A Framework for Designing Resource-Driven Workflows

  • Akhil KumarEmail author
  • Jianrui Wang
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


This chapter presents a general framework of resource-driven workflows as an alternative to the more popular control flow-driven workflows approach. We argue that this approach is more holistic than control flow-driven approaches because it considers availability of resources such as data, people, equipment, space, etc. Control flow-driven approaches usually either disregard resource considerations or account for them only implicitly. In our approach, the control flow is a derivative of the resource needs of various tasks. Moreover, we make a clean separation between hard constraints that arise from resource considerations and soft constraints that result from business policy. The new methodology for process design is described at length, along with an architecture and a detailed discussion of implementation issues. This approach is more holistic and is particularly suited for ad hoc workflows as opposed to production workflows.


Control Flow Data Dependency Soft Constraint Hard Constraint Resource Dependency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bhattacharya K et al. (2007) Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. Proceedings of business process management, 5th international conference (BPM 2007), Brisbane, Australia, pp 288–304Google Scholar
  2. Botha RA, Eloff JHP (2001) Access control in document-centric workflow systems-an agent-based approach. Comput Secur 20(6):525–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiu DKW, Li Q, Karlapalem K (2001) Web interface-driven cooperative exception handling in ADOME workflow management system. Web Inf Syst Eng 26(2):93–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collis DJ, Montgomery CA (1995) Competing on resources: strategy in the, 1990’s. Harv Bus Rev 73:118–128Google Scholar
  5. Curbera F et al. (2003) Exception handling in the BPEL4WS language. In: van der Aalst W, ter Hofstede A, Weske M (eds) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol 2678, pp 276–290Google Scholar
  6. Dourish P et al. (2000) Extending document management systems with user-specific active properties. ACM Trans Inf Syst 18(2):140–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dumas M, van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM (2005) Process aware information systems. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grefen P et al. (1999) Database support for workflow management – the wide project. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hwang S-Y, Tang J (2004) Consulting past exceptions to facilitate workflow exception handling. Decis Support Syst 37(1):49–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kiepuszewski B, Hofstede AHM, Bussler C (2000) On structured workflow modeling. In: Proceedings CAiSE'2000. LNCS, vol 1797. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein M, Dellarocas C (2000) A knowledge-based approach to handling exceptions in workflow systems. Comput Support Coop Work 9:399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krishnan R, Munaga L, Karlapalem K (2002) XDoC-WFMS: a framework for document centric workflow management system. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2465:348–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. LaMarca A et al. (1999) Taking the work out of workflow: mechanisms for document-centered collaboration, ECSCW’99, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  14. Luo Z et al. (2000) Exception handling in workflow systems, Applied Intelligence: the International Journal of AI. Neural Netw 13(2):125–147Google Scholar
  15. Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput Surv 26(1):87–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mazumdar S, AbuSafiya M (2004) A document-centric approach to business process management. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information and knowledge engineering, pp 461–466Google Scholar
  17. McCarthy DR, Dayal U (1989) The architecture of an active database system. In: Proceedings ACM SIGMOD conference on management of data, Portland, pp 215–224Google Scholar
  18. Microsoft Corporation (2000) SQL Server books online: transact-SQL referenceGoogle Scholar
  19. OASIS (2010) Web Services Business Process Execution Language (WSBPEL).
  20. Object Management Group (OMG). Business process management notation.
  21. Ouyang C, Adams M, Wynn MT, ter Hofstede AHM (2010) Workflow management, In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management, vol 1. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  22. Rinderle S, Reichert M, Dadam P (2004) Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems – a survey. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 50(1):9–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scheer AW (1998) ARIS – business process frameworks, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scheer AW, Thomas O, Adam O (2005) Process modeling using event-driven process chains. In: Dumas M et al. (eds) Process aware information systems. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  25. Sun SX et al. (2006) Formulating the data-flow perspective for business process management. Inform Syst Res 17(4):374–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van der Aalst WMP (1998) The application of Petri nets to workflow management. J Circ Syst Comput 8(1):21–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van der Aalst WMP, Kumar A (2001) A reference model for team-enabled workflow management systems. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 38:335–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van der Aalst WMP et al. (2003) Workflow patterns. Distrib Parallel Databases 14(1):5–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van der Aalst WM, Rosemann M, Dumas M (2007) Deadline-based escalation in process-aware information systems. Decis Support Syst 43(2):492–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wainer J, Kumar A, Barthelmess P (2007) DW-RBAC: a formal security model of delegation and revocation in workflow systems. Inf Syst 32(3):365–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang J, Kumar A (2005) A framework for document-driven workflow systems. In: van der Aalst WMP et al. (eds) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol 3649, pp 285–301Google Scholar
  32. Workflow Management Coalition (2010) (WFMC), XML Processing Description Language (XPDL).

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Supply Chain and Information Systems, Smeal College of BusinessPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations