Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Workshop on Enterprise and Organizational Modeling and Simulation

EOMAS 2016: Enterprise and Organizational Modeling and Simulation pp 3–21Cite as

Towards Simulation- and Mining-Based Translation of Process Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 272))

Abstract

Process modeling is usually done using imperative modeling languages like BPMN or EPCs. In order to cope with the complexity of human-centric and flexible business processes several declarative process modeling languages (DPMLs) have been developed during the last years. DPMLs allow for the specification of constraints that restrict execution flows. They differ widely in terms of their level of expressiveness and tool support. Furthermore, research has shown that the understandability of declarative process models is rather low. Since there are applications for both classes of process modeling languages, there arises a need for an automatic translation of process models from one language into another. Our approach is based upon well-established methodologies in process management for process model simulation and process mining without requiring the specification of model transformation rules. In this paper, we present the technique in principle and evaluate it by transforming process models between two exemplary process modeling languages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The BPMN 2.0 standard is available at http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/.

  2. 2.

    Declare does not distinguish between different transaction types.

  3. 3.

    KPI = Key Performance Indicator (used in performance measurement to rate success regarding a particular ambition).

  4. 4.

    Log available at: http://www.win.tue.nl/bpi/doku.php?id=2014:challenge.

  5. 5.

    ICT = Information and Communication Technology.

References

  1. Jablonski, S.: MOBILE: a modular workflow model and architecture. In: Working Conference on Dynamic Modelling and Information Systems (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  2. van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support. CSRD 23(2), 99–113 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Vaculín, R., Hull, R., Heath, T., Cochran, C., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.: Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. In: EDOC, pp. 151–160 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pesic, M., Aalst, W.M.P.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Reichert, M., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 256, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11837862_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T., Zanitti, F.: Contracts for cross-organizational workflows as timed dynamic condition response graphs. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 82(5), 164–185 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Zeising, M., Schönig, S., Jablonski, S.: Towards a common platform for the support of routine and agile business processes. In: CollaborateCom (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Prescher, J., Di Ciccio, C., Mendling, J.: From declarative processes to imperative models. In: SIMPDA, pp. 162–173 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wimmer, M., Strommer, M., Kargl, H., Kramler, G.: Towards model transformation generation by-example. In: HICSS, pp. 285–294 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sun, Y., White, J., Gray, J.: Model transformation by demonstration. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 712–726. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Giacomo, G., Dumas, M., Maggi, F.M., Montali, M.: Declarative process modeling in BPMN. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 84–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Fahland, D., Lübke, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of understandability. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process simulation revisited. In: Barjis, J., Pergl, R., Babkin, E. (eds.) EOMAS 2015. LNBIP, vol. 231, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15723-3_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Stewart, R.: Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use. Wiley, Hoboken (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. van der Aalst, W.: Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes, vol. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Weijters, A., Ribeiro, J.: Flexible heuristics miner (FHM). In: CIDM, pp. 310–317 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Maggi, F., Mooij, A., van der Aalst, W.: User-guided discovery of declarative process models. In: CIDM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Di Ciccio, C., Mecella, M.: On the discovery of declarative control flows for artful processes. TMIS 5(4), 24:1–24:37 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schönig, S., Rogge-Solti, A., Cabanillas, C., Jablonski, S., Mendling, J.: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 2015, Stockholm, Sweden, 8–12 June 2015 (2015, in press)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schönig, S., Cabanillas, C., Jablonski, S., Mendling, J.: Mining the organisational perspective in agile business processes. In: Schmidt, R., Guédria, W., Bider, I., Guerreiro, S. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD 2016. LNBIP, vol. 248, pp. 37–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19237-6_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Aalst, W.M.P.: Handbook on Business Process Management: Introduction, Methods, and Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Leemans, S.J.J., Fahland, D., Aalst, W.M.P.: Discovering block-structured process models from incomplete event logs. In: Ciardo, G., Kindler, E. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8489, pp. 91–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07734-5_6

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nakatumba, J., Rozinat, A., Russell, N.: Business process simulation: how to get it right. In: International Handbook on BPM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ciccio, C., Bernardi, M.L., Cimitile, M., Maggi, F.M.: Generating event logs through the simulation of declare models. In: Barjis, J., Pergl, R., Babkin, E. (eds.) EOMAS 2015. LNBIP, vol. 231, pp. 20–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24626-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Westergaard, M.: Better algorithms for analyzing and enacting declarative workflow languages using LTL. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 83–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23059-2_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Maggi, F.M., Bose, R.P.J.C., Aalst, W.M.P.: Efficient discovery of understandable declarative process models from event logs. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 270–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31095-9_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Maggi, F.M.: Declarative process mining with the declare component of ProM. In: BPM (Demos) (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Westergaard, M., Stahl, C.: Leveraging super-scalarity and parallelism to provide fast declare mining without restrictions. Theor. Math. Phys. 181(2), 1418–1427 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Uhlmann, E., Gabriel, C., Raue, N.: An automation approach based on workflows and software agents for industrial product-service systems. CIRP 30, 341–346 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dongen, B.F., Medeiros, A.K.A., Verbeek, H.M.W., Weijters, A.J.M.M., Aalst, W.M.P.: The ProM framework: a new era in process mining tool support. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 444–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/11494744_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Conforti, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., La Rosa, M.: BPMN miner: automated discovery of BPMN process models with hierarchical structure. Inf. Syst. 56, 284–303 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Van der Aalst, W., Adriansyah, A., van Dongen, B.: Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. DM KD 2(2), 182–192 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rodrigues, R., Azevedo, L.G., Revoredo, K., Barros, M.O., Leopold, H.: BPME: an experiment on process model understandability using textual work instructions and BPMN Models. In: SBES (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fahland, D.: Towards analyzing declarative workflows. In: Autonomous and Adaptive Web Services. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceed, vol. 07061. IBFI, Germany (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Recker, J.C., Mendling, J.: On the translation between BPMN AND BPEL: conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages. In: CAISE Workshops, pp. 521–532 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany

    Lars Ackermann, Stefan Schönig & Stefan Jablonski

  2. Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria

    Stefan Schönig

Authors
  1. Lars Ackermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Schönig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Jablonski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Ackermann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Robert Pergl

  2. Czech Technical University in Prague , Prague, Czech Republic

    Martin Molhanec

  3. National Research University Higher School of Economics, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia

    Eduard Babkin

  4. Toulouse Business School, Toulouse University, Toulouse, France

    Samuel Fosso Wamba

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ackermann, L., Schönig, S., Jablonski, S. (2016). Towards Simulation- and Mining-Based Translation of Process Models. In: Pergl, R., Molhanec, M., Babkin, E., Fosso Wamba, S. (eds) Enterprise and Organizational Modeling and Simulation. EOMAS 2016. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 272. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49454-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49454-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49453-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49454-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation