Advertisement

Taxonomy of Anomalies in Business Process Models

  • Tomislav Vidacic
  • Vjeran Strahonja
Conference paper

Abstract

Anomalies in business process models refer to deviations from their expected structure, functionality, behavior, semantics, use of concepts and their expression, among others. The research in this paper focuses on anomalies in business process models with the aim to propose taxonomy of anomalies and devise ways to avoid them or to eliminate them when they occur. Anomalies are divided into basic categories and subcategories to the level of granularity that allows their differentiation, description of their specific causes and workarounds as well as their expression in the pattern format.

Keywords

Business process models  Anomalies detection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper, conducted within the doctoral dissertation of T. Vidacic, is part of the project “Modeling of procedural regulation” funded by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia (Nr. 016-0161217-0870), led by Prof. V. Strahonja, Ph.D.

References

  1. 1.
    Chandola V, Banerjee A, Kumar V (2009) Anomaly detection: a survey. ACM Comput Surv 41(3):1–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Teng H, Chen K, Lu S (1990) Adaptive real-time anomaly detection using inductively generated sequential patterns. In: Proceedings of IEEE computer society symposium on research in security and privacy. IEEE Computer Society, pp 278–284Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Solti-Rogge A, Kunze M, Awad A, Weske M (2011) Business process configuration wizard and consistency checker for bpmn 2.0. In: 12th international conference, BPMDS 2011 and 16th international conference, EMMSAD 2011 held at CAiSE 2011, London, UK, June 2011, Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 231–245Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awad A, Decker G, Lohmann N (2010) Diagnosing and repairing data anomalies in process models. In: Business process management workshops, BPM 2009 international workshops, Ulm, Germany, September 2009. Springer, Berlin, pp 5–16Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim GW, Lee JH, Soon JH (2009) Classification and analyses of business process anomalies. In: Communication software and networks. ICCSN’09. International. pp 433–437Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dohring M, Heublein S (2012) Anomalies in rule-adopted workflows – a taxonomy and solutuions for vBPMN. In: 6th European conference on software maintenance and reengineering. IEEE, Szeged, Hungary, pp 117–126Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olkhovich L (2006) Semi-automatic business process performance optimization based on redundant control flow detection. In: AICT-ICIW’06. p 146Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dohring M, Zimmermann B (2011) vBPMN: event-aware work-flow variants by weaving BPMN2 and business rules. In: EMM-SAD. Springer, London, pp 332–341Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) 2.0 (2011) Object management group, Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sadiq W, Orlowska ME (1999) Applying graph reduction techniques for identifying structural conflicts in process models. In: CAiSE’99. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rinderle S, Reichert M, Dadam P (2004) Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems: a survey. DKE 50(1):9–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun SX, Zhao JL, Nunamaker JF, Sheng ORL (2006) Formulating the data-flow perspective for business process management. Inform Syst Res 17(4):374–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laue R, Awad A (2010) Visualization of business process modeling anti patterns. Proceeding of ECEASST. Chapter 25. pp 1–12Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zaidi AK, Levis AH (1997) Validation and verification of decision making rules. Automatica 33(2):155–169CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strahonja V (2006) Modeling legislation by using Uml state machine diagrams. In: Conference proceedings of the Canadian conference on electrical and computer engineering (IEEE CCECE 2006). pp 624–627Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eessaar E (2007) Using metamodeling in order to evaluate data models. In: AIKED’07 Proceedings of the 6th conference on 6th WSEAS international conference on artificial intelligence, knowledge engineering and data bases – vol 6. World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS), Stevens Point, WIGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Emerson MJ, Sztipanovits J (2004) Implementing a MOF-based metamodeling environment using graph transformations. In: 4th OOPSLA workshop on domain-specific modeling. pp 83–92Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Breton E, Bézivin J (2000) An overview of industrial process meta-models. In: 13th international conference software and system engineering and their applications, ICSSEA 2000–14, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kretschmer P (2011) JWT metamodel compared to BPMN metamodel. http://wiki.eclipse.org/JWT_Metamodel. Last accessed on June 2014
  20. 20.
    The Rules of BPMN. http://brsilver.com/the-rules-of-bpmn/. Last accessed on June 2014
  21. 21.
    Rozman T, Polancic G, Vajde Horvat R (2008) Analysis of most common process modeling mistakes in BPMN process models. In: 2008 BPM and workflow handbook. Future Strategies, pp 293–306Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aalst W, Hofstede A, Kiepuszewski B, Barros A (2003) Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14:5–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aalst W (2000) Workflow verification: finding control-flow errors using petri net-based techniques. In: van der Aalst W, Desel J, Oberweis A (eds) Proceedings of business process management: models, techniques and empirical studies, vol 1806, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 161–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mendling J (2009) Empirical studies in process model verification. In: van der Aalst J (ed) Transactions on petri nets and other models of concurrency II, vol 5460, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 208–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Larson AJ, Navathe BS, Elmasri R (1989) A theory of attribute equivalence in database with application to shema integration. Trans Softw Eng 15:449–463CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HPB d.d.VaraždinCroatia
  2. 2.Faculty of Organization and InformaticsUniversity of ZagrebVaraždinCroatia

Personalised recommendations