The document discusses approaches for customizable process modeling. It presents a taxonomy that categorizes approaches based on how they achieve customization - through node configuration, element annotation, or activity specialization. Examples are provided for each category, including Configurable EPCs for node configuration and superimposed variants for element annotation. Evaluation criteria for the approaches are also discussed.

1. Copyright 2015
Marcello LaRosa
BPMDiscipline, Information SystemsSchool
Queensland University ofTechnology

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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Main and subsumed approaches
9
Group 1: Node Configuration
C-iEPCs
KobrA
Korherr & List
Configurable
Workflows
CoSeNet
ADOM

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
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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. Main and subsumed approaches
19
Group 2: Element Annotation
Configurative
process
modeling
Superimposed
variants
aEPCs
Gröner et al.

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
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
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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. Main and subsumed approaches
28
Group 4: Fragment Customization
Provop
vBPMN
Santos et
al.
Machado
et al.
Template and
Rules

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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. From modeling to mining of process variants
Customizable
process model

42. From modeling to mining of process variants

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. 3 parts of 4 weeks each
28 August 2017
Register at

45. BPM Discipline, IS School
Science & Engineering Faculty
Queensland University of Technology
m.larosa@qut.edu.au
marcellolarosa.com