Compliance Checking for Decision-Aware Process Models

  • Stephan HaarmannEmail author
  • Kimon Batoulis
  • Mathias Weske
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 342)


The business processes of an organization are often required to comply with domain-specific regulations. Such regulations can be checked based on the models of the respective processes. These models’ main focus is on the operational part of the process. However, also decisions play a major role in the execution behavior of processes, and they are expressed in separate decision models. In this paper, we investigate the influence of decision models on business process compliance checking. To this end, we formalize decision-aware processes as colored Petri nets, extract the state space, and check compliance rules using temporal logic model checking. The approach improves the quality of existing compliance checking by reducing the risk of false negatives. We provide a prototype and discuss advantages and disadvantages.


Business process management Business process compliance Decisions 


  1. 1.
    Awad, A.: BPMN-Q: a language to query business processes. In: Reichert, M., Strecker, S., Turowski, K. (eds.) Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures - Concepts and Applications. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2007), St. Goar, Germany, 8–9 October 2007. LNI, vol. P-119, pp. 115–128. GI (2007).
  2. 2.
    Awad, A., Decker, G., Weske, M.: Efficient compliance checking using BPMN-Q and temporal logic. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Specification, verification and explanation of violation for data aware compliance rules. In: Baresi, L., Chi, C.-H., Suzuki, J. (eds.) ICSOC/ServiceWave -2009. LNCS, vol. 5900, pp. 500–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, R., Coppa, E., D’Elia, D.C., Demetrescu, C., Finocchi, I.: A survey of symbolic execution techniques. CoRR (2016).
  6. 6.
    Batoulis, K., Haarmann, S., Weske, M.: Various notions of soundness for decision-aware business processes. In: Mayr, H.C., Guizzardi, G., Ma, H., Pastor, O. (eds.) ER 2017. LNCS, vol. 10650, pp. 403–418. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Batoulis, K., Meyer, A., Bazhenova, E., Decker, G., Weske, M.: Extracting decision logic from process models. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 349–366. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Batoulis, K., Weske, M.: Soundness of decision-aware business processes. In: Carmona, J., Engels, G., Kumar, A. (eds.) BPM 2017. LNBIP, vol. 297, pp. 106–124. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Batoulis, K., Weske, M.: Disambiguation of DMN decision tables. In: Abramowicz, W., Paschke, A. (eds.) BIS 2018. LNBIP, vol. 320, pp. 236–249. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng, A., Christensen, S., Mortensen, K.H.: Model checking coloured petri nets-exploiting strongly connected components. DAIMI Rep. Ser. 26(519) (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and abstraction. In: Sethi, R. (ed.) Conference Record of the Nineteenth Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, 19–22 January 1992, pp. 342–354. ACM Press (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haarmann, S.: Decision-aware compliance checking. Master’s thesis, University of Potsdam, March 2018.
  15. 15.
    Hashmi, M., Governatori, G., Lam, H.P., Wynn, M.T.: Are we done with business process compliance: state-of-the-art and challenges ahead. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 57, 79–133 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Janssens, L., Bazhenova, E., Smedt, J.D., Vanthienen, J., Denecker, M.: Consistent integration of decision (DMN) and process (BPMN) models. In: España, S., Ivanovic, M., Savic, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the CAiSE 2016 Forum, at the 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2016), Ljubljana, Slovenia, 13–17 June 2016. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1612, pp. 121–128. (2016).
  17. 17.
    Jensen, K., Kristensen, L.M.: Coloured Petri Nets: Modelling and Validation of Concurrent Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knuplesch, D., Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Pfeifer, H., Dadam, P.: On enabling data-aware compliance checking of business process models. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 332–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M.: A visual language for modeling multiple perspectives of business process compliance rules. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(3), 715–736 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M., Ly, L.T., Kumar, A., Rinderle-Ma, S.: On the formal semantics of the extended compliance rule graph. Technical report, Ulm University (2013).
  21. 21.
    Kunze, M., Weske, M.: Behavioural Models - From Modelling Finite Automata to Analysing Business Processes. Springer, Switzerland (2016). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee, S., O’Keefe, R.M.: Developing a strategy for expert system verification and validation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 24(4), 643–655 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ly, L.T.: SeaFlows - a compliance checking framework for supporting the process lifecycle. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ulm (2013).
  24. 24.
    OMG: Business process model and notation (BPMN), v2.0, January 2011.
  25. 25.
    OMG: Decision model and notation (DMN), v1.1, May 2016.
  26. 26.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, Z., Wang, J., Wen, L., Luo, G.: Formally modeling and analyzing data-centric workflow using WFCP-net and ASK-CTL. In: Zhang, R., Cordeiro, J., Li, X., Zhang, Z., Zhang, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2011 - Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Beijing, China, 8–11 June 2011, vol. 3, pp. 139–144. SciTePress (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan Haarmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kimon Batoulis
    • 1
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations