Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 257–277 | Cite as

Integrating business process simulation and information system simulation for performance prediction

  • Robert Heinrich
  • Philipp Merkle
  • Jörg Henss
  • Barbara Paech
Regular Paper


Business process (BP) designs and enterprise information system (IS) designs are often not well aligned. Missing alignment may result in performance problems at run-time, such as large process execution time or overloaded IS resources. The complex interrelations between BPs and ISs are not adequately understood and considered in development so far. Simulation is a promising approach to predict performance of both BP and IS designs. Based on prediction results, design alternatives can be compared and verified against requirements. Thus, BP and IS designs can be aligned to improve performance. In current simulation approaches, BP simulation and IS simulation are not adequately integrated. This results in limited prediction accuracy due to neglected interrelations between the BP and the IS in simulation. In this paper, we present the novel approach Integrated Business IT Impact Simulation (IntBIIS) to adequately reflect the mutual impact between BPs and ISs in simulation. Three types of mutual impact between BPs and ISs in terms of performance are specified. We discuss several solution alternatives to predict the impact of a BP on the performance of ISs and vice versa. It is argued that an integrated simulation of BPs and ISs is best suited to reflect their interrelations. We propose novel concepts for continuous modeling and integrated simulation. IntBIIS is implemented by extending the Palladio tool chain with BP simulation concepts. In a real-life case study with a BP and IS from practice, we validate the feasibility of IntBIIS and discuss the practicability of the corresponding tool support.


Business process Information system Alignment  Performance 



The authors thank Thor GmbH for giving us the opportunity to apply IntBIIS in a real-life case study. We also give thanks to the anonymous reviewers and to Ralf Reussner for review and valuable comments. This work is partially supported by the DFG (German Research Foundation) in the Priority Program SPP 1593: Design For Future—Managed Software Evolution.


  1. 1.
    Aerts, A.T.M., Goossenaerts, J.B.M., Hammer, D.K., Wortmann, J.C.: Architectures in context: on the evolution of business, application software, and ICT platform architectures. Inf. Manag. 41(6), 781–794 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barjis, J.: The importance of business process modeling in software systems design. Sci. Comput. Program. 71(1), 73–87 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bause, F.: Queueing Petri Nets—a formalism for the combined qualitative and quantitative analysis of systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models, pp. 14–23 (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, S., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: The Palladio component model for model-driven performance prediction. J. Syst. Softw. 82, 3–22 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Betz, S., Burger, E., Eckert, A., Oberweis, A., Reussner, R., Trunko, R.: An approach for integrated lifecycle management for business processes and business software. In: Mistrík, I., Tang, A., Bahsoon, R., Stafford, J.A. (eds.) Aligning Enterprise, System, and Software Architectures. IGI Global, Hershey (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Böhme, R., Reussner, R.: Validation of predictions with measurements. In: Eusgeld, I., Freiling, F.C., Reussner, R. (eds.) Dependability Metrics. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brosch, F., Koziolek, H., Buhnova, B., Reussner, R.: Architecture-based reliability prediction with the Palladio component model. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38(6), 1319–1339 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A.: BPMN: an introduction to the standard. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 34(1), 124–134 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davenport, T.: Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehlers, J., Hasselbring, W.: A self-adaptive monitoring framework for component-based software systems. In: Crnkovic, I., Gruhn, V., Book, M. (eds.) ECSA, Volume 6903 of LNCS, pp. 278–286. Springer, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eichelberger, H., Schmid, K.: Flexible resource monitoring of Java programs. J. Softw. Syst. 93, 163–186 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franks, G.: Simulating layered queueing networks with passive resources. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Symposium on Theory of Modeling and Simulation, pp 8–15. Society for Computer Simulation International (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giaglis, G.M., Paul, R.J., O’Keefe, R.M.: Research note: integrating business and network simulation models for IT investment evaluation. Logist. Inf. Manag. 12, 108–117 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gladwin, B., Tumay, K.: Modeling business processes with simulation tools. In: Manivannan, M.S., Tew, J.D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Winter Simulation, pp. 114–121. Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graupner, S., Rolia, J., Edwards, N.: Deriving IT configurations from business processes. In: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on E-Commerce Technology and the 5th Conference on Enterprise Computing, pp. 317–322. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guceglioglu, A.: A Pre-enactment Model for Measuring Process Quality. PhD Thesis, METU (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hasselbring, W., Heinrich, R., Jung, R., Metzger, A., Pohl, K., Reussner, R., Schmieders, E.: iObserve: integrated observation and modeling techniques to support adaptation and evolution of software systems. Research report, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heinrich, R.: Aligning Business Process Quality and Information System Quality. PhD Thesis, Software Engineering Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heinrich, R., Henss, J., Paech, B.: Extending Palladio by business process simulation concepts. In: Becker, S., Happe, J., Koziolek, A., Reussner, R. (eds.) Palladio Days 2012 Proceedings, pp. 19–27. (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heinrich, R., Kappe, A., Paech, B.: Modeling quality information within business process models. In: Wagner, S. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th SQMB Workshop, pp. 4–13. TUM-I1104 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heinrich, R., Kappe, A., Paech, B.: Tool support for the comprehensive modeling of quality information within business process models. In: Nüttgens, M., Thomas, O., Weber, B. (eds.) Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architecture, LNI Vol. P-190, pp. 213–218. GI (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heinrich, R., Paech, B.: Defining the quality of business processes. In: Engels, G., Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) Modellierung 2010, LNI Vol. P-161, pp. 133–148. GI (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heinrich, R., Paech, B.: On the prediction of the mutual impact of business processes and enterprise information systems. In: Kowalewski, S., Rumpe, B. (eds.) Software Engineering 2013, LNI Vol. P-239, pp. 157–170 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heinrich, R., Schmieders, E., Jung, R., Rostami, K., Metzger, A., Hasselbring, W., Reussner, R., Pohl, K.: Integrating run-time observations and design component models for cloud system analysis. In: Götz, S., Bencomo, N., France, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Models at run.time, pp. 41–46. (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herbst, J., Junginger, S., Kühn, H.: Simulation in financial services with the business process management system ADONIS. In: Hahn, W., Lehmann, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th European Simulation Symposium, pp. 491–495. Society for Computer Simulation (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kounev, S., Dutz, C.: QPME—a performance modeling tool based on queueing Petri Nets. ACM SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 36(4), 46–51 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: A model transformation from the palladio component model to layered queueing networks. In: Kounev, S., Gorton, I., Sachs, K. (eds.) Performance Evaluation: Metrics, Models and Benchmarks, Volume 5119 of LNCS, pp. 58–78. Springer, Berlin (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Law, A.M., Kelton, W.D.: Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw-Hill Series in Industrial Engineering and Management Science. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lazowska, E.D., Zahorjan, J., Graham, G.S., Sevcik, K.C.: Quantitative System Performance Computer System Analysis Using Queueing Network Models. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1984)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Martens, A.: Empirical Validation of the Model-Driven Performance Prediction Approach Palladio. Master’s thesis, University of Oldenburg (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meier, P., Kounev, S., Koziolek, H.: Automated transformation of Palladio component models to queueing Petri Nets. In: 19th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Merkle, P., Henss, J.: EventSim—an event-driven Palladio software architecture simulator. In: Becker, S., Happe, J., Reussner, R. (eds.) Palladio Days 2011 Proceedings, pp. 15–22 (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mi, N., Casale, G., Cherkasova, L., Smirni, E.: Burstiness in multi-tier applications: symptoms, causes, and new models. In: Issarny, V., Schantz, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Middleware, pp. 265–286. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nakatumba, J., Aalst, W.: Analyzing resource behavior using process mining. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009 Workshops, Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Business Process Intelligence, volume 43 of LNBIP, pp. 69–80. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Object Management Group (OMG). Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. Technical report (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Painter, M.K., Fernandes, R., Padmanaban, N., Mayer, R.: A methodology for integrating business process and information infrastructure models. In: Charnes, J.M., Morrice, D.J., Brunner, D.T., Swain, J.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Winter Simulation, pp. 1305–1312. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Petty, M.D., Kim, J., Barbosa, S.E., Pyun, J.-J.: Software frameworks for model composition. Model. Simul. Eng. 2014, 18 (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rolia, J., Sevcik, K.: The method of layers. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21(8), 689–700 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rozinat, A., Wynn, M., Aalst, W., Hofstede, A., Fidge, C.: Workflow Simulation for Operational Decision Support Using YAWL and ProM. BPM Center Report BPM-08-04 (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rubner, Y., Puzicha, J., Tomasi, C., Buhmann, J.M.: Empirical evaluation of dissimilarity measures for color and texture. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 84(1), 25–43 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C., Guibas, L.: A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 59–66. IEEE (1998)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Runeson, P., Host, M., Rainer, A., Regnell, B.: Case Study Research in Software Engineering: Guidelines and Examples. Wiley, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schroeder, B., Gibson, G.A.: Disk failures in the real world: what does an MTTF of 1,000,000 hours mean to you? In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on File and Storage Technologies, pp. 1–16. USENIX Association (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Serrano, A., den Hengst, M.: Modelling the integration of BP and IT using business process simulation. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 18, 740–759 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Simulation Interoperability Standards Committee. IEEE standard for modeling and simulation High Level Architecture (HLA)—Framework and Rules (2000)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Smith, C.: Performance Engineering of Software Systems. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1990)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Song, J., Luo, T., Chen, S.: Behavior pattern mining: apply process mining technology to common event logs of information systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, pp. 1800–1805. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tan, Y., Takakuwa, S.: Predicting the impact on business performance of enhanced information system using business process simulation. In: Henderson, S.G., Biller, B., Hsieh, M.-H., Shortle, J., Tew, J.D., Barton, R.R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 39th Conference on Winter Simulation, pp. 2203–2211. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    van der Aalst, W., Nakatumba, J., Rozinat, A., Russell, N.: Business Process Simulation: How to Get It Right. BPM Center Report BPM-08-07 (2008)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes, 1st edn. Springer, New York (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Dongen, B.F., Gunther, C.W., Mans, R.S., de Medeiros, A.K.A., Rozinat, A., Rubin, V., Song, M., Verbeek, H.M.W.E., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Prom 4.0: comprehensive support for real process analysis. In: Kleijn, J., Yakovlev, A. (eds.) Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency, volume 4546 of LNCS, pp. 484–494. Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vangheluwe, H., De Lara, J., Mosterman, P.J.: An introduction to multi-paradigm modelling and simulation. In: Barros, F., Giambiasi, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Simulation and Planning in High Autonomy Systems, pp. 9–20. AIS (2002)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    WfMC. Business Process Simulation Specification (BPSim) Version 1.0. Technical report (2013)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wieringa, R., Blanken, H., Fokkinga, M., Grefen, P.: Aligning application architecture to the business context. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering, LNCS 2681, pp. 209–225. Springer, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    WinterGreen Research. Business Process Management (BPM) Market Shares, Strategies, and Forecasts, Worldwide, 2012 to 2018 (2012)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wombacher, A., Iacob, M.-E.: Start time and duration distribution estimation in semi-structured processes. In: Shin, S.Y., Maldonado, J.C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1403–1409. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Workflow Management Coalition Specification. Terminology & Glossary (WFMC-TC-1011) (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Heinrich
    • 1
  • Philipp Merkle
    • 1
  • Jörg Henss
    • 1
  • Barbara Paech
    • 2
  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Heidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations