Supporting Multi-layer Modeling in BPMN Collaborations

  • Flavio Corradini
  • Andrea Polini
  • Barbara Re
  • Lorenzo RossiEmail author
  • Francesco Tiezzi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 298)


In recent years, BPMN has acquired a clear predominance among the notations for modeling business processes. This is mainly due to its capability to close the communication gap between business and IT people. As a consequence, the quality of produced models is more and more important and, among the others, understandability plays a relevant role to permit to properly convey information in such a heterogeneous context. To improve understandability, it is generally recommended to not overwhelm models with to many details, and to use instead sub-process modeling elements to split collaborations into layers. However, the BPMN standard does not provide precise specifications on how the details, hidden at the given layer, should be included in the model, in particular considering message exchange. In particular, the consistency checking between collapsed sub-processes and their detailed representation is left to the modeler, and there is not much support to help him/her in this activity. In this paper, we analyze BPMN modeling tools with respect to their actual capabilities to support multi-layer collaborations. From the analysis we observed a general lack of support in the modeling environment. Then we propose a design methodology providing a set of guidelines to ensure consistency in multi-layer collaborations. These guidelines have been implemented in a stand alone tool, which enables their automated checking in any BPMN modeling tool.


BPMN Modeling guidelines Messages exchange Sub-processes 



The authors would like to thank Elisa Ballini for her support in the benchmarking of modelling environments.


  1. 1.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN V 2.0) (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7 pmg). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: A process semantics for BPMN. In: Liu, S., Maibaum, T., Araki, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5256, pp. 355–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88194-0_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mendling, J., Sanchez-Gonzalez, L., Garcia, F., La Rosa, M.: Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models. J. Syst. Softw. 85(5), 1188–1197 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silingas, D., Mileviciene, E.: Refactoring BPMN models: from ‘Bad Smells’ to best practices and patterns. In: BPMN 2.0 Handbook Second Edition: Methods, Concepts, Case Studies and Standards in Business Process Management Notation, p. 125 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leopold, H., Mendling, J., Günther, O.: Learning from quality issues of BPMN models from industry. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Enterprise Modeling and Information Systems Architectures, Vienna, Austria, 3–4 October 2016, pp. 36–39 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allweyer, T.: BPMN 2.0 - Business Process Model and Notation: Einführung in den Standard für die Geschäftsprozessmodellierung. Books on Demand (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silver, B.: BPMN method and style: with BPMN implementer’s guide, 2 edn. (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    White, S.A.: BPMN modeling and reference guide: understanding and using BPMN. Future Strategies Inc. (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Oca, I.M.M., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., Rodríguez-Morffi, A.: A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Inf. Softw. Technol. 58, 187–205 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moreno-Montes de Oca, I., Snoeck, M.: Pragmatic guidelines for business process modeling. Technical Report 2592983, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business, November 2014Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christiansen, D.R., Carbone, M., Hildebrandt, T.: Formal semantics and implementation of BPMN 2.0 inclusive gateways. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 146–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19589-1_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Corradini, F., Polini, A., Re, B., Tiezzi, F.: An operational semantics of BPMN collaboration. In: Braga, C., Ölveczky, P.C. (eds.) FACS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9539, pp. 161–180. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-28934-2_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Falcioni, D., Polini, A., Polzonetti, A., Re, B.: Direct verification of BPMN processes through an optimized unfolding technique, pp. 179–188. IEEE, August 2012Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    El-Saber, N., Boronat, A.: BPMN formalization and verification using Maude. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Workshop on Behaviour Modelling-Foundations and Applications. BM-FA 2014, pp. 1:1–1:12. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Börger, E., Thalheim, B.: A method for verifiable and validatable business process modeling. In: Börger, E., Cisternino, A. (eds.) Advances in Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5316, pp. 59–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89762-0_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Gorp, P., Dijkman, R.: A visual token-based formalization of BPMN 2.0 based on in-place transformations. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(2), 365–394 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kossak, F., et al.: A rigorous semantics for BPMN 2.0 process diagrams. A Rigorous Semantics for BPMN 2.0 Process Diagrams, pp. 29–154. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09931-6_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Corradini, F., Polini, A., Re, B.: Inter-organizational business process verification in public administration. Bus. Process Manage. J. 21(5), 1040–1065 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conforti, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., La Rosa, M.: BPMN miner. Inform. Syst. 56(C), 284–303 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Liaskos, S., Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: Consistency checking of conceptual models via model merging. In: 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007), pp. 221–230. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Flavio, C., Alberto, P., Barbara, R., Damiano, F.: An eclipse plug-in for formal verification of BPMN processes. In: 2010 Third International Conference on Communication Theory, Reliability, and Quality of Service, pp. 144–149, June 2010Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Flavio Corradini
    • 1
  • Andrea Polini
    • 1
  • Barbara Re
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Rossi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francesco Tiezzi
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Science and TechnologyUniversity of CamerinoCamerinoItaly

Personalised recommendations