A Declarative Approach for Flexible Business Processes Management

  • M. Pesic
  • W. M. P. van der Aalst
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4103)


Management of dynamic processes in an important issue in rapidly changing organizations. Workflow management systems are systems that use detailed process models to drive the business processes. Current business process modelling languages and models are of imperative nature – they strictly prescribe how to work. Systems that allow users to maneuver within the process model or even change the model while working are considered to be the most suitable for dynamic processes management. However, in many companies it is not realistic to expect that end-users are able to change their processes. Moreover, the imperative nature of these languages forces designer to over-specify processes, which results in frequent changes. We propose a fundamental paradigm shift for flexible process management and propose a more declarative approach. Declarative models specify what should be done without specifying how it should be done. We propose the ConDec language for modelling and enacting dynamic business processes. ConDec is based on temporal logic rather than some imperative process modelling language.


Workflow management declarative model specification dynamic workflow flexibility temporal logic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Aldred, L., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Design and Implementation of the YAWL System. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3084, pp. 142–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Jablonski, S.: Dealing with Workflow Change: Identification of Issues and Solutions. International Journal of Computer Systems, Science, and Engineering 15(5), 267–276 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: Specifying, discovering, and monitoring service flows: Making web services process-aware. BPM Center Report BPM-06-09, BPM Center, (2006),
  5. 5.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case Handling: A New Paradigm for Business Process Support. Data and Knowledge Engineering 53(2), 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow evolution. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) ER 1996. LNCS, vol. 1157, pp. 438–455. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Desel, J.: Validation of process models by construction of process nets. In: Business Process Management, Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, pp. 110–128. Springer, London (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Dongen, B., Alves de Medeiros, A.K., Verbeek, H.M.W., Weijters, A.J.M.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The ProM framework: A New Era in Process Mining Tool Support. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 444–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Genrich, H.J., Thieler-Mevissen, G.: The calculus of facts. In: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 1976, pp. 588–595 (1976)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M., Sheth, A.: An Overview of Workflow Management: From Process Modeling to Workflow Automation Infrastructure. Distributed and Parallel Databases 3, 119–153 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerth, R., Peled, D., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Simple On-The-Fly Automatic Verification of Linear Temporal Logic. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth IFIP WG6.1 International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification XV, pp. 3–18. Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heinl, P., Horn, S., Jablonski, S., Neeb, J., Stein, K., Teschke, M.: A comprehensive approach to flexibility in workflow management systems. In: WACC 1999: Proceedings of the international joint conference on Work activities coordination and collaboration, pp. 79–88. ACM Press, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clarke Jr., E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kammer, P.J., Bolcer, G.A., Taylor, R.N., Hitomi, A.S., Bergman, M.: Techniques for supporting dynamic and adaptive workflow. Comput. Supported Coop. Work 9(3-4), 269–292 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milner, R.: Communicating and Mobile Systems: The Pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex: Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflow without Loosing Control. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10(2), 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.): APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness Criteria For Dynamic Changes in Workflow Systems: A Survey. Data and Knowledge Engineering 50(1), 9–34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weske, M.: Formal foundation and conceptual design of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system. In: HICSS 2001: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, vol. 7, p. 7051. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Pesic
    • 1
  • W. M. P. van der Aalst
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Technology ManagementEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations