On the Common Support of Workflow Type and Instance Changes under Correctness Constraints

  • Manfred Reichert
  • Stefanie Rinderle
  • Peter Dadam
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2888)


The capability to rapidly adapt in-progress workflows (WF) is an essential requirement for any workflow system. Adaptations may concern single WF instances or a WF type as a whole. Especially for long-running business processes it is indispensable to propagate WF type changes to in-progress WF instances as well. Very challenging in this context is to correctly adapt a (potentially large) collection of WF instances, which may be in different states and to which various ad-hoc changes may have been previously applied. This paper presents a generic framework for the common support of both WF type and WF instance changes. We establish fundamental correctness principles, position formal theorems, and show how WF instances can be automatically and efficiently migrated to a modified WF schema. The adequate treatment of conflicting WF type and WF instance changes adds to the overall completeness of our approach. By offering more flexibility and adaptability the so promising WF technology will finally deliver.


Type Change Change Operation Common Support Schema Graph Instance Level 
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., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex - supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. Int’l J Intelligent Information Systems 10, 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sadiq, S., Marjanovic, O., Orlowska, M.: Managing change and time in dynamic workflow processes. Int’l J Cooperative Information Systems 9 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weske, M.: Formal foundation and conceptual design of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system. In: Proc. HICSS-34, Maui, Hawaii (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edmond, D., ter Hofstede, A.: A reflective infrastructure for workflow adaptability. Data and Knowlege Engineering 34, 271–304 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kochut, K., Arnold, J., Sheth, A., Miller, J., Kraemer, E., Arpinar, B., Cardoso, J.: Intelligen: A distributed workflow system for discovering protein-protein interactions. Distributed and Parallel Databases 13, 43–72 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kradolfer, M., Geppert, A.: Dynamic workflow schema evolution based on workflow type versioning and workflow migration. In: Proc. CoopIS 1999, Edinburgh (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joeris, G., Herzog, O.: Managing evolving workflow specifications. In: Proc. CoopIS, New York, pp. 310–321 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W.: Exterminating the dynamic change bug: A concrete approach to support worfklow change. Information Systems Frontiers 3, 297–317 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow evolution. Data and Knowledge Engineering 24, 211–238 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellis, C., Keddara, K., Rozenberg, G.: Dynamic change within workflow systems. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Org. Comp. Sys., Milpitas, CA, pp. 10–21 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: On dealing with semantically conflicting business process changes. Technical Report UIB-2003-04, University of Ulm (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agostini, A., De Michelis, G.: Improving flexibility of workflow management systems. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 218–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Aalst, W., Basten, T.: Inheritance of workflows: An approach to tackling problems related to change. Theoretical Computer Science 270, 125–203 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fent, A., Reiter, H., Freitag, B.: Design for change: Evolving workflow specifications in ULTRAflow. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 516–534. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Evaluation of correctness criteria for dynamic workflow changes. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 41–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  • Stefanie Rinderle
    • 1
  • Peter Dadam
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science Faculty, Dept. Databases and Information SystemsUniversity of Ulm 

Personalised recommendations