Structural Detection of Deadlocks in Business Process Models

  • Ahmed Awad
  • Frank Puhlmann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 7)


A common task in business process modelling is the verification of process models regarding syntactical and structural errors. While the former might be checked with low efforts, the latter usually requires a complex state-space analysis to prove properties like deadlock-freedom of the models. In this paper, we address the issue of deadlock detection with a novel approach based on business process querying. Using queries, we are able to detect a broad range of common structural errors that lead to deadlocks, such as misaligned splits and joins. While not being complete, the proposed approach has the advantages of low computational efforts as well as providing graphical outputs that directly lead to the errors.


Business Process Business Process Management Input Point Execution Path Business Process Model 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Specification, Final Adopted Specification. Technical report, OMG (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aalst, W.: Verification of Workflow Nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Weske, M.: Business Process Management: A Survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awad, A.: BPMN-Q a Language to Query Business Processes. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, EMISA 2007, (October 2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage “Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK)”. Technical Report 89, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Saarbrücken (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martens, A.: Analyzing Web Service based Business Processes. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Onoda, S., Ikkai, Y., Kobayashi, T., Komoda, N.: Definition of deadlock patterns for business processes workflow models. In: HICSS 1999: Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, vol. 5, pp. 50–65. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puhlmann, F., Weske, M.: Investigations on Soundness Regarding Lazy Activities. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 145–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Applying graph reduction techniques for identifying structural conflicts in process models. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 195–209. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Dongen, B.F., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Structural patterns for soundness of business process models. In: EDOC 2006: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2006), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 116–128. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Awad
    • 1
  • Frank Puhlmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Business Process Technology Group Hasso Plattner InstitutUniversity of PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations