Supporting Business Process Exception Management by Dynamically Building Processes Using the BEM Framework

  • Isabelle LindenEmail author
  • Myriam Derbali
  • Gabriel Schwanen
  • Jean-Marie Jacquet
  • Ravi Ramdoyal
  • Christophe Ponsard
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 184)


Business process management systems aim at ensuring an efficient chaining of the tasks composing a business process. Their activity relies on process models representing sets of business scenarios. Unfortunately, these models cannot take all the possible states of the environment into account, especially when a process is executed in a dynamic environment. The BEM (Business Event Manager) framework has been designed and developed in order to support dynamic process re-design at run-time in situations where incompatibilities with the predefined model occur. The heart of the solution combines a business process engine, a Complex Event Processing engine and an abductive planner. This paper describes the support offered by the BEM framework and presents a generic description of the architecture together with its implementation.


Business process management Context awareness Resources Exception management Process re-design 



This work was carried out in the context of the BEM (Business Event Manager) research Project (convention nr 6306), which is supported by the Walloon Region as part of its Plan Marshall/Logistics in Wallonia funding. We also thank the partners of the BEM project for providing cases for the integration modules development, the air traffic management case study as well as for many fruitful discussions.


  1. 1.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.: Exception handling patterns in process-aware information systems. Technical report, (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casati, F.: A discussion on approaches to handling exceptions in workflows. In: Proceedings of the CSCW Workshop on Adaptive Workflow Systems, Seattle, USA (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sadiq, W., Marjanovic, O., Orlowska, M.E.: Managing change and time in dynamic workflow processes. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 9, 93–116 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kammer, P., Bolcer, G.A., Taylor, R.N., Hitomi, A.S., Bergman, M.: Techniques for supporting dynamic and adaptive workflow. Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 9(3–4), 269–292 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casati, F., Shan, M.C.: Dynamic and adaptive composition of e-services. Inf. Syst. 26(3), 143–163 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hagen, C., Alonso, G.: Exception handling in workflow management systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 26(10), 943–958 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heinl, P.: Exceptions during workflow execution. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Extending Database Technology, Workshop on Workflow Management, Valencia, Spain (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: Integration and verification of semantic constraints in adaptive process management systems. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 3–23 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marrella, A., Mecella, M., Russo, A.: Featuring automatic adaptivity through workflow enactment and planning. In: Georgakopoulos, D., Joshi, J.B.D. (eds.) CollaborateCom, pp. 372–381. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adams, M.: YAWL user manual - version 2.3. Technical report, The YAWL Foundation (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollingsworth, D.: Workflow management coalition - the workflow reference model. Technical report, Workflow Management Coalition, January 1995Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Durieux, D., Ramdoyal, R.: A tool-supported methodology for defining instances of the BEM workflow metamodel (in French). Technical report, Cetic (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cugola, G., Margara, A.: Processing flows of information: from data stream to complex event processing. ACM Comput. Surv. 44(3), 15:1–15:62 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramdoyal, R., Ponsard, C., Derbali, M.A., Gabriel, S., Linden, I., Jacquet, J.M.: A generic workflow metamodel to support resource-aware decision making. In: Proceedings of ICEIS 2013 (2013).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwanen, G.: An abductive workflow planner. University of Namur (2013).
  16. 16.
    Miller, R., Shanahan, M.: Some alternative formulations of the event calculus. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2408, pp. 452–490. Springer, Heidelberg (2002) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shanahan, M.: Representing Continuous Change in the Event Calculus. In: ECAI, pp. 598–603 (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shanahan, M.: The event calculus explained. In: Veloso, M.M., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence Today. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1600, pp. 409–430. Springer, Heidelberg (1999) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lifschitz, V.: Circumscription. In: Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 297–352. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCarthy, J.: Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. Artif. Intell. 28, 89–116 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shanahan, M.: Solving the Frame Problem. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mueller, E.: Event calculus. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation, pp. 671–708. Elsevier, Oxford (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shanahan, M.: An abductive event calculus planner. J. Logic Program. 44, 207–239 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shanahan, M.: Event calculus planning revisited. In: Steel, S. (ed.) ECP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1348, pp. 390–402. Springer, Heidelberg (1997) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Penberthy, J.S., Weld, D.S.: UCPOP: a sound, complete, partial order planner for ADL. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 103–114. Morgan Kaufmann (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    do Lago Pereira, S., de Barros, L.N.: Planning with abduction: a logical framework to explore extensions to classical planning. In: Bazzan, A.L.C., Labidi, S. (eds.) SBIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3171, pp. 62–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Linden
    • 1
    Email author
  • Myriam Derbali
    • 1
  • Gabriel Schwanen
    • 1
  • Jean-Marie Jacquet
    • 2
  • Ravi Ramdoyal
    • 3
  • Christophe Ponsard
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium
  3. 3.CETIC Research CenterCharleroiBelgium

Personalised recommendations