A Declarative Approach for Flexible Business Processes Management
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.
KeywordsWorkflow management declarative model specification dynamic workflow flexibility temporal logic
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
- 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.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, BPMcenter.org (2006), http://is.tm.tue.nl/staff/wvdaalst/BPMcenter/reports/2006/BPM-06-09.pdf
- 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
- 9.Genrich, H.J., Thieler-Mevissen, G.: The calculus of facts. In: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 1976, pp. 588–595 (1976)Google Scholar
- 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.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.Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
- 14.Clarke Jr., E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
- 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