When workflows are modeled for practical use, workflow variants often have to be considered to fit dynamically changing context factors. If there is a rich workflow context with a large value space, contemporary BPM solutions lack the support for on-the-fly generated variants, requiring explicit one-by-one modeling instead. Researchers have recognized the value of business rules for variant and adaptation support. However, there is still a need for dedicated standards-based constructs for context-dependent event- and exception-handling. Motivated by a realistic example, we therefore foster a framework for the combined use of business rules with a BPMN adaptation pattern catalogue. As the core contribution of this work, we substantiate our framework with a metamodel called vBPMN, which is weaved from BPMN2 and the R2ML rule language and allows for the convenient definition of variant models.


process variants process adaptation flexible workflows business rules context-awareness BPMN 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Configuration and management of process variants. In: Intl. Handbook on BPM, pp. 237–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Mendling, J.: Configurable Multi-Perspective Business Process Models. IS 36(2) (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Döhring, M., Karg, L., Godehardt, E., Zimmermann, B.: The Convergence of Workflows, Business Rules and Complex Events. In: ICEIS 2010, Funchal, pp. 338–343 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Döhring, M., Zimmermann, B., Godehardt, E.: Extended Workflow Flexibility using Rule-Based Adaptation Patterns with Eventing Semantics. In: Informatik2010 Service Science, Leipzig. LNI, pp. 216–226. GI, Bonn (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Döhring, M., Zimmermann, B., Karg, L.: Flexible Workflow at Design- and Runtime using BPMN2 Adaptation Patterns. In: BIS 2011, Poznan. Springer, Heidelberg (accepted 2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Eijndhoven, T., Iacob, M.-E., Ponisio, M.L.: Achieving Business Process Flexibility with Business Rules. In: EDOC 2008, Munich, pp. 95–104. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Zugal, S., Wild, W.: The declarative approach to business process execution: An empirical test. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 470–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bollen, P.: BPMN as a Communication Language for the Process- and Event-Oriented Perspectives in Fact-Oriented Conceptual Models. In: OTM 2009 Workshops, pp. 639–648. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Milanovic, M., Gasevic, D.: Towards a Language for Rule-Enhanced Business Process Modeling. In: EDOC 2009, Auckland, pp. 64–73. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charfi, A., Müller, H., Mezini, M.: Aspect-oriented business process modeling with AO4BPMN. In: Kühne, T., Selic, B., Gervais, M.-P., Terrier, F. (eds.) ECMFA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6138, pp. 48–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Modafferi, S., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Pernici, B.: A Methodology for Designing and Managing Context-Aware Workflows. In: MOBIS 2005. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ma, Z., Leymann, F.: BPEL Fragments for Modularized Reuse in Modeling BPEL Processes. In: ICNS 2009, Valencia, pp. 63–68. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S., Governatori, G.: On managing business processes variants. Data & Knowledge Engineering 68(7), 642–664 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Döhring
    • 1
  • Birgit Zimmermann
    • 1
  1. 1.SAP ResearchDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations