Modeling Uncertainty in Declarative Artifact-Centric Process Models

  • Rik EshuisEmail author
  • Murat Firat
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 342)


Many knowledge-intensive processes are driven by business entities about which knowledge workers make decisions and to which they add information. Artifact-centric process models have been proposed to represent such knowledge-intensive processes. Declarative artifact-centric process models use business rules that define how knowledge experts can make progress in a process. However, in many business situations knowledge experts have to deal with uncertainty and vagueness. Currently, how to deal with such situations cannot be expressed in declarative artifact-centric process models. We propose the use of fuzzy logic to model uncertainty. We use Guard-Stage-Milestone schemas as declarative artifact-centric process notation and we extend them with fuzzy sentries. We explain how the resulting fuzzy GSM schemas can be evaluated by extending an existing GSM engine with a tool for fuzzy evaluation of rules. We evaluate fuzzy GSM schemas by applying them to an existing fragment of regulations for handling a mortgage contract.


  1. 1.
    Adam, O., Thomas, O., Martin, G.: Fuzzy workflows - enhancing workflow management with vagueness. In: Proceedings of the EURO/INFORMS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azadeh, A., Haghnevis, M., Khodadadegan, Y., Madadi, M.: Modeling and improvement of the integrated business and production processes by fuzzy simulation. In: Proceedings of the SpringSim 2009. SCS/ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bazhenova, E., Haarmann, S., Ihde, S., Solti, A., Weske, M.: Discovery of fuzzy DMN decision models from event logs. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10253, pp. 629–647. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  4. 4.
    BizAgi, et al.: Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN), v1.1, OMG Document Number formal/2016-12-01, Object Management Group (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Damaggio, E., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles. Inf. Syst. 38, 561–584 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Ciccio, C., Marrella, A., Russo, A.: Knowledge-intensive processes: characteristics, requirements and analysis of contemporary approaches. J. Data Semant. 4(1), 29–57 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eshuis, R., Hull, R., Sun, Y., Vaculín, R.: Splitting GSM schemas: a framework for outsourcing of declarative artifact systems. Inf. Syst. 46, 157–187 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eshuis, R., Hull, R., Yi, M.: Property preservation in adaptive case management. In: Barros, A., Grigori, D., Narendra, N.C., Dam, H.K. (eds.) ICSOC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9435, pp. 285–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J., Caron, F.: Declarative business process modelling: principles and modelling languages. Enterp. IS 9(2), 161–185 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hakim, A., Gheitasi, M., Soltani, F.: Fuzzy model on selecting processes in business process reengineering. Bus. Proc. Manag. J. 22(6), 1118–1138 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull, R., et al.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. Proc. WS-FM 2010, 1–24 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klir, G.J.: Uncertainty and Information: Foundations of Generalized Information Theory. Wiley, Hoboken (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Landry, J.-F., Ulmer, C., Gomez, L.: Fuzzy distributed workflows for crisis management decision makers. In: Ortiz-Arroyo, D., Larsen, H.L., Zeng, D.D., Hicks, D., Wagner, G. (eds.) EuroIsI 2008. LNCS, vol. 5376, pp. 226–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ross, T.J.: Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. Wiley, Chichester (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slavíček, V.: An ontology-driven fuzzy workflow system. In: van Emde Boas, P., Groen, F.C.A., Italiano, G.F., Nawrocki, J., Sack, H. (eds.) SOFSEM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7741, pp. 515–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomas, O., Dollmann, T., Loos, P.: Rules integration in business process models - a fuzzy oriented approach. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Arch. 3(2), 18–30 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vaculín, R., Hull, R., Heath, T., Cochran, C., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.: Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. Proc. EDOC 2011, 151–160 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Völkner, P., Werners, B.: A simulation-based decision support system for business process planning. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 125(3), 275–287 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ye, Y., Jiang, Z., Diao, X., Du, G.: Extended event-condition-action rules and fuzzy Petri nets based exception handling for workflow management. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(9), 10847–10861 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zakarian, A.: Analysis of process models: a fuzzy logic approach. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 17(6), 444–452 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Industrial EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations