Towards Process Models for Disaster Response

  • Dirk Fahland
  • Heiko Woith
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 17)


In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, routine processes, even if specifically designed for such a situation, are not enacted blindly. Actions and processes rather adapt their behavior based on observations and available information. Attempts to support these processes by technology rely on process models that faithfully capture process execution and adaptation. Based on experiences from actual disaster response settings, we propose to specify an adaptive process as a set of scenarios using a Petri net syntax. Our operational model provides an adaptation operator that synthesizes and adapts the system behavior at run-time based on the given scenarios. An example illustrates our approach.


Process model adaptation scenarios Petri nets disaster response 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Basten, T.: Inheritance of workflows: an approach to tackling problems related to change. Theor. Comput. Sci. 270(1-2), 125–203 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baeten, J.C.M., van Beek, D.A., Rooda, J.E.: CRC Handbook of Dynamic System Modeling. Process algebra, ch. 19, pp. 19.1–21. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Worklets: A Service-Oriented Implementation of Dynamic Flexibility in Workflows. In: OTM Conferences (1), pp. 291–308 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agostini, A., De Michelis, G.: Improving Flexibility of Workflow Management Systems. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 218–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nick Carter, W.: Disaster Management: A Disaster Manager’s Handbook. Asian Development Bank (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow evolution. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling / the Entity Relationship Approach, pp. 438–455 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrig, H., Hoffmann, K., Padberg, J.: Transformations of Petri Nets. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 148(1), 151–172 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ellis, C., Keddara, K., Rozenberg, G.: Dynamic change within workflow systems. In: COCS 1995, pp. 10–21. ACM Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engelfriet, J.: Branching processes of Petri nets. Acta Inf. 28(6), 575–591 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esparza, J., Heljanko, K.: Unfoldings - A Partial-Order Approach to Model Checking. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fahland, D.: Oclets - a formal approach to adaptive systems using scenario-based concepts. Informatik-Berichte 223, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farwer, B.: Recovery and reset in object petri nets with process markings. In: Proceedings of CS&P 2006, pp. 47–57 (September 2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harel, D., Kugler, H.: Synthesizing State-Based Object Systems from LSC Specifications. In: Yu, S., Păun, A. (eds.) CIAA 2000. LNCS, vol. 2088, pp. 1–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, Let’s Play: Scenario-Based Programming Using LSC’s and the Play-Engine. Springer, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Hee, K.M., Serebrenik, A., Sidorova, N., Voorhoeve, M., van der Werf, J.M.E.M.: Modelling with history-dependent petri nets. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 320–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jul, S.: Who’s Really on First? A Domain-Level User, Task and Context Analysis for Response Technology. In: ISCRAM 2007, pp. 139–148 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Köhler, M., Rölke, H.: Reference and value semantics are equivalent for ordinary object Petri nets. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 309–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Leoni, M., Mecella, M., De Giacomo, G.: Highly dynamic adaptation in process management systems through execution monitoring. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 182–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milner, R.: Communicating and Mobile Systems: the Pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    GFZ Potsdam. Mission statement of the “German Task Force Earthquakes (May 15, 2008),
  22. 22.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex-Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 10(2), 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reisig, W.: A Primer in Petri Net Design. Springer Compass International, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change patterns and change support features in process-aware information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Fahland
    • 1
  • Heiko Woith
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, TelegrafenbergPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations