Correctness Ensuring Process Configuration: An Approach Based on Partner Synthesis

  • Wil van der Aalst
  • Niels Lohmann
  • Marcello La Rosa
  • Jingxin Xu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6336)


A configurable process model describes a family of similar process models in a given domain. Such a model can be configured to obtain a specific process model that is subsequently used to handle individual cases, for instance, to process customer orders. Process configuration is notoriously difficult as there may be all kinds of interdependencies between configuration decisions. In fact, an incorrect configuration may lead to behavioral issues such as deadlocks and livelocks. To address this problem, we present a novel verification approach inspired by the “operating guidelines” used for partner synthesis. We view the configuration process as an external service, and compute a characterization of all such services which meet particular requirements using the notion of configuration guideline. As a result, we can characterize all feasible configurations (i. e., configurations without behavioral problems) at design time, instead of repeatedly checking each individual configuration while configuring a process model.


Business Process Management Enterprise Resource Planning Enterprise Resource Planning System Input Place Operating Guideline 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 8(1), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Basten, T.: Inheritance of Workflows: An Approach to Tackling Problems Related to Change. Theoretical Computer Science 270(1-2), 125–203 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., Gottschalk, F., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J.: Preserving Correctness During Business Process Model Configuration. Formal Aspects of Computing 22(3), 459–482 (2010)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Lohmann, N., La Rosa, M., Xu, J.: Correctness Ensuring Process Configuration: An Approach Based on Partner Synthesis (extended version). BPM Center Report BPM-10-02, (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Badouel, E., Darondeau, P.: Theory of regions. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491, pp. 529–586. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of Behavior. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 47(2), 47–145 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Knackstedt, R.: Adaptive Reference Modeling: Integrating Configurative and Generic Adaptation Techniques for Information Models. In: Reference Modeling: Efficient Information Systems Design Through Reuse of Information Models, pp. 27–58. Physica-Verlag, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Curran, T., Keller, G.: SAP R/3 Business Blueprint: Understanding the Business Process Reference Model. Upper Saddle River (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M.: Mapping Features to Models: A Template Approach Based on Superimposed Variants. In: Glück, R., Lowry, M. (eds.) GPCE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3676, pp. 422–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Classification of Reference Models - A Methodology and its Application. Information Systems and e-Business Management 1(1), 35–53 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gottschalk, F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Jansen-Vullers, H.M.: Configurable Process Models: A Foundational Approach. In: Reference Modeling: Efficient Information Systems Design Through Reuse of Information Models, pp. 59–78. Physica-Verlag, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gottschalk, F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Jansen-Vullers, M.H., Rosa, M.L.: Configurable Workflow Models. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 17(2), 177–221 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Guaranteeing Soundness of Configurable Process Variants in Provop. In: CEC, pp. 98–105. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., Russell, N.: Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and its Support Environment. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    La Rosa, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Questionnaire-based Variability Modeling for System Configuration. Software and Systems Modeling 8(2), 251–274 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Mendling, J., Gottschalk, F.: Beyond Control-Flow: Extending Business Process Configuration to Roles and Objects. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 199–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    La Rosa, M., Lux, J., Seidel, S., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Questionnaire-driven Configuration of Reference Process Models. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 424–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Wolf, K.: Behavioral Constraints for Services. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 271–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Wolf, K.: Operating Guidelines for Finite-State Services. In: Kleijn, J., Yakovlev, A. (eds.) ICATPN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4546, pp. 321–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lohmann, N., Weinberg, D.: Wendy: A tool to synthesize partners for services. In: Lilius, J., Penczek, W. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6128, pp. 297–307. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A Configurable Reference Modelling Language. Information Systems 32(1), 1–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trcka, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Sidorova, N.: Data-Flow Anti-Patterns: Discovering Data-Flow Errors in Workflows. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 425–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wolf, K.: Does my service have partners? In: Jensen, K., van der Aalst, W.M.P. (eds.) ToPNoC II. LNCS, vol. 5460, pp. 152–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wil van der Aalst
    • 1
    • 3
  • Niels Lohmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marcello La Rosa
    • 3
  • Jingxin Xu
    • 3
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands 
  2. 2.Universität Rostock, Germany 
  3. 3.Queensland University of TechnologyAustralia

Personalised recommendations