Advertisement

Automating handover in dynamic workflow environments

  • Chengfei Liu
  • Maria E. Orlowska
  • Hui Li
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1413)

Abstract

Workflow technology has been widely used in business process modelling, automation and reengineering. In order to meet the fast-changing business requirements, to remain competitive in the market, an enterprise may constantly refine the workflow models of its business processes. The most challenging issue in evolution of a workflow model is the handover of its running instances from the old specification to the new specification. Such a handover depends on the semantics of a workflow model as well as the execution information of its running instances. A handover policy, therefore, needs to be specified for this purpose. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective handover policy specification language. Using this language, a designer can easily specify a handover policy which reflect exactly what a workflow administrator needs to react to when a workflow model evolves. Criteria for the correct specification of handover policies are also addressed. Finally, a framework for automating handover of workflow instances is presented.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Banerjee, W. Kim, H-J. Kim, and H. Korth. Semantics and implementation of schema evolution in object-oriented databases. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 311–322, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Casati, S. Ceri, B. Pernici, and G. Pozzi. Conceptual modeling of workflows. In Proceedings of OO-ER conference, pages 341–354. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1021, Springer, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Casati, S. Ceri, B. Pernici, and G. Pozzi. Workflow evolution. In Proceedings of the 15th ER Int. Conf., pages 438–455. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1157, Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forte. Forte Conductor Process Development Guide. Forte Software, Inc., 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butler Group. Workflow: Integrating the Enterprise, June 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    InConcert. InConcert Technical Product Overview. InConcert Inc., January 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Jaccheri and R. Conradi. Techniques for process model evolution in EPOS. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19(12):1145–1156, December 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Kuo, M. Lawley, C. Liu, and M. Orlowska. A general model for nested transactional workflows. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures, pages 18–35, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Leymann. Supporting business transactions via partial backward recovery in workflow management systems. In Proceedings of BTW'95, pages 51–70, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Liu and M. Orlowska. Confirmation: Increasing resource availability for transactional workflows. Technical report, Distributed Systems Technology Centre, September 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Workflow Management Coalition Members. Glossary — A Workflow Management Coalition Specification. Workflow Management Coalition, November 1994. Softcopy available via: http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/wfmc/.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Rusinkiewicz and A. Sheth. Specification and execution of transactional workflows. In W. Kim, editor, Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability, and Beyond. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Sadiq and M. E. Orlowska. On correctness issues in conceptual modeling of workflows. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Information System, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Sheth and K. Kochut. Workflow applications to research agenda: Scalable and dynamic workflow coordination and collabration systems. In Proceedings of the NATO ASI on Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability, August 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A.H.M. ter Hofstede, Maria E. Orlowska, and J. Rajapakse. Verification problems in conceptual workflow specification. In Proceedings of the 15th ER Int. Conf., pages 73–88. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1157, Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Zicari. A framework for schema updates in an object-oriented database systems. In Proceeding of 7th International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 2–13, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chengfei Liu
    • 1
  • Maria E. Orlowska
    • 2
  • Hui Li
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computing SciencesUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Electrical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations