Executing Lifecycle Processes in Object-Aware Process Management

  • Sebastian SteinauEmail author
  • Kevin Andrews
  • Manfred Reichert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 340)


Data-centric approaches to business process management, in general, no longer require specific activities to be executed in a certain order, but instead data values must be present in business objects for a successful process completion. While this holds the promise of more flexible processes, the addition of the data perspective results in increased complexity. Therefore, data-centric approaches must be able to cope with the increased complexity, while still fulfilling the promise of high process flexibility. Object-aware process management specifies business processes in terms of objects as well as their lifecycle processes. Lifecycle processes determine how an object acquires all necessary data values. As data values are not always available in the order the lifecycle process of an object requires, the lifecycle process must be able to flexibly handle these deviations. Object-aware process management provides operational semantics with built-in flexible data acquisition, instead of tasking the process modeler with pre-specifying all execution variants. At the technical level, the flexible data acquisition is accomplished with process rules, which efficiently realize the operational semantics.


Lifecycle execution Data-centric processes Flexible data acquisition Process rules 



This work is part of the ZAFH Intralogistik, funded by the European Regional Development Fund and the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Württemberg, Germany (F.No. 32-7545.24-17/3/1)


  1. 1.
    Andrews, K., Steinau, S., Reichert, M.: Enabling fine-grained access control in flexible distributed object-aware process management systems. In: 21st IEEE International Conferences on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC) (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrews, K., Steinau, S., Reichert, M.: Towards hyperscale process management. In: 8th International Workshop on Enterprise Modeling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 148–152. (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck, H., Hewelt, M., Pufahl, L.: Extending fragment-based case management with state variables. In: Dumas, M., Fantinato, M. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNBIP, vol. 281, pp. 227–238. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiao, C.M., Künzle, V., Reichert, M.: Enhancing the case handling paradigm to support object-aware processes. In: 3rd International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 89–103. (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. Bull. IEEE Comput. Soc. Tech. Committee Data Eng. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Damaggio, E., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with Guard-Stage-Milestone lifecycles. Inf. Syst. 38(4), 561–584 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guenther, C.W., Reichert, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Supporting flexible processes with adaptive workflow and case handling. In: IEEE 17th Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, pp. 229–234 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haddar, N., Tmar, M., Gargouri, F.: A framework for data-driven workflow management: modeling, verification and execution. In: Decker, H., Lhotská, L., Link, S., Basl, J., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) DEXA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8055, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haddar, N., Tmar, M., Gargouri, F.: Opus framework: a proof-of-concept implementation. In: IEEE/ACIS 14th International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS), pp. 639–641 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haddar, N., Tmar, M., Gargouri, F.: A data-centric approach to manage business processes. Computing 98(4), 375–406 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haisjackl, C., et al.: Understanding declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(2), 325–352 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hewelt, M., Weske, M.: A hybrid approach for flexible case modeling and execution. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNBIP, vol. 260, pp. 38–54. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hull, R., et al.: Business artifacts with Guard-Stage-Milestone lifecycles: managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: 5th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-based System (DEBS), pp. 51–62. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hull, R., et al.: Introducing the Guard-Stage-Milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Künzle, V., Reichert, M.: A modeling paradigm for integrating processes and data at the micro level. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD-2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 201–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Künzle, V., Reichert, M.: PHILharmonicFlows: towards a framework for object-aware process management. J. Softw. Maint. Evol.: Res. Pract. 23(4), 205–244 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group: Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN), Version 1.1 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: DECLARE: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: 11th IEEE International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC), p. 287 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reijers, H.A., Rigter, J.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The case handling case. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 12(03), 365–391 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steinau, S., Andrews, K., Reichert, M.: The relational process structure. In: Krogstie, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) CAiSE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10816, pp. 53–67. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steinau, S., Künzle, V., Andrews, K., Reichert, M.: Coordinating business processes using semantic relationships. In: 19th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), pp. 33–43. IEEE Computer Society Press (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl. Eng. 53(2), 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weber, B., Mutschler, B., Reichert, M.: Investigating the effort of using business process management technology: results from a controlled experiment. Sci. Comput. Program. 75(5), 292–310 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Steinau
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kevin Andrews
    • 1
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Databases and Information SystemsUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations