The Structured Phase of Concurrency

  • Artem PolyvyanyyEmail author
  • Christoph Bussler


This extended abstract summarizes the state-of-the-art solution to the structuring problem for models that describe existing real world or envisioned processes. Special attention is devoted to models that allow for the true concurrency semantics. Given a model of a process, the structuring problem deals with answering the question of whether there exists another model that describes the process and is solely composed of structured patterns, such as sequence, selection, option for simultaneous execution, and iteration. Methods and techniques for structuring developed by academia as well as products and standards proposed by industry are discussed. Expectations and recommendations on the future advancements of the structuring problem are suggested.


Business Process Management Concurrent Process Object Management Group Business Process Execution Language Modular Decomposition 
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.



The first author is supported by the ARC Linkage Project LP110100252 “Facilitating Business Process Standardisation and Reuse”.


  1. 1.
    Sassone, V., Nielsen, M., Winskel, G.: Models for concurrency: Towards a classification. Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) 170(1–2) (1996) 297–348MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Modell, M., Reid, R.: Thermodynamics and Its Applications. International Series in the Physical and Chemical Engineering Sciences. Prentice-Hall (1974)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Polyvyanyy, A.: Structuring Process Models. PhD thesis, University of Potsdam (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Böhm, C., Jacopini, G.: Flow diagrams, Turing machines and languages with only two formation rules. Communications of the ACM (CACM) 9(5) (1966) 366–371zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams, M.H., Ossher, H.L.: Conversion of unstructured flow diagrams to structured form. The Computer Journal (CJ) 21(2) (1978) 161–167zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oulsnam, G.: Unravelling unstructured programs. The Computer Journal (CJ) 25(3) (1982) 379–387zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Bussler, C.: On structured workflow modelling. In: Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE). Volume 1789 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Springer (2000) 431–445Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polyvyanyy, A., García-Bañuelos, L., Dumas, M.: Structuring acyclic process models. In: Business Process Management (BPM). Volume 6336 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Springer (2010) 276–293Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Polyvyanyy, A., García-Bañuelos, L., Dumas, M.: Structuring acyclic process models. Information Systems (IS) 37(6) (2012) 518–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H.: Simplified computation and generalization of the refined process structure tree. In: Web Services and Formal Methods (WS-FM). Volume 6551 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Springer (2010) 25–41Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McMillan, K.L.: A technique of state space search based on unfolding. Formal Methods in System Design (FMSD) 6(1) (1995) 45–65MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esparza, J., Römer, S., Vogler, W.: An improvement of McMillan’s unfolding algorithm. Formal Methods in System Design (FMSD) 20(3) (2002) 285–310zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McConnell, R.M., de Montgolfier, F.: Linear-time modular decomposition of directed graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics (DAM) 145(2) (2005) 198–209zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Polyvyanyy, A., García-Bañuelos, L., Fahland, D., Weske, M.: Maximal structuring of acyclic process models. The Computer Journal (CJ). (first published online September 19, 2012) doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxs126.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jablonski, S., Bussler, C.: Workflow Management — Modeling Concepts, Architecture and Implementation. International Thomson (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OASIS: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. OASIS Standard. (April 2007)
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. OMG Standard. (January 2011)
  18. 18.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mendling, J.: From business process models to process-oriented software systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 19(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lohmann, N., Kleine, J.: Fully-automatic translation of open workflow net models into simple abstract BPEL processes. In: Modellierung. Volume 127 of Lecture Notes in Informatics., GI (2008) 57–72Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    IBM Business Process Manager and IBM Business Process Manager Advanced:
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Craggs, S.: Comparing BPM from Pegasystems, IBM and TIBCO. (August 2011)
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Zapletal, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Russell, N., Liegl, P., Werthner, H.: An analysis of Windows workflow’s control-flow expressiveness. In: European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS), IEEE Computer Society (2009) 200–209Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sutter, H.: The free lunch is over: A fundamental turn toward concurrency in software. Dr. Dobb’s Journal 30(3) (2005) 202–210Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Analytica, Inc.Palo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations