Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Error Handling in Process Support Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Advances in Exception Handling Techniques

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2022))

Abstract

Process Support Systems (PSSs) are software systems supporting the modeling, enactment, monitoring, and analysis of business processes. Process automation technology can be fully exploited when predictable and repetitive processes are executed. Unfortunately, many processes are faced with the need of managing exceptional situations that may occur during their execution, and possibly even more exceptions and failures can occur when the process execution is supported by a PSS. Exceptional situations may be caused by system (hardware or software) failures, or may by related to the semantics of the business process.

In this paper we introduce a taxonomy of failures and exceptions and discuss the effect that they can have on a PSS and on its ability to support business processes. Then, we present the main approaches that commercial PSSs and research prototypes offer in order to capture and react to exceptional situations, and we show which classes of failure or exception can be managed by each approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. D. Georgakopoulos, H. Hornick, and A. Sheth, ‘An overview of workflow management: from process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure,’ Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 3, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H. Stark and L. Lachal, Ovum Evaluates: Workflow. Ovum ltd., September 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh, eds., Software Process Modelling and Technology. Research Studies Press Limited (J. Wiley), 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. Fuggetta and C. Ghezzi, ‘State of the art and open issues in process-centered software engineering environments,’ Journal of Systems & Software, vol. 26, July 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  5. V. Ambriola, R. Conradi, and A. Fuggetta, ‘Assessing process-centered environments,’ ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 6, July 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Cugola, ‘Tolerating deviations in process support systems via flexible enactment of process models,’ IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 24, November 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Eder and W. Liebhart, ‘Contributions to exception handling in workflow management,’ in Proceedings of the EDBT Workshop on Workflow Management Systems, (Valencia, Spain), Mar. dy1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. Grefen, B. Pernici, and G. Sanchez, Database Support for Workflow Management: the WIDE Project. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch, The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison Wesley, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  10. G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi, ‘A framework for formalizing inconsistencies in human-centered systems,’ ACM Transactions On Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 5, July 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Bandinelli, A. Fuggetta, C. Ghezzi, and L. Lavazza, ‘SPADE: an environment for Software Process Analysis, Design, and Enactment,’ in Software Process Modelling and Technology (A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh, eds.), Research Studies Press Limited (J. Wiley), 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. Bandinelli, A. Fuggetta, C. Ghezzi, and S. Grigolli, ‘Process Enactment in SPADE,’ in Proceedings of the Second European Workshop on Software Process Technology, (Trondheim (Norway)), Springer-Verlag, September 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. Bandinelli, M. Braga, A. Fuggetta, and L. Lavazza, ‘The architecture of the SPADE-1 process-centered SEE,’ in Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Software Process Technology, LNCS 772, (Villard de Lans (Grenoble), France), February 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. Dami, J. Estublier, and M. Amiour, ‘Apel: a graphical yet executable formalism for process modeling,’ in Process Technology (E. Di Nitto and A. Fuggetta, eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, January 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. Estublier, P. Y. Cunin, and N. Belkhatir, ‘Architectures for process support system interoperability,’ in 5th International COnference on Software Process, (Chicago, Illinois, USA), pp. 137–147, June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  16. F. Casati, S. Ceri, B. Pernici, and G. Pozzi, ‘Workflow Evolution,’ Data and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 211–238, Jan. 1998.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. F. Casati, Models, Semantics, and Formal Methods for the Design of Workflows and Their Exceptions. PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano-Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Milano, Italy, Dec. 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. Ellis, K. Keddara, and G. Rozenberg, ‘Dynamic change within workflow systems,’ in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Organizational Computing Systems (COOCS ’95), (Milpitas, California), 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  19. C. Liu, M. Orlowska, and H. Li, ‘Automating handover in dynamic workflow environments,’ in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering CAiSE’98, (Pisa, Italy), June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Reichert and P. Dadam, ‘ADEPTflex-supporting dynamic changes of work-flows without losing control,’ Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, vol. 10, pp. 93–129, Mar. 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. S. Bandinelli, A. Fuggetta, and C. Ghezzi, ‘Process model evolution in the SPADE environment,’ IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 19, December 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. Jamart and A. van Lamsweerde, ‘A reflective approach to process model customization, enactment, and evolution,’ in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Software Process (ICSP3), (Reston, Virginia), pp. 21–32, IEEE Computer Society Press, October, 10-11 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  23. F. Casati, L. Jin, S. Ilnicki, and M. Shan, ‘eflow: an open, flexible, and configurable system for service composition,’ in Proceedings of the Workshop on E-Commerce and Web Information Systems, (Milpitas, CA, USA), June 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. Marshak, ‘InConcert workflow,’ Tech. Rep. 20,3, Workflow Computing Report, Patricia Seybold Group, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  25. G. A. Bolcer and R. N. Taylor, ‘Endeavors: A process system integration infrastructure,’ in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Software Process (ICSP4), (Brighton, UK), December 2–6 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  26. G. Cugola, E. Di Nitto, C. Ghezzi, and M. Mantione, ‘How to deal with deviations during process model enactment,’ in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, (Seattle (Washington-USA)), April 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  27. S. Arbaoui and F. Oquendo, ‘Peace: Goal-oriented logic-based formalism for process modelling,’ in Software Process Modelling and Technology(A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh, eds.), Research Studies Press, J. Wiley, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  28. S. Arbaoui and F. Oquendo, ‘Managing inconsistencies between process enactment and process performance states,’ in Proceedings of the 8th International Software Process Workshop, (Wadern (Germany)), March 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  29. A. Reuter, K. Schneider, and F. Schwenkreis, ‘Contracts revisited,’ in Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures (S. Jajodia and L. Kerschberg, eds.), New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  30. J. Eder and W. Liebhart, ‘The Workflow Activity Model WAMO,’ in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIs’95), (Wien, Austria), May 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  31. R. van Stiphout, T. D. Meijler, A. Aerts, D. Hammer, and R. le Comte, ‘TREX: Workflow transaction by means of exceptions,’ in Proceedings of the EDBT Workshop on Workflow Management Systems, (Valencia, Spain), Mar. 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  32. M. Kamath and K. Ramamritham, ‘Failure handling and coordinated execution of concurrent workflows,’ in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Data Engineering(ICDE’98), (Orlando, FL, USA), Feb. 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  33. G. Alonso, M. Kamath, D. Agrawal, A. E. Abbadi, R. Gunthor, and C. Mohan, ‘Failure handling in large scale workflow management systems,’ Tech. Rep. RJ9913, IBM Almaden Research Center, Nov. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  34. G. Alonso, D. Agrawal, A. E. Abbadi, M. Kamath, R. Gunthor, and C. Mohan, ‘Advanced transaction model in workflow context,’ in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Data Engineering(ICDE’96), (New Orleans, LA, USA), Feb. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  35. IBM, MQ Series Workflow-Concepts and Architectures, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Staware Corporation, Staware Global-Staware for Intranet based Workflow Automation, 1997._Available at http://www.staware.com/home/whitepapers/data/globalwp.htm.

  37. Baan Company N.V.-COSA Soultions, COSA Reference Manual, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  38. D. Chiu, K. Karlapalem, and Q. Li, ‘Exception handling with workflow evolution in ‘adome-wfms’: a taxonomy and resolution techniques,’ in Proceedings of the First Workshop on Adaptive Workflow Systems, (Seattle, Washington, USA), Nov. 1998. Available at http://ccs.mit.edu/klein/cscw98/paper06.

  39. S. Bandinelli, E. Di Nitto, and A. Fuggetta, ‘Supporting cooperation in the spade-1 environment,’ IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 22, December 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U-4, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA

    Fabio Casati

  2. Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Via Ponzio 34/5, I-20133, Milan, Italy

    Gianpaolo Cugola

Authors
  1. Fabio Casati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gianpaolo Cugola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing Science, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1, 7RU, UK

    Alexander Romanovsky

  2. LIRMM Laboratory, University of Montpellier-II, 161 rue Ada, 34392, Montpellier, Cedex 5, France

    Christophe Dony

  3. Department of Computing Science, University of Aarhus, Aabogade 34, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark

    Jørgen Lindskov Knudsen

  4. Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Anand Tripathi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Casati, F., Cugola, G. (2001). Error Handling in Process Support Systems. In: Romanovsky, A., Dony, C., Knudsen, J.L., Tripathi, A. (eds) Advances in Exception Handling Techniques. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2022. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45407-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45407-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41952-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45407-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation