Unveiling Hidden Unstructured Regions in Process Models

  • Artem Polyvyanyy
  • Luciano García-Bañuelos
  • Mathias Weske
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5870)


Process models define allowed process execution scenarios. The models are usually depicted as directed graphs, with gateway nodes regulating the control flow routing logic and with edges specifying the execution order constraints between tasks. While arbitrarily structured control flow patterns in process models complicate model analysis, they also permit creativity and full expressiveness when capturing non-trivial process scenarios. This paper gives a classification of arbitrarily structured process models based on the hierarchical process model decomposition technique. We identify a structural class of models consisting of block structured patterns which, when combined, define complex execution scenarios spanning across the individual patterns. We show that complex behavior can be localized by examining structural relations of loops in hidden unstructured regions of control flow. The correctness of the behavior of process models within these regions can be validated in linear time. These observations allow us to suggest techniques for transforming hidden unstructured regions into block-structured ones.


Process structure tree process model analysis process model correctness process model transformation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation, Version 1.2. (January 2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laue, R., Mendling, J.: The Impact of Structuredness on Error Probability of Process Models. In: Kaschek, R., Kop, C., Steinberger, C., Fliedl, G. (eds.) UNISCON. LNBIP, vol. 5. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Bussler, C.: On Structured Workflow Modelling. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, p. 431. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu, R., Kumar, A.: An Analysis and Taxonomy of Unstructured Workflows. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 268–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aalst, W.: Verification of Workflow Nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) Application and Theory of Petri Nets, pp. 407–426. Springer, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tarjan, R.E., Valdes, J.: Prime Subprogram Parsing of a Program. In: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 95–105. ACM, New York (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The Refined Process Structure Tree. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alves, A., Arkin, A., Askary, S., Barreto, C., Bloch, B., Curbera, F., Ford, M., Goland, Y., Guízar, A., Kartha, N., Liu, C.K., Khalaf, R., König, D., Marin, M., Mehta, V., Thatte, S., van der Rijn, D., Yendluri, P., Yiu, A.: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. OASIS Standard (April 2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Margolis, B.: SOA for the Business Developer: Concepts, BPEL, and SCA (Business Developers series). Mc Press (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oulsnam, G.: Unravelling Unstructured Programs. The Computer Journal 25(3), 379–387 (1982)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, H., Zhao, Z., Li, H., Chen, Z.: A Novel Graph Reduction Algorithm to Identify Structural Conflicts. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Washington, DC, USA, vol. 9, p. 289. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Tarjan, R.E.: Dividing a Graph into Triconnected Components. SIAM Journal on Computing 2(3), 135–158 (1973)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Battista, G.D., Tamassia, R.: Incremental Planarity Testing. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Battista, G.D., Tamassia, R.: On-Line Maintenance of Triconnected Components with SPQR-Trees. Algorithmica 15(4), 302–318 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fussell, D., Ramachandran, V., Thurimella, R.: Finding Triconnected Components by Local Replacement. SIAM Journal on Computing 22(3), 587–616 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gutwenger, C., Mutzel, P.: A Linear Time Implementation of SPQR-Trees. In: Marks, J. (ed.) GD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1984, pp. 77–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: The Triconnected Abstraction of Process Models. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM), Ulm, Germany (September 2009)Google 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.
    Petri, C.: Kommunikation mit Automaten. PhD thesis, Institut für instrumentelle Mathematik, Bonn, Germany (1962)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aalst, W., Hirnschall, A., Verbeek, H.: 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
  22. 22.
    Desel, J., Esparza, J.: Free Choice Petri Nets. Cambridge University Press, New York (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Artem Polyvyanyy
    • 1
  • Luciano García-Bañuelos
    • 2
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations