Applied Intelligence

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 226–244 | Cite as

Formal analysis of executions of organizational scenarios based on process-oriented specifications

Open Access


This paper presents various formal techniques for analysis of executions of organizational scenarios based on specifications of organizations. Organizational specifications describe (prescribe) ordering and timing relations on organizational processes, modes of use of resources, allocations of actors to processes, etc. The actual execution may diverge from scenarios (pre)defined by a specification. A part of techniques proposed in this paper is dedicated to establishing the correspondence between a formalized execution (i.e., a trace) and the corresponding specification. Other techniques proposed in this paper provide the analyst with wide possibilities to evaluate organizational performance and to identify bottlenecks and other inefficiencies in the organizational operation. For the proposed formal analysis the order-sorted predicate Temporal Trace Language (TTL) is used and it is supported by the dedicated software tool TTL Checker. The analysis approaches considered in this paper are illustrated by a case study in the context of an organization from the security domain.


Process executions Process-oriented specifications Formal methods Organization modeling 


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst W, Beer H, van Dongen B (2005) Process mining and verification of properties: an approach based on temporal logic. In: Meersman R, et al (eds) On the move to meaningful Internet systems 2005: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE: OTM confederated international conferences, CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE 2005, vol 3760. Springer, Berlin, pp 130–147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst W, van Hee KM (2002) Workflow management: models, methods, and systems. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adam NR, Atluri V, Huang W-K (1998) Modeling and analysis of workflows using petri nets. J Intell Inf Syst 10(2):131–158. Special Issue on Workflow and Process Management CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alves de Medeiros AK, van der Aalst WMP, Weijters AJMM (2008) Quantifying process equivalence based on observed behavior. Data & Knowl Eng 64(1):55–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barjis J, Shishkov B, Dietz J (2002) Validation of business components via simulation. In: Proceedings of the 2002 summer computer simulation conference Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bosse T, Jonker CM, Meij L, van der Sharpanskykh A, Treur J (2009) Specification and verification of dynamics in agent models. Int J Coop Inf Syst 18(1):167–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook J, He C, Ma C (2001) Measuring behavioral correspondence to a timed concurrent model. In: Proceedings of 2001 international conference on software maintenance, pp 332–341 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook JE, Wolf AL (1999) Software process validation: quantitatively measuring the correspondence of a process to a model. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 8(2):147–176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desel J, Juhas G, Lorenz R, Neumair C (2003) Modelling and validation with VipTool. In: Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2678. Springer, Berlin, pp 380–389 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guo L, Robertson D, Chen-Burger Y-H (2005) A novel approach for enacting the distributed business workflows using BPEL4WS on the multi-agent platform. In: IEEE international conference on e-business engineering (ICEBE’05), pp 657–664 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horty JF (2001) Agency and deontic logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jonker CM, Sharpanskykh A, Treur J, Yolum P A Framework for formal modeling and analysis of organizations. Appl Intell 27(1) 49–66 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kyas M, Prisacariu C, Schneider G (2008) Run-time monitoring of electronic contracts. In: 6th international symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis (ATVA’08). Springer, Berlin, pp 397–407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krogh C (1996) The rights of agents. In: Wooldridge M, Muller JP, Tambe M (eds) Agent theories, architectures, and languages II, vol 1037. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–16 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manzano M (1996) Extensions of first order logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Modgil S, Faci N, Meneguzzi F, Oren N, Miles S, Luck M (2009) A framework for monitoring agent-based normative systems. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS’09), Budapest, Hungary. ACM, New York Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pfeiffer J-H, Rossak WR, Speck A (2004) Applying model checking to workflow verification. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international conference and workshop on the engineering of computer-based systems (ECBS’04), pp 144–152 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Popova V, Sharpanskykh A (2007) Formal modelling of goals in agent organizations. In: Proceedings of AOMS@IJCAI workshop, pp 74–86 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Popova V, Sharpanskykh A (2007) Modeling Organizational Performance Indicators. In: Barros F, Frydman C, Giambiasi N, Zeigler B (eds) Proceedings of international modeling and simulation multiconference, pp 165–170 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Popova V, Sharpanskykh A (2008) Process-oriented organisation modelling and analysis. Enterp Inf Syst J 2(2):157–176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robertson D (2005) A lightweight coordination calculus for agent social norms. In: Proceedings of the autonomous agents and multiagent systems workshop on declarative agent languages and technologies. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3476. Springer, New York, pp 183–197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rozinat A, van der Aalst WMP (2008) Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior. Inf Syst 33(1):64–95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saake G (eds) (1998) Logics for databases and information systems. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 117–166 MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scott WR (2001) Institutions and organizations, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh MP (1996) Synthesizing distributed constrained events from transactional workflow specifications. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international conference on data engineering, pp 616–623 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharpanskykh A, Treur J (2006) Verifying interlevel relations within multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th European conference on artificial intelligence, ECAI’06. IOS Press, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sharpanskykh A (2008) On computer-aided methods for modeling and analysis of organizations. PhD Dissertation, VU University Amsterdam Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for ManufacturingDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  2. 2.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations