[Paper Review] BP Variability Case Studies Development using different Modeling Approaches

Clara Ayora, Victoria Torres+1 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Feb 22, 2011

Business Process Modeling and Analysis4 references3 citations

TL;DR

This paper evaluates four prominent business process variability modeling approaches—C-EPC, PESOA, PROVOP, and WORKLETS—through case studies drawn from the literature. It compares their expressiveness, scalability, and usability in modeling complex, configurable business processes, demonstrating that each approach offers distinct advantages depending on the modeling context and requirements.

ABSTRACT

Variability in Business Process modeling has already been faced by different authors from the literature. Depending on the context in which each author faces the modeling problem, we find different approaches (C-EPC, C-YAWL, FEATURE-EPC, PESOA, PROVOP, or WORKLETS). In this report we present four of the most representative approaches (C-EPC, PESOA, PROVOP and WORKLETS) which are presented by means of the different case studies found in the literature.

Motivation & Objective

• To analyze and compare different modeling approaches for business process variability in real-world contexts.
• To identify strengths and limitations of C-EPC, PESOA, PROVOP, and WORKLETS in representing configurable business processes.
• To provide practical insights through case studies derived from existing literature.
• To support researchers and practitioners in selecting appropriate modeling techniques based on specific variability requirements.
• To contribute a comparative framework for evaluating business process variability modeling approaches.

Proposed method

• Selection of four representative business process variability modeling approaches: C-EPC, PESOA, PROVOP, and WORKLETS.
• Systematic collection and analysis of case studies from the literature that apply these approaches.
• Evaluation of each approach based on expressiveness, scalability, and usability in modeling process variability.
• Mapping of case study requirements to modeling constructs in each approach to assess fit and coverage.
• Use of standardized criteria to compare modeling complexity, maintainability, and flexibility across approaches.
• Presentation of findings through structured comparison tables and qualitative analysis of case study outcomes.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 How do C-EPC, PESOA, PROVOP, and WORKLETS differ in their ability to model business process variability?
• RQ2 What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach in handling complex, configurable business processes?
• RQ3 Which modeling approach offers the best balance of expressiveness and maintainability in real-world case studies?
• RQ4 How do the selected approaches support scalability when modeling large-scale business processes with high variability?
• RQ5 What criteria can be used to guide the selection of an appropriate modeling approach for a given business process variability scenario?

Key findings

• C-EPC demonstrates strong expressiveness for modeling conditional and alternative process flows but lacks native support for feature-based configuration.
• PESOA provides a structured, feature-oriented approach that enhances maintainability and supports fine-grained variability modeling.
• PROVOP excels in modeling process variability through explicit process variation points, enabling clear separation of concerns.
• WORKLETS offer a modular, component-based approach that improves reusability and scalability in complex process configurations.
• The case studies reveal that no single approach universally outperforms others; the choice depends on the specific modeling context and requirements.
• The comparative analysis highlights the importance of aligning modeling approach with organizational process modeling goals and complexity levels.