Optimized Execution of Business Processes on Blockchain

  • Luciano García-BañuelosEmail author
  • Alexander Ponomarev
  • Marlon Dumas
  • Ingo Weber
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10445)


Blockchain technology enables the execution of collaborative business processes involving untrusted parties without requiring a central authority. Specifically, a process model comprising tasks performed by multiple parties can be coordinated via smart contracts operating on the blockchain. The consensus mechanism governing the blockchain thereby guarantees that the process model is followed by each party. However, the cost required for blockchain use is highly dependent on the volume of data recorded and the frequency of data updates by smart contracts. This paper proposes an optimized method for executing business processes on top of commodity blockchain technology. Our optimization targets three areas specifically: initialization cost for process instances, task execution cost by means of a space-optimized data structure, and improved runtime components for maximized throughput. The method is empirically compared to a previously proposed baseline by replaying execution logs and measuring resource consumption and throughput.



This research was started at the Dagstuhl seminar #16191 – Fresh Approaches to Business Process Modeling. The research is partly supported by the Estonian Research Council (grant IUT20-55).


  1. 1.
    UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser: Distributed ledger technology: Beyond block chain. Technical report, UK Government Office of Science (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Milani, F., García-Bañuelos, L., Dumas, M.: Blockchain and business process improvement. BPTrends newsletter, October 2016Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weber, I., Xu, X., Riveret, R., Governatori, G., Ponomarev, A., Mendling, J.: Untrusted business process monitoring and execution using blockchain. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 329–347. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buterin, V.: Ethereum white paper: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. First version (2014). Latest version: last accessed 29 Nov 2016
  5. 5.
    Wood, G.: Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Homestead revision, 23 June 2016.
  6. 6.
    Hull, R., Batra, V.S., Chen, Y.-M., Deutsch, A., Heath III, F.F.T., Vianu, V.: Towards a shared ledger business collaboration language based on data-aware processes. In: Sheng, Q.Z., Stroulia, E., Tata, S., Bhiri, S. (eds.) ICSOC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9936, pp. 18–36. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46295-0_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norta, A.: Creation of smart-contracting collaborations for decentralized autonomous organizations. In: Matulevičius, R., Dumas, M. (eds.) BIR 2015. LNBIP, vol. 229, pp. 3–17. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21915-8_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frantz, C.K., Nowostawski, M.: From institutions to code: Towards automated generation of smart contracts. In: Workshop on Engineering Collective Adaptive Systems (eCAS), co-located with SASO, Augsburg (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pettersson, J., Edström, R.: Safer smart contracts through type-driven development. Master’s thesis, Department of CS&E, Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Fundamentals of control flow in workflows. Acta Inf. 39(3), 143–209 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murata, T.: Petri nets: properties, analysis and applications. Proc. IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Augusto, A., Conforti, R., Dumas, M., Rosa, M., Bruno, G.: Automated discovery of structured process models: discover structured vs. discover and structure. In: Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song, I.-Y., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9974, pp. 313–329. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46397-1_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciano García-Bañuelos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexander Ponomarev
    • 2
  • Marlon Dumas
    • 1
  • Ingo Weber
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.University of TartuTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Data61, CSIROSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUNSWSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations