Language-Independent Change Management of Process Models

  • Christian Gerth
  • Jochen M. Küster
  • Gregor Engels
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5795)


In model-driven development approaches, process models are used at different levels of abstraction and are described by different languages. Similar to other software artifacts, process models are developed in team environments and underlie constant change. This requires reusable techniques for the detection of changes between different process models and the computation of dependencies and conflicts between changes. In this paper, we propose a framework for the construction of process model change management solutions that provides generic techniques for the detection of differences and the computation of dependencies and conflicts between changes. The framework contains an abstract representation for process models that serves as a common denominator for different process models. In addition, we show how the framework is instantiated exemplarily for BPMN.


Process model change management process model differences 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Erl, T.: Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zimmermann, O., Tomlinson, M.R., Peuser, S.: Perspectives on Web Services: Applying SOAP, WSDL and UDDI to Real-World Projects (Springer Professional Computing). Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koehler, J., Hauser, R., Küster, J., Ryndina, K., Vanhatalo, J., Wahler, M.: The Role of Visual Modeling and Model Transformations in Business-Driven Development. In: Proceedings of GT-VMT 2006, pp. 1–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S.M., Zave, P.: Matching and Merging of Statecharts Specifications. In: ICSE 2007, pp. 54–64. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kelter, U., Wehren, J., Niere, J.: A Generic Difference Algorithm for UML Models. In: Liggesmeyer, P., Pohl, K., Goedicke, M. (eds.) Software Engineering 2005. LNI, vol. 64, pp. 105–116. GI (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Pottinger, R., Bernstein, P.A.: Merging Models Based on Given Correspondences. In: VLDB, pp. 826–873 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Förster, A., Engels, G.: Detecting and Resolving Process Model Differences in the Absence of a Change Log. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 244–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Engels, G.: Dependent and Conflicting Change Operations of Process Models. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 158–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN),
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Unified Modeling Language (UML): Superstructure (2005),
  13. 13.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.W.: Semantische Prozeßmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozeßketten (EPK). Technical Report 89 (January 1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS): Web Services Business Process Execution Language (WS-BPEL) Version 2.0.,
  15. 15.
    Mendling, J., Lassen, K.B., Zdun, U.: Transformation Strategies between Block-Oriented and Graph-Oriented Process Modelling Languages. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2006. Band 2, pp. 297–312. GITO-Verlag (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kappel, G., Kapsammer, E., Kargl, H., Kramler, G., Reiter, T., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W., Wimmer, M.: Lifting Metamodels to Ontologies: A Step to the Semantic Integration of Modeling Languages. In: [26], pp. 528–542 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Hirnschall, A., 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
  18. 18.
    Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Analyzing Process Models Using Graph Reduction Techniques. Inf. Syst. 25(2), 117–134 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Murata, T.: Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F., Moser, S.: Automatic Workflow Graph Refactoring and Completion. In: Bouguettaya, A., Krueger, I., Margaria, T. (eds.) ICSOC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5364, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Meta Object Facility,
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    Giese, H., Wagner, R.: Incremental Model Synchronization with Triple Graph Grammars. In: [26], pp. 543–557 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Egyed, A.: Fixing Inconsistencies in UML Design Models. In: ICSE 2007, pp. 292–301. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.): MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Gerth
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jochen M. Küster
    • 1
  • Gregor Engels
    • 3
  1. 1.IBM Zurich Research LaboratoryRüschlikonSwitzerland
  2. 2.Intern. Graduate School of Dynamic Intelligent SystemsGermany
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations