Evaluation of Correctness Criteria for Dynamic Workflow Changes

  • Stefanie Rinderle
  • Manfred Reichert
  • Peter Dadam
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2678)


The capability to dynamically adapt in-progress workflows (WF) is an essential requirement for any workflow management system (WfMS). This fact has been recognized by the WF community for a long time and different approaches in the area of adaptive workflows have been developed so far. They either enable WF type changes and their propagation to in-progress WF instances or (ad-hoc) changes of single WF instances. Thus, at first glance, many of the major problems related to dynamic WF changes seem to be solved. However, this picture changes when digging deeper into the approaches and considering implementation and usability issues as well. This paper presents important criteria for the correct adaptation of running workflows and analyzes how actual approaches satisfy them. At this, we demonstrate the strengths of the different approaches and provide additional solutions to overcome current limitations. These solutions comprise comprehensive correctness criteria as well as migration rules for change realization.


Change Region Loop Iteration Change Operation Concurrent Change Execution Schema 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Agostini, A., De Michelis, G.: Improving flexibility of workflow management systems. In: Proc. BPM’ 2000. LNCS 1806, Springer (2000) 218–234Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W., Basten, T.: Inheritance of workflows: An approach to tackling problems related to change. Theoretical Computer Science 270 (2002) 125–203zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edmond, D., ter Hofstede, A.: A reflective infrastructure for workflow adaptability. Data and Knowledge Engineering 34 (2000) 271–304zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow evolution. Data and Knowledge Engineering 24 (1998) 211–238zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellis, C., Keddara, K., Rozenberg, G.: Dynamic change within workflow systems. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Org. Comp. Sys. (COOCS’ 95), Milpitas, CA (1995) 10–21Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sadiq, S., Marjanovic, O., Orlowska, M.: Managing change and time in dynamic workflow processes. Int’l J Coop IS 9 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weske, M.: Formal foundation and conceptual design of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system. In: Proc. 34th Hawaii Int’l Conf. on System Sciences (HICSS-34). (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex-supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. Journal of Intelligent Inf. Systems 10 (1998) 93–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A., Bussler, C.: On structured workflow modelling. In: Proc. CAiSE’ 00. LNCS 1789, Springer (2000) 431–445Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellis, C., Keddara, K.: A workflow change is a workflow. In: Proc. BPM 2000. Volume 1806 of LNCS., Springer (2000) 516–534Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Joeris, G., Herzog, O.: Managing evolving workflow specifications. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Coop. Inf. Systems (CoopIS’ 98), New York City (1998) 310–321Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fent, A., Reiter, H., Freitag, B.: Design for change: Evolving workflow specifications in ULTRAflow. In: Proc. CAiSE’ 02. (2002) 516–534Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kradolfer, M., Geppert, A.: Dynamic workflow schema evolution based on workflow type versioning and workflow migration. In: Proc. CoopIS’ 99, Edinburgh (1999) 104–114Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ellis, C., Maltzahn, C.: The Chautauqua workflow system. In: Proc. 30th Int’l Conf. on System Science, Maui (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie Rinderle
    • 1
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  • Peter Dadam
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Databases and Information SystemsUniversity of Ulm, Faculty of Computer ScienceUlm

Personalised recommendations