Advertisement

Relaxed Soundness of Business Processes

  • Juliane Dehnert
  • Peter Rittgen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2068)

Abstract

Business processes play a central role in the reorganization of a company and the (re)design of the respective information system(s). Typically the processes are described with the help of a semiformal, graphical language such as the Event-driven Process Chains (EPCs) by Scheer. This approach provides a suitable medium for the communication between the participants: the domain experts and the IT specialists. But these models leave room for interpretation and hence ambiguities which makes them less suitable as a basis for the design of information systems. To remedy this we suggest to transform the EPCs into a formal representation (Petri nets) preserving the ambiguities, i.e. all possibly intended behaviour. Now formal techniques can be used to find out whether the possible behaviours comprise sensible behaviour. If so, we call the net relax sound. By not limiting the modeler compared to previous ways (e.g. [8], [3]) we take a pragmatic approach to correctness which only requires that the net represents some valid behaviour. This allows us to draw conclusions on mistakes in the original EPC and to make suggestions for its improvement thereby enhancing both the model’s quality and its suitability for software engineering.

Keywords

Business Process Transformation Rule Firing Sequence Graphical Language Check Good 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Aalst, W. M. P. van der: Verification of Workflow Nets. In: P. Azema and G. Balbo: Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1997, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1248, Springer, Berlin, 1997, pp. 407–426Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aalst, W. M. P. van der: The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, 8 (1) 1998, pp. 21–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aalst, W. M. P. van der: Formalization and Verification of Event-driven Process Chains. Computing Science Reports 98/01, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, R., Scheer, A.-W.: Modellierung von Prozessketten mittels Petri-Netz-Theorie. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Heft 107 (in German), University of Saarland, Saarbrücken, 1994Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Derks, W., Dehnert, J., Grefen, P. and Jonker, W.: Customized atomicity specification for transactional workflow. In: Cooperative Database Systems for Advanced Applications (CODAS’01), 2001, To appearGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keller, G. and Teufel, T.: SAP R/3 prozeßorientiert anwenden: iteratives Prozeß-Prototyping zur Bildung von Wertschöpfungsketten. Addison-Wesley, Bonn, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmidt, K.: LoLA, a Low Level Petri Net Analyzer. Humboldt-Universität, Berlin. http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~kschmidt/lola.htm
  8. 8.
    Langner, P., Schneider, C, Wehler, J.: Ereignisgesteuerte Prozessketten und Petrinetze. Report No. 196, Computer Science Department, University of Hamburg, FBI-HH-B-196/97, March 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moldt, D., Rodenhagen, J.: Ereignisgesteuerte Prozessketten und Petrinetze zur Modellierung von Workflows. In: Visuelle Verhaltensmodellierung verteilter und nebenläufiger Software-Systeme, vol. 24/00-I, Münster, 2000, pp. 57–63.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murata, T.: Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis, and Applications. Proc. of the IEEE, 77 (4) 1989, pp. 541–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rittgen, P.: EMC-A Modeling Method for Developing Web-based Applications. International Conference of the International Resources Management Association (IRMA) 2000, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, May 21–24, 2000Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roch, S.: Extended Computation Tree Logic. In: H. D. Burkhard, L. Czaja, A. Skowron and P. Starke: Workshop Concurrency, Specification & Programming, Informatik-Bericht 140, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, Oct. 2000, pp. 225–234.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodenhagen, J.: Darstellung ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK) mit Hilfe von Petrinetzen. Diplomarbeit, Universität Hamburg, Fachbereich Informatik, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rump, F.: Geschäftsprozeßmanagement auf der Basis ereignisgesteuerter Prozeßketten. Formalisierung, Analyse und Ausführung von EPKs. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1999Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scheer, A.-W.: Business Process Engineering, Reference Models for Industrial Enterprises. Springer, Berlin, 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliane Dehnert
    • 1
  • Peter Rittgen
    • 2
  1. 1.1 Institute of Computer Information SystemsTechnical University BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Business InformaticsUniversity Koblenz-LandauGermany

Personalised recommendations