Consistently Formalizing a Business Process and its Properties for Verification: A Case Study

  • Michael RathmairEmail author
  • Ralph Hoch
  • Hermann Kaindl
  • Roman Popp
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 235)


Formal verification of business process models can be done through model checking (also known as property checking), where a model checker tool may automatically find violations of properties in a process model. This approach obviously has formal representations as a prerequisite. However, a key challenge for applying this approach in practice is to consistently formalize the process and its properties, which clearly cannot be done automatically. We studied this challenge in a case study of formally verifying an informally given business process against a guideline written like a legal text. Major lessons learned from this case study are that formalizing is key to success and that in its course a semi-formal representation of properties is useful. In the course of such a step-wise and incremental formalization, problems with the given process model have been found already, apart from those found with a model checker tool that used the formal property specification. In total, our approach revealed five problems not found by the official review. In summary, this paper investigates in a case study consistently formalizing a business process and its properties for verification through model checking.



Part of this research has been carried out in the ProREUSE project (No. 834167), funded by the Austrian FFG.


  1. 1.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    SPIN: SPIN Verifying Multi-threaded Software with Spin. Accessed, 01 December 2014
  3. 3.
    NuSMV: NuSMV: a new symbolic model checker. Accessed 01 December 2014
  4. 4.
    Wynn, M., Verbeek, H., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Edmond, D.: Business process verification - finally a reality!. Bus. Process Manage. J. 15(1), 74–92 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sbai, Z., Missaoui, A., Barkaoui, K., Ben Ayed, R.: On the verification of business processes by model checking techniques. In: 2010 2nd International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering (ICSTE), vol. 1, V1–97–V1-103, October 2010Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kherbouche, O., Ahmad, A., Basson, H.: Using model checking to control the structural errors in bpmn models. In: 2013 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 1–12, May 2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisteus, J.A., Fernández, L.S., Kloos, C.D.: Applying model checking to BPEL4WS business collaborations. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2005, pp. 826–830. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Armando, A., Ponta, S.E.: Model checking of security-sensitive business processes. In: Degano, P., Guttman, J.D. (eds.) FAST 2009. LNCS, vol. 5983, pp. 66–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Armando, A., Ponta, S.E.: Model checking authorization requirements in business processes. Comput. Secur. 40, 1–22 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barros, C., Song, M.: Automatized checking of business rules for activity execution sequence in workflows. J. Softw. 7(2), 374–381 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mrasek, R., Mülle, J., Böhm, K., Becker, M., Allmann, C.: User-friendly property specification and process verification – a case study with vehicle-commissioning processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 301–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Eggert, M., Schwittay, S.: Generalizability and applicability of model-based business process compliance-checking approaches - a state-of-the-art analysis and research roadmap. BuR - Bus. Res. 5(2), 221–247 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rathmair, M., Schupfer, F., Krieg, C.: Applied formal methods for hardware Trojan detection. In: 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), pp. 169–172, June 2014Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaindl, H.: Using hypertext for semiformal representation in requirements engineering practice. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimedia 2, 149–173 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaindl, H.: How to identify binary relations for domain models. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-18), pp. 28–36. IEEE, Berlin, March 1996Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaindl, H., Kramer, S., Diallo, P.S.N.: Semiautomatic generation of glossary links: a practical solution. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (Hypertext 1999), pp. 3–12. Darmstadt, Germany, February 1999Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Rathmair
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ralph Hoch
    • 1
  • Hermann Kaindl
    • 1
  • Roman Popp
    • 1
  1. 1.TU Wien, Institute of Computer TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations