processof mapping the exchanged data from the individual museum dataarchiving formats to the common one used in RCH. The chosen testscenario involved harvesting the details of around 2000 culturalobjects with around 15 mapped attributes each. The data values ofeach and every object were accurately maintained and displayedin the Presentation components (RCH website). Mapping betweenthe three museums was achieved through the utilization of theworkflow-managed archival mapping tool, which was accessiblethrough the RCMS as can be seen in Fig. 10.Fig. 10 illustrates that the RCMS provides the end-users withthe necessary interface to carry out the mapping process from onemuseums’ data to another. Once the mapping process is concluded,the newly mapped data is stored in the desired location specifiedby the user in the beginning of the mapping workflow. Moreover,feedback is given in the form of a message displayed in the RCMS.A prominent feature of the RCMS is what is called the RCH Work-flow Monitor (the black screen at the bottom of the RCMS as canbe seen in Fig. 10). The RCH Workflow Monitor displays differ-ent workflow monitoring and tracking indicators on a real-timebasis. Such indicators may include running workflows and theirIDs, workflow termination notifications and error notifications. Theresults of the testing process in view of the expected performancegains are detailed Section 7.7. Results analysisThe work presented in this paper involved the integration of anovel WfMS with a typical DHR represented in the RCH system. RCHwas built from scratch to validate the proposed WfMS approach.The main goal was to offer a number of workflow managementand tracking advantages without disturbing the actual operationof RCH. The integration between RCH, the WfMS and the WfMShost (RCMS) depended heavily on intensive message passing. Mes-sage passing was used to perform the different functions needed bythe participating museums. This approach suited the SO nature ofRCH, where separate encapsulated components perform differentfunctions. Service orientation made it easier to integrate any otherworkflow-managed components if the need for that arises in thefuture.Total modularity was apparent in the way that the RCH WfMSwas implemented where separate workflow runtime services werecreated for each of the managed components (Archival, Retrievaland Presentation). This approach meant that incorporating anyextra workflow management functionality will simply require theaddition of extra workflow runtime services. These new workflowruntime services can then handle the newly needed functionality(the management of new RCH components for example).Integrating the devised WfMS solution proved to be a practicaland valuable addition to RCH. Firstly, it supported and enhancedthe encapsulated SO nature of RCH by providing total separationbetween its internal component and its visual and UI elements. Fur-thermore, the WfMS offered a number of effective management andtracking capabilities (total control and tracking of the executed ser-vices) while acting as a specialized workflow management middlelayer.When testing the workflow host represented in the RCMS,autonomous workflow initiation (start the mapping workflow forinstance) was achieved. This automation was achieved throughthe integration between the RCMS and the WfMS as opposed tomanual or unmanaged workflows. Moreover, the different controls(such as buttons and dropdown menus) of the RCMS