Detecting and Resolving Process Model Differences in the Absence of a Change Log

  • Jochen M. Küster
  • Christian Gerth
  • Alexander Förster
  • Gregor Engels
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5240)


Business-driven development favors the construction of process models at different abstraction levels and by different people. As a consequence, there is a demand for consolidating different versions of process models by detecting and resolving differences. Existing approaches rely on the existence of a change log which logs the changes when changing a process model. However, in several scenarios such a change log does not exist and differences must be identified by comparing process models before and after changes have been made. In this paper, we present our approach to detecting and resolving differences between process models, in the absence of a change log. It is based on computing differences and deriving change operations for resolving differences, thereby providing a foundation for variant and version management in these cases.


process change management process model differences 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: Difference and Union of Models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow evolution. Data Knowl. Eng. 24(3), 211–238 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dijkman, R.: A Classification of Differences between Similar Business Processes. In: EDOC 2007, pp. 37–50. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Process-Aware Information Systems. Wiley, Chichester (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grigori, D., Corrales, J., Bouzeghoub, M.: Behavioral matchmaking for service retrieval. In: ICWS 2006, pp. 145–152. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grossmann, G., Ren, Y., Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior Based Integration of Composite Business Processes. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 186–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herrmann, C., Krahn, H., Rumpe, B., Schindler, M., Völkel, S.: An Algebraic View on the Semantics of Model Composition. In: Akehurst, D.H., Vogel, R., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4530. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IBM Insurance Application Architecture,
  10. 10.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Förster, A., Engels, G.: Process Merging in Business-Driven Development. IBM Research Report RZ 3703, IBM Zurich Research Laboratory (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitra, T.: Business-driven development. IBM developerWorks article, IBM (2005),
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group (OMG). The Unified Modeling Language 2.0 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pottinger, R., Bernstein, P.A.: Merging Models Based on Given Correspondences. In: VLDB, pp. 826–873 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex-Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 10(2), 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Disjoint and Overlapping Process Changes: Challenges, Solutions, Applications. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3290, pp. 101–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Jurisch, M., Kreher, U.: On Representing, Purging, and Utilizing Change Logs in Process Management Systems. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 241–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management. Journal of Circuits, Systems, and Computers 8(1), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Dongen, B., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: Measuring Similarity between Business Process Models. In: CAiSE 2008, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and More Focused Control-Flow Analysis for Business Process Models Through SESE Decomposition. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 43–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao, X., Liu, C.: Version Management in the Business Process Change Context. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 198–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen M. Küster
    • 1
  • Christian Gerth
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander Förster
    • 2
  • Gregor Engels
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM Zurich Research LaboratoryRüschlikonSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations