Advertisement

An Automation Support for Creating Configurable Process Models

  • Wassim Derguech
  • Sami Bhiri
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6997)

Abstract

Configurable process models are constructed via the aggregation of several process models. Manual creation of configurable process models is tedious, time consuming and error prone task. We propose in this paper an automation support for creating these models. The contribution of this paper is a merging algorithm for integrating a set of process variants into a single configurable process model. This integrated process model should (i) subsume the behaviours of all original models, (ii) ensure a trace back of the origin of each element and (iii) derive any of the input models by means of configuration and individualization. Existing solutions either fail in respecting all these requirements or allow for merging only pairs of process models. However, our algorithm allows for merging a set of process models at once. This algorithm has been implemented and tested over a set of different process variants.

Keywords

business process modelling reuse merging configuration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., Gottschalk, F., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J.: Preserving correctness during business process model configuration. Formal Asp. Comput. 22(3-4), 459–482 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Lohmann, N., Rosa, M.L., Xu, J.: Correctness ensuring process configuration: An approach based on partner synthesis. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 95–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P., Zwicker, J.: Business process reference models: Survey and classification. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 469–483. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerth, C., Luckey, M., Küster, J.M., Engels, G.: Detection of semantically equivalent fragments for business process model change management. In: IEEE SCC, pp. 57–64. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gottschalk, F.: Configurable Process Models. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands (December 2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gottschalk, F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Jansen-Vullers, M.H.: Merging event-driven process chains. In: Chung, S. (ed.) OTM 2008, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5331, pp. 418–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gottschalk, F., Wagemakers, T.A.C., Jansen-Vullers, M.H., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Rosa, M.L.: Configurable process models: Experiences from a municipality case study. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 486–500. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Förster, A., Engels, G.: A tool for process merging in business-driven development. In: CAiSE Forum. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 344, pp. 89–92 (2008), CEUR-WS.org
  9. 9.
    Küster, J.M., Koehler, J., Ryndina, K.: Improving business process models with reference models in business-driven development. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 35–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    La Rosa, M.: Managing Variability in Process-Aware Information Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia (April 2009)Google 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.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 344–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: The minadept clustering approach for discovering reference process models out of process variants. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 19(3-4), 159–203 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendling, J., Nüttgens, M.: Epc syntax validation with xml schema languages. In: EPK, GI-Arbeitskreis Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten, pp. 19–30 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosa, M.L., Dumas, M., Uba, R., Dijkman, R.M.: Merging business process models. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T.S., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6426, pp. 96–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A configurable reference modelling language. Inf. Syst. 32(1), 1–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reichert, M.: Flexibility in process-aware information systems (proflex) workshop report. In: WETICE, pp. 269–270. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wassim Derguech
    • 1
  • Sami Bhiri
    • 1
  1. 1.Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) National University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations