This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Tolerating Deviations in Process Support Systems via Flexible Enactment of Process Models
November 1998 (vol. 24 no. 11)
pp. 982-1001

Abstract—Process Support Systems (PSSs) support business organizations in modeling, improving, and automating their business process. Thanks to their ability in enacting process models, they can be used to guide people in performing their daily work and to automate the repetitive tasks that do not require human intervention. Given these potential benefits, it is surprising to observe that PSSs are not widely adopted. This is especially true in case of highly flexible and human-intensive processes such as design processes in general and software processes in particular. This fact can be explained by observing that currently available PSSs do not fulfill some crucial needs of modern business organizations. One of their major drawbacks is that they do not offer adequate mechanisms to cope with unforeseen situations. They are good at supporting business processes if all proceeds as expected, but if an unexpected situation is met, which would require to deviate from the process model, they often become more an obstacle than a help. This paper deals with the problem of managing unforeseen situations that require deviations from the process model during enactment in the context of the PROSYT PSS. During process model enactment, PROSYT is capable of tolerating deviations from the process model by supporting users even when unexpected situations arise. Furthermore, it supports users in reconciling the process model with the process actually followed, if necessary.

[1] A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh, eds., Software Process Modelling and Technology. Research Studies Press Limited, John Wiley&Sons, 1994.
[2] D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornick, and A. Sheth, "An Overview of Workflow Management: From Process Modeling to Workflow Automation Infrastructure," Distributed and Parallel Databases, Vol. 3, No. 2, Apr. 1995, pp. 119-153.
[3] H. Stark and L. Lachal, Ovum Evaluates: Workflow. Ovum ltd., Sept. 1995.
[4] A. Fuggetta and C. Ghezzi, "State of the Art and Open Issues in Process-Centered Software Engineering Environments," J. Systems&Software, vol. 26, July 1994.
[5] V. Ambriola, R. Conradi, and A. Fuggetta, “Assessing Process-Centered Environments,” ACM Trans. Software Eng. and Methodology, vol. 6, no. 3, July 1997.
[6] G. Alonso and C. Mohan, "Workflow Management Systems: The Next Generation of Distributed Procesing Tools," Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures, Jajodia and L. Kerschberg, eds., ch. 1, pp. 35-62, Kluwer Academic, 1997.
[7] J. Eder and W. Liebhart, "The Workflow Activity Model WAMO," Proc. Third Int'l Conf. Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS),Vienna, Austria, May 1995.
[8] G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi, “A Framework for Formalizing Inconsistencies and Deviations in Human-Centered Systems,” ACM Trans. Software Eng. and Methodology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 191-230, July 1996.
[9] S. Bandinelli, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi, “Process Model Evolution in the SPADE Environment,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Dec. 1993.
[10] G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, C. Ghezzi, and M. Mantione, “How to Deal with Deviations During Process Model Enactment,” Proc. 17th Int'l Conf. Software Eng., Seattle, New York: ACM, 1995.
[11] L. Lamport, LATEX: A Document Preparation System, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1986.
[12] H.T. Saastamoinen and V.V. Savolainen, "Exception Handling in Office Information Systems," Proc. Third Int'l Conf. Dynamic Modeling of Information Systems, Noordwijkerhout, pp. 345-363, 1992.
[13] H.T. Saastamoinen, "Rules and Exceptions," Information Modeling and Knowledge Bases IV: Concepts, Methods and Systems, H. Kangassalo, H. Jaakkola, K. Hori, and T. Kitashi, eds., pp. 271-286.Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1993.
[14] Proc. EDBT Workshop Workflow Management Systems,Valencia, Spain, Mar. 1998.
[15] C. Ellis, K. Keddara, and G. Rozenberg, "Dynamic Change Within Workflow Systems," Proc. COOCS'95, Aug. 1995.
[16] "Special Issue on Process Evolution." IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Dec. 1993.
[17] P. Jamart and A. van Lamsweerde, "A Reflective Approach to Process Model Customization, Enactment, and Evolution," Proc. Third Int'l Conf. Software Process (ICSP3),Reston, Va., pp. 21-32, IEEE CS Press, Oct. 1994.
[18] G.A. Bolcer and R.N. Taylor, "Endeavors: A Process System Integration Infrastructure," Proc. IEEE Computer Soc. Int'l Conf. Software Process (ICSP4), IEEE Computer Soc. Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., 1996, pp. 76-89.
[19] E. Di Nitto and A. Fuggetta, "Open Issues in Managing Inconsistencies in Human-Centered Systems," Proc. ICSE'97 Workshop on "Living with Inconsistency,"Boston, Mass., May 1997.
[20] G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, and A. Fuggetta, “Exploting an Event-Based Infrastructure to Develop Complex Distributed Systems,” Proc. 20th Int'l Conf. Software Eng. (ICSE 98), Apr. 1998.
[21] G. Cugola, "Inconsistencies and Deviations in Process Support Systems," PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano—Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Feb. 1998.
[22] G. Cugola, C. Ghezzi, G. Picco, and G. Vigna, "Analyzing Mobile Code Languages," Mobile Object Systems: Towards the Programmable Internet, J. Vitek and C. Tschudin, eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1222, pp. 93-111, Springer-Verlag, Apr. 1997.
[23] M. Dowson and C. Fernström, "Towards Requirements for Enactment Mechanisms," Proc. Third European Workshop Software Process Technology,Villard de Lans, Grenoble, France, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 772, Feb. 1994.
[24] S. Bandinelli, E. Di Nitto, and A. Fuggetta, "Policies and Mechanisms to Support Process Evolution in PSEEs," Proc. Third Int'l Conf. Software Process,Reston, Va., Oct. 1994.
[25] S. Arbaoui and F. Oquendo, "Peace: Goal-Oriented Logic-Based Formalism for Process Modelling," Software Process Modelling and Technology, A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh, eds., Research Studies Press, John Wiley&Sons, 1994.
[26] S. Arbaoui and F. Oquendo, "Managing Iinconsistencies Between Process Enactment and Process Performance States," Proc. Eighth Int'l Software Process Workshop,Wadern, Germany, Mar. 1993.
[27] N. Barghouti and B. Krishnamurthy, "Using Event Contexts and Matching Constraints to Monitor Software Processes," Proc. 17th Int'l Conf. Software Eng.,Seattle, Washington, Apr. 1995.
[28] B. Krishnamurthy and D. Rosenblum, "An Event-Action Model of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Design and Implementation," Proc. Int'l Workshop Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1991.
[29] D. S. Rosenblum and B. Krishnamurthy,“An event-based model of software configuration management,”inProc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Software Config. Management, P. H. Feiler, Ed., ACM SIGSOFT, June 1991, pp. 94–97.
[30] S. Bandinelli, A. Fuggetta, C. Ghezzi, and L. Lavazza, “SPADE: An Environment for Software Process Analysis, Design, and Enactment,” Software Process Modelling and Technology, A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh, eds., 1994.
[31] A. Finkelstein et al., "Inconsistency Handling in Multi-perspective Specifications," Lecture Notes in Computer Science 717, I. Sommerville and M. Paul, eds., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993, pp.84-99.
[32] "Inconcert, inc home page." http:/
[33] "Teamware home page." http:/
[34] F. Casati, S. Ceri, B. Pernici, and G. Pozzi, "Conceptual Modeling of Workflows," Proc. Int'l Conf. Object-Oriented and Entity-Relationship,Goldcoast, Australia, pp. 341-354, 1995.
[35] G. Alonso and C. Hagen, "Flexible Exception Handling in the Opera Process Support System," Proc. 18th Int'l Conf. Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'98),Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 1998.
[36] ISO/IEC, Int'l Standard, Information Technology Software Life Cycle Process. ISO12207, 1995.
[37] IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Standard for Developing Software Life Cycle Processes, pp. 1,074-1,995 1995.
[38] C. Mazza, J. Fairclough, B. Melton, D.D. Pablo, A. Scheffer, and R. Stevens, Software Eng. Standards. Prentice Hall, 1994.
[39] W. Emmerich, A. Finkelstein, C. Montangero, and R. Stevens, "Standards Compliant Software Development," Proc. ICSE'97 Workshop "Living with Inconsistency,"Boston, Mass., IEEE CS Press, 1997. electronic publication

Index Terms:
Process support system, workflow management system, process-centered software engineering environment, business process, process modeling, process enactment, deviation, inconsistency, event-based components integration.
Gianpaolo Cugola, "Tolerating Deviations in Process Support Systems via Flexible Enactment of Process Models," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 982-1001, Nov. 1998, doi:10.1109/32.730546
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.