Construction Process Modeling: Representing Activities, Items and Their Interplay

  • Elisa MarengoEmail author
  • Werner Nutt
  • Matthias Perktold
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11080)


General purpose process modeling approaches are meant to be applicable to a wide range of domains. To achieve this result, their constructs need to be general, thus failing in capturing the peculiarities of a particular application domain. One aspect usually neglected is the representation of the items on which activities are to be executed. As a consequence, the model is an approximation of the real process, limiting its reliability and usefulness in particular domains.

We extend and formalize an existing declarative specification for process modeling mainly conceived for the construction domain. In our approach we model the activities and the items on which the activities are performed, and consider both of them in the specification of the flow of execution. We provide a formal semantics in terms of LTL over finite traces which paves the way for the development of automatic reasoning. In this respect, we investigate process model satisfiability and develop an effective algorithm to check it.


Multi-instance process modeling Satisfiability checking of a process model Construction processes 



This work was supported by the projects MoMaPC, financed by the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano and by COCkPiT financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Investment for Growth and Jobs Programme 2014–2020.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Artale, A., Montali, M., Tritini, S.: Object-centric behavioral constraints: integrating data and declarative process modelling. In: Description Logics (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support. Comput. Sci.-R&D 23(2), 99–113 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Stoffele, M., Wamelink, J.: Case handling in construction. Autom. Constr. 12(3), 303–320 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matt, D.T., Benedetti, C., Krause, D., Paradisi, I.: Build4future-interdisciplinary design: from the concept through production to the construction site. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Design in Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Montali, M.: Foundations of data-aware process analysis: a database theory perspective. In: PODS. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    COCkPiT: Collaborative Construction Process Management.
  7. 7.
    Dallasega, P., Matt, D., Krause, D.: Design of the building execution process in SME construction networks. In: 2nd International Workshop DCEE (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Giacomo, G., De Masellis, R., Montali, M.: Reasoning on LTL on finite traces: insensitivity to infiniteness. In: AAAI. AAAI Press (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dumas, M.: From models to data and back: the journey of the BPM discipline and the tangled road to BPM 2020. In: BPM. LNCS, vol. 9253, Springer, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forsythe, P., Sankaran, S., Biesenthal, C.: How far can BIM reduce information asymmetry in the Australian construction context? Project. Manag. J. 46(3), 75–87 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fortemps, P., Hapke, M.: On the disjunctive graph for project scheduling. Found. Comput. Decis. Sci. 22, 195–209 (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frank, U.: Multilevel modeling - toward a new paradigm of conceptual modeling and information systems design. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 6(6), 319–337 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hickmott, S.L., Sardiña, S.: Optimality properties of planning via Petri net unfolding: a formal analysis. In: Proceedings of ICAPS (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kenley, R., Seppänen, O.: Location-Based Management for Construction: Planning Scheduling and Control. Routledge, Abingdon (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    KPMG International: Building a Technology Advantage. Harnessing the Potential of Technology to Improve the Performance of Major Projects. Global Construction Survey (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leitner, M., Mangler, J., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Definition and enactment of instance-spanning process constraints. In: Wang, X.S., Cruz, I., Delis, A., Huang, G. (eds.) WISE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7651, pp. 652–658. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lu, Y., Xu, X., Xu, J.: Development of a hybrid manufacturing cloud. J. Manuf. Syst. 33(4), 551–566 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marengo, E., Dallasega, P., Montali, M., Nutt, W.: Towards a graphical language for process modelling in construction. In: CAiSE Forum 2016. CEUR Proceedings, vol. 1612 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marengo, E., Dallasega, P., Montali, M., Nutt, W., Reifer, M.: Process management in construction: expansion of the Bolzano hospital. In: vom Brocke, J., Mendling, J. (eds.) Business Process Management Cases. MP, pp. 257–274. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perktold, M.: Processes in construction: modeling and consistency checking. Master’s thesis, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (2017).
  21. 21.
    Perktold, M., Marengo, E., Nutt, W.: Construction process modeling prototype.
  22. 22.
    Shankar, A., Varghese, K.: Evaluation of location based management system in the construction of power transmission and distribution projects. In: 30th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations