Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Performance Overhead of BPMN Modeling Practices

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Process Management (BPM 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 10445))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 3079 Accesses

Abstract

Business process models can serve different purposes, from discussion and analysis among stakeholders, to simulation and execution. While work has been done on deriving modeling guidelines to improve understandability, it remains to be determined how different modeling practices impact the execution of the models. In this paper we observe how semantically equivalent, but syntactically different, models behave in order to assess the performance impact of different modeling practices. To do so, we propose a methodology for systematically deriving semantically equivalent models by applying a set of model transformation rules and for precisely measuring their execution performance. We apply the methodology on three scenarios to systematically explore the performance variability of 16 different versions of parallel, exclusive, and inclusive control flows. Our experiments with two open-source business process management systems measure the execution duration of each model’s instances. The results reveal statistically different execution performance when applying different modeling practices without total ordering of performance ranks.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.gpower.hhu.de.

References

  1. Aalst, W.M.P., Medeiros, A.K.A., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Process equivalence: comparing two process models based on observed behavior. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11841760_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Abbott, M.L., Fisher, M.T.: The Art of Scalability. Pearson, Upper Saddle River (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bacon, D.F., Graham, S.L., Sharp, O.J.: Compiler transformations for high-performance computing. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 26(4), 345–420 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen, J.: A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112(1), 55 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dattalo, P.: Determining Sample Size: Balancing Power, Precision, and Practicality. Oxford University Press, New York (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Dinno, A.: Nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons in independent groups using dunns test. Stata J. 15, 292–300 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dumas, M., Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Mäesalu, R., Reijers, H.A., Semenenko, N.: Understanding business process models: the costs and benefits of structuredness. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31095-9_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Eder, J., Gruber, W., Pichler, H.: Transforming workflow graphs. In: Konstantas, D., Bourrières, J.P., Léonard, M., Boudjlida, N. (eds.) Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications, pp. 203–214. Springer, London (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Ferme, V., Ivanchikj, A., Pautasso, C.: A framework for benchmarking BPMN 2.0 workflow management systems. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 251–259. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferme, V., Ivanchikj, A., Pautasso, C.: Estimating the cost for executing business processes in the cloud. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNBIP, vol. 260, pp. 72–88. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45468-9_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferme, V., et al.: Workflow management systems benchmarking: unfulfilled expectations and lessons learned. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2017, May 2017

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gerth, C., et al.: Detection of semantically equivalent fragments for business process model change management. In: Proceedings of SCC, pp. 57–64. IEEE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gounaris, A.: Towards automated performance optimization of BPMN business processes. In: Ivanović, M., et al. (eds.) ADBIS 2016. CCIS, vol. 637, pp. 19–28. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44066-8_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hamby, D.: A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environ. Monit. Assess. 32(2), 135–154 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoste, K., Eeckhout, L.: Cole: compiler optimization level exploration. In: Proceedings of CGO, pp. 165–174. ACM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jarke, M., Koch, J.: Query optimization in database systems. ACM Comput. Surv. (CsUR) 16(2), 111–152 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Jordan, D., Evdemon, J.: Business Process Model And Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. OMG. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/

  18. Koehler, J., Vanhatalo, J.: Process anti-patterns: how to avoid the common traps of business process modeling. IBM WebSph. Dev. Tech. J. 10(2), 4 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Marusteri, M., Bacarea, V.: Comparing groups for statistical differences: how to choose the right statistical test? Biochemia Medica 20(1), 15–32 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89224-3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Recker, J.: Empirical investigation of the usefulness of gateway constructs in process models. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(6), 673–689 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 41(3), 449–462 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosa, M.L., et al.: Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 7(2), 255–265 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sengupta, A., Pal, T.K.: On comparing interval numbers. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 127(1), 28–43 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Skouradaki, M., Ferme, V., Pautasso, C., Leymann, F., Hoorn, A.: Micro-Benchmarking BPMN 2.0 workflow management systems with workflow patterns. In: Nurcan, S., Soffer, P., Bajec, M., Eder, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9694, pp. 67–82. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is partially funded by the “BenchFlow” project (DACH Grant Nr. 200021E-145062/1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Institute, Faculty of Informatics, USI, Lugano, Switzerland

    Ana Ivanchikj, Vincenzo Ferme & Cesare Pautasso

Authors
  1. Ana Ivanchikj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincenzo Ferme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cesare Pautasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Ivanchikj .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

    Josep Carmona

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany

    Gregor Engels

  3. Department of Supply Chain and Information Systems, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

    Akhil Kumar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ivanchikj, A., Ferme, V., Pautasso, C. (2017). On the Performance Overhead of BPMN Modeling Practices. In: Carmona, J., Engels, G., Kumar, A. (eds) Business Process Management. BPM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10445. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65000-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65000-5_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64999-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65000-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation