Process Modeling Using Workflow-Nets

  • Arie Karniel
  • Yoram Reich


Once a project plan is set, various methods can be used for its implementation. The previously reviewed DSM based simulations do not use a formal method for implementing the process model. Such methods include proprietary workflow models, graphical evaluation and review technique Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique (GERT), Task netsTask net, pi-calculus, and Petri netsPetri net (discussed in the next section).For its implementation, the process is defined by the Process schemeProcess scheme model representing the precedence relations in addition to process logic. Generalized precedence relations Generalized Precedence Relations (GPR) (Elmaghraby, Eur J Oper Res, 82:383–408, 1995) include the typical end–start relations, start–start, end–end, and iterations (cycles). The overlapOverlap relation was defined in Cho and Eppinger Conf on (DECT 2001/DTM), as a start–start relation with delay. The relations are implemented by defining the Input Logic of an activity (pre-conditions) and the Output Logic (post-conditions).


DAGDirected Acyclic Graph Process Scheme Input Place Correctness Criterion Output Place 
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. Andersson J (2001) Multi objective optimization in engineering design: applications to fluid power systems. Dissertation. Institute of Technology, Linköpings Universitet, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  2. Barjis J, Dietz JL (2000) Business process modeling and analysis using GERT networks. In: Filipe J (ed) Enterprise Inf Sys, pp 71–80Google Scholar
  3. Braha D (2002) Partitioning tasks to product development teams. Proceedings of ASME Int Design Eng Technical Conf DETC’02, Montreal, Canada, September 29–October 2Google Scholar
  4. Cho SH, Eppinger SD (2001) Product Development Process Modeling Using Advanced Simulation. ASME Conf on Design Theory and Methodology (DECT 2001/DTM), Pittsburgh, PA, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  5. Cho SH, Eppinger SD (2005) A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. IEEE Trans on Eng Manag, 52(3):316–328Google Scholar
  6. Dehnert J, van der Aalst WMP (2004) Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. Int J Coop Inf Sys 13(3):289–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis CA, Keddara K, Rozenberg G (1995) Dynamic change within workflow systems. In: Proceedings of International ACM Conference COOCS 95, Milpitas, CA, pp 10–21Google Scholar
  8. Elmaghraby SE (1995) Activity nets: A guided tour through some recent developments. Eur J Oper Res 82:383–408MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farrell ADH, Sergot MJ, Bartolini C (2007) Formalising workflow: a CCS-inspired characterisation of the YAWL workflow patterns. Group Decision and Negotiation, vol 16. Springer, Berlin, pp 213–254Google Scholar
  10. Gruhn V, Laue R (2006) Complexity Metrics for Business Process Models. In: 9th International Conference on business Inf Sys (BIS 2006). Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol 85. Klagenfurt, Austria, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  11. Heimann P, Joeris G, Krapp C, Westfechtel B (1996) DYNAMITE: Dynamic task nets for software process management. Proceedings 18th International Conference on Software Eng, Berlin, Germany, pp 331–341Google Scholar
  12. Heller M, Westfechtel B (2003) Dynamic project and workflow management for design processes in chemical engineering. Proceedings 8th International Conference on Process Sys Eng (PSE 2003), Kumming, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  13. Jun HB, Park JY, Suh WH (2006) Lead time estimation method for complex product development process. Concurr Eng Res Appl 14(4):313–328MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karniel A, Reich Y (2007a) Managing dynamic new product development processes. Proceedings of the 17th Annual International Symposium of The Int Council on Sys Eng INCOSE’07, San Diego, CA, JuneGoogle Scholar
  15. Karniel A, Reich Y (2007b) A coherent interpretation of DSM plan for PDP simulation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Eng Design, ICED 07, Paris, AugustGoogle Scholar
  16. Karniel A, Reich Y (2009) From DSM based planning to design process simulation: a review of process scheme logic verification issues. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 56(4):636–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mangan P, Sadiq S (2003) A constraint specification approach to building flexible workflows. J Res Pract Inf Technol 35(1):21–39Google Scholar
  18. Milner R (1980) A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 92. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Milner R (1999) Communicating and Mobil Systems The π–calculus. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Neumann K (1990) Stochastic project networks: Temporal analysis scheduling and cost minimization. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Ping L, Hao H, Jian L (2004) On 1-soundness and soundness of workflow nets. In: Daniel Moldt (ed) Proc of the 3rd Workshop on Modelling of Objects, Components, and Agents, DAIMI PB, vol 571. Aarhus, Denmark, pp 21–36Google Scholar
  22. Reichert M, Dadam P (1998) ADEPTflex—Supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. J Intell Inf Sys 10:93–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reichert M, Rinderle S, Kreher U, Dadam P (2005) Adaptive process management with ADEPT2. 21st International Conference on Data Eng (ICDE’05), pp 1113–1114Google Scholar
  24. Reising W, Rozenberg G (1998) Lectures on Petri nets I: Basic models. Lect Notes Comput Sci 1491:1998Google Scholar
  25. Rinderle S, Reichert M, Dadam P (2004) Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems—A survey. Data Knowl Eng 50(1):9–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sadiq W, Orlowska ME (1999) Applying graph reduction techniques for identifying structural conflicts in process models. Lect Notes Comp Sci 1626:195–209 JanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sadiq W, Orlowska ME (2000) Analyzing process models using graph reduction techniques. Inf Sys 25(2):117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sadiq S, Orlowska ME, Sadiq W, Foulger C (2004) Data flow and validation in workflow modeling. Proceedings of the International Conference in Res and Practice in Inf Technology, ADC’2004, Dunedin, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith RP, Morrow JA (1999) Product development process modeling. Des Stud 20(3):237–261Google Scholar
  30. Taylor BW, Moore LJ (1980) R&D project planning with Q-GERT network modeling and simulation. Manag Sci 26(1):44–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van der Aalst WMP (1998) The application of Petri nets to workflow management. J Circuits Sys Comput 8(1):21–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van der Aalst WMP (1999) Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf Softw Technol 41:639–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van der Aalst WMP (2000) Finding control-flow errors using Petri net based techniques. In: vd Aalst W, Desel J, Oberweis A (eds) Bus Process Manag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1806. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 161–183Google Scholar
  34. van der Aalst WMP (2001) Exterminating the dynamic change bug: a concrete approach to support workflow change. Inf Sys Frontiers 3(3):297–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM,Kiepuszewski B, Barros AP (2003a) Workflow patterns. Distrib Parallel Dat 14(1):5–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM, Weske M (2003b) Business process management: A survey. Int conf on Bus Process Manag, BPM 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2678. Springer, Eindhoven, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  37. van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM (2005) YAWL: Yet another workflow language. Inf Sys 30(4):245–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van der Aalst WMP, van Hee K (2002) Workflow Management Models Methods and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  39. van Hee K, Sidorova N, Voorhoeve M (2003) Soundness and separability of workflow nets in the stepwise refinement approach. In: van der Aalst WMP, Best E (eds) Application and Theory of Petri Nets 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2678. Springer, Berlin, pp 337–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Hee K, Sidorova N, Voorhoeve M (2004) Generalised Soundness of workflow nets is decidable. In: Cortadella J, Reisig W (eds) Application and Theory of Petri Nets 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3099. pp 197–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Verbeek HMW, Basten T, van der Aalst WMP (2001) Diagnosing workflow processes using Woflan. The Computer J 44(4):246–279MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Westfechtel B (1999) Models and tools for managing development processes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1646. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  43. Zanddizari M (2006) Set confidence interval for customer order cycle time in supply chain using GERT method. In: Proceedings of the 17th IASTED international Conference on Modelling and Simulation, Canada, pp 213–218Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations