No abstract

In the main, the attention of workflow researchers and workflow developers has focussed on the process perspective, i.e., control-flow. As a result, issues associated with the resource perspective, i.e., the people and machines actually doing the work, have been largely neglected. Although the process perspective is of most significance, appropriate consideration of the resource perspective is essential for successful implementation of workflow technology. Previous work has identified recurring, generic constructs in the control-flow and data perspectives, and presented them in the form of control-flow and data patterns. The next logical step is to describe workflow resource patterns that capture the various ways in which resources are represented and utilised in workflows. These patterns include a number of distinct groupings such as push patterns ("the system pushes work to a worker") and pull patterns ("the worker pulls work from the system") to describe the many ways in which work can be distributed. By delineating these patterns in a form that is independent of specific workflow technologies and modelling languages, we are able to provide a comprehensive treatment of the resource perspective and we subsequently use these patterns as the basis for a detailed comparison of a number of commercially available workflow management systems.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. This paper presents the realisation, using a Service Oriented Architecture, of an approach for dynamic flexibility and evolution in workflows through the support of flexible work practices, based not on proprietary frameworks, but on accepted ideas of how people actually work. A set of principles have been derived from a sound theoretical base and applied to the development of worklets, an extensible repertoire of self-contained sub-processes aligned to each task, from which a dynamic runtime selection is made depending on the context of the particular work instance.

Abstract. While there are many similarities between the languages of the various workflow management systems, there are also significant differences. One particular area of differences is caused by the fact that different systems impose different syntactic restrictions. In such cases, business analysts have to choose between either conforming to the language in their specifications or transforming these specifications afterwards. The latter option is preferable as this allows for a separation of concerns. In this paper we investigate to what extent such transformations are possible in the context of various syntactical restrictions (the most restrictive of which will be referred to as structured workflows). We also provide a deep insight into the consequences, particularly in terms of expressive power, of imposing such restrictions.

No abstract

No abstract