An Operational Model of Variable Business Process
Raoul Taffo Tiam
, Abdelhak-Djamel Seriai
and Raphael Michel
LIRMM, University of Montpellier / CNRS, 161 rue Ada, 34090 Montpellier, France
ACELYS, Business Plaza bât. 3 - 159 rue de Thor, 34000 Montpellier, France
Keywords: Business Process, Variability, Reuse, Software Product Line, Operationalization, Standardization,
Completeness, Expressiveness, Separation of Concerns, Feasibility, Industrialization.
Abstract: Software editors concerned to produce faster, better and cheaper, are irreversibly affected by the
development of product lines (software factory). The software product line approach offers techniques to
increase reuse by explicitly modelling the common and variable characteristics. Considering this approach,
the variability is modelled and managed throughout all stages of development. Thus, models of variable
business processes are part of the design artefacts in analysis stage. Several models have been proposed to
represent variable business processes. However, these models are far from being directly usable in real
industrialization of production in software factory. Indeed, deficiencies such as non-representation of
variability on all entities of business processes, not taking into account all the possible types of variability,
or use proprietary languages, prevent those models to be operational. In this paper, we present these barriers
to the operationalization and propose solutions to overcome each of them. The result is an operational model
of variable business process, actually used and integrated in a software factory approach.
A Software Product Line (SPL) is a way to
effectively design a software portfolio, taking full
advantage of the similarities between products,
while respecting and managing their specificities
(van Gurp et al., 2001). The originality of this
approach is that it systematizes reuse, proactive
reuse, through two complementary development
processes: domain and application engineering.
Firstly, domain engineering models reusable
platform from which various products will be built
by explicitly specifying both the common
characteristics (features) and those variable
(specific). It can then produce artefacts (assets) for
all of these characteristics. Secondly, application
engineering allows to derive (configure) a desired
product by selecting the appropriate characteristics
for the proposed platform. Both processes have the
same development activities than conventional
processes, such as specification, analysis, design,
implementation or testing. Thus, artefacts may be,
analysis or design models, design patterns, software
architecture, source code, test plans, testing units,
documentation, etc. (Krueger and Clements, 2013).
Under this approach, models of variable business
process are among the artefacts produced during the
analysis phase. A variable business process (or
reference business process) is the representation of
common and specific elements of several variants of
the same business process. Those different variants,
or this variability, appear because of fluctuations
around the business environment such as legislation,
globalization or rationalization. It is therefore
important for enterprises to be able to withstand
these changes. However, to remain competitive
enterprises need to adapt their business processes
without changing them completely, it is flexibility
(Schmidt et al., 2008). This is made possible through
variable business process. So, it is necessary to
express and manage variability to ensure better
coverage of the target market. A business process
linked to an enterprise information system (IS) or to
a specific application, is a set of more or less related
activities that collectively realize a business goal
while defining the roles and relationships of each
resource. The business process models capture that
coordination of activities. They thus serve as relay
between the requirements specification and software
used to meet these requirements.
«…Significant research efforts have been made
throughout the last decade, leading to an abundant
Taffo Tiam R., Seriai A. and Michel R..
An Operational Model of Variable Business Process.
DOI: 10.5220/0005372301620172
In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2015), pages 162-172
ISBN: 978-989-758-098-7
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
production of variable business process models.»
(La Rosa et al., 2013). Despite this fertility,
modelling variability in business processes remains
a major challenge. Indeed, for such models to be
really used in an industrial context, some properties
are essential. For example, these models should not
be owners, but rather standardized to enable
integration with other artefacts produced at other
development stages. In addition, they must deal with
the variability in its entirety, taking into account all
types of variability, or propose solutions readily
available and maintainable.
Unfortunately, many of the expected properties,
see section 2, are not considered or completed in
variable business process models proposed in the
literature to make them operational (Ayora Esteras,
2011; La Rosa et al., 2013). Our work aims to bear
most of these shortcomings by subscribing to the
following objective: making models of variable
business process operational, i.e. truly usable in a
software factory.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2
outlines obstacles to operationalization of variable
business process models, Section 3 presents our
proposal, Section 4 discusses related work, and
Section 5 concludes the paper.
The goal here is to characterize a solution that takes
into account essential and unavoidable properties to
the operationalization of variable business process
models. In this paper, we mainly consider the
following properties: standardization, completeness,
expressiveness, separation of concerns (requirements
vs business processes), and feasibility (validation
and tools).
2.1 Standardization
To standardize a product is to comply with a given
standard or reference. Such an effort provides many
benefits which rank the reliability, maintainability,
uniformity, interoperability, and the use of good
In a software factory, this criterion is essential as
it brings together several activities and very often
separate processes or existing tools. Therefore, the
flow of information between the individual tools and
its integrity from one tool to another usually follows
the evolution of the tool, it is then performed
improperly or not at all. Due to the lack of adequate
equipped supports and integrated processes (lack of
standardization), the same work is done repeatedly,
with a lack of coherence and synchronization, as
well as duplication.
About the variability we are seeing the
emergence of a standard, CVL – Common
Variability Language (Haugen et al., 2012; Haugen
et al., 2013), proposed for its specification, both
centred at the user level and realization of product. It
is therefore recommended, even required, to refer to
this standard too for specification of variability in
business process models.
2.2 Completeness
The completeness concerns the possibility to specify
the variability in all components of the business
process in which it may appear. The standard ISO
ENV 40003 (ISO, 2002) defines four views
(perspectives) to model enterprise business
processes: functional, informational, organizational
and resources. Thus, a business process is specified
by its activities, events that trigger them, flows that
interconnect them, actors involved, business objects
that are used or produced and control nodes that
coordinate the exchange of information. We must be
able to explain the variability that can occur on any
one of these components.
Partial specification of variability in business
process models is an obstacle to operationalization
because unconsidered components are ignored or at
best, inappropriately treated.
2.3 Expressiveness
The expressiveness of a solution to specify
variability is the ability to express naturally, all types
of variability in variable business process models.
To offer a wide range of natively concepts not only
contributes to the richness of a solution, but also to
its simplicity. This criterion is especially important
in an industrial context, where models are usually
very complex and voluminous.
The general techniques for realization of
variability are processed in (Svahnberg et al., 2005),
and initially categorized by (Schnieders and
Puhlmann, 2006) in the case of business processes.
We consider that the variability can minimally be
expressed by the following forms:
basic: adding / removing / replacing element,
reorganization, typing, setting;
composite: generalization / specialization,
expansion / extension point, composition /
decomposition, generation, pattern design;
or conjunctural: conditional, temporal.
To make operational models of variable business
process, we are therefore concerned by the ability to
express all these forms of variability.
2.4 Separation of Concerns:
Requirements Vs Business
Separation of concerns addresses the ability to
separate components into elementary functions, so
they are considered or performed separately. This
criterion is even more important in industrial world
as it increases the simplicity and reusability of
designed artefacts, reduces errors and promotes
teamwork. Variability discriminates the features of a
product in four categories (van Gurp et al., 2001):
and external.
Considering this decomposition, we evaluate
existing solutions in terms of their compliance with
these categorizations. Thus, for a solution to meet
this criterion of separation of concerns, it is
necessary that the considered elements are not only
internal but also external to business processes.
2.5 Feasibility: Validation and Tools
This last criterion is important for the
operationalization of variable business process
models, and also the applicability and adoption of an
approach in industry. This is why we consider two
aspects of the Feasibility validation (scaling) and
Validation concerns the implementation of the
proposal on a real industrial case, with a preference
when the field is validated by experts or issued from
an authoritative repository. We are also interested in
availability of tools based on the approach.
The smooth adoption and use in industry of
variability specification solution in business process
models strongly depends on the scalability of the
approach and access to tools for implementation.
In the following, we explain our approach as well as
contributions to the operationalization needs initially
3.1 Case Study
To facilitate understanding of our proposition, we
introduce the case study, an industrial project of
software product line in service centre management.
In IT systems, a service centre management tool is
an interface between an IT service supplier, and the
service customer which aims at processing requests
for services through a centralized portal. The
customer contracts a service catalog, allowing him
to choose his service and to know his type
parameters upstream for the control (expenses, unit
of work, statistics ...), rather than ordering services
independently of each other. This tool allows the
service provider to standardize framework for better
management of service requests, capitalize on the
provided services, receive feedback and thus
improve both service delivery and profitability.
The ITIL repository defines twenty-two business
processes for management and optimization of IT
service centres. These business processes involve
either services production, governance or
management of their life cycles, and they harbour
variability. For example, the business process of
Service Request always starts with a Request activity
carried out by the customer, follows up with the
provider’s synchronized activities: Production of
service and a transversal Pilotage. When it is a
normal service requested, Production consists in a
service Realization; if it is an incident, it would
rather be a Reparation; Resolution when it is a
request to solve a problem; and Replacement to a
request for change. All those options for Production
activity are manifestation of variability. Our
approach should allow to express and specify this
variability in a "variable" business process model. In
addition, the model must have required properties
for operationalization.
3.2 Standardization
To specify and represent variability in business
process models, we implement the CVL standard for
specification of variability. CVL is a generic and
independent specification to model the variability in
models throughout any DSL (Domain Specific
Language) defined based on the MOF – Meta Object
Facility (ISO/IEC, 2014). It is representative of
ongoing efforts involving both the academic
community and industry stakeholders to promote the
standardization of variability modelling technology.
This specification includes a CVL meta-model,
semantics and concrete syntax for expressing
variability. CVL consists of three models:
the base model – a model described in UML
(ISO/IEC, 2012), BPMN (ISO/IEC, 2013), or
any other DSL;
the variability model – a model describing the
variability that exists within the base model;
and the resolution model – the model that
describes how to resolve the variability and
create a new model in the base DSL.
The principle of using these models is as follows: a
base model may have more variability models and
each variability model can have multiple resolution
models. With variability model and resolution model
properly defined, the user can run a generic CVL
model-to-model transformation to generate new
resolved models that conform to the base model. To
represent features mandatory or optional, with links
requires, excludes, xor, or… and the cardinality at
user-centred level, concepts such as type, composite
variability, constraint or iterator are offered. While
in product realization, concepts such as placement /
replacement fragment, fragment substitution, value
substitution or reference substitution are proposed to
make the transformation of a variable model in a
resolved one.
Our standardization effort in the variability
specification in variable business process models
consists in projection and adaptation of this CVL
standard to business processes. Thus, we propose
three independent models to specify common,
optional and variable features: a BaseModel from
which it is possible to build one (or more)
VariationModel, which themselves can entail one (or
more) ResolutionModel.
Our basic modelBaseModel – represents the
common characteristics in "families" of business
The variability model – VariationModel
describes the variability in the BaseModel, in other
words the variable characteristics. It indicates that
variability using placement fragments.
The resolution model – ResolutionModel
describes how to resolve the variability and create a
new model in the base DSL. It defines with
replacement fragments, alternatives or options to
resolve the variability indicated by placement
Those three models are represented in a synthetic
model, a "variable model or reference model", which
has both the common features of BaseModel,
optional features of ResolutionModel and variable
features of VariationModel. It is described in a
(Domain Independent Modelling Language),
which we define based on MOF. This business
process modelling language inspired by UML AD
and BPMN regardless of their fields, is proposed to
bring together the respective communities of IT and
business stakeholders. This will be detailed in a
forthcoming article.
To specify variability of our previous case study
example of business process Service Request, we
design its reference or variable business process
model, including features from our three different
models, see Figure 1.
Figure 1: Reference model of business process Service
Request and Pilotage activities are common
features as described before, and Production activity
is variable. Others activities Replacement,
Realization, Resolution and Reparation are options
to replace the variable element.
We use these concepts uniformly for variability
specification in all business process aspects.
3.3 Completeness
As mentioned, variability may appear in all
components of business process, in activities, events,
flow controls or gateways of the same business
process as well as in manipulated objects and
solicited actors. We propose to use our standardized
models consistently across all these components.
Examples of Figure 2 and Figure 3derived from our
case study illustrate the variability that may appear
respectively in the objects (business entities) and
actors (roles). This variability must be specified and
represented in the objects and actors, for example, in
the same manner as in the variable activity of
business process illustrated previously.
Figure 2: Variability appearance in actors.
Figure 3: Variability appearance in objects.
As regards the variability in objects, we obtain the
following reference model, cf. [
Figur]. Variable
object feature is specified with placement fragment
of VariationModel and optional features, Service
and Reparation, are specified with replacement
fragments of ResolutionModel.
Figure 4: Variability specification in objects.
3.4 Expressiveness
Variability is not expressed in the BaseModel which
specifies common features, but rather on variable
and optional features, so respectively through
VariationModel and ResolutionModel.
3.4.1 Expressiveness in VariationModel
To express variability in our VariationModel,
several mechanisms proposed by CVL are
implemented, such as placement fragments that
correspond to the basic category (add / delete /
replace feature).
However, there are different abstraction levels in
business processes, corresponding for example to
encapsulation of business sub-processes. We
introduce two new concepts that specialize the
concept of placement fragment, Variable and
VarPoint, to manage variability specification on
different abstraction levels. Thus, the Variable
concept indicates variability at a high level, while
VarPoint specifies variability at a lowest level. A
Variable feature denotes variability at a high level
and is composed of one or more placement
fragment(s). These concepts belong to the composite
category of variability realization mechanisms.
The example of our case study in figures below,
see Figure 5 and Figure 6, reflects the variability that
appears on different abstraction level in business
process Service Request. Variability which appears
on business activity (sub-process) Pilotage at high
abstraction level is specified by Variable, and
contains a variable task (activity) Crop specified by
VarPoint at low level.
Figure 5: Variable feature – variability specification at
high abstraction level (sub-process).
Environmental factors that characterize the
variability in specified points are reified in item(s)
which belong to VariationModel too, representing
the context of variation – VariationContext. It is
formulated by expressions – ContextExpression,
which are variables of considered domain. This is a
conjunctural mechanism of variability specification,
and conditional category more specifically.
Figure 6: VarPoint feature – variability specification at
low abstraction level (task).
For example in our case study, the availability of
services should be taken into account as shown here
Figure 7, specifying that an Escalation way in
steering is required in case of power failure.
Figure 7: Variation context specification in reference
business process model of Service Request.
3.4.2 Expressiveness in ResolutionModel
Several variability realization mechanisms are also
implemented in our ResolutionModel, like
replacement fragments which correspond to the
basic mechanisms of adding / removing / replacing
artefact. However, these concepts must also be
specialized to match the varying business processes.
Thus, a replacement fragment is either a normal
variant specified by the concept Variant. In certain
case default variant exists (i.e. the mostly used
variant to resolve variability in a business domain)
and is specified with the concept Default. These
replacement fragments are associated with the
variability points they resolve.
In the example (business process Service
Request) of our case study, the different variants
(options) of the variable activity Production are
specified on this variability point, see Figure 8.
Figure 8: Variants and Default specification.
Configuration constraints are also specified in
our ResolutionModel, because they allow the
validation of resolved models and help to automate
the configuration operations. This variability
realization mechanism belongs to the base category
because it refers to reorganization. Constraints may
be specified indiscriminately on variability points
corresponding to variable business process
As an example from our case study, Figure 9, the
constraints indicate that Resolution variants and
Realization are in mutual exclusion, while the choice
of Resolution variant requires the one of Reparation.
Figure 9: Constraints specification in reference model.
To manage the variability throughout the
lifecycle of business process, the variability
resolution time – ResolutionTime, must also be
specified in ResolutionModel. It is a temporal form
of variability, so it corresponds to the conjunctural
category. That time is at analysis / design –
DesignTime, or at execution – RunTime.
In our case study for example, changes, problems
or incidents can be requested as services and thus
specificities will only be known at runtime, so the
variability resolution time is RunTime, see Figure
Figure 10: Resolution time specification in reference
model of business process Service Request.
3.5 Separation of Concerns:
Requirements Vs Business
Elements considered so far to express and represent
the variability within business process models are
internal. We must then identify and treat separately
the external factors related to variability
specification in business process models. In our
concern, these external factors are requirements.
Indeed in software factory activities, requirements
specification precedes the modelling of variable
business processes. Thus, during the product
development, requirements specification according
to customer particular needs influences the
variability resolution in models of variable business
This approach matches external features
proposed in (van Gurp et al., 2001) article, with the
particularity that information discriminated as
external features in variable business process models
is requirements. Therefore, when those features
(requirements) are taken into account, they should
not be buried within the variable business process
models but reified in a separate model, see Figure
11. In fact, this solution must be structured through a
traceability link proposal, particularly between
variable models of requirements and business
Figure 11: Separation of concerns.
Now, choices of upstream requirements allow
obtaining new constraints to consider for variability
resolution of downstream variable business
processes. This separation effort is essential for the
reasons mentioned above in description of
operational properties expected in variable business
process models. Furthermore, automation of the
variability resolution in software factories also
requires consideration of such factors separately
from variable business process models.
3.6 Feasibility: Validation and Tools
To rate the soundness of our approach, we
implement it through a prototype and also validate it
on an industrial case.
3.6.1 Tools
We develop a prototype to implement our approach
using Eclipse PDE (Plugin Development
Environment) with an Eclipse RCP (Rich Client
Platform) as target environment. Developments are
based on EMF (Eclipse Modelling Framework),
GMF (Graphical Modelling Framework) and OCL
(Object Constraint Language) (ISO/IEC, 2012).
EMF is used to define the abstract syntax, GMF the
concrete syntax and OCL specifies static semantics,
see Figure 12.
Component 1 defines vocabulary (concepts) and
semantics of our modelling language (DIML) of
variable business processes. Its development is
based on the EMF framework. The sub-component 1
translates in OCL the rules and constraints to resolve
variability. Component 2 defines the notation
corresponding to previously proposed vocabulary. It
is developed using the GMF framework. Component
3 designs the target platform for using previous
components and model variable business processes.
It creates four different views (perspectives) and
toolboxes for designing these models. Its
development is based on Eclipse RCP technology.
Designed variable business process models are
persisted in files conforming to standard XMI (XML
Metadata Interchange).
Figure 12: Prototype architecture.
3.6.2 Validation
The complete approach we propose has been
implemented to specify the variability of business
processes in an industrial case study described
above. We illustrate some of the most representative
results obtained with the prototype.
The reference model of transverse business sub-
process Pilotage is set in Figure 13 with some
configuration constraints. These constraints are
translated into OCL to automate the validation of
configurations. The commitment deadlines relating
to service level agreement are TTO (Time To Own)
and TTR (Time To Realize / Repair / Resolve /
Replace), where TTR is variable.
Figure 14: Extract of reference model of variable business
process named Service Request.
Figure 15: Realization – default variant of Production.
We are able to specify and represent all the
variability that appears in the service centre business
processes. The resulting models were taken over and
integrated by business referents and the other
stakeholders of project owners (client). Following
different learning curves, these models were used by
the engineers of the company (service provider) to
support analysis before developing the final product.
Several research studies have focused on the
variability specification within business processes.
We selected five of the most significant and
representative approaches. C-EPCs (Configurable
Event-driven Process Chains) proposed by
Rosemann and van der Aalst (2003), then enriched
by La Rosa et al., (2008; 2011) with the language
Figure 13: Details of reference model of variable business sub-process Pilotage with some constraints.
C-iEPCs (C integrated EPCs); PESOA approach or
VRPM (Variant-Rich Process Models) (Puhlmann et
al., 2005; Schnieders and Puhlmann, 2006); BPFM
(Business-Process Family Model) (Park et al.,
2009); PROVOP (PROcess Variants by OPtions)
approach (Hallerbach et al., 2010); and Ayora et al.,
works (Ayora Esteras, 2011; Ayora et al., 2012). We
analyse the shortcomings of these approaches to the
operationalization properties of the models they
4.1 Standardization
The C-EPCs approach uses its own C-iEPCs
language for modelling variable business processes,
making it an ad-hoc and proprietary solution which
entails standardization.
This criterion is considered in VRPM and BPFM
approaches which offer possibilities to use standards
like BPMN or UML AD by proposing independent
solutions of the business process modelling
language. Therefore, they do not use the standard for
variability specification, but languages inspired by
FODA – Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (Kang,
and al., 1990) called «FODA-like» languages.
The PROVOP approach defines a set of
structured blocks among others to represent the base
model, its options and configuration context. It is an
ad-hoc and owner language, thereby giving
unstandardized properties.
Ayora et al., propose a solution independent of
the business process modelling language and push
this effort to standardize the variability specification
language. However to specify variability, they use
two formalisms: CVL standard and a FODA-like
language. This clearly indicates a lack of uniformity
in their variable business processes models, and a
lack of standardization as well.
4.2 Completeness
With contributions of La Rosa and al., the C-EPCs
approach allows to specify variability in roles
(organizational resources) and manipulated objects.
So, this approach is able to specify variability in
every business process component, that is
VRPM approach does not allow to specify
variability in control nodes (gateways), nor in the
organizational resources (actors and roles).
BPFM approach can only specify variability in
variable flow and activities of the business process,
so it does not consider all business process
components where variability can appear.
In PROVOP it is only possible to specify the
variability points at input or output of control nodes.
Therefore, variability specification in organizational
resources and objects is only partially treated as they
are modelled as activities attributes.
Ayora et al., take this criterion into account from
the beginning and manage all component parts of
business processes, allowing them to validate
completeness in variability specification.
4.3 Expressiveness
In C-EPCs it is possible to specify a variable model
composed by union of all variants, which ignores for
example information on reference model or default
variants. This approach uses few basic mechanisms
of realization of variability but not composite nor
conjunctural technics.
VRPM approach models a reference business
process in which it is possible to specify common,
optional, variable, and default elements, as well as
variability points. They use basic and composite
mechanisms for realization of variability but not
conjunctural ones.
BPFM is an approach that perceives the basic
variability realization technics, but we deplore
absence of several composite and conjunctural
The PROVOP approach offers basic mechanisms
of variability realization but suffers from
shortcomings regarding composite and conjunctural
Ayora et al., works are expressive enough but
that expressiveness failed for example to indicate
variability on different abstraction levels such as
with encapsulation (not achieving all composite
variability mechanisms).
4.4 Separation of Concerns:
Requirements vs Business
On this property we note that apart from the C-EPCs
approach, there is no solution in related works that
satisfies this separation of concerns between features
of requirements and variable business processes.
Indeed, in existing models of variable business
processes the features considered are mainly internal
to business process like uncorrelated to other
artefacts produced by related activities of software
factory as requirements specification or design. In
the best case of C-EPCs approach those features are
considered but buried within variable business
process models.
4.5 Feasibility: Validation and Tools
C-EPCs approach satisfies both aspects of feasibility
since it has been validated on a real case from film
industry and is implemented by Synergia tool.
The VRPM approach for its part has been
applied to an industrial hotel reservation case but is
only partially implemented by an Eclipse plugin.
Meanwhile BPFM approach is not validated on
an industrial case yet and its implementation via an
Eclipse plugin is partial.
The PROVOP approach is partially implemented
by ARIS tool and has two applications cases in
automotive and health domains. However, the areas
of these industrial cases were not validated by
domain experts or issued from an authoritative
Finally Ayora et al., works are applied to a
business process of admission in university, so it is
not an industrial case, and its implementation via the
MOSKitt tool is not available yet.
4.6 Synthesis
We analyse state of the art solutions in terms of key
properties for industrialization of variable business
process models. This assessment is summarized in
the table below where scores are assigned based on
the level of satisfaction of the above properties.
Abbreviations: Standardization (Sta),
Completeness (Com), Expressiveness (Exp),
Separation of Concerns (Sep), Feasibility (Fea).
Table 1: Evaluation of existing approaches.
Sta Com Exp Sep Fea
C-EPCs 0 1 ½ ½ 1
VRPM 0 0 ½ 0 ½
BPFM 0 0 ½ 0 0
PROVOP 0 ½ ½ 0 ½
Ayora and al. ½ 1 ½ 0 0
Our Approach 1 1 1 1 1
0 unsatisfied property;
½ property partially satisfied;
1 satisfied property.
We note that no other approach than ours
satisfies all the required properties for an operational
model of variable business process, in fact they all
have at least one unsatisfied property. Thus, our
proposal for variability specification in business
processes addresses an issue where the challenge
remains topical.
We performed an independent solution of business
process modelling compatible with standards such as
BPMN and UML. Our approach for variability
specification in business process models satisfies the
key properties required for operationalization
(effective use) of designed models in software
factories. Indeed, we project the CVL standard for
variability specification and adapt it to business
processes. The standard is used uniformly on all
variable business process component. This is the
standardization property. We take into account all
business process components in which variability
may appear: completeness. Our proposition offers a
native and natural way to specify all forms of
variability throughout the lifecycle of business
processes: expressiveness. Our approach provides a
beneficial separation of concerns, separating features
from requirements and variable business processes
in separate models which contribute to modularity.
