Advertisement

A Foundational Approach for Managing Process Variability

  • Matthias Weidlich
  • Jan Mendling
  • Mathias Weske
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6741)

Abstract

A business process often shows different variations in a large organisation, due to different legal requirements in different countries, deviations in the IT infrastructure, or organisational differences. These variants are documented in separate independent process models. Management of these variants imposes various challenges. Invariant behaviour needs to be identified and redundancies among the variants have to be avoided. In this paper, we address these questions by defining a set-algebra for behavioural profiles. These profiles represent a behavioural abstraction of process models that can be computed efficiently. We trace back many questions of process variability management to set-theoretic operations and relations defined for behavioural profiles. As a validation, we apply our approach to an industry model collection.

Keywords

Business Process Process Variant Software Product Line Shared Activity Business Process Model 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Wijnhoven, F., Spil, T., Stegwee, R., Fa, R.: Post-merger IT integration strategies: An IT alignment perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15(1), 5–28 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Kreher, U., Dadam, P.: Adaptive process management with ADEPT2. In: ICDE, pp. 1113–1114. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Capturing variability in business process models: the provop approach. Journal of Software Maintenance 22(6-7), 519–546 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change patterns and change support features - enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data Knowl. Eng. 66(3), 438–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A configurable reference modelling language. Inf. Syst. 32(1), 1–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gottschalk, F., van der Aalst, W., Jansen-Vullers, M., Rosa, M.L.: Configurable workflow models. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS) 17(2), 177–221 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ebert, J., Engels, G.: Observable or Invocable Behaviour - You Have to Choose. Technical Report 94-38, Leiden University (December 1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior-consistent specialization of object life cycles. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(1), 92–148 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of Behavior. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming (JLAP) 47(2), 47–145 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Preuner, G., Conrad, S., Schrefl, M.: View integration of behavior in object-oriented databases. Data & Knowledge Engineering 36(2), 153–183 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mendling, J., Simon, C.: Business Process Design by View Integration. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 55–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of business processes: A journey visiting four notorious problems. In: Ehrig, H., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G., Weber, H. (eds.) Petri Net Technology for Communication-Based Systems. LNCS, vol. 2472, pp. 383–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Goltz, U.: Refinement of actions and equivalence notions for concurrent systems. Acta Inf. 37(4/5), 229–327 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient consistency measurement based on behavioural profiles of process models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2010) (to appear)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaschner, K., Wolf, K.: Set algebra for service behavior: Applications and constructions. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 193–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gottschalk, F.: Configurable Process Models. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands (December 2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S.M., Zave, P.: Matching and merging of statecharts specifications. In: ICSE, pp. 54–64. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., Käärik, R.: Aligning business process models. In: EDOC, pp. 45–53. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R.M., Mendling, J.: The iCoP framework: Identification of correspondences between process models. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 483–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F., Moser, S.: Automatic workflow graph refactoring and completion. In: Bouguettaya, A., Krueger, I., Margaria, T. (eds.) ICSOC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5364, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lohmann, N., Verbeek, E., Dijkman, R.M.: Petri net transformations for business processes - a survey. TOPNOC 2, 46–63 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aalst, W.: The application of Petri nets to workflow management. Journal of Circuits, Systems, and Computers 8(1), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aalst, W.: Workflow verification: Finding control-flow errors using petri-net-based techniques. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) BPM. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 161–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smirnov, S., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J.: Business process model abstraction based on behavioral profiles. In: Maglio, P.P., Weske, M., Yang, J., Fantinato, M. (eds.) ICSOC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6470, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Curran, T.A., Keller, G., Ladd, A.: SAP R/3 Business Blueprint: Understanding the Business Process Reference Model. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mendling, J., Verbeek, H.M.W., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Neumann, G.: Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 312–329 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Decker, G., Mendling, J.: Process instantiation. Data Knowl. Eng. 68, 777–792 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Glabbeek, R.: The linear time - brancing time spectrum I. The semantics of concrete, sequential processes. In: Handbook of Process Algebra, pp. 3–99. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., van Dongen, B., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 498–516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., Mendling, J.: Configurable multi-perspective business process models. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 313–340 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reijers, H., Mans, R., van der Toorn, R.: Improved model management with aggregated business process models. Data Knowl. Eng. 68(2), 221–243 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schnieders, A., Puhlmann, F.: Variability mechanisms in e-business process families. LNI, vol. 85, pp. 583–601. GI (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., Van Der Linden, F.: Software product line engineering: foundations, principles, and techniques. Springer New York Inc., Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schobbens, P.Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.C., Bontemps, Y.: Generic semantics of feature diagrams. Computer Networks 51(2), 456–479 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weijters, T., Maruster, L.: Workflow mining: Discovering process models from event logs. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 16(9), 1128–1142 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weidlich, M., Polyvyanyy, A., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient computation of causal behavioural profiles using structural decomposition. In: Lilius, J., Penczek, W. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6128, pp. 63–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Weidlich
    • 1
  • Jan Mendling
    • 2
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations