Advertisement

Comparison and Variability Analysis in Process Variants

  • Jimin LingEmail author
  • Li Zhang
Conference paper
  • 379 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 602)

Abstract

The co-existence of multiple variants of a same process is a common phenomenon in process repositories of organizations. To manage these process variants effectively, it is necessary to compare them against each other and identify the commonalities and differences between them. However, existing process matching techniques are mostly limited to a comparison between two process variants only. Comparing a set of process variants to identify common and variant elements becomes thus a major challenge. In this paper, we propose the Process Variants Comparison (ProVC) method to compare and analyze variability between a set of process variants rather than binary comparison of two variants. An intuitive and intelligible visualization of the comparison result is then provided to users in the form of presence and relative position of nodes in process variants. The accuracy and usability of the ProVC method are demonstrated by a case study and user experiment in an application scenario.

Keywords

Process model Model comparison Process variants Variability Process match 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61170087 and No. 61370058). Thanks for all participants involved in the evaluation of this work, including graduated students from School of Software in Beihang University and the engineers from IT department of the Capital Airport VIP Service Management Co., Ltd.

References

  1. 1.
    Wijnhoven, F., Spil, T., Stegwee, R., et al.: Post-merger IT integration strategies: an IT alignment perspective. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 5–28 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Propagating changes between aligned process models. J. Syst. Softw. 85(8), 1885–1898 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: A foundational approach for managing process variability. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 267–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., Garcia, B.L., Kaarik, R.: Aligning business process models. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 45–53 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., 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
  6. 6.
    Ling, J.M., Zhang, L., Feng, Q.: Business process model alignment: an approach to support fast discovering complex matches. In: Mertins, K., Bénaben, F., Poler, R., Bourrières, J.-P. (eds.) Enterprise Interoperability VI: Interoperability for Agility, Resilience and Plasticity of Collaborations. Proceedings of the I-ESA Conferences, vol. 7, pp. 41–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ling, J.M., Zhang, L.: Matching process model variants based on process structure tree. Chin. J. Softw. 26(3), 460–474 (2015)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klinkmüller, C., Weber, I., Mendling, J., Leopold, H., Ludwig, A.: Increasing recall of process model matching by improved activity label matching. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 211–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castelo Branco, M., Troya, J., Czarnecki, K., Küster, J., Völzer, H.: Matching business process workflows across abstraction levels. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 626–641. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosa, M.L., Dumas, M., Uba, R.: Business process model merging: an approach to business process consolidation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 22(2), 3–13 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., Van, D.B., Kaarik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 498–516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    EMF Compare. http://www.eclipse.org/emf/compare. Accessed 2015
  13. 13.
    Rubin, J., Chechik, M.: Combining related products into product lines. In: Zisman, A., Lara, J. (eds.) FASE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 285–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van den Brand, M., Protić, Z., Verhoeff, T.: Fine-grained metamodel-assisted model comparison. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Model Comparison in Practice, pp. 11–20 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kolovos, D.S.: Establishing correspondences between models with the epsilon comparison language. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 146–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mehra, A., Grundy, J., Hosking, J.: A generic approach to supporting diagram differencing and merging for collaborative design. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 204–213 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations