Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 297–317 | Cite as

Exterminating the Dynamic Change Bug: A Concrete Approach to Support Workflow Change

  • W.M.P. van der Aalst

Abstract

Adaptability has become one of the major research topics in the area of workflow management. Today's workflow management systems have problems dealing with both ad-hoc changes and evolutionary changes. As a result, the workflow management system is not used to support dynamically changing workflow processes or the workflow process is supported in a rigid manner, i.e., changes are not allowed or handled outside of the workflow management system. In this paper, we focus on a notorious problem caused by workflow change: the “dynamic change bug” (Ellis et al.; Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing Systems, Milpitas, California, ACM SIGOIS, ACM Press, New York, 1995, pp. 10–21). The dynamic change bug refers to errors introduced by migrating a case (i.e., a process instance) from the old process definition to the new one. A transfer from the old process to the new process can lead to duplication of work, skipping of tasks, deadlocks, and livelocks. This paper describes an approach for calculating a safe change region. If a case is in such a change region, the transfer is postponed.

workflow management workflow change dynamic change petri nets 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aalst W van der. Three good reasons for using a Petri-net-based workflow management system. In: Wakayama T, Kannapan S, Khoong C, Navathe S, Yates J, eds. Information and Process Integration in Enterprises: Rethinking Documents, The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science,Vol. 428, ch. 100, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, 1998a: 161–182.Google Scholar
  2. Aalst W van der. The application of Petri nets to workflow management. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 1998b;8(1):21–66.Google Scholar
  3. Aalst W van der. workflow verification: Finding control-flow errors using Petri-net-based techniques. In: Business Process Management: Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1806. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000:161–183.Google Scholar
  4. Aalst W van der, Basten T. Inheritance of workflows: An approach to tackling problems related to change. Theoretical Computer Science 2001 (to appear).Google Scholar
  5. Aalst W van der, Basten T, Verbeek H, Verkoulen P, Voorhoeve M. Adaptive workflow: On the interplay between flexibility and support. In: Filipe J, ed. Enterprise Information Systems. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000a:63–70.Google Scholar
  6. Aalst W van der, Desel J, Oberweis A. (eds.) Business Process Management: Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1806. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000b.Google Scholar
  7. Agostini A, Michelis G. Improving flexibility of workflow management systems. In: W van der Aalst, Pesel J, Oberweis A, eds. Business Process Management: Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,Vol. 1806. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000:218–234.Google Scholar
  8. Bertino E, Martino L. Object-Oriented Database Systems: Concepts and Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA (1993).Google Scholar
  9. Casati F, Ceri S, Pernici B, Pozzi G. workflow evolution. Data and Knowledge Engineering 1998;24(3):211–238.Google Scholar
  10. Desel J, Esparza J. Free Choice Petri Nets, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 40. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. Ellis C, Keddara K. A workflow change is a workflow. In: Business Process Management: Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1806. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000a:201–217.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis C, Keddara K. ML-DEWS: Modeling language to support dynamic evolution within workflow systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2000b; 9(3/4): 293–333.Google Scholar
  13. Ellis C, Keddara K, Rozenberg G. Dynamic change within work-flow systems. In: Comstock N, Ellis C, Kling R, Mylopoulos J, Kaplan S, eds. Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing Systems, Milpitas, California. ACM SIGOIS. New York: ACM Press, 1995:10–21.Google Scholar
  14. Ellis C, Nutt G. Modelling and enactment of workflow systems. In: Marsan, M A, ed. Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1993, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 691. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1993:1–16.Google Scholar
  15. Gostellow K, Cerf V, Estrin G, Volansky S. Proper termination of flow-of-control in programs involving concurrent processes. ACM Sigplan 1972;7(11):15–27.Google Scholar
  16. Jablonski S. Bussler C. workflow Management: Modeling Concepts, Architecture, and Implementation. London, UK: International Thomson Computer Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. Joeris G, Herzog O. Managing evolving workflow specifications. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, 20- 22 August New York City, New York, USA: IEEE-CS Press, 1998:310–321.Google Scholar
  18. Keddara K. Dynamic evolution of workflow systems. PhD Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. Kindler E, Aalst W. Liveness, fairness, and recurrence. Information Processing Letters 1999;70(6):269–274.Google Scholar
  20. Koulopoulos T. The workflow Imperative. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. Lawrence P. (ed.) workflow Handbook 1997, workflow Management Coalition. New York: Wiley, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. Michelis G. De, Ellis C. Computer supported cooperative work and Petri nets. In: ReisigW, Rozenberg G, eds. Lectures on Petri Nets II: Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1492. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1998:125–153.Google Scholar
  23. Murata T. Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 1998;77(4):541–580.Google Scholar
  24. Reichert M, Dadam P. ADEPTflex: Supporting dynamic changes of workflow without loosing control. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 1998;10(2):93–129.Google Scholar
  25. Reisig W, Rozenberg G. (eds.) Lectures onPetri Nets I: Basic Models, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1491. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  26. Sadiq S, Marjanovic O, Orlowska M. Managing change and time in dynamic workflow processes. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 2000;9(1–2):93–116.Google Scholar
  27. Voorhoeve M. Aalst W van der. Conservative adaption of work-flow. In: Wolf M, Reimer U, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management (PAKM'96), Workshop on Adaptive workflow, Basel, Switzerland, 1996: 1–15.Google Scholar
  28. Voorhoeve M, Aalst W van der. Ad-hoc workflow: Problems and solutions. In Wagner R., ed. Proceedings of the 8th DEXA InternationalWorkshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Toulouse, France. Los Alamitos, California: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997:36–40.Google Scholar
  29. Vossen G, Weske M. The WASA2 object-oriented workflow management system. In: Delis A. Faloutsos C, Ghandeharizadeh S, ed. SIGMOD 1999, Proceedings ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1- 3 June, 1999, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: ACM Press, 1999:587–589.Google Scholar
  30. Weske M. Foundation, design, and implementation of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system. Fachbericht Angewandte Mathematik und Informatik 6/2000-I, Universität Münster, Münster, Germany, 2000Google Scholar
  31. WFMC workflow management coalition terminology and glossary (WFMC-TC-1011). Technical report,workflow Management Coalition, Brussels, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • W.M.P. van der Aalst
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and TechnologyEindhoven University of Technology, Faculty of Technology and ManagementEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations