Rule Determination and Process Verification Using Business Capabilities

  • Thomas Stuht
  • Andreas Speck
  • Sven Feja
  • Sören Witt
  • Elke Pulvermüller
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 134)


Business architectures are an important part of any enterprise architecture containing business processes and business capabilities. High quality business processes are key factors for the success of a company. Hence, the quality and the correctness or compliance have to be verified. We propose to use the business capabilities for an efficient and easily understandable definition of rules to perform this verification. The rule specification is based on rule patterns to define requirements from an operational point of view. These patterns are derived from experience gained in projects for modeling and optimization of business processes with extensive manual checks. For the rule validation we rely on model checking as an established technology to cope with the dynamic properties of processes. We present a tool based approach to automate this verification integrated in a unique system with a common user interface.


enterprise architecture business capabilities business process model quality and correctness or compliance integrating verification technique rule patterns 


  1. 1.
    Barkow, R.: Grundlagen von EAM. In: Keuntje, J.H., Barkow, R. (eds.) Enterprise Architecture Management in der Praxis: Wandel, Komplexität und IT-Kosten im Unternehmen beherrschen, pp. 15–47. Symposion Publishing GmbH, Düsseldorf (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    BITKOM: Enterprise Architecture Management - neue Disziplin für die ganzheitliche Unternehmensentwicklung (2011),
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    AK-VAA: VAA Final Edition. Managementsummary. Version 2.1 prozedural, Version 2.0 objektorientiert (2001),
  5. 5.
    Kleinert, H., van Megen, H., Kohl, T.: Integration von Prozess- und IT-Architekturmanagement. In: Gensch, C., Moormann, J., Wehn, R. (eds.) Prozessmanagement in der Assekuranz, pp. 221–234. Frankfurt-School-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, E.M.: The Birth of Model Checking. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 1–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 8, 244–263 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feja, S., Fötsch, D.: Model Checking with Graphical Validation Rules. In: 15th IEEE Intern. Conf. on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS 2008), Belfast, pp. 117–125 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons Using Branching-Time Temporal Logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pulvermüller, E., Feja, S., Speck, A.: Developer-friendly verification of processbased systems. Knowledge-Based Systems 23(7), 667–676 (2010); Special issue on “Intelligent Formal Techniques for Software Design: IFTSD”Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feja, S., Witt, S., Speck, A.: BAM: A Requirements Validation and Verification Framework for Business Process Models. In: 11th Intern. Conf. on Quality Software, pp. 186–191 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0, formal/2011-01-03 (January 2011),
  14. 14.
    Wagner, F. (ed.): Gabler Versicherungslexikon. Gabler, Wiesbaden (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emerson, E.A., Clarke, E.M.: Characterizing Correctness Properties of Parallel Programs Using Fixpoints. In: de Bakker, J.W., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) ICALP 1980. LNCS, vol. 85, pp. 169–181. Springer, Heidelberg (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and Verification of Event-driven Process Chains. Information and Software Technology 41(10), 639–650 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson, B.B., Hansen, J.V., Lowry, P.B., Summers, S.L.: Model checking for design and assurance of e-Business processes. Decision Support Systems 39(3), 333–344 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Decker, G., Mendling, J.: Instantiation Semantics for Process Models. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 164–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Discovery: Capturing the Invisible. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine 5(1), 28–41 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gerke, K., Cardoso, J., Claus, A.: Measuring the Compliance of Processes with Reference Models. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2009, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5870, pp. 76–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Governatori, G., Hoffmann, J., Sadiq, S., Weber, I.: Detecting Regulatory Compliance for Business Process Models through Semantic Annotations. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 5–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Becker, J., Bergener, P., Delfmann, P., Eggert, M., Weiß, B.: Supporting Business Process Compliance in Financial Institutions - A Model-Driven Approach. In: 10th Intern. Conf. on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2011), Zürich, pp. 355–364 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Visually specifying compliance rules and explaining their violations for business processes. JVLC 22(1), 30–55 (2011); Special Issue on Visual Languages and LogicGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Dadam, P.: Design and Verification of Instantiable Compliance Rule Graphs in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 9–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vasilecas, O., Smaizys, A.: Business Rule Model Integration into the Model of Transformation Driven Software Development. In: Grundspenkis, J., Kirikova, M., Manolopoulos, Y., Novickis, L. (eds.) ADBIS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5968, pp. 153–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Medeiros, A.D., Karla, A., Aalst, V.D.: Semantic Process Mining Tools: Core Building Blocks. In: 16th European Conference on Information Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Opdahl, A.L., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., Matulevicius, R.: An ontology for enterprise and information systems modelling. Applied Ontology 7(1), 49–92 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A.H., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mulyar, N.: Workflow Control-Flow Patterns: A Revised View; BPM Center Report BPM-06-22, (2006),
  30. 30.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A.H., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Workflow Data Patterns; QUT Technical report, FIT-TR-2004-01, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2004),
  31. 31.
    Sandkuhl, K.: Validation and Use of Information Demand Patterns in Higher Education. In: Abramowicz, W., Tolksdorf, R., Węcel, K. (eds.) BIS 2010. LNBIP, vol. 57, pp. 204–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Förster, A., Engels, G., Schattkowsky, T., Van Der Straeten, R.: Verification of Business Process Quality Constraints Based on Visual Process Patterns. In: Proceedings of the First Joint IEEE/IFIP Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering, TASE 2007, pp. 197–208. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Stuht
    • 1
  • Andreas Speck
    • 2
  • Sven Feja
    • 2
  • Sören Witt
    • 2
  • Elke Pulvermüller
    • 3
  1. 1.PPI AGHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceChristian-Albrechts-University of KielKielGermany
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of OsnabrueckOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations