Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Modeling Business Process Variability: Are We Done Yet?

607 views

Published on

Slides used at the SPLC'17 keynote on modeling business process variability. The presentation provides an overview of work in this area, draws links with software product line engineering, and discusses open challenges and directions for future work.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Modeling Business Process Variability: Are We Done Yet?

  1. 1. Copyright 2015 Marcello LaRosa BPMDiscipline, Information SystemsSchool Queensland University ofTechnology
  2. 2. One process variant never fits all! each process is varied by product & brand: Insurance value chain at Suncorp Source: Guidewire Total number of process tasks: ~15,000 Total number of process models: ~3,000 30 variants 500 avg. tasks Home       Motor         Commercial      Liability      CTP / WC       Product dev Sales Service Claims
  3. 3. Consolidated model representing a family of process model variants, from which each variant can be derived via model transformations after customization decisions are taken. Model transformations can be achieved by behavioral: • Restriction • Extension 3 Customizable process model
  4. 4. 4 An actively researched topic… 95 relevant publications on the topic: M. La Rosa, W. van der Aalst, M. Dumas, F. Milani, Business Process Variability Modeling: A Survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 2017 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 - 23 different approaches - 11 main approaches subsume the other 12
  5. 5. RQ1: What are the commonalities and distinctive characteristics of approaches to customizable process modeling? RQ2: What criteria can be used to select between different approaches? RQ3: What research gaps exist in the literature on customizable process modeling that may require further work? 5 How to choose?
  6. 6. Evaluation criteria 6 • “What is captured in customizable process models?” • “How are customized models derived from customizable ones?” what how (trans.) how (trans.) how (decisions) meta-level
  7. 7. Taxonomy of process model customization approaches • C-iEPCs • Configurable Workflows • ADOM Node Configuration • Configurative process modeling • Superimposed variants • aEPCs Element Annotation • PESOA • BPFM • Feature Composition Model Activity Specialization • Provop • Template and Rules Fragment Customization Variability mechanism Main approaches
  8. 8. Synopsis • Customization by restriction • Configurable node (activity, gateway, resource, object) • Configuration options assigned to each configurable node • Customization by selecting one configurable option per configurable node • Customization may be carried out via domain model (questionnaire model) • Notation and model transformations are approach-specific Group 1: Node Configuration 8 Node Configuration
  9. 9. Main and subsumed approaches 9 Group 1: Node Configuration C-iEPCs KobrA Korherr & List Configurable Workflows CoSeNet ADOM
  10. 10. 10 Example process family: post-production @ AFTRS Footage prepared for edit Finish on film Film finishing Film editing Receive footage Shooting completed Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish completed Edit offline Perform neg- matching Footage prepared for edit Film editing V Receive footage Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing V Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish on film Film finishing Finish on tape Transfer in telecine Tape finishing V V Shooting completed Finish completed Edit offline Perform neg- matching Transfer completed Footage prepared for edit Film editing Receive footage Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish on film Film finishing Finish on tape Transfer in telecine Tape finishing X X Shooting completed Finish completed Edit offline Perform neg- matching Transfer completed Edit offline Finish completed Footage prepared for edit Finish on film Film finishing Film editing Receive footage Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing Film shooting Prepare film for editing X X Shooting completed Perform neg- matching Footage prepared for edit Tape editing Receive footage Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish on film Record digital film master Recording finished Film finishing Edit offline Shooting completed Edit online Footage prepared for edit Finish on tape Tape finishing Tape editing Receive footage Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing Shooting completed Edit offline Edit online Finish completed Release completed Release on new medium a b c d e f Finish completed Event OR gateway AND gateway XOR gateway Activity Sequence flow X V V
  11. 11. 11 Footage prepared for edit Finish on film Film finishing Film editing Receive footage Shooting completed Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish completed Edit offline Perform neg- matching Footage prepared for edit Film editing V Receive footage Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing V Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish on film Film finishing Finish on tape Transfer in telecine Tape finishing V V Shooting completed Finish completed Edit offline Perform neg- matching Transfer completed Footage prepared for edit Film editing Receive footage Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish on film Film finishing Finish on tape Transfer in telecine Tape finishing X X Shooting completed Finish completed Edit offline Perform neg- matching Transfer completed Edit offline Finish completed Footage prepared for edit Finish on film Film finishing Film editing Receive footage Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing Film shooting Prepare film for editing X X Shooting completed Perform neg- matching Footage prepared for edit Tape editing Receive footage Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish on film Record digital film master Recording finished Film finishing Edit offline Shooting completed Edit online Footage prepared for edit Finish on tape Tape finishing Tape editing Receive footage Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing Shooting completed Edit offline Edit online Finish completed Release completed Release on new medium a b c d e f Finish completed Event OR gateway AND gateway XOR gateway Activity Sequence flow X V V Example process family: post-production @ AFTRS
  12. 12. 12 Footage prepared for edit Finish on film Film finishing Film editing Receive footage Shooting completed Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish completed Edit offline Perform neg- matching Footage prepared for edit Film editing V Receive footage Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing V Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish on film Film finishing Finish on tape Transfer in telecine Tape finishing V V Shooting completed Finish completed Edit offline Perform neg- matching Transfer completed Footage prepared for edit Film editing Receive footage Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish on film Film finishing Finish on tape Transfer in telecine Tape finishing X X Shooting completed Finish completed Edit offline Perform neg- matching Transfer completed Edit offline Finish completed Footage prepared for edit Finish on film Film finishing Film editing Receive footage Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing Film shooting Prepare film for editing X X Shooting completed Perform neg- matching Footage prepared for edit Tape editing Receive footage Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish on film Record digital film master Recording finished Film finishing Edit offline Shooting completed Edit online Footage prepared for edit Finish on tape Tape finishing Tape editing Receive footage Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing Shooting completed Edit offline Edit online Finish completed Release completed Release on new medium a b c d e f Finish completed Event OR gateway AND gateway XOR gateway Activity Sequence flow X V V Example process family: post-production @ AFTRS
  13. 13. Group 1: Node Configuration Example: C-iEPCs Edit offline V Footage prepared for edit V Receive footage Shooting completed Film finishing Edit online Perform negmatching Tape editing Film editing Tape finishing Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing V V V Film shooting Prepare film for editing Edited picture Editing notes Temp picture Director Editor Supervisor Producer A. Director 2:5 V V Release completed Finish on film Recording finished Finish completed Film finishing Edit online Perform negmatching Finish on tape Transfer in Telecite Tape editing Film editing Transfer finished Tape finishing Record digital film master V V Release on new medium Edited picture Editing notes A. Director Resource Object n:m Range gateway Arc for optional node Release completed Finish completed Release on new medium Configurable gateway Configurable activity Resource Configurable resource Object Configurable object n:m n:mRange gateway Configurable range gateway Arc for optional node M. Rosemann, W. van der Aalst, A Configurable Reference Modelling Language. Information Systems, 2003 configurable gateway configurable activity configurable object configurable resource
  14. 14. Group 1: Node Configuration Example: C-iEPCs Edit offline V Footage prepared for edit V Receive footage Shooting completed Film finishing Edit online Perform negmatching Tape editing Film editing Tape finishing Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing V V V Film shooting Prepare film for editing Edited picture Editing notes Temp picture Director Editor Supervisor Producer A. Director 2:5 M. Rosemann, W. van der Aalst, A Configurable Reference Modelling Language. Information Systems, 2003 Edit offline Footage prepared for edit Receive footage Shooting completed Edit online Tape editing Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing V Edited picture Temp picture Director Editor
  15. 15. Group 1: Node Configuration Example: C-iEPCs (abstraction via questionnaire models) M. La Rosa, J. Lux, S. Seidel, M. Dumas, A. ter Hofstede, Questionnaire-driven Configuration of Reference Process Models. CAiSE, 2007
  16. 16. Post- production finished New media finish e b4 V Film finish c4 a4 d Tape finish Telecine transfer Record DFM SEQa4 V SEQb4 Tape finish Linking the two models… f6: Home f4: Cinema f5: TV f7: Mobile f8: Internet q2:What are the primary distribution channels? f15: New media finish f13: Tape finish f14: Film finish q5: Which are the expected deliverables? DC6 DC8 MC22 MC25 PC4 DC6: f5 ⇒ f13 DC8: f8 ⇒ f15 MC22: pON ⇔ f13 d MC25: pON ⇔ f15 e PC4: pON ⇒ pSEQ d c4 b4 Domain constraints Mapping Process constraints New media finish
  17. 17. 17 Group 1: Node Configuration Evaluation: C-iEPCs Control-flow Resources Objects Conceptual Executable Restriction Extension Abstraction Guidance Structural Behavioral + + + + - + - + + + + + + + Formalization Implementation Validation Scope Customization Type Supporting techniques Extra-Functional Process Perspective Process Type Decision Support Correctness Support
  18. 18. Synopsis • Customization by restriction • Annotations of model elements (activity, event, sequence flow, resource, object) with domain properties • Assignment via domain conditions (Boolean expressions) • Customization by switching off annotated elements based on which domain properties are selected • Customization may be carried out via domain model (feature model or product hierarchy) • Notation and model transformations are approach-specific Group 2: Element Annotation 18 Element Annotation
  19. 19. Main and subsumed approaches 19 Group 2: Element Annotation Configurative process modeling Superimposed variants aEPCs Gröner et al.
  20. 20. Group 2: Element Annotation Example: Superimposed variants K. Czarnecki, M. Antkiewicz, Mapping Features to Models: A Template Approach Based on Superimposed Variants. GPCE, 2005
  21. 21. 21 Group 2: Activity Specialization Example: Superimposed variants (abstraction via feature models) Picture post-production New mediumFilmTape Finish NegmatchingOnline Offline Cut Editing Transfer Telecine DFM Shooting FilmTape Feature Mandatory Optional XORORAND Picture post-production New mediumFilmTape Finish NegmatchingOnline Cut Editing Transfer Telecine DFM Feature Mandatory Optional XORORAND
  22. 22. 22 Group 2: Element Annotation Evaluation: Superimposed variants Control-flow Resources Objects Conceptual Executable Restriction Extension Abstraction Guidance Structural Behavioral + - - + - + - + - + - + + - Implementation Validation Scope Customization Type Supporting techniques Extra-Functional Process Perspective Process Type Decision Support Correctness Support Formalization
  23. 23. Synopsis • Customization by restriction • Specialization of abstract activities and attributes • Specializations (variants) assigned to abstract activities and attributes • Customization by selecting one or more variants per abstract activity or attribute • Customization may be carried out via domain model (feature model) • Notation: variants connected to abstract activities via arcs • Model transformations are approach-specific Group 3: Activity Specialization 23 Activity Specialization
  24. 24. Main and subsumed approaches 24 Group 3: Activity Specialization PESOA Razavian & Khosravi Cluskys & Caplinskas Kulkarni & Barat BPFM Ripon et al. Nguyen et al. Feature Composition Model
  25. 25. Group 3: Activity Specialization Example: PESOA <<VarPoint>> Prepare medium for editing Edit offline <<Variant>> Prepare film for editing <<Default>> Prepare tape for editing <<Abstract>> Cut picture <<Variant>> Perform negmatching <<Default>> Edit online <<Optional>> Transfer in telecine <<Null>> Transfer tape to film <<VarPoint>> Finish <<Default>> Finish on tape <<Variant>> Finish on film<<Variant>> Record digital film master (b) (a) Receive footage ... <<VarPoint>> ... <<Variant>> ... Start event End event OR gateway Specialization <<Abstract>> ... <<Null>> ... <<Default>> ... Variation points Variants Activity Sequence flow Edit offline <<Default>> Prepare Tape for editing <<Default>> Edit online Receive footage <<Optional>> Release on new medium <<Optional>> ... <<VarPoint>> Prepare medium for editing <<Abstract>> Cut picture <<VarPoint>> Prepare medium for editing Edit offline <<Variant>> Prepare film for editing <<Default>> Prepare tape for editing <<Abstract>> Cut picture <<Variant>> Perform negmatching <<Default>> Edit online <<Optional>> Transfer in telecine <<Null>> Transfer tape to film <<VarPoint>> Finish <<Default>> Finish on tape <<Variant>> Finish on film<<Variant>> Record digital film master (b) (a) Receive footage ... <<VarPoint>> ... <<Variant>> ... Start event End event OR gateway Specialization <<Abstract>> ... <<Null>> ... <<Default>> ... Variation points Variants Activity Sequence flow Edit offline <<Default>> Prepare Tape for editing <<Default>> Edit online Receive footage <<Optional>> Release on new medium <<Optional>> ... <<VarPoint>> Prepare medium for editing <<Abstract>> Cut picture A. Schnieders, F. Puhlmann, Variability Mechanisms in E-Business Process Families. BIS, 2006 <<VarPoint>> Prepare medium for editing Edit offline <<Variant>> Prepare film for editing <<Default>> Prepare tape for editing <<Abstract>> Cut picture <<Variant>> Perform negmatching <<Default>> Edit online <<Optional>> Transfer in telecine <<Null>> Transfer tape to film <<VarPoint>> Finish <<Default>> Finish on tape <<Variant>> Finish on film<<Variant>> Record digital film master (b) (a) Receive footage ... <<VarPoint>> ... <<Variant>> ... Start event End event OR gateway Specialization <<Abstract>> ... <<Null>> ... <<Default>> ... Variation points Variants Activity Sequence flow Edit offline <<Default>> Prepare Tape for editing <<Default>> Edit online Receive footage <<Optional>> Release on new medium <<Optional>> ... <<VarPoint>> Prepare medium for editing <<Abstract>> Cut picture
  26. 26. 26 Group 3: Activity Specialization Evaluation: PESOA Control-flow Resources Objects Conceptual Executable Restriction Extension Abstraction Guidance Structural Behavioral ± - + + - + - + - - - ± ± + Validation Scope Customization Type Supporting techniques Extra-Functional Process Perspective Process Type Decision Support Correctness Support Formalization Implementation
  27. 27. Synopsis • Customization by restriction and extension • Customization of SESE fragments, marked by adjustment points • Customization by applying change operations: DELETE, INSERT, MOVE, REPLACE on fragments, MODIFY on activity attributes • Operations can be organized in operation sequences • Customization may be driven by domain conditions over domain properties • Notation and model transformations are approach-specific Group 4: Fragment Customization 27 Fragment Customization
  28. 28. Main and subsumed approaches 28 Group 4: Fragment Customization Provop vBPMN Santos et al. Machado et al. Template and Rules
  29. 29. Group 4: Fragment Customization Example: Provop Footage prepared for edit Finish on film Film finishing Film editing Receive footage Shooting completed Film shooting Prepare film for editing Finish completed Edit offline Perform negmatchin g t Base model Option1 INSERT Start => z Release new medium Release complete DELETE Option3 INSERT Tape editing Edit online Start => w End => x INSERT Start => y End => n Record digital film master Recording finished INSERT Tape shooting Prepare tape for editing Start => t End => u Option4 INSERT Start => x End => z Finish on tape Transfer in telecine Tape finishing Transfer completed Options u w x y z Start End w x DELETE w z INSERT Tape editing Edit online Start => w End => z Start Tape finishing Finish on tape End Start Start End Start CONTEXT RULE: IF Finish = New medium CONTEXT RULE: IF Shooting = Film AND Edit = Online AND Finish = Film CONTEXT RULE: IF Shooting = ( Tape AND Film ) AND Edit = Offline AND Finish = ( Tape AND Film ) Adjustment point label StartFragment entry End Fragment exit n p End End Start Finish completed End End => p Option2 DELETE z p CONTEXT RULE: IF Shooting = Tape AND Edit = Online AND Finish = Tape Option constraint A. Hallerbach, T. Bauer, M. Reichert, Managing Process Variants in the Process Life Cycle. ICEIS, 2008
  30. 30. 30 Group 4: Fragment Customization Evaluation: Provop Control-flow Resources Objects Conceptual Executable Restriction Extension Abstraction Guidance Structural Behavioral + ± ± + - + + + - - - ± + ± Implementation Validation Scope Customization Type Supporting techniques Extra-Functional Process Perspective Process Type Decision Support Correctness Support Formalization
  31. 31. Totalcitations Control-flow Resources Objects Conceptual Executable Restriction Extension Abstraction Guidance Structural Behavioral C-iEPCs 2003 1,313 C-iEPCs + + + + - + - + + + + + + + Configurative Proc. Modeling 2004 278 eEPCs ± + + + - + + + - ± - - + ± PESOA 2005 226 BPMN, UML ADs ± - + + - + - + - - - ± ± + Superimposed Variants 2005 1,287 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - + - + + - Configurable Workflows 2006 772 C-YAWL, C-SAP, C-BPEL + - - + + + - + + + + + + + ADOM 2007 125 UML ADs, EPCs, BPMN + - - + - + + - - ± - + - ± BPFM 2008 22 UML ADs ± - - + - + + - - - - - ± - Provop 2008 577 Any + ± ± + - + + + - - - ± + ± aEPCs 2009 90 aEPCs ± - - + - + - + - + - + + + Template and Rules 2009 52 Block-structured BPEL ± ± ± + + + + + - + + ± + - Feature Model Composition 2010 29 Any - + + + ± + - - - + + + + - KobrA 2000 297 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - - - - + ± Ciuksys & Caplinskas 2006 15 UML ADs ± - - + - + - + - - - - - - Korherr & List 2007 33 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - - - - - - Razavian & Khosravi 2008 55 UML ADs ± - + + - + - - - - - - - - Kulkarni & Barat 2010 15 BPMN ± - - + - + - - - - - ± - - Ripon et al. 2010 10 UML ADs ± - - + - + - + - - - - - - Santos et al. 2010 22 BPMN + + - + - + + + - - - - - - CoSeNet 2011 34 CoSeNets + - - + ± + + - - + + ± + ± Machado et al. 2011 16 BPMN + - - + ± + + + - - - + ± - Nguyen et al. 2011 27 BPMN ± - + + - + - + - - - - + - vBPMN 2011 36 Block-structured BPMN + - - + ± - + - - + + + + ± Gröner et al. 2013 22 Block-structured BPMN ± - - + - + - + ± - - ± + ± MainSubsumed Extra-Functional Process Perspective Process Type Decision Support Correctness Support Formalization Implementation Validation Approach Yearof primarypublication Processmodeling language Scope Customi- zation Type Supporting techniques Comparative analysis 31
  32. 32. Totalcitations Control-flow Resources Objects Conceptual Executable Restriction Extension Abstraction Guidance Structural Behavioral C-iEPCs 2003 1,313 C-iEPCs + + + + - + - + + + + + + + Configurative Proc. Modeling 2004 278 eEPCs ± + + + - + + + - ± - - + ± PESOA 2005 226 BPMN, UML ADs ± - + + - + - + - - - ± ± + Superimposed Variants 2005 1,287 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - + - + + - Configurable Workflows 2006 772 C-YAWL, C-SAP, C-BPEL + - - + + + - + + + + + + + ADOM 2007 125 UML ADs, EPCs, BPMN + - - + - + + - - ± - + - ± BPFM 2008 22 UML ADs ± - - + - + + - - - - - ± - Provop 2008 577 Any + ± ± + - + + + - - - ± + ± aEPCs 2009 90 aEPCs ± - - + - + - + - + - + + + Template and Rules 2009 52 Block-structured BPEL ± ± ± + + + + + - + + ± + - Feature Model Composition 2010 29 Any - + + + ± + - - - + + + + - KobrA 2000 297 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - - - - + ± Ciuksys & Caplinskas 2006 15 UML ADs ± - - + - + - + - - - - - - Korherr & List 2007 33 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - - - - - - Razavian & Khosravi 2008 55 UML ADs ± - + + - + - - - - - - - - Kulkarni & Barat 2010 15 BPMN ± - - + - + - - - - - ± - - Ripon et al. 2010 10 UML ADs ± - - + - + - + - - - - - - Santos et al. 2010 22 BPMN + + - + - + + + - - - - - - CoSeNet 2011 34 CoSeNets + - - + ± + + - - + + ± + ± Machado et al. 2011 16 BPMN + - - + ± + + + - - - + ± - Nguyen et al. 2011 27 BPMN ± - + + - + - + - - - - + - vBPMN 2011 36 Block-structured BPMN + - - + ± - + - - + + + + ± Gröner et al. 2013 22 Block-structured BPMN ± - - + - + - + ± - - ± + ± MainSubsumed Extra-Functional Process Perspective Process Type Decision Support Correctness Support Formalization Implementation Validation Approach Yearof primarypublication Processmodeling language Scope Customi- zation Type Supporting techniques Comparative analysis 32
  33. 33. Totalcitations Control-flow Resources Objects Conceptual Executable Restriction Extension Abstraction Guidance Structural Behavioral C-iEPCs 2003 1,313 C-iEPCs + + + + - + - + + + + + + + Configurative Proc. Modeling 2004 278 eEPCs ± + + + - + + + - ± - - + ± PESOA 2005 226 BPMN, UML ADs ± - + + - + - + - - - ± ± + Superimposed Variants 2005 1,287 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - + - + + - Configurable Workflows 2006 772 C-YAWL, C-SAP, C-BPEL + - - + + + - + + + + + + + ADOM 2007 125 UML ADs, EPCs, BPMN + - - + - + + - - ± - + - ± BPFM 2008 22 UML ADs ± - - + - + + - - - - - ± - Provop 2008 577 Any + ± ± + - + + + - - - ± + ± aEPCs 2009 90 aEPCs ± - - + - + - + - + - + + + Template and Rules 2009 52 Block-structured BPEL ± ± ± + + + + + - + + ± + - Feature Model Composition 2010 29 Any - + + + ± + - - - + + + + - KobrA 2000 297 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - - - - + ± Ciuksys & Caplinskas 2006 15 UML ADs ± - - + - + - + - - - - - - Korherr & List 2007 33 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - - - - - - Razavian & Khosravi 2008 55 UML ADs ± - + + - + - - - - - - - - Kulkarni & Barat 2010 15 BPMN ± - - + - + - - - - - ± - - Ripon et al. 2010 10 UML ADs ± - - + - + - + - - - - - - Santos et al. 2010 22 BPMN + + - + - + + + - - - - - - CoSeNet 2011 34 CoSeNets + - - + ± + + - - + + ± + ± Machado et al. 2011 16 BPMN + - - + ± + + + - - - + ± - Nguyen et al. 2011 27 BPMN ± - + + - + - + - - - - + - vBPMN 2011 36 Block-structured BPMN + - - + ± - + - - + + + + ± Gröner et al. 2013 22 Block-structured BPMN ± - - + - + - + ± - - ± + ± MainSubsumed Extra-Functional Process Perspective Process Type Decision Support Correctness Support Formalization Implementation Validation Approach Yearof primarypublication Processmodeling language Scope Customi- zation Type Supporting techniques Comparative analysis 33
  34. 34. Totalcitations Control-flow Resources Objects Conceptual Executable Restriction Extension Abstraction Guidance Structural Behavioral C-iEPCs 2003 1,313 C-iEPCs + + + + - + - + + + + + + + Configurative Proc. Modeling 2004 278 eEPCs ± + + + - + + + - ± - - + ± PESOA 2005 226 BPMN, UML ADs ± - + + - + - + - - - ± ± + Superimposed Variants 2005 1,287 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - + - + + - Configurable Workflows 2006 772 C-YAWL, C-SAP, C-BPEL + - - + + + - + + + + + + + ADOM 2007 125 UML ADs, EPCs, BPMN + - - + - + + - - ± - + - ± BPFM 2008 22 UML ADs ± - - + - + + - - - - - ± - Provop 2008 577 Any + ± ± + - + + + - - - ± + ± aEPCs 2009 90 aEPCs ± - - + - + - + - + - + + + Template and Rules 2009 52 Block-structured BPEL ± ± ± + + + + + - + + ± + - Feature Model Composition 2010 29 Any - + + + ± + - - - + + + + - KobrA 2000 297 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - - - - + ± Ciuksys & Caplinskas 2006 15 UML ADs ± - - + - + - + - - - - - - Korherr & List 2007 33 UML ADs + - - + - + - + - - - - - - Razavian & Khosravi 2008 55 UML ADs ± - + + - + - - - - - - - - Kulkarni & Barat 2010 15 BPMN ± - - + - + - - - - - ± - - Ripon et al. 2010 10 UML ADs ± - - + - + - + - - - - - - Santos et al. 2010 22 BPMN + + - + - + + + - - - - - - CoSeNet 2011 34 CoSeNets + - - + ± + + - - + + ± + ± Machado et al. 2011 16 BPMN + - - + ± + + + - - - + ± - Nguyen et al. 2011 27 BPMN ± - + + - + - + - - - - + - vBPMN 2011 36 Block-structured BPMN + - - + ± - + - - + + + + ± Gröner et al. 2013 22 Block-structured BPMN ± - - + - + - + ± - - ± + ± MainSubsumed Extra-Functional Process Perspective Process Type Decision Support Correctness Support Formalization Implementation Validation Approach Yearof primarypublication Processmodeling language Scope Customi- zation Type Supporting techniques Comparative analysis 34
  35. 35. Discussion on research questions 35 RQ1: What are the commonalities and distinctive features of approaches to customizable process modeling? Commonalities • Hosting process modeling language: conceptual • Variation point: control-flow Distinctions • Customization by restriction vs extension • Correctness preservation • Link to domain models
  36. 36. Discussion on research questions 36 RQ2: What criteria can be used to select between different approaches? 1. Choose customization by extension for better maintainability of incrementally growing process model families 2. Choose correctness support for complex process models with many variation points 3. Choose domain link for intricate and inter-dependent customization decisions
  37. 37. Discussion on research questions 37 RQ3: What general limitations or research gaps exist in the literature on customizable process modeling that may require further work? 1. Very limited support for step-by-step guidance and iterative feedback 2. None addresses the question of which customization option leads to a customized model with better performance 3. Scarcity of comparative empirical evaluations (what approach is most usable in practice?) 4. How to construct a customizable process model in the first place, and maintain it over time? performance
  38. 38. A meta-model for Customizable Process Performance Indicators B. Estrada-Torres, A. del-Río-Ortega, M. Resinas, A. Ruiz Cortés: Identifying Variability in Process Performance Indicators. BPM Forum, 2016
  39. 39. Discussion on research questions 39 RQ3: What general limitations or research gaps exist in the literature on customizable process modeling that may require further work? 1. Very limited support for step-by-step guidance and iterative feedback 2. None addresses the question of which customization option leads to a customized model with better performance 3. Scarcity of comparative empirical evaluations (what approach is most usable in practice?) 4. How to construct a customizable process model in the first place, and maintain it over time? How to construct a customizable process model in the first place, and maintain it over time? performance
  40. 40. From modeling to mining of process variants mining Event log 1 Event log 2 Process model 1 Process model 2 merging M. La Rosa, M. Dumas, R. Uba, and R. M. Dijkman. Business Process Model Merging: An Approach to Business Process Consolidation. ACM TOSEM, 2013 Customizable process model L. García-Bañuelos, M. Dumas, M. La Rosa, Jochen De Weerdt, C.C. Ekanayake. Controlled automated discovery of collections of business process models. Information Systems, 2014
  41. 41. From modeling to mining of process variants Customizable process model
  42. 42. From modeling to mining of process variants
  43. 43. Tool support: Apromore (apromore.org) • Open-source BPM analytics platform as Software as a Service • Focus is on end users (business analysts, not data scientists) • 50+ OSGi plugins ! !
  44. 44. 3 parts of 4 weeks each 28 August 2017 Register at
  45. 45. BPM Discipline, IS School Science & Engineering Faculty Queensland University of Technology m.larosa@qut.edu.au marcellolarosa.com

×