Towards Classification Criteria for Process Fragmentation Techniques

  • Michele Mancioppi
  • Olha Danylevych
  • Dimka Karastoyanova
  • Frank Leymann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 99)


Process fragmentation is the foundation of many state-of-the-art techniques for supporting management, reuse and change of process models. Such techniques vary greatly in terms of which types of processes they are applicable to, what they aim at accomplishing, how they define the resulting process fragments, etc. The comparison, analysis, reuse and selection of the available process fragmentation techniques are hindered by the lack of a common terminology and classification criteria, and by the large discrepancy in the characteristics that are covered when presenting novel fragmentation techniques. This work starts addressing this issue by investigating classification criteria for process fragmentation techniques based on the “seven Ws”, namely Why, What, When, Where, Who, Which, and hoW. The presented classification criteria are applied to some of the process fragmentation approaches available in the literature. In addition to enabling the classification of fragmentation techniques, the classification criteria here presented form a “check-list” for authors of future works in the field of process fragmentation.

Categories: Process improvement techniques and tools


Process Element Structural Constraint Fragmentation Technique Process Fragment BPEL Process 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36(5), 881–897 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and More Focused Control-Flow Analysis for Business Process Models Through SESE Decomposition. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 43–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khalaf, R., Kopp, O., Leymann, F.: Maintaining data dependencies across bpel process fragments. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 17(3), 259–282 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nanda, M.G., Chandra, S., Sarkar, V.: Decentralizing execution of composite web services. In: OOPSLA, pp. 170–187. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Danylevych, O., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F.: Optimal stratification of transactions. In: ICIW, pp. 493–498. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: Process model abstraction: A slider approach. In: EDOC, pp. 325–331. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ma, Z., Leymann, F.: Bpel fragments for modularized reuse in modeling bpel processes. In: Mauri, J.L., Giner, V.C., Tomas, R., Serra, T., Dini, O. (eds.) ICNS, pp. 63–68. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tan, W., Fan, Y.: Model Fragmentation for Distributed Workflow Execution: A Petri Net Approach. In: Ramos, F.F., Larios Rosillo, V., Unger, H. (eds.) ISSADS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3563, pp. 207–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhai, Y., Su, H., Zhan, S.: A data flow optimization based approach for BPEL processes partition. In: ICEBE, pp. 410–413. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ivanovic, D., Carro, M., Hermenegildo, M.V.: Automatic Fragment Identification in Workflows Based on Sharing Analysis. In: Maglio, P.P., Weske, M., Yang, J., Fantinato, M. (eds.) ICSOC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6470, pp. 350–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mancioppi, M., Danylevych, O., Papazoglou, M.P., Leymann, F.: A language-agnostic framework for the analysis of the syntactic structure of process fragments. Technischer Bericht Informatik 2010/2007. University of Stuttgart (November 2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Modeling languages: Syntax, semantics and all that stuff (part i: The basic stuff). Technical report, Weizmann Science Press of Israel (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    zur Mühlen, M., Ho, D.T.-Y.: Risk Management in the BPM Lifecycle. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 454–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kajko-Mattsson, M., Lewis, G.A., Smith, D.B.: A framework for roles for development, evolution and maintenance of soa-based systems. In: SDSOA 2007, p. 7. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abate, F.R. (ed.): The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus. Oxford University Press (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Danylevych, O.: CD-JRA-2.2.3: Algorithms and techniques for splitting and merging service compositions. Technical report, S-Cube Consortium (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Mancioppi
    • 1
  • Olha Danylevych
    • 1
  • Dimka Karastoyanova
    • 1
  • Frank Leymann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Architecture of Application Systems (IAAS)University of StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations