Business Process Model Abstraction

Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)

Abstract

In order to execute, study, or improve operational processes, companies document them as business process models. Often, business process analysts capture every single exception handling or alternative task handling scenario within a model. Such a tendency results in large process specifications. The core process logic becomes hidden in numerous modeling constructs. To fulfill different tasks, companies develop several model variants of the same business process at different abstraction levels. Afterwards, maintenance of such model groups involves a lot of synchronization effort and is erroneous.

We propose an abstraction methodology that allows generalization of process models. Business process model abstraction assumes a detailed model of a process to be available and derives coarse-grained models from it. The task of abstraction is to tell significant model elements from insignificant ones and to reduce the latter. We propose to learn insignificant process elements from supplementary model information, e.g., task execution time or frequency of task occurrence. Finally, we discuss a mechanism for user control of the model abstraction level – an abstraction slider.

References

  1. Bobrik R, Reichert M, Bauer T (2007) View-based process visualization. In: BPM, volume 4714 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 88–95Google Scholar
  2. Cardoso J, Miller J, Sheth A, Arnold J (2002) Modeling quality of service for workflows and web service processes. Technical report, University of Georgia, Web Services. http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/lib/download/CMSA-TM02-002-v2-Dec02.pdf
  3. Davenport T (1993) Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Eshuis R, Grefen P (2008) Constructing customized process views. Data Knowl Eng 64(2):419–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Günther C, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Fuzzy mining – adaptive process simplification based on multi-perspective metrics. In: BPM 2007, volume 4714 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin//Heidelberg, pp 328–343Google Scholar
  6. Hammer M, Champy J (1994) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. HarperBusiness, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Keller G, Nüttgens M, Scheer A (1992) Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage “Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK)”. Technical Report Heft 89, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik, University of SaarlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Liu D, Shen M (2003) Workflow modeling for virtual processes: an order-preserving process-view approach. Inf Syst 28(6):505–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mendling J, Verbeek H, van Dongen B, van der Aalst WMP, Neumann G (2008) Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model. Data Knowl Eng 64(1):312–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Object Management Group (OMG) (2011) Business process model and notation (BPMN) 2.0Google Scholar
  11. Polyvyanyy A (2012) Structuring process models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Potsdam, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  12. Polyvyanyy A, Smirnov S, Weske M (2008a) Process model abstraction: a slider approach. In: EDOC’08: proceedings of the 12th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference, IEEE Computer Society, München, Sept 2008Google Scholar
  13. Polyvyanyy A, Smirnov S, Weske M (2008b) Reducing complexity of large EPCs. In: EPK’08 GI-Workshop, Saarbrücken, Nov 2008Google Scholar
  14. Polyvyanyy A, Smirnov S, Weske M (2009) The triconnected abstraction of process models. In: BPM’09: proceedings of the 7th international conference on business process management, Ulm, Sept 2009Google Scholar
  15. Polyvyanyy A, Weidlich M, Weske M (2012) Isotactics as a foundation for alignment and abstraction of behavioral models. In: BPM’12: proceedings of the 10th international conference on business process management, Tallinn, Sept 2012Google Scholar
  16. Sadiq W, Orlowska M (2000) Analyzing process models using graph reduction techniques. Inf Syst 25(2):117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scheer A, Thomas O, Adam O (2005) Process aware information systems: bridging people and software through process technology, chapter process modeling using event-driven process chains. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 119–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM (2003) YAWL: yet another workflow language (Revised version). Technical report FIT-TR-2003-04, Queensland University of Technology, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  19. van Dongen B, Jansen-Vullers M, Verbeek H, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Verification of the SAP reference models using EPC reduction, state-space analysis, and invariants. Comput Ind 58(6):578–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vanhatalo J, Völzer H, Leymann F (2007) Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through SESE decomposition. In: ICSOC 2007, volume 4749 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin//Heidelberg, pp 43–55Google Scholar
  21. Weske M (2012) Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yang Y, Dumas M, García-Bañuelos L, Polyvyanyy A, Zhang L (2012) Generalized aggregate quality of service computation for composite services. J Syst Softw 85(8):1818–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zerguini L (2004) A novel hierarchical method for decomposition and design of workflow models, vol 8. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 65–74Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Artem Polyvyanyy
    • 1
  • Sergey Smirnov
    • 2
  • Mathias Weske
    • 3
  1. 1.Business Process Management DisciplineQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Hasso Plattner Institute of IT Systems Engineering Business Process Technology GroupUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Hasso Plattner Institute Business Process TechnologyUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations