Business Process Model Abstraction Based on Behavioral Profiles

  • Sergey Smirnov
  • Matthias Weidlich
  • Jan Mendling
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6470)


A variety of drivers for process modeling efforts, from low-level service orchestration to high-level decision support, results in many process models describing one business process. Depending on the modeling purpose, these models differ with respect to the model granularity. Business process model abstraction (BPMA) emerged as a technique that given a process model delivers a high-level process representation containing more coarse-grained activities and overall ordering constraints between them. Thereby, BPMA reduces the number of models capturing the same business process on different abstraction levels. In this paper, we present an abstraction approach that derives control flow dependencies for activities of an abstract model, once the groups of related activities are selected for aggregation. In contrast to the existing work, we allow for arbitrary activity groupings. To this end, we employ the behavioral profile notion that captures behavioral characteristics of a process model. Based on the original model and the activity grouping, we compute a new behavioral profile used for synthesis of the abstract process model.


Abstract Model Dependency Relation Business Process Management Activity Pair Strict Order 
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. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management. JCSC 8(1), 21–66 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Workflow Verification: Finding Control-Flow Errors Using Petri-Net-Based Techniques. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 161–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Basten, T.: Life-Cycle Inheritance: A Petri-Net-Based Approach. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 62–81. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weijters, A.J.M.M., Maruster, L.: Workflow Mining: Discovering Process Models from Event Logs. IEEE TKDE 16(9), 1128–1142 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basu, A., Blanning, R.W.: Synthesis and Decomposition of Processes in Organizations. ISR 14(4), 337–355 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bobrik, R., Reichert, M., Bauer, T.: View-Based Process Visualization. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 88–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cardoso, J., Miller, J., Sheth, A., Arnold, J.: Modeling Quality of Service for Workflows and Web Service Processes. Technical report, University of Georgia, Web Services (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cortadella, J., Kishinevsky, M., Lavagno, L., Yakovlev, A.: Deriving Petri Nets from Finite Transition Systems. IEEE TC 47(8), 859–882 (1998)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dehnert, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Bridging The Gap Between Business Models And Workflow Specifications. IJCIS 13(3), 289–332 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and Analysis of Business Process Models in BPMN. IST 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Dongen, B., Jansen-Vullers, M., Verbeek, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of the SAP Reference Models Using EPC Reduction, State-space Analysis, and Invariants. CAIE 58(6), 578–601 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.: Constructing Customized Process Views. DKE 64(2), 419–438 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Günther, C.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Fuzzy Mining Adaptive Process Simplification Based on Multiperspective Metrics. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 328–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. HarperBusiness (April 1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Fundamentals of Control Flow in Workflows. Acta Informatica 39(3), 143–209 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu, D., Shen, M.: Workflow Modeling for Virtual Processes: an Order-preserving Process-view Approach. ISJ 28(6), 505–532 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Massuthe, P., Serebrenik, A., Sidorova, N., Wolf, K.: Can I Find a Partner? Undecidability of Partner Existence for Open Nets. IPL 108(6), 374–378 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and Verification of EPCs with OR-Joins Based on State and Context. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 439–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murata, T.: Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pankratius, V., Stucky, W.: A Formal Foundation for Workflow Composition, Workflow View Definition, and Workflow Normalization based on Petri Nets. In: APCCM 2005, pp. 79–88. ACS, Inc, Darlinghurst (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: The Triconnected Abstraction of Process Models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 229–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: On the Usefulness of Subprocesses in Business Process Models. BPM Center Report BPM-10-03, (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Analyzing Process Models Using Graph Reduction Techniques. ISJ 25(2), 117–134 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior-Consistent Specialization of Object Life Cycles. ACM TOSEM 11(1), 92–148 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smirnov, S., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Meronymy-based Aggregation of Activities in Business Process Models. In: ER 2010. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smirnov, S., Reijers, H., Nugteren, T., Weske, M.: Business Process Model Abstraction: Theory and Practice. Technical report, Hasso Plattner Institute (2010),
  27. 27.
    Streit, A., Pham, B., Brown, R.: Visualization Support for Managing Large Business Process Specifications. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 205–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The Refined Process Structure Tree. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weidlich, M., Barros, A., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Vertical Alignment of Process Models - How Can We Get There? In:BPMDS 2009 LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 71–84. Springer, Heidelberg (1975)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Consistency Measurement based on Behavioural Profiles of Process Models. In: IEEE TSE (to appear 2010) Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wynn, M.T., Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Reduction Rules for YAWL Workflows with Cancellation Regions and OR joins. IST 51(6), 1010–1020 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergey Smirnov
    • 1
  • Matthias Weidlich
    • 1
  • Jan Mendling
    • 2
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner InstitutePotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations