Merging Business Process Models

  • Marcello La Rosa
  • Marlon Dumas
  • Reina Uba
  • Remco Dijkman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6426)


This paper addresses the following problem: given two business process models, create a process model that is the union of the process models given as input. In other words, the behavior of the produced process model should encompass that of the input models. The paper describes an algorithm that produces a single configurable process model from a pair of process models. The algorithm works by extracting the common parts of the input process models, creating a single copy of them, and appending the differences as branches of configurable connectors. This way, the merged process model is kept as small as possible, while still capturing all the behavior of the input models. Moreover, analysts are able to trace back which model(s) a given element in the merged model originates from. The algorithm has been prototyped and tested against process models taken from several application domains.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bunke, H.: On a relation between graph edit distance and maximum common subgraph. Pattern Recognition Letters 18(8), 689–694 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph matching algorithms for business process model similarity search. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., García-Banuelos, L., Käärik, R.: Aligning business process models. In: Proc. of EDOC. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Classification of Reference Models – A Methodology and its Application. In: Information Systems and e-Business Management, vol. 1, pp. 35–53 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gottschalk, F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Jansen-Vullers, M.H.: Merging event-driven process chains. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5331, pp. 418–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Förster, A., Engels, G.: A tool for process merging in business-driven development. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 344, pp. 89–92. CEUR (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Küster, J.M., Ryndina, K., Gall, H.: Generation of business process models for object life cycle compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 165–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., Käärik, R., Dijkman, R.: Merging business process models (extended version). Technical report, Queensland University of Technology (2009),
  10. 10.
    Levenshtein, I.: Binary code capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Cybernetics and Control Theory 10(8), 707–710 (1966)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: Discovering reference models by mining process variants using a heuristic approach. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 344–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendling, J., Simon, C.: Business process design by view integration. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 55–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S., Michelizzi, J.: WordNet: Similarity - Measuring the Relatedness of Concepts. In: Proc. of AAAI, pp. 1024–1025. AAAI, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal 10(4), 334–350 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A configurable reference modelling language. Information Systems 32(1), 1–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun, S., Kumar, A., Yen, J.: Merging workflows: A new perspective on connecting business processes. Decision Support Systems 42(2), 844–858 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Dongen, B.F., Dijkman, R.M., Mendling, J.: Measuring similarity between business process models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R.M., Mendling, J.: The icop framework: Identification of correspondences between process models. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 483–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcello La Rosa
    • 1
  • Marlon Dumas
    • 2
  • Reina Uba
    • 2
  • Remco Dijkman
    • 3
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyAustralia
  2. 2.University of TartuEstonia
  3. 3.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations