Interaction as a framework for flexible workflow modelling

ABSTRACT

There are a number of approaches to making workflow management systems more flexible. Most follow conventional notions of workflow models as formally complete and consistent, and look at how change can be handled by migrating instances from one stable state to another. This paper argues that interaction should be pursued more vigorously as an approach to enactment. In this framework, interpretation is not fully automated. Involving users in situated model interpretation, interactive enactment allows inconsistent and incomplete models to emerge, better matching the contingencies of real work. This reassessment of the concept of workflow models is illustrated by the Workware prototype and modelling language, showing that the interaction perspective can inform design of simple and flexible workflow architectures. A case from an interorganisational project further illustrates this.

REFERENCES

• 1: Tarek K. Abdel-Hamid , Stuart E. Madnick, Lessons learned from modeling the dynamics of software development, Communications of the ACM, v.32 n.12, p.1426-1438, Dec. 1989 [doi>10.1145/76380.76383]
• 2: Alessandra Agostini , Giorgio de Michelis, A Light Workflow Management System Using SimpleProcess Models, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.9 n.3-4, p.335-363, Aug. 2000 [doi>10.1023/A:1008703327801]
• 3: Abraham Bernstein, How can cooperative work tools support dynamic group process? bridging the specificity frontier, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.279-288, December 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/358916.358999]
• 4: Douglas P. Bogia , Simon M. Kaplan, Flexibility and control for dynamic workflows in the WORLDS environment, Proceedings of conference on Organizational computing systems, p.148-159, August 13-16, 1995, Milpitas, California, United States [doi>10.1145/224019.224034]
• 5: S. Carlsen, Action Port Model: A Mixed Paradigm Conceptual Workflow Modeling Language, Proceedings of the 3rd IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, p.300-309, August 20-22, 1998
• 6: Carlsen, S., Johnsen, S. G., J~rgensen, H. D., Coll, G. J., Maehle, A., Carlsen, A. and Hatling, M. Knowledge reactivation mediated through knowledge carriers, MICT'99, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999.
• 7: Fabio Casati , Stefano Ceri , Barbara Pernici , Giuseppe Pozzi, Workflow Evolution, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, p.438-455, October 07-10, 1996
• 8: Dickson K. W. Chiu , Qing Li , Kamalakar Karlapalem, A Logical Framework for Exception Handling in ADOME Workflow Management System, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, p.110-125, June 05-09, 2000
• 9: Gianpaolo Cugola, Tolerating Deviations in Process Support Systems via Flexible Enactment of Process Models, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.24 n.11, p.982-1001, November 1998 [doi>10.1109/32.730546]
• 10: Paul Dourish , Jim Holmes , Allan MacLean , Pernille Marqvardsen , Alex Zbyslaw, Freeflow: mediating between representation and action in workflow systems, Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.190-198, November 16-20, 1996, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/240080.240252]
• 11: Clarence Ellis , Karim Keddara, ML-DEWS: Modeling Language to Support Dynamic Evolution within Workflow Systems, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.9 n.3-4, p.293-333, Aug. 2000 [doi>10.1023/A:1008799125984]
• 12: Clarence Ellis , Karim Keddara , Grzegorz Rozenberg, Dynamic change within workflow systems, Proceedings of conference on Organizational computing systems, p.10-21, August 13-16, 1995, Milpitas, California, United States [doi>10.1145/224019.224021]
• 13: EXTERNAL EXTERNAL - Extended Enterprise Resources, Networks And Learning, EU Project, IST-1999-10091, New Methods of Work and Electronic Commerce, Dynamic Networked Organisations. Partners: DNV, GMD-IPSI, Zeus E.E.I.G., METIS, SINTEF Telecom and Informatics, 2000- 2002.
• 14: Gert Faustmann, Configuration for Adaptation – A Human-centeredApproach to Flexible Workflow Enactment, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.9 n.3-4, p.413-434, Aug. 2000 [doi>10.1023/A:1008719831436]
• 15: Natalie S. Glance , Daniele S. Pagani , Remo Pareschi, Generalized process structure grammars GPSG for flexible representations of work, Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.180-189, November 16-20, 1996, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/240080.240249]
• 16: Goguen, J. A. Formality and Informality in Requirements Engineering, Fourth International Conference on Requirements Engineering, 1996.
• 17: Grinter, R. E. Doing Software Development: Occasions for Automation and Formalisation, ECSCW '97, Lancaster, UK, 1997.
• 18: Petra Heinl , Stefan Horn , Stefan Jablonski , Jens Neeb , Katrin Stein , Michael Teschke, A comprehensive approach to flexibility in workflow management systems, Proceedings of the international joint conference on Work activities coordination and collaboration, p.79-88, February 22-25, 1999, San Francisco, California, United States
• 19: Herrmann, T. Evolving Workflows by User-driven Coordination, DCSCW 2000, M~nchen, Germany, 2000.
• 20: Herrmann, T., Hoffmann, M., Loser, K.-U. and Moysich, K. Semistructured Models are Surprisingly Useful for User- Centered Design, COOP 2000, Sophia Antipolis, France, 2000.
• 21: Jörg M. Haake , Weigang Wang, Flexible support for business processes: extending cooperative hypermedia with process support, Proceedings of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work: the integration challenge, p.341-350, November 16-19, 1997, Phoenix, Arizona, United States [doi>10.1145/266838.267350]
• 22: Maria Letizia Jaccheri , Gian Pietro Picco , Patricia Lago, Eliciting software process models with the E3 language, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), v.7 n.4, p.368-410, Oct. 1998 [doi>10.1145/292182.292194]
• 23: J~rgensen, H. D. Software Process Model Reuse and Learning, Process Support for Distributed Team-based Software Development (PDTSD'00), IIIS and IEEE, Orlando, Florida, 2000.
• 24: J~rgensen, H. D. and Carlsen, S. Emergent Workflow: Integrated Planning and Performance of Process Instances, Workflow Management '99, M~nster, Germany, 1999.
• 25: Peter J. Kammer , Gregory Alan Bolcer , Richard N. Taylor , Arthur S. Hitomi , Mark Bergman, Techniques for Supporting Dynamic and Adaptive Workflow, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.9 n.3-4, p.269-292, Aug. 2000 [doi>10.1023/A:1008747109146]
• 26: Hannu Kangassalo, Are Global Understanding, Communication, and Information Management in Information Systems Possible?, Selected Papers from the Symposium on Conceptual Modeling, Current Issues and Future Directions, p.105-122, January 1999
• 27: Mark Klein , Chrysanthos Dellarocas, A Knowledge-based Approach to Handling Exceptions inWorkflow Systems, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.9 n.3-4, p.399-412, Aug. 2000 [doi>10.1023/A:1008759413689]
• 28: Lowgren and Howard, Supreme Visualisation Concept: Recommendations and Rationale, The Supreme Project, University of Link~ping, Sweden, 1996.
• 29: Marit Kjøsnes Natvig , Oddrun Ohren, Modeling shared information spaces (SIS), Proceedings of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work, p.199-208, November 14-17, 1999, Phoenix, Arizona, United States [doi>10.1145/320297.320321]
• 30: Ould, M. A. Business Processes - Modeling and Analysis for Re-engineering and Improvement. Beverly Hills: John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
• 31: Tom Rodden, Populating the application: a model of awareness for cooperative applications, Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.87-96, November 16-20, 1996, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/240080.240200]
• 32: Kjeld Schmidt, Of maps and scripts—the status of formal constructs in cooperative work, Proceedings of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work: the integration challenge, p.138-147, November 16-19, 1997, Phoenix, Arizona, United States [doi>10.1145/266838.266887]
• 33: Sch~n, D. A. The Reflective Practitioner. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1983.
• 34: Frank M. Shipman, III , Catherine C. Marshall, Formality Considered Harmful: Experiences, EmergingThemes, and Directions on the Use of Formal Representations inInteractive Systems, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.8 n.4, p.333-352, Oct. 1999 [doi>10.1023/A:1008716330212]
• 35: Michael B. Twidale , Paul F. Marty, Coping with errors: the importance of process data in robust sociotechnical systems, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.269-278, December 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/358916.358998]
• 36: Peter Wegner, Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms, Communications of the ACM, v.40 n.5, p.80-91, May 1997 [doi>10.1145/253769.253801]
• 37: Peter Wegner , Dina Q. Goldin, Interaction as a Framework for Modeling, Selected Papers from the Symposium on Conceptual Modeling, Current Issues and Future Directions, p.243-257, January 1999
• 38: Willumsen, G. Executable Conceptual Models in Information Systems Engineering, PhD-thesis, University of Trondheim, The Norwegian Institute of Technology, 1993.
• 39: George M. Wyner , Jintae Lee, Applying specialization to process models, Proceedings of conference on Organizational computing systems, p.290-301, August 13-16, 1995, Milpitas, California, United States [doi>10.1145/224019.224050]
• 40: Aalst, W. M. P. v. d. How to Handle Dynamic Change and Capture Management Information? An Approach Based on Generic Workflow Models, University of Georgia, Department of Computer Science, Athens, USA, Technical Report, UGA-CS-TR-99-01, 1999.
• 41: Aalst, W. v. d., Moldt, D., Valk, R. and Wienberg, F. Enacting Interorganizational Workflows Using Nets in Nets, Workflow Management '99, M~nster, Germany, 1999.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.0 General

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.4 INFORMATION SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS
      H.4.1 Office Automation
          Subjects: Groupware; Workflow management
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
          Subjects: Computer-supported cooperative work; Theory and models; Asynchronous interaction

General Terms:
Design, Languages

Keywords:
flexible workflow, interaction framework, process modelling