Finally, we take advantage of the enterprise context
of this research to apply our proposals to a case
study corresponding to a real industrial project. To
further validate the feasibility of our approach, we
prototype a tool that supports our proposition.
In our further work we will address the problem
of traceability between requirements and
development models, particularly variable business
process models. As requirements specification
remains a separate activity from the design and
implementation of software in the development
process, this separation negatively impacts product
quality and customer satisfaction. It is then required
to operationalize the requirements specification and
identify at the same time traceability links between
requirements and variable business process,
allowing to take into account these external features
in variability resolution. In fact, the explicit
management of such information is a decision
support for the selection of appropriate variants. It
can help in monitoring the fulfilment of
requirements of product or customer as well as the
computation of impact in cost and delays for
We would like to thank the National Association of
Research and Technology (ANRT in French) for its
contribution to this research.
Ayora Esteras, C., 2011. Modeling and Managing
Variability in Business Process Models, Valencia:
Polytechnic University of Valencia.
Ayora, C., Torres, V., Pelechano, V. & Alférez, G. H.,
2012. Applying CVL to Business Process Variability
Management. New York, NY, ACM, pp. 26-31.
Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T. & Reichert, M., 2010. Capturing
Variability in Business Process Models: The Provop
Approach. Journal of Software Maintenance and
Evolution, XXII(6-7), pp. 519-546.
Haugen, O., Wasowsk, A. & Czarnecki, K., 2012. CVL -
Common Variability Language. Proceedings of the
16th International Software Product Line Conference
(SPLC '12).
Haugen, O., Wasowski, A. & Czarnecki, K., 2013. CVL:
Common Variability Language. New York, NY,
ACM, pp. 277-277.
ISO/IEC, 2012. Object Constraint Language (OCL) 2.3.1.
Information Technology - Object Management Group
ISO/IEC, 2012. Unified Modeling Language (UML) 2.4.1.
Information Technology - Object Management Group
ISO/IEC, 2013. Business Process Model and Notation
(BPMN) 2.0.1. Information Technology - Object
Management Group (OMG).
ISO/IEC, 2014. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core 2.4.2.
Information Technology - Object Management Group
ISO, 2002. Enterprise Integration - Framework for
Enterprise Modeling. International Standardization
Kang, K. C. and al., 1990. Feature-Oriented Domain
Analysis (FODA): Feaseability Study. Technical
Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21 ESD-90-TR-222.
Krueger, C. & Clements, P., 2013. Systems and Software
Product Line Engineering with BigLever Software
Gears. New York, NY, ACM, pp. 136-140.
La Rosa, M. and al., 2008. Beyond Control-Flow:
Extending Business Process Configuration to Roles
and Objects. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Volume 5231, pp. 199-215.
La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A. H. & Mendling,
J., 2011. Configurable multi-perspective business
process models. Information Systems, XXXVI(2), pp.
La Rosa, M., van der Aalst, W. M., Dumas, M. & Milani,
F. P., 2013. Business Process Variability Modeling: A
Survey, Brisbane: QUT ePrints.
Park, J., Moon, M., Yun, S. & Yeom, K., 2009. An
Approach to Enhancing Reusabilities in Service
Development. New York, NY, ACM, pp. 143-150.
Puhlmann, F., Schnieders, A., Weiland, J. & Weske, M.,
2005. Variability Mechanisms for Process Models,
s.l.: PESOA (Process family Engineering in Service-
Oriented Applications).
Rosemann, M. & van der Aalst, W. M., 2003. A
Configurable Reference Modeling Language.
Information Systems, XXXII(1), pp. 1-23.
Schmidt, R., Regev, G. & Soffer, P., 2008. Requirements
for Flexibility and the Ways to Achieve It.
International Journal on Business Process Integration
and Management, III(1), pp. 1-4.
Schnieders, A. & Puhlmann, F., 2006. Variability
Mechanisms in E-Business Process Families. pp. 583-
Svahnberg, M., van Gurp, J. & Bosch, J., 2005. A
Taxonomy of Variability Realization Techniques:
Research Articles. Software - Practice & Experience,
35(8), pp. 705-754.
van Gurp, J., Bosch, J. & Svahnberg, M., 2001. On the
Notion of Variability in Software Product Lines.
Washington, DC, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 45.