GameOfFlows: Process Instance Adaptation in Complex, Dynamic and Potentially Adversarial Domains

  • Yingzhi Gou
  • Aditya GhoseEmail author
  • Hoa Khanh Dam
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11483)


Business processes often need to be executed in complex settings where a range of environmental factors can conspire to impede the execution of the process. Gou et al. [1] view process execution as an adversarial game between the process player and the environment player. While useful, their approach leaves open the question of the role of the original process design in the story. Process designs encode significant specialist knowledge and have significant investments in process infrastructure associated with them. We provide a machinery that involves careful deliberation on when and where to deviate from a process design. We conceive of a process engine that frequently (typically after executing each task) re-considers the next task or sequence of tasks to execute. It performs trade-off analysis by comparing the following: (1) the likelihood of successful completion by conforming to the mandated process design against (2) the likelihood of success if it were to deviate from the design by executing a compensation (i.e., an alternative sequence of tasks that takes the process from the current state to completion).


Process execution Compensation Robustness Adaptation 


  1. 1.
    Gou, Y., Ghose, A., Dam, H.K.: Leveraging Game-tree search for robust process enactment. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10253, pp. 461–476. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fensel, D., Facca, F., Simperl, E.: Web service modeling ontology. In: Fensel, D., Facca, F., Simperl, E., Toma, I. (eds.) Semantic Web Services, pp. 107–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fensel, D., et al.: Enabling Semantic Web Services: The Web Service Modeling Ontology. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hepp, M., Leymann, F., Domingue, J., Wahler, A., Fensel, D.: Semantic business process management: a vision towards using semantic Web services for business process management. In: IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering, pp. 535–540. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hinge, K., Ghose, A., Koliadis, G.: Process SEER: a tool for semantic effect annotation of business process models. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International EDOC Conference. IEEE Computer Society Process (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Pietro, I., Pagliarecci, F., Spalazzi, L.: Model checking semantically annotated services. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38, 592–608 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith, F., Proietti, M.: Rule-based behavioral reasoning on semantic business processes. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 130–143. SciTePress (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Beyond soundness: on the verification of semantic business process models. Distrib. Parallel Databases 27, 271–343 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Rospocher, M., Serafini, L., Tonella, P.: Semantically-aided business process modeling. In: Bernstein, A., Karger, D.R., Heath, T., Feigenbaum, L., Maynard, D., Motta, E., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5823, pp. 114–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghose, A., Koliadis, G.: Auditing business process compliance. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin, D., et al.: Bringing semantics to web services: the OWL-S approach. In: Cardoso, J., Sheth, A. (eds.) SWSWPC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3387, pp. 26–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer, H.: On the semantics of service compositions. In: Marchiori, M., Pan, J.Z., Marie, C.S. (eds.) RR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4524, pp. 31–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative specification and verification of service choreographiess. ACM Trans. Web 4, 3:1–3:62 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, F., Missikoff, M., Proietti, M.: Ontology-based querying of composite services. In: Ardagna, C.A., Damiani, E., Maciaszek, L.A., Missikoff, M., Parkin, M. (eds.) Business System Management and Engineering. LNCS, vol. 7350, pp. 159–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ginsberg, M.L., Smith, D.E.: Reasoning about action I: a possible world approach. Artif. Intell. 35(2), 165–195 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Adeptflex—supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 10(2), 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Der Aalst, W.M.P., Jablonski, S.: Dealing with workflow change: identification of issues and solutions. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 15(5), 267–276 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buhler, P.A., Vidal, J.M.: Towards adaptive workflow enactment using multiagent systems. Inf. Technol. Manag. 6(1), 61–87 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heinl, P., Horn, S., Jablonski, S., Neeb, J., Stein, K., Teschke, M.: A comprehensive approach to flexibility in workflow management systems. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 24, 79–88 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klein, M., Dellarocas, C.: A knowledge-based approach to handling exceptions in workflow systems. Comput. Support. Coop. Work. (CSCW) 9(3–4), 399–412 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reijers, H.A.: Workflow flexibility: the forlorn promise. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, WETICE, pp. 271–272 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hermann, T., Hoffman, M., Loser, K.U., Moysich, K.: Semistructured models are surprisingly useful for user-centered design. In: Designing Cooperative Systems. Proceedings of COOP 2000, pp. 159–174 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nepal, S., Fekete, A., Greenfield, P., Jang, J., Kuo, D., Shi, T.: A service-oriented workflow language for robust interacting applications. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3760, pp. 40–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Conforti, R., de Leoni, M., La Rosa, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Supporting risk-informed decisions during business process execution. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 116–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jiménez-Ramírez, A., Barba, I., del Valle, C., Weber, B.: Generating multi-objective optimized business process enactment plans. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 99–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baumann, M., Baumann, M.H., Schönig, S., Jablonski, S.: Enhancing feasibility of human-driven processes by transforming process models to process checklists. In: Bider, I., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2014. LNBIP, vol. 175, pp. 124–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gou, Y., Ghose, A., Chang, C.-F., Dam, H.K., Miller, A.: Semantic monitoring and compensation in socio-technical processes. In: Indulska, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8823, pp. 117–126. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schuschel, H., Weske, M.: Integrated workflow planning and coordination. In: Mařík, V., Retschitzegger, W., Štěpánková, O. (eds.) DEXA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2736, pp. 771–781. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Systems Lab, School of Computer Science and Software EngineeringUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations