Extending Feature Models to Express Variability in Business Process Models

  • Riccardo Cognini
  • Flavio Corradini
  • Andrea Polini
  • Barbara Re
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 215)


In complex organizations Business Processes tends to exist in different variants that typically share objectives and part of their structure. In recent years it has been recognized that the explicit modeling of variability can brings important benefits to organizations that can more easily reflect on their behavior and more efficiently structure their activities and processes. Particularly interesting in this respect is the situation of the Public Administration that delivers the same service using many different and replicated processes. The management of such complexity ask for methods explicitly supporting the modeling of variability aspects for Business Processes. In this paper we present a novel notation to describe variability of Business Processes and an approach to successively derive process variants. The notation takes inspiration from feature modeling approaches and has been implemented in a real tool using the ADOxx platform. The notation, and the corresponding approach, seems particularly suitable for the Public Administration context, and it has been actually experimented in a complex real scenario.


Business Process Data Object Enterprise Architecture Software Product Line Business Process Manager 
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.


  1. 1.
    Capilla, R., Bosch, J., Kang, K.C. (eds.): Systems and Software Variability Management, Concepts, Tools and Experiences. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cognini, R., Corradini, F., Gnesi, S., Polini, A., Re, B.: Research challenges in business process adaptability. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1049–1054. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cognini, R., Corradini, F., Polini, A., Re, B.: Using data-object flow relations to derive control flow variants in configurable business processes. In: Fournier, F., Mendling, J. (eds.) BPM 2014 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 202, pp. 210–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Döhring, M., Zimmermann, B.: vBPMN: event-aware workflow variants by weaving BPMN2 and business rules. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 332–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erkoçak, E., Açıkalın, Ş.N.: Complexity theory in public administration and metagovernance. In: Erçetin, Ş.Ş., Banerjee, S. (eds.) Chaos, Complexity and Leadership 2013. Springer Proceedings in Complexity, pp. 73–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fill, H.-G., Karagiannis, D.: On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the ADOxx meta modelling platform. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Architect.-Int. J. 8(1), 2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gottschalk, F., Van Der Aalst, W.M., Jansen-Vullers, M.H., La Rosa, M.: Configurable workflow models. In. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 17(02), 177–221 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Capturing variability in business process models: the provop approach. J. Softw. Maintenance Evol. Res. Pract. 22(6–7), 519–546 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-oriented domain analysis feasibility study. Technical report, DTIC Document (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kühn, H.: The ADOxx\(\textregistered \) Metamodelling Platform. In: Workshop on Methods as Plug-Ins for Meta-Modelling, Klagenfurt, Austria (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Mendling, J., Gottschalk, F.: Beyond Control-Flow: extending business process configuration to roles and objects. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 199–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG. Business process model and notation version 2.0. Technical report (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG. Case Management Model and Notation, Version 1.0, May 2014Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.: Declare: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2007, pp. 287–287. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.J.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling flexibility in process-aware information systems: challenges, methods, technologies. Springer Science & Business Media, (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.: A configurable reference modelling language. Inf. Syst. 32(1), 1–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheer, A.W., Thomas, O., Adam, O.: Process modeling using event-driven process chains. In: Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A. (eds.) Process-Aware, Information Systems, pp. 119–146. Wiley, Hoboken (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schnieders, A., Puhlmann, F.: Variability mechanisms in e-business process families. In: Abramowicz, W., Mayr, H.C. (eds) BIS, vol. 85, pp. 583–601. GI (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H.: Yawl: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Cognini
    • 1
  • Flavio Corradini
    • 1
  • Andrea Polini
    • 1
  • Barbara Re
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DivisionUniversity of CamerinoCamerinoItaly

Personalised recommendations