Refactoring Process Models in Large Process Repositories

  • Barbara Weber
  • Manfred Reichert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5074)


With the increasing adoption of process-aware information systems (PAIS), large process model repositories have emerged. Over time respective models have to be re-aligned to the real-world business processes through customization or adaptation. This bears the risk that model redundancies are introduced and complexity is increased. If no continuous investment is made in keeping models simple, changes are becoming increasingly costly and error-prone. Though refactoring techniques are widely used in software engineering to address related problems, this does not yet constitute state-of-the art in business process management. Process designers either have to refactor process models by hand or cannot apply respective techniques at all. This paper proposes a set of behaviour-preserving techniques for refactoring large process repositories. This enables process designers to effectively deal with model complexity by making process models better understandable and easier to maintain.


Quality Metrics Business Process Management Execution Trace Process Instance Change Operation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Methods, Technology. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.: A Configurable Reference Modelling Language. Information Systems (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosa, M.L., Lux, J., Seidel, S., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.: Questionnaire-driven Configuration of Reference Process Models. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 424–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex – Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control. JIIS 10, 93–129 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parnas, D.L.: Software Aging. In: Proc: ICSE 1994, pp. 279–287 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Opdyke, W.F.: Refactoring Object-Oriented Frameworks. PhD thesis, Univ. of Illinois (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler, M.: Refactoring - Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cardoso, J.: Process Control-Flow Complexity Metrics: An Empirical Validation. In: Proc. IEEE SCC 2006, pp. 167–173 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vanderfeesten, I., Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.: Quality Metrics for Business Process Models. In: 2007 BPM & Workflow Handbook (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendling, J.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models. PhD thesis, Vienna Univ. of Economics and Business Administration (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCabe, T.: A Complexity Measure. IEEE ToSE 2, 308–320 (1976)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yourdon, E., Constantine, L.: Structured Design: Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and Systems Design. Prentice Hall, Yourdon Press (1979)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nissen, M.E.: Redesigning Reengineering through Measurement-Driven Inference. MIS Quarterly 22, 509–534 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reijers, H., Vanderfeesten, I.: Cohesion and Coupling Metrics for Workflow Process Design. In: Desel, J., Pernici, B., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3080, pp. 290–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change Support in Process-Aware Information Systems - A Pattern-Based Analysis. Technical Report TR-CTIT-07-76, University of Twente (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., Uthemann, C.v.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: BPM 2000, pp. 30–49 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brant, J., Roberts, D.: Refactoring Browser: Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glover, A.: Refactoring with Code Metrics (2006),
  22. 22.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P., Schultheiss, B., Konyen, I.: Modeling and analysis of healthcare processes in a woman’s hospital. project reports no. dbis-27, dbis-28, dbis-29, dbis-16, dbis-15, dbis-14, dbis-7, dbis-6, dbis-5 (1996-1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: Issues in process variants mining. Technical Report TR-CTIT-08-10, CTIT, University of Twente, Enschede (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rinderle, S., Weber, B., Reichert, M., Wild, W.: Integrating Process Learning and Process Evolution – A Semantics Based Approach. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 252–267. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van der Aalst, W., van Dongen, B., Herbst, J.: Workflow Mining: a Survey of Issues and Approaches. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 237–267 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Jurisch, M., Kreher, U.: On Representing, Purging, and Utilizing Change Logs in Process Management Systems. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 241–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roberts, D., Brant, J., Johnson, R.: A Refactoring Tool for Smalltalk. Theory and Practice of Object Systems, 253–263 (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sunye, G., Pollet, D., Traon, Y.L., Jezequel, J.: Refactoring UML Models. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 134–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Refactoring von Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten. In: EPK 2002, pp. 37–49 (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Küster, J., Koehler, J., Ryndina, K.: Improving Business Process Models with Reference Models in Business-Driven Development. In: BPM 2006 Workshops (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu, R., Kumar, A.: An Analysis and Taxonomy of Unstructured Workflows. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 268–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cortadella, J., Kishinevsky, M., Lavagno, L., Yakovlev, A.: Deriving petri nets from finite transition systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers 47(8), 859–882 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mendling, J., van Dongen, B., van der Aalst, W.: Getting rid of the OR-Join in business process models. In: EDOC 2007, pp. 3–14 (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reijers, H.A.: Design and Control of Workflow Processes: Business Process Management for the Service Industry. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness Criteria for Dynamic Changes in Workflow Systems – A Survey. DKE 50, 9–34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Weber
    • 1
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 2
  1. 1.Quality Engineering Research GroupUniversity of InnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Databases and Inf. SystemsUlm UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations