Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 19–29 | Cite as

Mixed-Paradigm Process Modeling with Intertwined State Spaces

  • Johannes De SmedtEmail author
  • Jochen De Weerdt
  • Jan Vanthienen
  • Geert Poels
Research Paper


Business process modeling often deals with the trade-off between comprehensibility and flexibility. Many languages have been proposed to support different paradigms to tackle these characteristics. Well-known procedural, token-based languages such as Petri nets, BPMN, EPC, etc. have been used and extended to incorporate more flexible use cases, however the declarative workflow paradigm, most notably represented by the Declare framework, is still widely accepted for modeling flexible processes. A real trade-off exists between the readable, rather inflexible procedural models, and the highly-expressive but cognitively demanding declarative models containing a lot of implicit behavior. This paper investigates in detail the scenarios in which combining both approaches is useful, it provides a scoring table for Declare constructs to capture their intricacies and similarities compared to procedural ones, and offers a step-wise approach to construct mixed-paradigm models. Such models are especially useful in the case of environments with different layers of flexibility and go beyond using atomic subprocesses modeled according to either paradigm. The paper combines Petri nets and Declare to express the findings.


Business process modeling Mixed-paradigm process modeling Petri nets Declare 

Supplementary material

12599_2015_416_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (35 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35 kb)


  1. Adams M, Ter Hofstede AHM, Edmond D, van der Aalst WMP (2006) Worklets: a service-oriented implementation of dynamic flexibility in workflows. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems 2006: CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE. Springer, pp 291–308Google Scholar
  2. Cortadella J, Kishinevsky M, Lavagno L, Yakovlev A (1998) Deriving Petri nets from finite transition systems. Comput IEEE Trans 47(8):859–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Smedt J, vanden Broucke SKLM, De Weerdt J, Vanthienen J (2015) A full R/I-net construct lexicon for declare constraints. Research report KBI 1506Google Scholar
  4. Di Ciccio C, Mecella M (2013) A two-step fast algorithm for the automated discovery of declarative workflows. In: Computational intelligence and data mining (CIDM), 2013 IEEE Symposium on IEEE, pp 135–142Google Scholar
  5. Dijkman RM, Dumas M, Ouyang C (2008) Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf Softw Technol 50(12):1281–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dumas M, La Rosa M, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2013) Fundamentals of business process management. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahland D (2007) Towards analyzing declarative workflows. Auton Adapt Web Serv 7061:6Google Scholar
  8. Fahland D, Lübke D, Mendling J, Reijers H, Weber B, Weidlich M, Zugal S (2009) Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of understandability. In: Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling. Springer, pp 353–366Google Scholar
  9. Goedertier S, Vanthienen J, Caron F (2013) Declarative business process modelling: principles and modelling languages. Enterp Inf Syst pp 1–25 (ahead-of-print)Google Scholar
  10. Haisjackl C, Barba I, Zugal S, Soffer P, Hadar I, Reichert M, Pinggera J, Weber B (2014) Understanding declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results. Softw Syst Model, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  11. Hildebrandt T, Mukkamala RR, Slaats T (2012) Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Fundamentals of software engineering. Springer, pp 343–350Google Scholar
  12. Hull R, Damaggio E, Fournier F, Gupta M, Heath III FT, Hobson S, Linehan M, Maradugu S, Nigam A, Sukaviriya P et al (2011) Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Web services and formal methods. Springer, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  13. Maggi FM, Westergaard M, Montali M, van der Aalst WMP (2012) Runtime verification of LTL-based declarative process models. In: Runtime verification. Springer, pp 131–146Google Scholar
  14. Murata T (1989) Petri nets: properties, analysis and applications. Proc IEEE 77(4):541–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pesic M (2008) Constraint-based workflow management systems: shifting control to users. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  16. Pesic M, Schonenberg H, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Declare: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: Enterprise distributed object computing conference, 2007. EDOC 2007. 11th IEEE International, IEEE, pp 287–298Google Scholar
  17. Pesic M, van der Aalst WMP (2006) A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Business process management workshops. Springer, pp 169–180Google Scholar
  18. Prescher J, Di Ciccio C, Mendling J (2014) From declarative processes to imperative models. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on data-driven process discovery and analysis (SIMPDA 2014), Milan, pp 162–173Google Scholar
  19. Reijers HA, Slaats T, Stahl C (2013) Declarative modeling–an academic dream or the future for BPM? In: Business process management. Springer, pp 307–322Google Scholar
  20. Rosemann M, Recker J, Indulska M, Green P (2006) A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of process modeling grammars. In: Advanced information systems engineering. Springer, pp 447–461Google Scholar
  21. Sadiq S, Sadiq W, Orlowska M (2001) Pockets of flexibility in workflow specification. In: Conceptual modelingER 2001. Springer, pp 513–526Google Scholar
  22. Schonenberg H, Ronny M, Nick R, Nataliya M, van der Aalst WMP (2008) Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility. In: CAiSE forum, vol 344, pp 81–84Google Scholar
  23. van der Aalst WMP (1999) Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf Softw Technol 41(10):639–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van der Aalst WMP (2002) Making work flow: on the application of petri nets to business process management. In: Application and theory of petri nets 2002. Springer, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  25. van der Aalst WMP (2013) A comprehensive survey. ISRN Software Engineering, Business process managementGoogle Scholar
  26. van der Aalst WMP, Adams M, Ter Hofstede AHM, Pesic M, Schonenberg H (2009) Flexibility as a service. In: Database systems for advanced applications. Springer, pp 319–333Google Scholar
  27. van der Aalst WMP, Ter Hofstede AHM (2005) YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf Syst 30(4):245–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Westergaard M, Slaats T (2013) Mixing paradigms for more comprehensible models. In: Business process management. Springer, pp 283–290Google Scholar
  29. Westergaard M, Stahl C, Reijers HA (2013) UnconstrainedMiner: efficient discovery of generalized declarative process models. Technical Report BPM-13-28, BPMcenterGoogle Scholar
  30. White SA (2004) Introduction to BPMN. IBM Corporation, vol 2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes De Smedt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jochen De Weerdt
    • 1
  • Jan Vanthienen
    • 1
  • Geert Poels
    • 2
  1. 1.KU Leuven Faculty of Economics and BusinessLeuven Institute for Research on Information SystemsLouvainBelgium
  2. 2.UGent Management Information Systems Research Group, Ghent University Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations