Formal Aspects of Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 3–4, pp 459–482 | Cite as

Preserving correctness during business process model configuration

  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
  • Marlon Dumas
  • Florian Gottschalk
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
  • Marcello La Rosa
  • Jan Mendling
Open Access
Original Article


A configurable process model captures a family of related process models in a single artifact. Such models are intended to be configured to fit the requirements of specific organizations or projects, leading to individualized process models that are subsequently used for domain analysis or solution design. This article proposes a formal foundation for individualizing configurable process models incrementally, while preserving correctness, both with respect to syntax and behavioral semantics. Specifically, assuming the configurable process model is behaviorally sound, the individualized process models are guaranteed to be sound. The theory is first developed in the context of Petri nets and then extended to a process modeling notation widely used in practice, namely Event-driven Process Chains.


Configurable process model Configuration Petri net 


  1. Aal97.
    van der Aalst WMP (1997) Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma P, Balbo G (eds) Proceedings of the 18th international conference on application and theory of Petri net. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1248. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 407–426Google Scholar
  2. Aal99.
    van der Aalst WMP (1999) Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf Softw Technol 41(10): 639–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AB02.
    van der Aalst WMP, Basten T (2002) Inheritance of workflows: an approach to tackling problems related to change. Theor Comput Sci 270(1–2): 125–203MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AC04.
    Antkiewicz M, Czarnecki K (2004) FeaturePlugIn: feature modeling Plug-In for eclipse. In: Burke MG (eds) Proceedings of the 2004 OOPSLA workshop on eclipse technology eXchange, (ETX 2004). ACM Press, New York, pp 67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. AIN04.
    Abdulla PA, Iyer SP, Nylén A (2004) SAT-solving the coverability problem for Petri nets. Formal Methods Syst Design 24(1): 25–43MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. AL08.
    van der Aalst WMP, Lassen KB (2008) Translating unstructured workflow processes to readable BPEL: theory and implementation . Inf Softw Technol 50(3): 131–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bat05.
    Batory DS (2005) Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. In: Obbink JH, Pohl K (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international conference on software product lines (SPLC’05). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3714. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 7–20Google Scholar
  8. BDK07.
    Becker J, Delfmann P, Knackstedt R (2007) Adaptive reference modeling: integrating configurative and generic adaptation techniques for information models. In: Becker J, Delfmann P (eds) Proceedings of the reference modeling conference (RM’06). Springer, Heodelberg, pp 27–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bun00.
    Bunke H (2000) Recent developments in graph matching. In: Sanfeliu A, Villanueva JJ, Vanrell M, Alquezar R, Jain AK, Kittler J (eds) Proceedings of the 15th international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR’00), vol 2. IEEE Computer Society, pp 117–124Google Scholar
  10. CA05.
    Czarnecki K, Antkiewicz M (2005) Mapping features to models: a template approach based on superimposed variants. In: Glück R, Lowry MR (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international conference on generative programming and component engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 422–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CHE04.
    Czarnecki K, Helsen S, Eisenecker U (2004) Staged configuration using feature models. In: Nord RL (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on software product lines (SPLC’04). Springer, Heidelberg, pp 266–283Google Scholar
  12. CK97.
    Curran T, Keller G (1997) SAP R/3 business blueprint: understanding the business process reference model. Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. CKLY98.
    Cortadella J, Kishinevsky M, Lavagno L, Yakovlev A (1998) Deriving Petri nets from finite transition systems. IEEE Trans Comput 47(8): 859–882CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. DE95.
    Desel J, Esparza J (1995) Free choice Petri nets. Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science, vol 40. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. EC94.
    Estublier J, Casallas R (1994) The adele software configuration manager. In: Configuration management. Wiley, London, pp 99–139Google Scholar
  16. ER89.
    Ehrenfeucht A, Rozenberg G (1989) Partial (Set) 2-Structures—Parts 1 and 2. Acta Inform 27(4): 315–368CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. ES90.
    Esparza J, Silva M (1990) Circuits, handles, bridges and nets. In: Rozenberg G (eds) Advances in Petri nets. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 483. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 210–242Google Scholar
  18. GAJV07.
    Gottschalk F, van der Aalst WMP, Jansen-Vullers MH (2007) Configurable process models—a foundational approach. In: Becker J, Delfmann P (eds) Reference modeling. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. GAJVL08.
    Gottschalk F, van der Aalst WMP, Jansen-Vullers MH, La Rosa M (2008) Configurable workflow models. Int J Coop Inf Syst 17(2): 177–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. GWJV+09.
    Gottschalk F, Wagemakers TAC, Jansen-Vullers MH, van der Aalst WMP, La Rosa M (2009) Configurable process models—experiences from a municipality case study. In: Gordijn J (eds) Proceedings of the 21st international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE’09). Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  21. HOS05.
    van Hee KM, Oanea O, Sidorova N (2005) Colored Petri nets to verify extended event-driven process chains. In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) Proceedings of CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3760. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 183–201Google Scholar
  22. HOS+08.
    van Hee KM, Oanea O, Serebrenik A, Sidorova N, Voorhoeve M (2008) History-based joins: semantics, soundness and implementation. Data Knowl Eng 64(1): 24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kin06.
    Kindler E (2006) On the semantics of EPCs: resolving the vicious circle. Data Knowl Eng 56(1): 23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. KNS92.
    Keller G, Nüttgens M, Scheer A-W (1992) Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Processketten (EPK). Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik, University of Saarland, Saarbrücken, (in German)Google Scholar
  25. LDH+08.
    La Rosa M, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM, Mendling J, Gottschalk F (2008) Beyond control-flow: extending business process configuration to roles and objects. In: Li Q, Spaccapietra S, Yu E, Olivé A (eds) Proceedings of the 27th international conference on conceptual modeling (ER’08). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5231. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 199–215Google Scholar
  26. LHRS08.
    La Rosa M, ter Hofstede AHM, Rosemann M, Shortland K (2008) Bringing process to post production. In: Proceedings of the international conference “Creating value: between commerce and commons”. Queensland University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  27. LLS+07.
    La Rosa M, Lux J, Seidel S, Dumas M, ter Hofstede AHM (2007) Questionnaire-driven configuration of reference process models. In: Krogstie J, Opdahl AL, Sindre G (eds) Proceedings of the 19th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE’07). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4495. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 424–438Google Scholar
  28. LSW98.
    Langner P, Schneider C, Wehler J (1998) Petri net based certification of event driven process chains. In: Desel J, Silva M (eds) Application and theory of Petri nets of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1420. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 286–305Google Scholar
  29. MA07.
    Mendling J, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Formalization and verification of EPCs with OR-Joins based on state and context. In: Krogstie J, Opdahl AL, Sindre G (eds) Proceedings of the 19th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE’07). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4495. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 439–453Google Scholar
  30. MDA08.
    Mendling J, van Dongen BF, van der Aalst WMP (2008) Getting Rid of OR-joins and multiple start events in business process models. Enterprise Information Systems. Special Issue on EDOC 2007 Best Papers 2(4): 403–419Google Scholar
  31. MIY90.
    Minato S, Ishiura N, Yajima S (1990) Shared binary decision diagram with attributed edges for efficient boolean function manipulation. In: Smith RC (eds) Proceedings of the 27th ACM/IEEE design automation conference. ACM Press, New York, pp 52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mur89.
    Murata T (1989) Petri nets: properties, analysis and applications. Proc IEEE 77(4): 541–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. NR02.
    Nüttgens M, Rump FJ (2002) Syntax und Semantik Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). In: Desel J, Weske M (eds) Proceedings of promise. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol 21. GI, pp 64–77Google Scholar
  34. ODA+09.
    Ouyang C, Dumas M, van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM, Mendling J (2009) From business process models to process-oriented software systems: the BPMN to BPEL way. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  35. PBL05.
    Pohl K, Böckle G, van der Linden F (2005) Software product-line engineering—foundations, principles and techniques. Springer, HeidelbergMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. RA07.
    Rosemann M, van der Aalst WMP (2007) A configurable reference modelling language. Inf Syst 32(1): 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. RK08.
    Razavian M, Khosravi R (2008) Modeling variability in business process models using UML. In: Latifi S (ed) Proceedings of the 5th international conference on information technology: new generations (ITGN’08), pp 82–87Google Scholar
  38. SL05.
    Sarshar K, Loos P (2005a) Comparing the control-flow of EPC and Petri net from the end-user perspective. In: van der Aalst WMP, Benatallah B, Casati F (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on business process management (BPM’05). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3649. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 434–439Google Scholar
  39. SL05.
    Sadiq SW, Orlowska ME, Sadiq W (2005) Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. Inf Syst 30(5): 349–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SP06.
    Schnieders A, Puhlmann F (2006) Variability mechanisms in E-Business process families. In: Abramowicz W, Mayr HC (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international conference on business information systems (BIS’06). LNI, vol 85. GI, pp 583–601Google Scholar
  41. Ste01.
    Stephens S (2001) The supply chain council and the supply chain operations reference model. Supply Chain Manag An Int J 1(1): 9–13Google Scholar
  42. TGN04.
    Turkay E, Gokhale AS, Natarajan B (2004) Addressing the middleware configuration challenges using model-based techniques. In: Yoo S-M, Etzkorn LH (eds) Proceedings of the 42nd ACM southeast regional conference. ACM Press, New York, pp 166–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. VBA01.
    Verbeek HMW, Basten T, van der Aalst WMP (2001) Diagnosing workflow processes using woflan. Comput J 44(4): 246–279MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
    • 1
    • 3
  • Marlon Dumas
    • 2
    • 3
  • Florian Gottschalk
    • 1
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
    • 3
  • Marcello La Rosa
    • 3
  • Jan Mendling
    • 4
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of TartuTartuEstonia
  3. 3.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.Humboldt University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations