Advertisement

Beautiful Workflows: A Matter of Taste?

  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
  • Michael Westergaard
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8106)

Abstract

Workflows can be specified using different languages. Mainstream workflow management systems predominantly use procedural languages having a graphical representation involving AND/XOR splits and joins (e.g., using BPMN). However, there are interesting alternative approaches. For example, case handling approaches are data-driven and allow users to deviate within limits, and declarative languages based on temporal logic (where everything is allowed unless explicitly forbidden). Recently, Rinus Plasmeijer proposed the iTask system (iTasks) based on the viewpoint that workflow modeling is in essence a particular kind of functional programming. This provides advantages in terms of expressiveness, extendibility, and implementation efficiency. On the occasion of his 61st birthday, we compare four workflow paradigms: procedural, case handling, declarative, and functional. For each paradigm we selected a characteristic workflow management system: YAWL (procedural), BPM|one (case handling), Declare (declarative), and iTasks (functional). Each of these systems aims to describe and support business processes in an elegant manner. However, there are significant differences. In this paper, we aim to identify and discuss these differences.

Keywords

Workflow Management Business Process Management Case Handling Declarative Languages Functional Programming 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business Process Management Demystified: A Tutorial on Models, Systems and Standards for Workflow Management. In: Desel, J., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ACPN 2003. LNCS, vol. 3098, pp. 1–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business Process Management: A Comprehensive Survey. ISRN Software Engineering, Article ID 507984, 1–37 (2013), doi:10.1155/2013/507984Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Flexibility as a Service. In: Chen, L., Liu, C., Liu, Q., Deng, K. (eds.) DASFAA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5667, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.): BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Crom, P.J.N., Goverde, R.R.H.M.J., van Hee, K.M., Hofman, W.J., Reijers, H.A., van der Toorn, R.A.: ExSpect 6.4 An Executable Specification Tool for Hierarchical Colored Petri Nets. In: Nielsen, M., Simpson, D. (eds.) ICATPN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1825, pp. 455–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.): Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.): BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative Workflows: Balancing Between Flexibility and Support. Computer Science - Research and Development 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Stahl, C.: Modeling Business Processes: A Petri Net Oriented Approach. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Stahl, C., Westergaard, M.: Strategies for Modeling Complex Processes Using Colored Petri Nets. In: Jensen, K., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Balbo, G., Koutny, M., Wolf, K. (eds.) ToPNoC VII. LNCS, vol. 7480, pp. 6–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case Handling: A New Paradigm for Business Process Support. Data and Knowledge Engineering 53(2), 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 291–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.): BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H. (eds.): BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Desel, J., Pernici, B., Weske, M. (eds.): BPM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3080. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.): BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.): BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ellis, C.A., Keddara, K., Rozenberg, G.: Dynamic Change within Workflow Systems. In: Comstock, N., Ellis, C., Kling, R., Mylopoulos, J., Kaplan, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing Systems, Milpitas, California, pp. 10–21. ACM SIGOIS, ACM Press, New York (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Giannakopoulou, D., Havelund, K.: Automata-Based Verification of Temporal Properties on Running Programs. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2001), pp. 412–416. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herrmann, T., Hoffmann, M., Loser, K.U., Moysich, K.: Semistructured Models are Surprisingly Useful for User-Centered Design. In: De Michelis, G., Giboin, A., Karsenty, L., Dieng, R. (eds.) Designing Cooperative Systems (Coop 2000), pp. 159–174. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., Russell, N.: Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and its Support Environment. Springer, Berlin (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.): BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jablonski, S., Bussler, C.: Workflow Management: Modeling Concepts, Architecture, and Implementation. International Thomson Computer Press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Leoni, M., Maggi, F.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Aligning Event Logs and Declarative Process Models for Conformance Checking. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 82–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Production Workflow: Concepts and Techniques. Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maggi, F.M., Montali, M., Westergaard, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Monitoring Business Constraints with Linear Temporal Logic: An Approach Based on Colored Automata. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maggi, F.M., Bose, R.P.J.C., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Efficient Discovery of Understandable Declarative Process Models from Event Logs. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 270–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative Specification and Verification of Service Choreographies. ACM Transactions on the Web 4(1), 1–62 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    OMG. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). Object Management Group, formal/2011-01-03 (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, M.H., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Constraint-Based Workflow Models: Change Made Easy. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 77–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Plasmeijer, R.: CLEAN: A Programming Environment Based on Term Graph Rewriting. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 2, 215–221 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Plasmeijer, R., Achten, P., Koopman, P.: iTasks: Executable Specifications of Interactive Workflow Systems for the Web. SIGPLAN Notices 42(9), 141–152 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Plasmeijer, R., Achten, P., Koopman, P., Lijnse, B., van Noort, T., van Groningen, J.: iTasks for a change: Type-safe run-time change in dynamically evolving workflows. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation, pp. 151–160. ACM, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Plasmeijer, R., Lijnse, B., Michels, S., Achten, P., Koopman, P.: Task-Oriented Programming in a Pure Functional Language. In: Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, pp. 195–206. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex: Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflow without Loosing Control. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10(2), 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness Criteria For Dynamic Changes in Workflow Systems: A Survey. Data and Knowledge Engineering 50(1), 9–34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.): BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sadiq, S., Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.: Pockets of Flexibility in Workflow Specification. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 513–526. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Flexibility: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. In: Dietz, J., Albani, A., Barjis, J. (eds.) Advances in Enterprise Engineering I. LNBIP, vol. 10, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sinur, J., Hill, J.: Magic Quadrant for Business Process Management Suites, Gartner RAS Core Research Note G00205212 (2010), http://www.gartner.com
  46. 46.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Westergaard, M.: Better Algorithms for Analyzing and Enacting Declarative Workflow Languages Using LTL. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 83–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael Westergaard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Architecture of Information SystemsEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.International Laboratory of Process-Aware Information SystemsNational Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE)MoscowRussia
  3. 3.Business Process Management DisciplineQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.Perceptive SoftwareApeldoornThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations