Model Checking for Managers

  • Wil Janssen
  • Radu Mateescu
  • Sjouke Mauw
  • Peter Fennema
  • Petra van der Stappen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1680)


Model checking is traditionally applied to computer system design. It has proven to be a valuable technique. However, it requires detailed specifications of systems and requirements, and is therefore not very accessible. In this paper we show how model checking can be applied in the context of business modeling and analysis by people that are not trained in formal techniques. Spin is used as the model checker underlying a graphical modeling language, and requirements are specified using business requirements patterns, which are translated to LTL. We illustrate our approach using a business model of an insurance company.


Business Process Business Model Model Check Modeling Language Business Process Model 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [CADP99]
    Caesar/Aldebaran Development Package homepage. Available at:
  2. [DAC98]
    Property Specification Patterns for Finite-state Verification, ia]Matthew B. Dwyer, George S. Avrunin and James C. Corbett. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Practice, March, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. [EJO+99]
    Eertink, H., W.P.M. Janssen, P.H.W.M. Oude Luttighuis, W. Teeuw, and C.A. Vissers, A Business Process Design Language. In: Proceedings World Congress on Formal Methods. Springer LNCS. Toulouse, September 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [FrJa98]
    Franken, H.M. and W. Janssen, Get a grip on changing business processes, Knowledge & Process Management (Wiley), Vol. 5, No.4, pp.208–215. December 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Gara98]
    Garavel, H., OPEN/CAESAR: An open software architecture for verification, simulation and testing. INRIA Rapport de recherche n3352, January 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [HALP98]
    Havelund, K., M. Lowry and J. Penix. Formal analysis of a space craft controller using Spin. in G. Holzman, E. Najm and A. Serhrouchni (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International SPIN Workshop, Paris, France, Nov. 1998, pp. 147167.Google Scholar
  7. [Holz97]
    Holzman, G.J., The model checker SPIN, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 5, May 1997, 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [JaEJ95]
    Jacobson, I., M. Ericsson en A. Jacobson, The Object Advantage-Business Process Reengineering with Object Technology, ACM Books, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [JJVW98]
    Jonkers, H., W. Janssen, A. Verschut and E. Wierstra, “A unified framework for design and performance analysis of distributed systems”, in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual IEEE International Computer Performance and Dependability Symposium (IPDS”98), Durham, NC, USA, Sept. 1998, pp. 109–118.Google Scholar
  10. [JMMS98]
    Janssen, W., R. Mateescu, S. Mauw and J. Springintveld, Verifying business processes using SPIN, in G. Holzman, E. Najm and A. Serhrouchni (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International SPIN Workshop, Paris, France, Nov. 1998, pp. 21–36. Also available at:
  11. [Kars96]
    Kars, P., The application of Promela and Spin in the BOS project. In: Proceedings Second Spin Workshop. August 1996. Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wil Janssen
    • 1
  • Radu Mateescu
    • 2
  • Sjouke Mauw
    • 3
    • 4
  • Peter Fennema
    • 1
  • Petra van der Stappen
    • 1
  1. 1.Telematica InstituutAN Enschedethe Netherlands
  2. 2.INRIA Rhone-AlpesMontbonnot Saint-MartinFrance
  3. 3.Eindhoven University of TechnologyDepartment of Mathematics and Computing ScienceMB Eindhoventhe Netherlands
  4. 4.CWIGB Amsterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations