Advertisement

Measuring the Impact of Suspension on the Process Enactment Environment during Process Evolution

  • Pieter Hens
  • Monique Snoeck
  • Manu De Backer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 139)

Abstract

Current workflow management systems implement the ability to automatically execute predefined process models. However, processes change over time and therefore a redeployment process has to be implemented to propagate changes into the running process enactment environment. One of the necessary steps in change propagation is to suspend the current process execution. This suspension does however decrease availability of the workflow management system, increases downtime and implicitly also decreases scalability. In this paper we provide a quantification of the impact of suspension on the runtime process enactment environment and experimentally evaluate this impact, hereby providing a better insight in suspension impact. Furthermore two suspension techniques are compared and a discussion is provided in which situations, which suspension technique is beneficial.

Keywords

Workflow Enactment Process Evolution High Availability Systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Object Management Group: Bpmn 2.0 (June 2010), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/10-06-04
  2. 2.
    Oracle: Bpel process manager (May 2010), http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/bpel/index.html
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M.: Business Process Management: A Survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber, B., Sadiq, S., Reichert, M.: Beyond rigidity–dynamic process lifecycle support. Computer Science Research and Development 23(2), 47–65 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems–a survey. Data & Knowledge Engineering 50(1), 9–34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hens, P., Snoeck, M., De Backer, M., Poels, G.: Process evolution in a distributed process execution environment. Submitted for International Journal on Information System Modeling and Design (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Aalst, W.: Exterminating the dynamic change bug: A concrete approach to support workflow change. Information Systems Frontiers 3(3), 297–317 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hens, P., Snoeck, M., De Backer, M., Poels, G.: An autonomous distributed system for business process execution. Submitted for Information Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gorard, S.: Revisiting a 90-year-old debate: the advantages of the mean deviation. British Journal of Educational Studies 53(4), 417–430 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nanda, M., Chandra, S., Sarkar, V.: Decentralizing execution of composite web services. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 39(10), 170–187 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peersman, C., Cvetkovic, S., Griffiths, P., Spear, H.: The global system for mobile communications short message service. IEEE Personal Communications 7(3), 15–23 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ministery of Internal Affairs and Communications (Japan): Maintaining communications capabilities during major natural disasters and other emergency situations (2011), http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000146938.pdf

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Hens
    • 1
  • Monique Snoeck
    • 1
  • Manu De Backer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Decision Sciences and Information ManagementKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Dept. of Management Information SystemsUniversiteit AntwerpenAntwerpenBelgium
  3. 3.Dept. of Management and InformaticsHogeschool GentGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations