Service Oriented Computing and Applications

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 191–201 | Cite as

A flexible, object-centric approach for business process modelling

  • Guy Redding
  • Marlon Dumas
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
  • Adrian Iordachescu
Special Issue Paper


Mainstream business process modelling techniques often promote a design paradigm wherein the activities that may be performed within a case, together with their usual execution order, form the backbone on top of which other aspects are anchored. This Fordist paradigm, while effective in standardised and production-oriented domains, breaks when confronted with processes in which case-by-case variations and exceptions are the norm. We contend that the effective design of flexible processes calls for a substantially different modelling paradigm. Motivated by requirements from the human services domain, we explore the hypothesis that a framework consisting of a small set of coordination concepts, combined with established object-oriented modelling principles, provides a suitable foundation for designing highly flexible processes. Several human service delivery processes have been designed using this framework, and the resulting models have been used to realise a system to support these processes in a pilot environment.


Object-centric Object-oriented Process modelling Flexible workflow 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  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: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems: CoopIS, DOA, GADA and ODBASE, vol. 4275 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 291–308Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhattacharya K, Gerede C, Hull R, Liu R, Su J (2007) Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. In: Alonso G, Dadam P, Rosemann M (eds) Business process management, 5th international conference, vol 4714 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 288–304Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brand D, Zafiropulo P (1983) On communicating finite-state machines. J ACM 30(2): 323–342MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dadam P, Reichert M, Rinderle S, Jurisch M, Acker H, Göser K, Kreher U, Lauer M (2008) Towards truly flexible and adaptive process-aware information systems. In: Kaschek R, Kop C, Steinberger C, Fliedl G (eds) Information systems and e-business technologies, 2nd international united information systems conference, vol 5 of lecture notes in business information processing. Springer, pp 72–83Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaaloul K, Charoy F, Schaad A (2009) Modelling task delegation for human-centric eGovernment workflows. In: Chun SA, Sandoval R, Regan PM (eds) Proceedings of the 10th annual international conference on digital government research, partnerships for public innovation (DG.O) digital government research center, pp 79–87Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1995) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Georgakopoulos D, Schuster H, Baker D, Cichocki A (2000) Managing escalation of collaboration processes in crisis mitigation situations. In: Young D (ed) Proceedings of the 16th international conference on data engineering (ICDE). IEEE Computer Society, pp 45–56Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hull R, Llirbat F, Simon E, Su J, Dong G, Kumar B, Zhou G (1999) Declarative workflows that support easy modification and dynamic browsing. In: Georgakopoulos D, Prinz W, Wolf A (eds) Proceedings of the international joint conference on work activities coordination and collaboration (WACC). ACM, pp 69–78Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jensen K (1997) Coloured petri nets. Basic concepts, analysis methods and practical Use, vol 1. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klingemann J (2000) Controlled Flexibility in Workflow Management. In: Wangler B, Bergman L (eds) Proceedings of the 12th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE), vol 1789 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 126–141Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Küster J, Ryndina K, Gall H (2007) Generation of business process models for object life cycle compliance. In: Alonso G, Dadam P, Rosemann M (eds) Proceedings of the 5th international conference on business process management (BPM), vol 4714 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 165–181Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Müller D, Reichert M, Herbst J (2007) Data-driven modeling and coordination of large process structures. In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems 2007: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA and IS, vol 4803 of lecture notes in computer science, Springer, pp 131–149Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pesic M, Schonenberg M, Sidorova N, van der Aalst W (2007) Constraint-based workflow models: change made easy. In Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems 2007: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA and IS, vol 4803 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 77–94Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reichert M, Dadam P (1998) ADEPTflex-supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. J Intell Inf Syst(JIIS) 10(2): 93–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Redding G, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM, Iordachescu A (2008) Generating business process models from object behaviour models. Inf Syst Manag 25(4): 319–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Redding G, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM, Iordachescu A (2009) Modelling flexible processes with business objects. In: Hofreiter B, Werthner H (eds) 11th IEEE conference on commerce and enterprise computing (CEC 2009). IEEE Computer Society, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rinderle S, Reichert M, Dadam P (2004) Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems—a survey. Data Know Eng 50(1): 9–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schonenberg H, Mans R, Russell N, Mulyar N, van der Aalst W (2008) Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility. In: Bellahsene Z, Woo C, Hunt E, Franch X, Coletta R (eds) Proceedings of the CAiSE’08 forum, vol 344 of CEUR workshop proceedings., pp 81–84Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schrefl M, Stumptner M (2000) On the design of behavior consistent specializations of object life cycles in OBD and UML. In: Papazoglou M, Spaccapietra S, Tari Z (eds) Advances in object-oriented data modeling. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 65–104Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schrefl M, Stumptner M (2002) Behavior-consistent specialization of object life cycles. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol (TOSEM) 11(1): 92–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ullman JD (1998) Elements of ML programming. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Aalst W, Adams M, ter Hofstede A, Pesic M, Schonenberg H (2009) Flexibility as a service. In: Chen L, Liu C, Liu Q, Deng K (eds) Database systems for advanced applications, DASFAA 2009 international workshops: BenchmarX, MCIS, WDPP, PPDA, MBC, PhD, vol 5667 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 319–333Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Aalst W, ter Hofstede A (2005) YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf Syst 30(4): 245–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van der Aalst W, ter Hofstede A, Kiepuszewski B, Barros A (2003) Workflow patterns. Distrib Parallel Databases 14(1): 5–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Aalst W, Weske M, Grünbauer D (2005) Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Know Eng 53(2): 129–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weber B, Rinderle S, Reichert M (2007) Change patterns and change support features in process-aware information systems. In: Krogstie J, Opdahl A, Sindre G (eds) 19th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, vol 4495 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 574–588Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weske M (2001) Formal foundation and conceptual design of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system. In: Dennis E, Werner B, Palagi L (eds) 34th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-34), Maui, Hawaii—Track 7. IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wirtz G, Weske M, Giese H (2001) The OCoN approach to workflow modeling in object-oriented systems. Inf Syst Front 3(3): 357–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guy Redding
    • 1
  • Marlon Dumas
    • 2
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
    • 1
  • Adrian Iordachescu
    • 3
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.University of TartuTartuEstonia
  3. 3.FlowConnect Pty LtdSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations