Towards Compliance of Cross-Organizational Processes and their Changes [original]

Towards Compliance of Cross-Organizational

Processes and their Changes?

Research Challenges and State of Research

David Knuplesch1, Manfred Reichert1, J¨urgen Mangler2,

Stefanie Rinderle-Ma2, and Walid Fdhila2

1Institute of Databases and Information Systems, Ulm University, Germany

2Faculty of Computer Science, University of Vienna, Austria

{david.knuplesch,manfred.reichert}@uni-ulm.de,

{juergen.mangler,stefanie.rinderle-ma,walid.fdhila}@univie.ac.at

Abstract. Businesses require the ability to rapidly implement new pro-

cesses and to quickly adapt existing ones to environmental changes in-

cluding the optimization of their interactions with partners and cus-

tomers. However, changes of either intra- or cross-organizational pro-

cesses must not be done in an uncontrolled manner. In particular, pro-

cesses are increasingly subject to compliance rules that usually stem from

security constraints, corporate guidelines, standards, and laws. These

compliance rules have to be considered when modeling business pro-

cesses and changing existing ones. While change and compliance have

been extensively discussed for intra-organizational business processes,

albeit only in an isolated manner, their combination in the context of

cross-organizational processes remains an open issue. In this paper, we

discuss requirements and challenges to be tackled in order to ensure that

changes of cross-organizational business processes preserve compliance

with imposed regulations, standards and laws.

1 Introduction

Improving the efficiency and quality of their business processes and optimizing

their interactions with partners, suppliers and customers have become signif-

icant success factors for any enterprise. Hence, enterprises increasingly adopt

emerging technologies and standards for business process automation [1]. These

enable the definition, execution, and monitoring of the operational processes of

an enterprise [2, 3]. In connection with Web service technology, the benefits of

business process automation and optimization from within a single enterprise

can be transferred to cross-organizational business processes as well [4, 5]. The

next step in this evolution will be the emergence of the agile enterprise being

able to rapidly implement new processes and to quickly adapt existing ones to

?This work was done within the research project C3Pro funded by the German Re-

search Foundation (DFG), Project number: RE 1402/2-1, and the Austrian Science

Fund (FWF), Project number: I743.

environmental changes [3]. While flexibility issues for internal business processes

and their implementation (i.e., process and service orchestrations) are well un-

derstood [3, 2], the controlled change of the interactions between IT-supported

partner processes in a cross-organizational setting (i.e., process and service chore-

ographies) has not been adequately addressed so far. If one partner changes its

process in an uncontrolled manner, inconsistencies or errors (e.g., deadlocks) re-

garding these interactions might occur. This is particularly challenging if there

exist running instances (i.e., cases) of these process choreographies. As a con-

sequence, adaptations of cross-organizational business processes turn out to be

costly and error-prone.

Generally, business processes cannot be defined or changed without considering

business process compliance with imposed compliance rules (e.g., security guid-

lines). Due to the increasing importance of regulations like SOX and BASEL,

compliance has emerged as one of the most urgent challenges for process-aware

information systems. So far, it has been addressed by many approaches, which

mostly deal with the automation of audits for verifying compliance rules imposed

on internal business processes [6, 7, 8, 9].

Compliance of cross-organizational business processes, however, has not been

investigated in connection with process changes or with respect to privacy con-

straints of partner processes. Flexibility on one hand and compliance on the

other hand are crucial challenges for collaborative settings. However, the picture

will be not complete if we do not consider both in interplay as well. Even though

a compliance rule might be fulfilled for a collaborative process before a change,

it does not automatically remain satisfied afterwards. Thus, it is indispensable

to provide adequate mechanisms to control change effects on the compliance of

collaborative business processes in a transparent way.

This paper first provides an overview of basic notations related to compli-

ance and (cross-organizational) business processes in Section 2. Section 3 then

discusses different layers of correctness that must be considered when modeling

and changing business process models. Section 4 discusses the state of the art

in related research areas; i.e., cross-organizational processes, process flexibility,

and business process compliance. Section 5 elicits novel requirements and chal-

lenges for enabling compliance of cross-organizational business processes and

their change. Finally, Section 6 closes the paper with summary and conclusion.

2 Basic Notion and Example

We introduce basic notions related to business compliance in the context of

cross-organizational processes and discuss their inter-relations. Fig. 1 gives an

overview of the terminology we use. Basic to each cross-organizational process

is a collaboration. In turn, the latter contains abstract roles that may be filled

by concrete business partners. For each role, the set of related task definitions

describes which tasks a role may perform when a cross-organizational process

is executed. The model of a cross-organizational process is denoted as choreog-

raphy model and consists of public process models connected through message

exchanges. In turn, a public process model consist of tasks and refers to a role,

whereas a private process model implements a public process model of a busi-

ness partner enriched with internal (i.e., private) tasks. Both public and private

process models may only comprise task definitions related to the role the public

process model refers to.

Choreography

Model

Public

Process Model

Private

Process Model

Role

Collaboration

Business Partner

Internal

Compliance Rules

Global

Compliance Rules

Warranty

Private

Process Instance

consists of ▼

leads to ▼

Choreography

Instance

contains ▼

affects ►

related to ►

defined for ►

Implements ▲

◄ has

consists of ▼

controls ►

Public

Process Instance

realized by ▼

◄ is Instance of

0..1

*1*1

1 1

Message

Exchange

Message Instance

◄ consists of

connects ▼

◄ is Instance of

Task/Event

Definition

◄ consists of

concerns ▼

concerns ▲

related to ►

◄ is Instance of Task/Event

Instance

◄ consists of

connects ▼

◄ consists of

executes ►

concerns ▼

augments ►

▲sends/

receives

0.. /0..

▲sends/

receives

1/1

* *

0.. /0..

* *

1/1

Fig. 1. Terminology Overview

Achoreography instance reflects the execution of a cross-organizational pro-

cess defined by a choreography model. Similar to a choreography model, the

choreography instance consists of public process instances, which are based on

the private process instances of the related business partner. Such a private pro-

cess instance is controlled by the respective business partner through executing

its task instances. The latter send and receive message instances connecting the

public process instance within the choreography instance.

Both the choreography model and the private process models may be sub-

ject to compliance rules restricting allowed execution sequences of tasks. In this

context, we distinguish between global compliance rules referring to a cross-

organizational process (i.e., to a choreography model) and internal compliance

rules restricting private process models. Furthermore, warranties can augment

public process models. More precisely, they enrich a choreography’s specification

of a public process model with additional information about its executon behav-

ior. In turn, a warranty constitutes an internal compliance rule restricting the

private process model that implements the augmented public process model.

Laboratory

EgLab Ltd.

Women’s Hospital

University Hospital of Anytown

Blood

test

Examine

patient

Transfer

patient

Observe

patient Handle Birth

Analysis

Process blood

test’s results

Dispatch

results

Store

sample

Send

blood sample

Forward

results

Transfer

patient

complications

Patient transfered

Destroy

sample

Global Compliance Rules

Rule 1: After a blood test, the blood sample has to be

destroyed.

Rule 2: If an examination or the evaluation of the results of a

blood test indicate complications, the patient must

be transfered to the hospital and be observed there.

Legend

private tasks

public tasks

tasks that are

affected by rules

Gynecologist

John Q. Public, M.D.

Admit

patient

Evaluate

results

Make next

appointment

Release

patient

Admit

patient

Discharge

patient

Warranty (laboratory) / Internal Compliance Rule:

After analysis the blood sample Is destroyed.

Ultra-

sonography

Sample Results

Patient data

Results

Fig. 2. Example of Cross-organizational Process

Example 1. Fig. 2 shows an example of a cross-organizational process from

the healthcare domain. The fundamental collaboration comprises three roles:

gynecologist,laboratory, and women’s hospital. They are filled by the

three business partners John Q. Public, M.D., EgLab Ltd., and University Hos-

pital of Anytown. The choreography model of this cross-organizational process is

based on the public process models of the three roles that communicate through

message exchanges. For example, the message exchanges sample and results

connect the public process of the gynecologist with the one of the laboratory.

In turn, the public process of the gynecologist is connected with the one of

the women’s hospital based on the two message exchanges patient data and

results. The private process models of the business partners, in turn, implement

the related public processes and additionally enrich them with internal behavior,

i.e. private tasks not contained in public processes models. (In Fig. 2 the private

tasks are indented and greyed). The logical execution of this choreography model

results in a choreography instance of the cross-organizational healthcare process;

it contains related instances of the choreography, i.e. its public as well as private

processes, and the messages exchanged. Finally, Fig. 2 shows one warranty and

two global compliance rules. Through the warranty, the laboratory ensures

the destruction of a blood sample after its analysis. Rule 1 requires a blood

sample to be destroyed. In turn, Rule 2 requires the patient to be monitored in

the hospital when complications occur.

3 Correctness Levels for Process Models

Business processes models cannot be defined or changed in an arbitrary way.

Generally, three correctness levels build on each other and constitute a pyramid

of business process model correctness. In particular, each level has to be consid-

ered and checked for each definition or change of a process model (cf. Fig. 3):

Syntactical Correctness

Behavioural

Correctness

Semantic

Correctness

Fig. 3. Pyramid of Business Process Model

........... Correctness

Syntactical Correctness refers to the

correct use and composition of the el-

ements of the underlying meta model.

Examples of syntactical constraints

include the existence of start and end

events, as well as the correct use of

different kinds of edges; e.g., control

flow edges may only connect flow ele-

ments (i.e., tasks, gateways, events),

while data flow edges connect tasks

with data objects. Syntactical correct-

ness is a prerequisite for behavioral

correctness, since the behavior of a

syntactical incorrect model is unde-

fined.

Behavioral Correctness requires from a process model to be executable and in-

cludes properties like the absence of deadlocks and lifelocks. Further, it requires a

correct flow of data; e.g., data objects must be written before read the first time.

In the context of (dynamic) process changes, state consistency and data consis-

tency respectively, must be preserved; i.e., a running process instance must not

face deadlocks, lifelocks, and data-flow errors, when dynamically migrating its

execution to a new process model version. In the context of cross-organizational

processes, compatibility between the public processes of the different partners re-

quires their composition is a behaviorally correct process. Conformance requires

the private process of a partner to implement the behavior of his public process.

Finally, behavioral correctness is a prerequisite for semantic correctness.

Semantic Correctness (i.e. business process compliance) requires a process model

to comply with imposed compliance rules stemming from regulations, standards,

and laws. Hence, each possible execution of the process must not violate any com-

pliance rule. For a set of compliance rules, consistency requires the conjunction

of the rules to be satisfiable; i.e. consistent compliance rules do not conflict with

each other.

4 State of the Art

In this section, we outline the state of research. First, we discuss existing ap-

proaches in the area of cross-organizational processes. Then, we deal with process

flexibility. Finally, we discuss business process compliance.

4.1 Cross-organizational Processes

Modeling cross-organizational processes has been discussed for many years.

There are widespread standards such as BPEL4WS, WS-CDL, and RosettaNet,

as well as powerful modeling frameworks and notations (e.g. ”Let’s dance” [10],

iBPMN [11], and BPMN 2.0). [12] further identified interaction patterns, which

describe well-defined patterns for message exchanges between partner processes.

For privacy reasons, a choreography definition is usually restricted to those ac-

tivities relevant for the message exchanges between the partners involved. More

precisely, partners publish restricted views on their private processes [13, 14].

Several top-down-approaches exist, which, starting from a choreography of pub-

lic processes, determine whether or not private processes comply with the cor-

responding public ones [15, 16, 17]. Furthermore, [18] introduces a set of trans-

formation rules that allow for the inheritance-preserving stepwise enrichment of

a public process to obtain the corresponding private one. These rules are also

applicable to evolve private processes without changing their public view. To

support the opposite direction (i.e., to interconnect existing partner processes),

[19] provides a bottom-up-approach for checking whether or not processes can

interact with each other successfully. Further, they propose a central as well as

distributed architecture, which both allow for the dynamic matching and ex-

ecution of cross-organizational processes based on a shared registry for public

processes. Finally, the scenario of modeling process choreographies and private

processes independently is addressed by [20], using the Formal Contract Lan-

guage to check conformance between choreographies and processes.

4.2 Process Flexibility

Issues related to process flexibility have been discussed for more than a decade

[21, 22, 23, 5]. However, existing approaches consider flexibility mainly for pro-

cesses orchestrations; i.e., workflows implementing a private process and being

executed by a single process engine. In approaches like Pockets of Flexibility [24]

or Worklets [25], for example, processes are executed on the basis of a loosely

or partially specified model, which is then fully specified at runtime. Relevant

techniques include late modeling and late composition of process fragments as

well as declarative modeling styles [26].

Dynamic process adaptations, in turn, represent the ability of the imple-

mented processes to cope with exceptional situations. On one hand, this includes

the handling of expected exceptions, which can be anticipated and thus be cap-

tured in the process model [27]. On the other hand, it covers non-anticipated

exceptions, which are usually handled through structural adaptations of single

process instances based on well-defined change patterns (e.g., to add, delete or

move activities) [28]. A particular challenge is to ensure the behavioral correct-

ness (i.e., state and data consistency) of a process instance in this context [21].

Approaches like ADEPT [29] guarantee for the behavioral correctness of the

modified process model.

Besides this, there exists support for assisting end-users in reusing ad-hoc

changes [30] and for restricting changes to authorized users [31]. Another fun-

damental aspect concerns process schema evolution [32, 33]; i.e., the ability of

the implemented process to change when the business process evolves. Rele-

vant problems in this context concern the handling of running process instances,

which were initiated based on the old model version, but are required to use

the new specification from now on [33, 32]. Since thousands of active instances

may be affected by a given process change the issue of behavioral correctness

is rather critical. Traceability of changes and mining of dynamic processes are

other relevant issues, closely related to process evolution, which are considered

in existing frameworks [34, 35].

Only few approaches exist that address changes of distributed processes and

choreographies. [36] shows how partitioned workflows can be changed in a con-

trolled way. [37] distinguishes between shallow and deep service changes in the

context of a choreography. While the effects of shallow changes (e.g., changes

of service versions, interfaces, and operations) are restricted to a service, deep

changes have cascading and disseminating effects on the whole choreography. [38]

describes how the version of stateful service instances can be changed efficiently,

if the behavior of the new service version covers the behavior of the replaced

one. Constructing such new service versions is addressed by [39]. However, no

comprehensive solution approach is provided.

4.3 Business Process Compliance

In many domains, process execution is subject to compliance rules and restric-

tions that stem from laws, regulations, and guidelines (e.g. Basel or Sarbanes-

Oxley-Act) [40]. Existing approaches that allow ensuring compliance of business

processes with imposed compliance rules differ with respect to the lifecycle phase

in which compliance is verified as well as the strategy applied. Moreover, differ-

ent paradigms and formalisms are used to define compliance rules and process

models [41]. Compliance rules are often considered as restrictions to the order

in which process activities may be executed. In this context, there exist ap-

proaches that formalize compliance rules in temporal logic (e.g., LTL [8] and

CTL [6]). Other ones emphasize the modalities of compliance rules (e.g., obliga-

tions or permissions) by applying deontic logic [42, 43]. Since these approaches

are not easy to comprehend, [44] suggests a pattern-based approach to encap-

sulate logic. There also exist graphical notations for modeling compliance rules

[7, 8, 45]. The integration of compliance rules throughout the process lifecycle

has been discussed in [46, 47, 48].

To verify whether compliance rules are fulfilled by process models at de-

sign time, many approaches apply model checking techniques [6, 7, 8, 9]. Since

these depend on the exploration of the state space of process models, state

space explosion constitutes a big obstacle for practical applications. Graph re-

duction and sequentialization of parallel flows as well as predicate abstraction

are proposed to deal with this challenge [8, 7, 49]. Among those approaches,

there exist few that do not only consider the control flow perspective. [50] in-

troduces state-based data objects. [49] enables data-aware compliance checking

for larger data-domains and [9] additionally considers temporal constraints. For

cycle-free processes, there exist algorithms that allow for more efficient design

time compliance verification than model checking [20, 51].

Runtime checking and monitoring (i.e. continous auditing [52]) of business

process compliance are addressed by several approaches: [53] enriches a process

models with a semantic layer of internal controls. Another compliance monitoring

framework based on common event standards and middleware is a presented in

[54]. [55] discusses the monitoring and enforcement of compliance within process

collaborations. [56] uses Compliance Rule Graphs and [57] colored automata to

enable fine-grain compliance diagnostics at runtime.

To complement design time and runtime compliance checking, backward com-

pliance checking of process logs has been proposed by checking logs for compli-

ance with LTL-formulas [58]. Finally, declarative approaches [26, 43, 42] ensure

compliance in an elegant manner. Since processes are defined by means of a set

of rules, imposed compliance rules only have to be added to the process defini-

tion to ensure business process compliance.

[4]

[15]

Cross-organizational

Processes

Business Process

Compliance

Flexibility

[19]

[17]

[16]

[10]

[18]

[37]

[36]

[20]

[47]

[46]

[26] [43]

[55]

[48]

[45]

[44]

[41]

[6]

[27]

[21]

[5]

[54]

[42]

[29]

[28]

[25]

[24]

[23]

[22]

[14]

[13]

[12]

[11]

[34]

[40]

[33]

[32]

[31]

[35]

[30] [50][49]

[9]

[8]

[7]

[53]

[51]

[56] [57]

[3]

[58]

[38]

[39]

Fig. 4. State of the Art

In summary, there exist many ap-

proaches considering aspects of com-

pliance of cross-organizational pro-

cesses and their changes. However,

only few approaches discuss flexibil-

ity issues in the context of cross-

organizational processes or in the

context of business process compli-

ance. Even fewer approches address

business process compliance of cross-

organizational processes. Finally, Fig.

4 shows that the interplay of change

and compliance in the context of

cross-organizational processes has not

been addressed yet.

5 Challenges

As mentioned in Section 4, the interplay of change and compliance in the context

of cross-organizational processes has not been addressed yet. In this section we

outline challenges arising in the context of this interplay:

Modeling Cross-organizational Compliance Rules. First of all, the (graphical)

modeling of warranties and cross-organizational compliance requires proper sup-

port. In addition to intra-organizational compliance rules, messages as well as

the role executing a task must be considered (cf. Rule 2 of Example 1).

Change Propagation. Before applying a change, all three correctness levels have

to be checked as we will illustrate by means of the scenario from Fig. 2: If the

message-sending task forward results is deleted in the gynecologist’s private

process, the corresponding public process will be affected. Furthermore, the mes-

sage results as well as the public and private process of the women’s hospital

will be affected by this change. This indicates that a partner must not change

his public process in an uncontrolled manner. Otherwise, behavioral correctness

of the choreography his public process is involved in cannot be preserved. Thus,

the women’s hospital should be supported in adapting its public and private

processes to the change. Hence, a major research challenge is how to propagate

changes of a partner’s private process to the other partners in order to keep the

choreography behaviorally correct.

Efficient Cross-organizational Instance Migration. Changes are particularly

challenging if there exist running choreography instances being in different states

or partially differing from the original process model (e.g., due to adaptations

of single choreographies in the context of exceptions). For any of these hundreds

or even thousands of choreography instances it has to be determined whether

or not the change or parts of it are applicable, while satisfying all three correct-

ness levels at the same time. Since large numbers of cross-organizational process

instances may be affected, efficient algorithms are required.

Ensuring Compliance with Regard to Privacy. Using Example 1 from Fig. 2,

we can show that privacy constraints of partner processes aggravate compliance

checking at design time. For example, the gynecologist cannot correctly verify

Rule 1, since the laboratory hides the relevant task destroy sample from

its public process. Nevertheless, when additionally considering the warranty of

the laboraty, it becomes clear that Rule 1 is satisfied. Similar difficulties occur

when compliance is monitored at runtime. This requires a solution supporting

compliance checking with respect to privacy issues.

Efficiently Ensuring Compliance at Change Time. Ensuring compliance of cross-

organizational process models and instances at change time is another challeng-

ing research issue. Particularly, in the context of compliance, effects of changes

cannot be easily traced. For example, assume that task destroy sample is

deleted in the laboratory’s private process (cf. Fig. 2). Although this task is not

part of the laboratory’s public process, compliance of the gynecologist’s pro-

cess models with Rule 1 will be affected by this change. However, the task affects

the laboratory’s warranty that must be withdrawn. Consequently, warranties,

internal compliance rules, and global compliance rules should be re-evaluated.

Due to the high complexity of current compliance checking approaches and due

to the potentially large number of affected process instances, optimization strate-

gies and efficient algorithms are required.

Adequate User Feedback. Users require intelligible feedback on compliance vi-

olations. Sources and effects of compliance violations have to be highlighted.

Furthermore, the available courses of action for healing compliance violations

should be offered to selected user roles.

6 Summary and Outlook

This paper emphasized that ensuring compliance for cross-organizational pro-

cesses and their changes raises several challenges. We first provided an overview

about the relevant terms in this context, and introduced an example from the

medical domain. Next, we introduced three correctness levels, i.e., syntactical

correctness, behavioral correctness, and semantic correctness. Then we discussed

the state of the art. We came to the viewpoint that the interplay of change and

compliance in the context of cross-organizational processes has not been adressed

yet. Finally, we provided unanswered challenges that raise from that interplay.

In our future work, we plan to adress the challenges denoted in Section 5,

within our research project C3Pro: First, we want to enable graphically mod-

eling of warranties and cross-organizational compliance rules. Second, we will

put emphasis on enabling cross-organizational compliance checking and moni-

toring with respect to privacy issues and warranties. As stated, this requires the

checking of syntactical and behavioral correctness before. In addition, we plan

to study the efficient application of changes to running choreographies instances

first and then look and instances that partially differ from the original process

models. Finally, we plan to combine our approaches for ensuring compliance and

correct changes to cross-organizational processes and thus enable compliance of

cross-organizational changes.

References

1. Mutschler, B., Reichert, M., Bumiller, J.: Unleashing the effectiveness of process-

oriented information systems: Problem analysis, critical success factors, and impli-

cations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applica-

tions and Reviews 38(3) (2008) 280–291

2. Weske, M.: Workflow management systems: Formal foundation, conceptual design,

implementation aspects. Springer (2007)

3. Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Sys-

tems. Springer (2012)

4. Alonso, G., Casati, F.: Web Services: Concepts, Architectures and Applications

(Data-Centric Systems and Applications). Springer (2004)

5. Dustdar, S.: Caramba - a process-aware collaboration system supporting ad hoc

and collaborative processes in virtual teams. Distributed and Parallel Databases

15(1) (2004) 45–66

6. Ghose, A.K., Koliadis, G.: Auditing business process compliance. In: Proc IC-

SOC’07. (2007) 169–180

7. Liu, Y., M¨uller, S., Xu, K.: A static compliance-checking framework for business

process models. IBM Systems Journal 46(2) (2007) 335–261

8. Awad, A., Decker, G., Weske, M.: Efficient compliance checking using BPMN-Q

and temporal logic. In: Proc BPM’08). (2008) 326–341

9. Kokash, N., Krause, C., de Vink, E.: Time and data aware analysis of graphical

service models. In: Proc SEFM’10. (2010)

10. Zaha, J., Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.: Let’s dance: A language for

service behavior modeling. In: Proc CoopIS’06. (2006) 145–162

11. Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies.

Information Systems 35(8) (2010)

12. Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.: Service interaction patterns. In: Proc

BPM’05. (2005) 302–318

13. Liu, D.R., Shen, M.: Business-to-business workflow interoperation based on

process-views. Decision Support Systems 38(3) (2004) 399–419

14. Maamar, Z., Benslimane, D., Ghedira, C., Mrissa, M.: Views in composite web

services. IEEE Internet Computing 9(4) (2005) 52–57

15. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of interorganizational workflows to enable

Business-to-Business E-Commerce. Electronic commerce research 2(3) (2002) 195–

231

16. Martens, A.: Consistency between executable and abstract processes. In: Proc

EEE’05. (2005) 60–67

17. Decker, G., Weske, M.: Behavioral consistency for B2B process integration. In:

Proc CAiSE’07. (2007) 81–95

18. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Wolf, K.: Mul-

tiparty contracts: Agreeing and implementing interorganizational processes. The

Computer Journal 53(1) (2010) 90–106

19. Tata, S., Klai, K., Ould Ahmed M’Bareck, N.: CoopFlow: A Bottom-Up Approach

to Workflow Cooperation for Short-Term Virtual Enterprises. IEEE Transactions

on Services Computing 1(4) (2008) 214–228

20. Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S.: Compliance checking between business

processes and business contracts. In: Proc EDOC’06. (2006) 221–232

21. Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in

workflow systems – a survey. Data & Knowledge Engineering 50(1) (2004) 9–34

22. Weber, B., Sadiq, S., Reichert, M.: Beyond rigidity–dynamic process lifecycle

support. Computer Science-Research and Development 23(2) (2009) 47–65

23. Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex – supporting dynamic changes of workflows

without losing control. Intelligent Information Systems 10(2) (1998) 93–129

24. Sadiq, S., Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.: A framework for constraint specification and

validation in flexible workflows. Information Systems 30(5) (2005) 349–378

25. Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Worklets:

A service-oriented implementation of dynamic flexibility in workflows. In: Proc

CoopIS’06. (2006) 291–308

26. Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: DECLARE: full support for

loosely-structured processes. In: Proc EDOC’07. (2007) 287–300

27. Reichert, M., Dadam, P., Bauer, T.: Dealing with forward and backward jumps in

workflow management systems. Software and Systems Modeling 2(1) (2003) 37–58

28. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change patterns and change support

features - Enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data &

Knowledge Engineering 66(3) (2008) 438–466

29. Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Kreher, U., Dadam, P.: Adaptive process management

with ADEPT2. In: Proc ICDE’05. (2005) 1113–1114

30. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Wild, W., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Providing integrated life cycle

support in process-aware information systems. Cooperative Information Systems

18(1) (2009) 115–165

31. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Wild, W., Rinderle, S.: Balancing flexibility and security

in adaptive process management systems. In: Proc CoopIS’05. (2005) 59–76

32. Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow evolution. Data & Knowledge

Engineering 24(3) (1998) 211–238

33. Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Flexible support of team processes by

adaptive workflow systems. Distributed and Parallel Databases 16(1) (2004) 91–

116

34. Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: The MinAdept clustering approach for dis-

covering reference process models out of process variants. Cooperative Information

Systems 19(3) (2010)

35. G¨unther, C., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Change mining in

adaptive process management systems. In: Proc CoopIS’06. (2006) 309–326

36. Reichert, M., Bauer, T.: Supporting ad-hoc changes in distributed workflow man-

agement systems. In: Proc CoopIS’07. (2007) 150–168

37. Papazoglou, M.: The challenges of service evolution. In: Proc CAiSE’08. (2008)

1–15

38. Liske, N., Lohmann, N., Stahl, C., Wolf, K.: Another approach to service instance

migration. Service-Oriented Computing (2009) 607–621

39. Mooij, A., Parnjai, J., Stahl, C., Voorhoeve, M.: Constructing replaceable services

using operating guidelines and maximal controllers. Web Services and Formal

Methods (2011) 116–130

40. Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., Naimiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business

process compliance. In: Proc BPM’07. (2007)

41. El Kharbili, M., De Medeiros, A.K.A., Stein, S., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Busi-

ness process compliance checking: Current state and future challenges. In: Proc

MobIS’08. (2008) 107–113

42. Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni,

P.: Expressing and verifying business contracts with abductive logic programming.

In: Proc NorMAS’07. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (2007)

43. Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Designing compliant business processes with obli-

gations and permissions. In: Proc BPM’06 Workshops. (2006) 5–14

44. Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Property specification patterns for

finite-state verification. In: Proc FMSP’98. (1998)

45. Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Dadam, P.: Design and verification of instantiable com-

pliance rule graphs in process-aware information systems. In: Proc CAiSE’10.

(2010) 9–23

46. Ly, L.T., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: Integration and verification of semantic con-

straints in adaptive process management systems. Data & Knowledge Engineering

64(1) (2008) 3–23

47. Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., G¨oser, K., Dadam, P.: On enabling integrated process

compliance with semantic constraints in process management systems - require-

ments, challenges, solutions. Information Systems Frontiers (2009)

48. Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M.: Ensuring business process compliance along the pro-

cess life cycle. Technical Report 2011-06, University of Ulm (2011)

49. Knuplesch, D., Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Pfeifer, H., Dadam, P.: On enabling data-

aware compliance checking of business process models. In: Proc ER’10. (2010)

50. Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Specification, verification and explanation of

violation for data aware compliance rules. In: Proc ICSOC’09. (2009) 500–515

51. Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Semantic business process validation. In:

Proc SBPM’08. (2008)

52. Alles, M., Kogan, A., Vasarhelyi, M.: Putting continuous auditing theory into prac-

tice: Lessons from two pilot implementations. Information Systems 22(2) (2008)

195–214

53. Namiri, K., Stojanovic, N.: Pattern-Based design and validation of business process

compliance. In: Proc CoopIS’07. (2007) 59–76

54. Giblin, C., M¨uller, S., Pfitzmann, B.: From regulatory policies to event monitoring

rules: Towards model-driven compliance automation. Technical Report RZ-3662,

IBM (2006)

55. Berry, A., Milosevic, Z.: Extending choreography with business contract con-

straints. Cooperative Information Systems 14(2-3) (2005) 131–179

56. Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Knuplesch, D., Dadam, P.: Monitoring business process

compliance using compliance rule graphs. In: Proc CoopIS’11. (2011) 82–99

57. Maggi, F., Montali, M., Westergaard, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Monitoring

business constraints with linear temporal logic: an approach based on colored au-

tomata. In: Proc BPM’11. (2011) 132–147

58. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Beer, H.D., van Dongen, B.: Process mining and verification

of properties: An approach based on temporal logic. In: Proc CoopIS’05. (2005)

130–147