Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 9, Issue 3–4, pp 399–412 | Cite as

A Knowledge-based Approach to Handling Exceptions in Workflow Systems

  • Mark Klein
  • Chrysanthos Dellarocas


This paper describes a novel knowledge-based approachfor helping workflow process designers andparticipants better manage the exceptions (deviationsfrom an ideal collaborative work process caused byerrors, failures, resource or requirements changesetc.) that can occur during the enactment of aworkflow. This approach is based on exploiting ageneric and reusable body of knowledge concerning whatkinds of exceptions can occur in collaborative workprocesses, and how these exceptions can handled(detected, diagnosed and resolved). This work buildsupon previous efforts from the MIT Process Handbookproject and from research on conflict management incollaborative design.

adaptation failure handling process exception re-design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Auramaki, E. and M. Leppanen (1989): Exceptions and Office Information Systems. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.4 Working Conference on Office Information Systems: The Design Process., Linz, Austria. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  2. Birnbaum, L., G. Collins, et al. (1990): Model-Based Diagnosis of Planning Failures. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Broverman, C.A. and W.B. Croft (1987): Reasoning About Exceptions During Plan Execution Monitoring. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-87).Google Scholar
  4. Chandrasekaran, B. and S. Mittal (1999): Deep Versus Compiled Knowledge Approaches To Diagnostic Problem Solving. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 357–368.Google Scholar
  5. Clancey, W.J. (1984): Classification Problem Solving. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84).Google Scholar
  6. Davenport, T. (1993): Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. deKleer, J. and B. Williams (1986): Reasoning About Multiple Faults. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-86). Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  8. Dellarocas, C., J. Lee, et al. (1994): Using a Process Handbook to Design Organizational Processes. Proceedings of the AAAI 1994 Spring Symposium on Computational Organization Design. Stanford, CA. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, C.A., K. Keddara, et al. (1995): Dynamic Change within Workflow Systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. Friedrich, G., G. Gottlob, et al. (1990): Physical Impossibility Instead of Fault Models. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90).Google Scholar
  11. Goldstein, I. (1975): Bargaining Between Goals. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-75).Google Scholar
  12. Grover, V. and W.J. Kettinger (eds.) (1995): Business Process Change: Concepts, Methodologies and Technologies. Harrisburg: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  13. Hammer, M. and J. Champy (1993): Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  14. Harrington, H.J. (1991): Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competetiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Herman, G., M. Klein, et al. (1998): A Template-Based Process Redesign Methodology Based on the Process Handbook. Unpublished discussion paper. Cambridge MA, Center for Coordination Science, Sloan School of Management, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  16. Karbe, B.H. and N.G. Ramsberger (1990): Influence of Exception Handling on the Support of Cooperative Office Work. In S. Gibbs and A.A. Verrijin-Stuart (eds.): Multi-User Interfaces and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 355–370.Google Scholar
  17. Katz, D.M.S. (1993): ExceptionManagement on a Shop Floor Using Online Simulation. Proceedings of 1993 Winter Simulation Conference-(WSC'93), Los Angeles, CA, USA. New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
  18. Kettinger, W.J., S. Guha, et al. (1995): The Process Reengineering Life Cycle Methodology: A Case Study. In V. Grover and W.J. Kettinger (eds.): Business Process Change: Concepts, Methodologies and Technologies. Hershey, USA: Idea Group, pp. 211–244.Google Scholar
  19. Klein, M. (1989): Conflict Resolution in Cooperative Design. PhD thesis. Computer Science. Urbana-Champaign, IL, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  20. Klein, M. (1991): Supporting Conflict Resolution in Cooperative Design Systems. IEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1379–1390.Google Scholar
  21. Klein, M. (1993): Supporting ConflictManagement in Cooperative Design Teams. Journal on Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 2, pp. 259–278.Google Scholar
  22. Klein, M. (1997): An Exception Handling Approach to Enhancing Consistency, Completeness and Correctness in Collaborative Requirements Capture. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications (March).Google Scholar
  23. Klein, M. (1998): Toward AdaptiveWorkflow Systems. Workshop at the ACMCSCW-98 Conference, Seattle, WA. Available at Scholar
  24. Kreifelts, T. and G.Woetzel (1987): Distribution and Error Handling in an Office Procedure System. IFIP WF 8.4 Working Conference on Methods and Tools for Office Systems, Pisa, Italy. Google Scholar
  25. Krishnamurthi, M. and A.J. Underbrink Jr. (1989): Knowledge Acquisition in a Machine Fault Diagnosis Shell. SIGART Newsletter-Knowledge Acquisition Special Issue vol. 108, pp. 84–92.Google Scholar
  26. Kunin, J.S. (1982): Analysis and Specification of Office Procedures. In Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 232.Google Scholar
  27. Malone, T.W., K. Crowston, et al. (1993): Tools for Inventing Organizations: Toward a Handbook of Organizational Processes. Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Enabling Technologies Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WET ICE), Morgantown, WV, USA. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  28. Malone, T.W., K. Crowston, et al. (1997): Toward a Handbook of Organizational Processes. Cambridge, MA, CCS Working Paper 198. MIT Center for Coordination Science.Google Scholar
  29. Malone, T.W. and K.G. Crowston (1994): The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 87–119.Google Scholar
  30. Mi, P. and W. Scacchi (1993): Articulation: An Integrated Approach to the Diagnosis, Replanning and Rescheduling of Software Process Failures. Proceedings of 8th Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference, Chicago, IL, USA. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  31. Parthasarathy, S. (1989): Generalised Process Exceptions-a Knowledge Representation Paradigm for Expert Control. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Cambridge, UK. Southampton, UK: Comput. Mech. Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Raheja, D. (1990): Software System Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (SSFMEA)-a Tool for Reliability Growth. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Reliability and Maintainability (ISRM-90), Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Union of Japanese Sci. & Eng.Google Scholar
  33. Strong, D.M. (1992): Decision Support for Exception Handling and Quality Control in Office Operations. Decision Support Systems, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 217–227.Google Scholar
  34. Sussman, G.J. (1973): A Computational Model Of Skill Acquistion. PhD thesis. AI Lab. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Visser, A. (1995): An Exception-handling Framework. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 197–203.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Klein
    • 1
  • Chrysanthos Dellarocas
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Coordination ScienceMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeU.S.A.
  2. 2.Sloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations