Untrusted Business Process Monitoring and Execution Using Blockchain

  • Ingo Weber
  • Xiwei Xu
  • Régis Riveret
  • Guido Governatori
  • Alexander Ponomarev
  • Jan Mendling
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9850)

Abstract

The integration of business processes across organizations is typically beneficial for all involved parties. However, the lack of trust is often a roadblock. Blockchain is an emerging technology for decentralized and transactional data sharing across a network of untrusted participants. It can be used to find agreement about the shared state of collaborating parties without trusting a central authority or any particular participant. Some blockchain networks also provide a computational infrastructure to run autonomous programs called smart contracts. In this paper, we address the fundamental problem of trust in collaborative process execution using blockchain. We develop a technique to integrate blockchain into the choreography of processes in such a way that no central authority is needed, but trust maintained. Our solution comprises the combination of an intricate set of components, which allow monitoring or coordination of business processes. We implemented our solution and demonstrate its feasibility by applying it to three use case processes. Our evaluation includes the creation of more than 500 smart contracts and the execution over 8,000 blockchain transactions.

Keywords

Business process Blockchain Choreography Orchestration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Chao Li for integrating the trigger prototype with POD-Viz and recording the screencast video.

References

  1. 1.
    Carminati, B., Ferrari, E., Tran, N.H.: Secure web service composition with untrusted broker. In: IEEE ICWS, pp. 137–144. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 292–312 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fdhila, W., Rinderle-Ma, S., Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M.: Change and compliance in collaborative processes. In: IEEE SCC, pp. 162–169 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flynn, B.B., Huo, B., Zhao, X.: The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a contingency and configuration approach. J. Oper. Manag. 28(1), 58–71 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kemme, B., Alonso, G.: Database replication: a tale of research across communities. Proc. VLDB Endow. 3(1–2), 5–12 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li, G., Muthusamy, V., Jacobsen, H.A.: A distributed service-oriented architecture for business process execution. ACM TWEB 4(1), 2 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mendling, J., Hafner, M.: From WS-CDL choreography to BPEL process orchestration. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 21(5), 525–542 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mont, M.C., Tomasi, L.: A distributed service, adaptive to trust assessment, based on peer-to-peer e-records replication and storage. In: IEEE FTDCS (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2015
  10. 10.
    Narayanan, S., Jayaraman, V., Luo, Y., Swaminathan, J.M.: The antecedents of process integration in business process outsourcing and its effect on firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 29(1), 3–16 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group, June 2010. BPMN 2.0 by Example. www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100601/10-06-02.pdf. Version 1.0. Accessed 10 Mar 2016
  12. 12.
    Omohundro, S.: Cryptocurrencies, smart contracts, and artificial intelligence. AI Matters 1(2), 19–21 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Panayides, P.M., Lun, Y.V.: The impact of trust on innovativeness and supply chain performance. J. Prod. Econ. 122(1), 35–46 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Snow, P., Deery, B., Lu, J., Johnston, D., Kirby, P.: Business processes secured by immutable audit trails on the blockchain (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Squicciarini, A., Paci, F., Bertino, E.: Trust establishment in the formation of virtual organizations. In: ICDE Workshops, IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Subramanian, S., Thiran, P., Narendra, N., Mostéfaoui, G., Maamar, Z.: On the enhancement of BPEL engines for self-healing composite web services. In: Proceedings of SAINT Symposium, pp. 33–39 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tschorsch, F., Scheuermann, B.: Bitcoin and beyond: a technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2015, 464 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C., Rozinat, A., Verbeek, E.: Conformance checking of service behavior. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 8(3) (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M.: The P2P approach to interorganizational workflows. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 140–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Viriyasitavat, W., Martin, A.: In the relation of workflow and trust characteristics, and requirements in service workflows. In: Abd Manaf, A., Zeki, A., Zamani, M., Chuprat, S., El-Qawasmeh, E. (eds.) ICIEIS 2011, Part I. CCIS, vol. 251, pp. 492–506. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weber, I., Haller, J., Mülle, J.: Automated derivation of executable business processes from choreograpies in virtual organizations. Int. J. Bus. Process Integr. Manag. (IJBPIM) 3(2), 85–95 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weber, I., Xu, X., Riveret, R., Governatori, G., Ponomarev, A., Mendling, J.: Using blockchain to enable untrusted business process monitoring and execution. Technical report UNSW-CSE-TR-09, University of New South Wales (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Ngu, A., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J., Chang, H.: QOS-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE TSE 30(5), 311–327 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingo Weber
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiwei Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Régis Riveret
    • 3
  • Guido Governatori
    • 3
  • Alexander Ponomarev
    • 1
  • Jan Mendling
    • 4
  1. 1.Data61, CSIROEveleighAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUNSWSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Data61, CSIROSpring HillAustralia
  4. 4.Wirtschaftsuniversität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations