Business Process Model Abstraction

  • Artem PolyvyanyyEmail author
  • Sergey Smirnov
  • Mathias Weske
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


In order to execute, study, or improve operating procedures, companies document them as business process models. Often, business process analysts capture every single exception handling or alternative task handling scenario within a model. Such a tendency results in large process specifications. The core process logic becomes hidden in numerous modeling constructs. To fulfill different tasks, companies develop several model variants of the same business process at different abstraction levels. Afterwards, maintenance of such model groups involves a lot of synchronization effort and is erroneous. We propose an abstraction technique that allows generalization of process models. Business process model abstraction assumes a detailed model of a process to be available and derives coarse-grained models from it. The task of abstraction is to tell significant model elements from insignificant ones and to reduce the latter. We propose to learn insignificant process elements from supplementary model information, e.g., task execution time or frequency of task occurrence. Finally, we discuss a mechanism for user control of the model abstraction level – an abstraction slider.


Transformation Rule Business Process Model Process Instance Business Process Modeling Notation Process Scenario 
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. Bobrik R, Reichert M, Bauer T (2007) View-based process visualization. In: BPM, volume 4714 of LNCS. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp 88–95Google Scholar
  2. Cardoso J, Miller J, Sheth A, Arnold J (2002) Modeling quality of service for workflows and web service processes. Technical report, University of Georgia, Web Services.Google Scholar
  3. Davenport T (1993) Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Eshuis R, Grefen P (2008) Constructing customized process views. Data Knowl Eng 64(2):419–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Günther C, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Fuzzy mining – adaptive process simplification based on multi-perspective metrics. In: BPM 2007, volume 4714 of LNCS. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp 328–343Google Scholar
  6. Hammer M, Champy J (1994) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. HarperBusiness, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Keller G, Nüttgens M, Scheer A (1992) Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage “Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK)”. Technical Report Heft 89, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik University of SaarlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Liu D, Shen M (2003) Workflow modeling for virtual processes: an order-preserving process-view approach. Inf Syst 28(6):505–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mendling J, Verbeek H, van Dongen B, van der Aalst WMP, Neumann G (2008) Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model. Data Knowl Eng 64(1):312–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. OMG (2008), Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) 1.1Google Scholar
  11. Polyvyanyy A, Smirnov S, Weske M (2008) Process model abstraction: a slider approach. In: EDOC ’08: proceedings of the 12th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference, IEEE Computer Society, München, Germany, 9 2008Google Scholar
  12. Polyvyanyy A, Smirnov S, Weske M (2008) Reducing complexity of large EPCs. In: EPK’08 GI-Workshop, Saarbrücken, Germany, 11 2008Google Scholar
  13. Sadiq W, Orlowska M (2000) Analyzing process models using graph reduction techniques. Inf Syst 25(2):117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Scheer A, Thomas O, Adam O (2005) Process aware information systems: bridging people and software through process technology, chapter process modeling using event-driven process chains. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 119–145Google Scholar
  15. van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM (2003) YAWL: yet another workflow language (Revised version). Technical report FIT-TR-2003-04. Queensland University of Technology, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  16. van Dongen B, Jansen-Vullers M, Verbeek H, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Verification of the SAP reference models using EPC reduction, state-space analysis, and invariants. Comput Ind 58(6):578–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vanhatalo J, Völzer H, Leymann F (2007) Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through SESE decomposition. In: ICSOC 2007, volume 4749 of LNCS. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp 43–55Google Scholar
  18. Weske M (2007) Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures. Springer Berlin / HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  19. Zerguini L (2004) A novel hierarchical method for decomposition and design of workflow models, vol 8. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 65–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business Process Technology Group, Hasso Plattner Institute of IT Systems EngineeringUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations