Faster and More Focused Control-Flow Analysis for Business Process Models Through SESE Decomposition

  • Jussi Vanhatalo
  • Hagen Völzer
  • Frank Leymann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4749)


We present a technique to enhance control-flow analysis of business process models. The technique considerably speeds up the analysis and improves the diagnostic information that is given to the user to fix control-flow errors. The technique consists of two parts: Firstly, the process model is decomposed into single-entry-single-exit (SESE) fragments, which are usually substantially smaller than the original process. This decomposition is done in linear time. Secondly, each fragment is analyzed in isolation using a fast heuristic that can analyze many of the fragments occurring in practice. Any remaining fragments that are not covered by the heuristic can then be analyzed using any known complete analysis technique.

We used our technique in a case study with more than 340 real business processes modeled with the IBM WebSphere Business Modeler. The results suggest that control-flow analysis of many real process models is feasible without significant delay (less than a second). Therefore, control-flow analysis could be used frequently during editing time, which allows errors to be caught at earliest possible time.


Outgoing Edge Business Process Model Incoming Edge Start Node Graph Size 
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.
    Scott Ananian, C.: The static single information form. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (September 1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Desel, J., Esparza, J.: Free Choice Petri Nets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Esparza, J.: Reduction and synthesis of live and bounded free choice Petri nets. Inf. Comput. 114(1), 50–87 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hauser, R., Friess, M., Küster, J.M., Vanhatalo, J.: An incremental approach to the analysis and transformation of workflows using region trees. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part C (June 2007) (to appear, also available as IBM Research Report RZ 3693)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson, R., Pearson, D., Pingali, K.: The program structure tree: Computing control regions in linear time. In: PLDI. Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN’94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 171–185. ACM Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kemper, P.: Linear time algorithm to find a minimal deadlock in a strongly connected free-choice net. In: Ajmone Marsan, M. (ed.) Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1993. LNCS, vol. 691, pp. 319–338. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, H., Zhao, Z., Li, H., Chen, Z.: A novel graph reduction algorithm to identify structural conflicts. In: HICSS-35 2002. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 289 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendling, J.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models. PhD thesis, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (WU Wien), Austria (May 2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendling, J., Moser, M., Neumann, G., Verbeek, H.M.W., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Faulty EPCs in the SAP reference model. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 451–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perumal, S., Mahanti, A.: A graph-search based algorithm for verifying workflow graphs. In: DEXA 2005. Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pp. 992–996. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Analyzing process models using graph reduction techniques. Inf. Syst. 25(2), 117–134 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valette, R.: Analysis of Petri nets by stepwise refinements. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 18(1), 35–46 (1979)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Workflow verification: Finding control-flow errors using Petri-net-based techniques. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 161–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Hirnschall, A. (Eric) Verbeek, H.M.W.: An alternative way to analyze workflow graphs. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 535–552. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Verbeek, H.M.W.: Verification of EPCs: Using reduction rules and Petri nets. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 372–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models though SESE decomposition. IBM Research Report RZ 3694 (July 2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    (Eric) Verbeek, H.M.W., Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Diagnosing workflow processes using Woflan. Comput. J. 44(4), 246–279 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zerguini, L.: A novel hierarchical method for decomposition and design of workflow models. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 8(2), 65–74 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jussi Vanhatalo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hagen Völzer
    • 1
  • Frank Leymann
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, Säumerstrasse 4, CH-8803 RüschlikonSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Architecture of Application Systems, University of Stuttgart, Universitätsstrasse 38, D-70569 StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations