Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 305–318

Approaches to modeling business processes: a critical analysis of BPMN, workflow patterns and YAWL

Expert's Voice

Abstract

We investigate three approaches describing models of business processes: the OMG standard BPMN in its recent version 2.0, the workflow patterns of the Workflow Pattern Initiative and their reference implementation YAWL. We show how the three approaches fail to provide practitioners with a suitable means precisely and faithfully to capture business scenarios and to analyze, communicate and manage the resulting models. On the positive side, we distill from the discussion six criteria which can help to recognize practical and reliable tool-supported business process description and modeling systems.

Keywords

Business process modeling BPMN Workflow patterns YAWL 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aho A.V., Lam M.S., Sethi R., Ullman J.D.: Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, Inc, India (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ait-Sadoune, I., Ait-Ameur, Y.: Stepwise design of BPEL web services compositions. An event B refinement based approach. In: Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications (SERA 2010). Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 296, pp. 51–68. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barros, A., Börger, E.: A compositional framework for service interaction patterns and communication flows. In: Lau, K.-K., Banach, R. (eds.) Formal Methods and Software Engineering. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM 2005). LNCS, vol. 3785, pp. 5–35. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batory D., Börger E.: Modularizing theorems for software product lines: the Jbook case study. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 14(12), 2059–2082 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Börger E.: Construction and analysis of ground models and their refinements as a foundation for validating computer based systems. Formal Aspects Comput. 19, 225–241 (2007)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Börger E. et al.: Modeling workflow patterns from first principles. In: Parent, C. (eds) Conceptual Modeling—ER 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4801, pp. 1–20. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Börger E., Sörensen O.: BPMN core modeling concepts: inheritance-based execution semantics. In: Embley, D., Thalheim, B. (eds) Handbook of Conceptual Modelling, pp. 287–332. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Börger E., Stärk R.F.: Abstract State Machines. A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Börger, E., Thalheim, B.: A method for verifiable and validatable business process modeling. In: Advances in Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5316, pp. 59–115. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN): http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0, 2011. formal/2011-01-03
  11. 11.
    Christiansen, D., Carbone, M., Hildebrandt, T.: Formal semantics and implementation of BPMN 2.0 inclusive gateways. Pre-Proc. of Web Services and Formal Methods (WS-FM’10) (2010). http://www.itu.dk/people/maca/papers/CD10.pdf
  12. 12.
    Delaware, B., Cook, W., Batory, D.: Product lines of theorems. In: Proc.OOPSLA 2011, Portland, October 2011Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Denning, P.J., Martell, C.: Great principles of computing. http://cs.gmu.edu/cne/pjd/GP/GP-site/welcome.html (consulted July 26, 2011) (2007)
  14. 14.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Formal semantics and analysis of BPMN process models using Petri nets. Technical Report 7115, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dijkman R.M., Dumas M., Ouyang C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dumas, M., Grosskopf, A., Hettel, T., Wynn, M.: Semantics of BPMN process models with or-joins. Meersman, R., Tari Z. (eds) et al. OTM 2007 Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4803. pp. 41–58. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fleischmann A., Schmidt W., Stary C., Obermeier S., Börger E.: Subjektorientiertes Prozessmanagement. Hanser-Verlag, Munich (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fleischmann, A., Stary, C.: Whom to talk to? A stakeholder perspective on business process development. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 1–26 (2011). doi:10.1007/s10209-011-0236-x
  19. 19.
    Frappier, M., Habrias, H. (eds): Software Specification Methods: An Overview Using a Case Study. HERMES Sci. Publ., Paris (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gao, Y.: BPMN-BPEL transformation and round trip engineering. Technical report, eClarus Software (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Graef, N., Tölle, N.: Evaluation, mapping und quantitative reduktion von workflow pattern (control-flow). Bachelor Thesis at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (AIFB) (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grosskopf, A.: xBPMN. Formal control flow specification of a BPMN based process execution language, pp 1–142. Master’s thesis, HPI at Universität Potsdam (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gruhn V., Laue R.: What business process modelers can learn from programmers. Sci. Comput. Program. 65, 4–13 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hanisch H.M., Lüder A.: A signal extension for Petri nets and its use in controller design. Fundamenta Informaticae 41(4), 415–431 (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim, C., Batory, D., Khurshid, S.: Reducing combinatorics in testing product lines. In: Proceedings of the Aspect Oriented Software Development Conference. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kühnle, K., Mayr, E.W.: Exponential space computation of Gröbner bases. In: Lakshman, Y. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1996 International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (ISAAC’96), pp 63–71. ACM Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lohmann, N.: A feature-complete Petri net semantics for WS-BPEL 2.0 and its compiler BPEL2oWFN, 2007 (August 30)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mayr, E.W., Ritscher, S.: Space-efficient Gröbner basis computation without degree bounds. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, pp. 257–264. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mayr R.: Process rewrite systems. Inf. Comput. 156(1–2), 264–286 (2000)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McCoy, D.W.: Subject-oriented BPM (S-BPM). Gartner Research Hype Cycle for Business Process Management, 25 July 2011. ID Number: G00214214Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Metasonic: Metasonic-suite. http://www.metasonic.de/metasonic-suite
  32. 32.
    Mulyar, N., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.H., Russell, N.: Towards a WPSL: a critical analysis of the 20 classical workflow control-flow patterns. Technical Report BPM-06-18, BPM Center, http://BPMcenter.org (2006)
  33. 33.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W.: From BPMN process models to BPEL web services. In: ICWS, Los Alamitos, 2006, pp. 285–292. IEEE, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: From business process models to process-oriented software systems: the BPMN to BPEL way. BPM-06-27 at http://BPMcenter.org (2006)
  35. 35.
    Pohl K., Böckle G., van der Linden F.: Software Product Line Engineering. Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Berlin (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Do process modeling techniques get better? A comparative ontological analysis of BPMN. In: Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages. In: Proc.11th EMMSAD, June 2006Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Recker J., Mendling J.: Lost in business process model translations: how a structured approach helps to identify conceptual mismatch. In: Siau, K. (eds) Research Issues in Systems Analysis and Design Databases and Software Development., pp. 227–259. IGI Publishing, Hershey (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reisig W.: Elements of Distributed Algorithms. Modeling and Analysis with Petri Nets. Springer, Berlin (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Russel, N., ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W., Mulyar, N.: Workflow control-flow patterns: a revised view. BPM-06-22 at http://bpmcenter.org/reports, July 2006
  41. 41.
    Semiconductor Industry Assoc.: International technology roadmap for semiconductors. Design. http://www.itrs.net/Links/2005ITRS/Design2005.pdf (2005)
  42. 42.
    Signavio: Signavio BPM Academic Initiative. http://www.signavio.com/academic
  43. 43.
    Silver, B.: BPMN method and style: a levels-based methodology for BPM process modeling and improvement using BPMN 2.0. (2009)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Störrle, H., Hausman, J.H.: Towards a formal semantics of UML 2.0 activities. In: Proceedings of the Software Engineering 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Strosnider J.K., Nandi P., Kumaran S., Gosh S., Arsanjani A.: Model-driven synthesis of SOA solutions. IBM Syst. J. 41(5), 415–432 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hofstede, A., Aalst, W., Adams, M., Russell, N. (eds): Modern Business Process Automation. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Uzuncaova E., Khurshid S., Batory D.: Incremental test generation for software product lines. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36(3), 309–322 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    van der Aalst, W., Hirnschhall, A., Verbeek, H.: An alternative way to analyze workflow graphs. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE02). LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 535–552. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    van der Aalst W., ter Hofstede A.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: Workflow patterns home page. http://www.workflowpatterns.com, created and maintained since 1999
  51. 51.
    van der Aalst W., ter Hofstede A., Kiepuszewski B., Barros A.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(3), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Voelzer, H.: A new semantics for the inclusive converging gateway in safe processes. Technical Report RZ 3791, IBM Research Zürich (2010)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wei, W.: A translation from BPMN to Event-B. Manuscript (2010)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weidlich, M., Decker, G., Grosskopf, A., Weske, M.: BPEL to BPMN: the myth of a straight-forward mapping. In: On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2008, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5331, pp. 265–282. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Weissbach, M., Zimmermann, W.: Termination analysis of business process workflows. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Enhanced Web Service Technologies, pp. 18–25. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Weske M.: Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wimmel H., Priese L.: Petri-Netze, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wohed P., van der Aalst W., Dumas M., ter Hofstede A., Russel N.: On the suitability of BPMN for business process modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds) Business Process Management. 4th International Conference BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wu, Y., Hernandez, F., Clarke, P.J., France, R.: A DSML for coordinating user-centric communication services. In: 34th Annual IEEE Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2011), Munich, 18–21 July 2011. IEEE, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much BPMN do you need? Posted at http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/03/how-much-bpmn-do-you-need/
  61. 61.
    zur Muehlen M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the Business Process Modeling Notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2008). LNCS, vol. 5074, Montpellier, June 2008, pp. 465–479. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations