workflows in Distributed Environments. J. Database Manag. Special Issue on Multidatabases 7(1) (1996) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baresi, L., Maurino, A., Modafferi, S.: Workflow partitioning in mobile information systems. In: MOBIS, pp. 93–106 (2004) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Sheng, Q.Z.: Facilitating the rapid development and scalable orchestration of composite web services. Distrib. Parallel Databases 17(1), 5–37 (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buhler, P.A., Vidal, J.M.: Enacting bpel4ws specified workflows with multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Web Services and Agent-Based Engineering (2004) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buhler, P.A., Vidal, J.M.: Integrating agent services into bpel4ws defined workflows. Technical report, USC CSE TR-2004-003 (2004) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chafle, G., Chandra, S., Mann, V., Nanda, M.G.: Decentralized orchestration of composite web services. In WWW (Alternate Track Papers & Posters), pp. 134–143 (2004) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chun, S.A., Atluri, V., Adam, N.R.: Domain knowledge-based automatic workflow generation. In: DEXA, pp. 81–92 (2002) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Workflow Management Coalition: Interface 1—process definition interchange v 1.0 final. http://www.wfmc.org (1998)
  13. 13.
    Contenti, M., Mecella, M., Termini, A., Baldoni, R.: A distributed architecture for supporting e-government cooperative processes. In: TCGOV 2005. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3416, pp. 181–192 (2005) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Curbera, F., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Roller, D., Thatte, S., Weerawarana, S.: Business process execution language for web services, version 1.0, July 2002 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Das, S., Kochut, K., Miller, J., Sheth, A., Worah, D.: ORBWork: A reliable distributed CORBA-based workflow enactment system for METEOR2. Technical Report UGA-CS-TR-97-001, University of Georgia, February 1997 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goradia, H., Vidal, J.M.: Multiagent workflow enactment using adaptive pricing mechanisms. In: AAAI Planning and Scheduling for Web Services Workshop (2005) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grundy, J., Apperley, M., Hosking, J., Mugridge, W.: A decentralised architecture for software process modeling and enactment. IEEE Internet Comput. 2(5), 53–62 (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haller, K., Schuldt, H., Turker, C.: Decentralized coordination of transactional processes in peer-to-peer environments. In: CIKM ’05: Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 28–35. ACM, New York (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jordan, D., Evdemon, J.: Web services business process execution language version 2.0. Technical report, OASIS Public Review Draft, August 2006 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maurino, A., Modafferi, S.: Partitioning rules for orchestrating mobile information systems. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 9(5), 291–300 (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Medina-Mora, R., Winograd, T., Flores, R., Flores, F.: The action workflow approach to workflow management technology. In: Proc. CSCW 92, pp. 281–288. ACM, New York (1992) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohan, C.: Workflow management in the Internet age, advances in databases and information systems. In: LNCS, pp. 26–34. Springer, Berlin (1998) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muth, P., Wodtke, D., Weikum, G., Dittrich, A.: Enterprise-wide workflow management based on state and activity charts. In: Dogac, A., Kalinichenko, L., Sheth, A. (eds.) Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability (1998) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muth, P., Wodtke, D., Weissenfels, J.: From centralized workflow specification to distributed workflow execution. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 10(2) (1998) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Muth, P., Wodtke, D., Weissenfels, J., Weikum, G., Kotz Dittrich, A.: Enterprise-wide workflow management based on state and activity charts (1998) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nanda, M.G., Chandra, S., Sarkar, V.: Decentralizing execution of composite web services. In: OOPSLA ’04: Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 170–187. ACM, New York (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    OMG: XML meta data interchange. http://www.omg.org
  28. 28.
    Rusinkiewicz, M., Sheth, A.: Specification and execution of transactional workflows. In: Kim, W. (ed.) Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability, and Beyond, Addison–Wesley, Reading (1994) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sheng, Q.Z., Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Mak, E.O.-Y.: Self-serv: a platform for rapid composition of web services in a peer-to-peer environment. In: VLDB, pp. 1051–1054 (2002) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singh, A., Pande, S.: Compiler optimizations for java aglets in distributed data intensive applications. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (2002) Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singh, M.P., Huhns, M.N.: In: Multiagent Systems for Workflow, pp. 105–117 (1999) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Relational Software: UML Documentation. http://www.rational.com/uml/resources
  33. 33.
    Swenson, K., Maxwell, R., Matsumoto, T., Saghari, B., Irwin, K.: A business process environment supporting collaborative planning. J. Collab. Comput. 1(1), 15–34 (1994) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tilevich, E., Smaragdakis, Y.: J-orchestra: Automatic java application partitioning. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Object Oriented Programming (ECOOP 02) (2002) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vidal, J.M., Buhler, P., Stahl, C.: Multiagent systems with workflows. IEEE Internet Comput. 1, 76–82 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wodtke, D., Weikum, G.: A formal foundation for distributed workflow execution based on state charts. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Database Theory, Delphi, Greece, January 1997 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yan, J., Yang, Y., Raikundalia, G.: Enacting business processes in a decentralised environment with p2p-based workflow support. In: Proc. of 4th International Conference on Web-Age Information Management (WAIM’03). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin (2003) Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhou, D., Pande, S., Schwan, K.: Method partitioning—runtime customization of pervasive programs without design-time application knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS 03) (2003) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vijayalakshmi Atluri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Soon Ae Chun
    • 2
  • Ravi Mukkamala
    • 3
  • Pietro Mazzoleni
    • 4
  1. 1.MS/IS DepartmentRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Information SystemsCity University of New YorkStaten IslandUSA
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Scienze dell’InformazioneUniversity of MilanMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations