Worklets: A Service-Oriented Implementation of Dynamic Flexibility in Workflows

  • Michael Adams
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
  • David Edmond
  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4275)


This paper presents the realisation, using a Service Oriented Architecture, of an approach for dynamic flexibility and evolution in workflows through the support of flexible work practices, based not on proprietary frameworks, but on accepted ideas of how people actually work. A set of principles have been derived from a sound theoretical base and applied to the development of worklets, an extensible repertoire of self-contained sub-processes aligned to each task, from which a dynamic runtime selection is made depending on the context of the particular work instance.


Business Process Activity Theory Work Practice Process Instance Virtual Team 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: A new paradigm for business process support. Data & Knowledge Engineering 53(2), 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joeris, G.: Defining flexible workflow execution behaviors. In: Dadam, P., Reichert, M. (eds.) Enterprise-wide and Cross-enterprise Workflow Management: Concepts, Systems, Applications, Paderborn, Germany, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 24, pp. 49–55 (October 1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgida, A., Murata, T.: Tolerating exceptions in workflows: a unified framework for data and processes. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Work Activities, Coordination and Collaboration (WACC 1999), San Francisco, CA, February 1999, pp. 59–68. ACM Press, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Casati, F.: A discussion on approaches to handling exceptions in workflows. In: CSCW Workshop on Adaptive Workflow Systems, Seattle, USA (November 1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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, August 1995, pp. 10–21. ACM SIGOIS, ACM Press, New York (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hagen, C., Alonso, G.: Exception handling in workflow management systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(10), 943–958 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ackerman, M.S., Halverson, C.: Considering an organization’s memory. In: Proceedings of the ACM 1998 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 39–48. ACM Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larkin, P.A.K., Gould, E.: Activity theory applied to the corporate memory loss problem. In: Svennson, L., Snis, U., Sorensen, C., Fagerlind, H., Lindroth, T., Magnusson, M., Ostlund, C. (eds.) Proceedings of IRIS 23 Laboratorium for Interaction Technology, University of Trollhattan Uddevalla (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Exterminating the dynamic change bug: A concrete approach to support workflow change. Information Systems Frontiers 3(3), 297–317 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bardram, J.E.: I love the system - I just don’t use it! In: Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP 1997), Phoenix, Arizona (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Berens, P.J.S.: Beyond workflow management: Product-driven case handling. In: Ellis, S., Rodden, T., Zigurs, I. (eds.) International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 42–51. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bider, I.: Masking flexibility behind rigidity: Notes on how much flexibility people are willing to cope with. In: Castro, J., Teniente, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the CAiSE 2005 Workshops, vol. 1, pp. 7–18. FEUP Edicoes (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Facilitating flexibility and dynamic exception handling in workflows through worklets. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 45–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Aldred, L., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Design and implementation of the YAWL system. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3084, pp. 142–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strong, D.M., Miller, S.M.: Exceptions and exception handling in computerized information processes. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 13(2), 206–233 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bardram, J.E.: Plans as situated action: an Activity Theory approach to workflow systems. In: Proceedings of the 1997 European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW 1997), Lancaster U.K, pp. 17–32 (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nardi, B.A.: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. In: Nardi pp. 7–16, [21] (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Engestrom, Y.: Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki (1987)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nardi, B.A. (ed.): Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adams, M., Edmond, D., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: The application of activity theory to dynamic workflow adaptation issues. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2003), Adelaide, Australia, July 2003, pp. 1836–1852 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(3), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bouquet, P., Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F., Blanzieri, E.: Theories and uses of context in knowledge representation and reasoning. Journal of Pragmatics 35(3), 455–484 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Richards, D.: Combining cases and rules to provide contextualised knowledge based systems. In: Akman, V., et al. (eds.) CONTEXT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2116, pp. 465–469. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Compton, P., Jansen, B.: Knowledge in context: A strategy for expert system maintenance. In: Barter, C.J., Brooks, M.J. (eds.) Canadian AI 1988. LNCS, vol. 406, pp. 292–306. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scheffer, T.: Algebraic foundation and improved methods of induction of ripple down rules. In: Procceedings of the Pacific Rim Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Sydney, Australia, pp. 279–292 (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Drake, B., Beydoun, G.: Predicate logic-based incremental knowledge acquisition. In: Compton, P., Hoffmann, A., Motoda, H., Yamaguchi, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the sixth Pacific International Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, Sydney, December 2000, pp. 71–88 (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kang, B.H., Preston, P., Compton, P.: Simulated expert evaluation of multiple classification ripple down rules. In: Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management, Banff, Alberta, Canada (April 1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M., Sheth, A.: An overview of workflow management: From process modelling to workflow automation infrastructure. In: Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 3, pp. 119–153. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1995)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hensinger, C., Reichert, M., Bauer, T., Strzeletz, T., Dadam, P.: ADEPTworkflow - advanced workflow technology for the efficient support of adaptive, enterprise-wide processes. In: Conference on Extending Database Technology, Konstanz, Germany, March 2000, pp. 29–30 (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vossen, G., Weske, M.: The WASA approach to workflow management for scientific applications. In: Dogac, A., Kalinichenko, L., Ozsu, M.T., Sheth, A. (eds.) Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability. ASI NATO Series, Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, vol. 164, pp. 145–164. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Muller, R., Greiner, U., Rahm, E.: AgentWork: a workflow system supporting rule-based workflow adaptation. Data & Knowledge Engineering 51(2), 223–256 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Muehlen, M.z.: Workflow-based Process Controlling. Foundation, Design, and Implementation of Workflow-driven Process Information Systems, Logos, Berlin. Advances in Information Systems and Management Science, vol. 6 (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dustdar, S.: Caramba - a process-aware collaboration system supporting ad hoc and collaborative processes in virtual teams. Distributed and Parallel Databases 15(1), 45–66 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Georgeff, M., Pyke, J.:Dynamic process orchestration.White paper, Staffware PLC (March 2003),
  37. 37.
    Hagen, C., Alonso, G.:Flexible exception handling in process support systems. Technical report no. 290, ETH Zurich (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Adams
    • 1
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
    • 1
  • David Edmond
    • 1
  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Business Process Management GroupQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Technology ManagementEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations