Advertisement

Diagnosing Differences between Business Process Models

  • Remco Dijkman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5240)

Abstract

This paper presents a technique to diagnose differences between business process models in the EPC notation. The diagnosis returns the exact position of a difference in the business process models and diagnoses the type of a difference, using a typology of differences developed in previous work. This in contrast to existing techniques for detecting process differences (by showing non-equivalence), which return simple true/false statements, or statements in terms of a formal semantics. Neither type of statement is helpful to a business analyst not versed in formal semantics. A case study illustrates the usefulness of the technique. It also shows that, although the technique has exponential complexity, it can be used in practice, because of repeated scoping of the models. The technique can be used, for example, to resolve differences between operational process in a merger between organizations.

Keywords

Business Process Formal Semantic Reduction Rule Event Trace Start Event 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.: Formalization and Verification of Event-driven Process Chains. Information and Software Technology 41, 639–650 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Grigori, D., Motahari Nezhad, H.R., Toumani, F.: Developing Adapters for Web Services Integration. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 415–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cleaveland, R.: On Automatically Explaining Bisimulation Inequivalence. In: Larsen, K.G., Skou, A. (eds.) CAV 1991. LNCS, vol. 575, pp. 364–372. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dijkman, R.M.: A Classification of Differences in Similar Business Processes. In: EDOC 2007, pp. 37–47 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkman, R.M.: Feedback on Differences between Business Processes. BETA Working Paper WP-234, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Dongen, B.F., Dijkman, R.M., Mendling, J.: Measuring Similarity between Business Process Models. In: CAiSE 2008, pp. 450–464 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dumas, M., Spork, M., Wang, K.: Adapt or Perish: Algebra and Visual Notation for Interface Adaptation. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 65–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Glabbeek, R.: The Linear Time – Branching Time Spectrum I: The Semantics of Concrete Sequential Processes. Handbook of Process Algebra, pp. 3–99. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.-W.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). Heft 89, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Saarbrücken, Germany (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kindler, E.: On the semantics of EPCs: Resolving the vicious circle. Data & Knowledge Engineering 56, 23–40 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lohmann, N.: Correcting Deadlocking Service Choreographies Using a Simulation-Based Graph Edit Distance. In: BPM 2008 (accepted, 2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and Verification of EPCs with OR-Joins Based on State and Context. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 439–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mendling, J.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models. Ph.D. Thesis, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.: Towards EPC Semantics based on State and Context. In: EPK 2006, pp. 25–48 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Motahari Nezhad, H.R., Benatallah, B., Martens, A., Curbera, F., Casati, F.: Semi-automated adaptation of service interactions. In: WWW 2007, pp. 993–1002 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Preuner, G., Conrad, S., Schrefl, M.: View Integration of Behavior in Object-Oriented Databases. Data & Knowledge Engineering 36(2), 153–183 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rozinat, A., van der Aalst, W.: Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior. Information Systems 33(1), 64–95 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sudkamp, T.: Languages and Machines, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Remco Dijkman
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations