Extending the BPMN Specification to Support Cost-Centric Simulations of Business Processes

  • Vincenzo Cartelli
  • Giuseppe Di Modica
  • Orazio Tomarchio
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 631)


Business Process Simulation is considered by many a very useful technique to analyze the impact of some important choices designers take at process design or optimization time, right before processes are actually implemented and deployed. In order for the simulation to provide accurate and reliable results, process models need to take into account not just the workflow dynamics, but also many other important factors that may impact on the overall performance of process execution, and that form what we refer to as the Context of a process. In this paper we formalize a new Business Process Model that encompasses all the features of a business process in terms of workflow and execution Context respectively. The model allows designers to build a cost-centric perspective of a business process. Also, we propose an extension to the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) specification with the aim of enhancing the power of the BPMN to also model resources and the process execution environment. In the paper we provide some details of the implementation of a novel Business Process Simulator capable of simulating the newly introduced process model. To prove the overall approach’s viability, a case study is finally discussed.


Business Process Business Process Management Process Context Execution Context Activity Base Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process simulation revisited. In: Barjis, J. (ed.) EOMAS 2010. LNBIP, vol. 63, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15723-3_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Nakatumba, J., Rozinat, A., Russell, N.: Business process simulation: how to get it right. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) International Handbook on Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cartelli, V., Di Modica, G., Tomarchio, O.: A Resource-aware simulation tool for Business Processes. In: ICE-B 2014 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on e-Business, pp. 123–133, Vienna (Austria), August 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cartelli, V., Di Modica, G., Tomarchio, O.: A Cost-centric model for context-aware simulations of business processes. In: IC3K 2015 - Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, pp. 303–314, Lisbon (Portugal), November 2015Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper, R., Kaplan, R.S.: Activity-based systems: measuring the costs of resource usage. Account. Horiz. 6, 1–12 (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gottschalk, F., Van der Aalst, W., Jansen-Vullers, M., Verbeek, H.: Protos2CPN: using colored Petri nets for configuring and testing business processes. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 10(1), 95–110 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jansen-vullers, M.H., Netjes, M.: Business process simulation a tool survey. In: Workshop and Tutorial on Practical Use of Coloured Petri Nets and the CPN (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets: Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use. Springer, London (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kherbouche, O., Ahmad, A., Basson, H.: Using model checking to control the structural errors in BPMN models. In: 2013 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 1–12, May 2013Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koizumi, S., Koyama, K.: Workload-aware business process simulation with statistical service analysis and Timed Petri Net. In: Proceedings - 2007 IEEE International Conference on Web Services, ICWS 2007, pp. 70–77 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG: The UML Specification, July 2005.
  14. 14.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN 2.0), January 2011.
  15. 15.
    Ouyang, C., Wynn, M., Fidge, C., ter Hofstede, A., Kuhr, J.C.: Modelling complex resource requirements in business process management systems. In: ACIS 2010 Proceedings - 21st Australasian Conference on Information Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Porter, M.E.: Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M.: ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management. In: Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 376–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45594-9_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Cartelli
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Di Modica
    • 1
  • Orazio Tomarchio
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical, Electronic and Computer EngineeringUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations