Configuring Configurable Process Models Made Easier: An Automated Approach

  • D. M. M. SchunselaarEmail author
  • Henrik Leopold
  • H. M. W. Verbeek
  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 202)


Configurable process models have shown their usefulness for capturing the commonalities and variability within business processes. However, an end user will require an abstraction from the configurable process model, which is a highly technical artifact, to select a suitable configuration. Currently, the creation of such an abstraction requires considerable steps and technical knowledge. We provide an approach to construct such an abstraction automatically on the basis of an understanding of common concepts underlying process models on the one hand and automated analysis techniques on the other. Our approach also guarantees the consistency between the configuration choices of the end user. A positive yet preliminary evaluation with business users has been carried out to test the usability of our approach.


Automatic Configuring Configurable process model Concepts 



The authors would like to thank Aukje Houben and Bram de Kort from iCON Healthcare for their cooperation in our case study.


  1. 1.
    La Rosa, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., Milani, F.P.: Business process variability modeling: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (2013).
  2. 2.
    Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A configurable reference modelling language. Inf. Syst. 32(1), 1–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Lohmann, N., La Rosa, M.: Ensuring correctness during process configuration via partner synthesis. Inf. Syst. 37(6), 574–592 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    La Rosa, M., Lux, J., Seidel, S., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Questionnaire-driven configuration of reference process models. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 424–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    La Rosa, M., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dijkman, R.M., Mendling, J., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: APROMORE: an advanced process model repository. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 7029–7040 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    La Rosa, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Questionnaire-based variability modeling for system configuration. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(2), 251–274 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Capturing variability in business process models: the provop approach. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. Res. Pract. 22(6–7), 519–546 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (foda) feasibility study. Technical report cmu/sei-90-tr-21 esd-90-tr-222. Technical report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schnieders, A., Puhlmann, F.: Variability mechanisms in e-business process families. In: Abramowicz, W., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) BIS. LNI, vol. 85, pp. 583–601. GI (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Acher, M., Collet, P., Lahire, P., France, R.: Managing variability in workflow with feature model composition operators. In: Baudry, B., Wohlstadter, E. (eds.) SC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6144, pp. 17–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M.: Mapping features to models: a template approach based on superimposed variants. In: Glück, R., Lowry, M. (eds.) GPCE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3676, pp. 422–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Awad, A., Sakr, S., Kunze, M., Weske, M.: Design by selection: a reuse-based approach for business process modeling. In: Jeusfeld, M., Delcambre, L., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2011. LNCS, vol. 6998, pp. 332–345. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leopold, H., Smirnov, S., Mendling, J.: On the refactoring of activity labels in business process models. Inf. Syst. 37(5), 443–459 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leopold, H., Eid-Sabbagh, R.H., Mendling, J., Azevedo, L.G., Baião, F.A.: Detection of naming convention violations in process models for different languages. Decis. Support Syst. 56, 310–325 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schunselaar, D.M.M., Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Reijers, H.A.: Petra: A tool for analysing a process family. In Moldt, D., Rölke, H. (eds.) International Workshop on Petri Nets and Software Engineering (PNSE 2014). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Aachen, vol. 1160, pp. 269–288. (2014).
  16. 16.
    Schunselaar, D.M.M., Verbeek, E., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Raijers, H.A.: Creating sound and reversible configurable process models using CoSeNets. In: Abramowicz, W., Kriksciuniene, D., Sakalauskas, V. (eds.) BIS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 117, pp. 24–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. M. Schunselaar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Henrik Leopold
    • 2
  • H. M. W. Verbeek
    • 1
  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
    • 1
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.WU ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Perceptive SoftwareApeldoornThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations