Relaxed Compliance Notions in Adaptive Process Management Systems

  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
  • Manfred Reichert
  • Barbara Weber
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5231)

Abstract

The capability to dynamically evolve process models over time and to migrate process instances to a modified model version are fundamental requirements for any process-aware information system. This has been recognized for a long time and different approaches for process schema evolution have emerged. Basically, the challenge is to correctly and efficiently migrate running instances to a modified process model. In addition, no process instance should be needlessly excluded from being migrated. While there has been significant research on correctness notions, existing approaches are still too restrictive regarding the set of migratable instances. This paper discusses fundamental requirements emerging in this context. We revisit the well-established compliance criterion for reasoning about the correct applicability of dynamic process changes, relax this criterion in different respects, and discuss the impact these relaxations have in practice. Furthermore, we investigate how to cope with non-compliant process instances to further increase the number of migratable ones. Respective considerations are fundamental for further maturation of adaptive process management technology.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change patterns and change support features in process-aware information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lenz, R., Reichert, M.: IT support for healthcare processes – premises, challenges, perspectives. Data and Knowledge Eng. 61(1), 39–58 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.: Exterminating the dynamic change bug: A concrete approach to support worfklow change. Information Systems Frontiers 3, 297–317 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow evolution. Data and Knowledge Engineering 24, 211–238 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellis, C., Keddara, K., Rozenberg, G.: Dynamic change within workflow systems. In: COOCS 1995, pp. 10–21 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kradolfer, M., Geppert, A.: Dynamic workflow schema evolution based on workflow type versioning and workflow migration. In: CoopIS 1999, pp. 104–114 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex - supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. J. of Intelligent Information Systems 10, 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sadiq, S., Marjanovic, O., Orlowska, M.: Managing change and time in dynamic workflow processes. IJCIS 9, 93–116 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W., Basten, T.: Inheritance of workflows: An approach to tackling problems related to change. Theoret. Comp. Science 270, 125–203 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weske, M.: Formal foundation and conceptual design of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system. In: HICSS-34 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Flexible support of team processes by adaptive workflow systems. Distributed and Parallel Databases 16, 91–116 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems – a survey. Data and Knowledge Engineering. 50, 9–34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dehnert, J., Zimmermann, A.: On the suitability of correctness criteria for business process models. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 386–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change patterns and change support features - enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data and Knowledge Engineering (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rinderle, S.: Schema Evolution in Process Management Systems. PhD thesis, Ulm University (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P., Bauer, T.: Dealing with forward and backward jumps in workflow management systems. Software and Syst. Modeling 2, 37–58 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Evaluation of correctness criteria for dynamic workflow changes. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 41–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mulyar, N., Schonenberg, M., Mans, R., Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.: Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility (extended version). Technical Report BPM-07-11, Brisbane/Eindhoven: BPMcenter.org (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
    • 1
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  • Barbara Weber
    • 2
  1. 1.Ulm UniversityGermany
  2. 2.University of InnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations