A framework for measuring the quality of business process simulation models

Abstract

Business Process Simulation (BPS) is an approach to analyze the performance of business processes under different scenarios. For example, BPS allows us to estimate the impact of adding one or more resources on the cycle time of a process. The starting point of BPS is a process model annotated with simulation parameters (a BPS model). BPS models may be manually designed, based on information collected from stakeholders and from empirical observations, or automatically discovered from historical execution data. Regardless of its provenance, a key question when using a BPS model is how to assess its quality. In particular, in a setting where we are able to produce multiple alternative BPS models of the same process, this question becomes: How to determine which model is better, to what extent, and in what respect? In this context, this article studies the question of how to measure the quality of a BPS model with respect to its ability to accurately replicate the observed behavior of a process. Rather than pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach, the article recognizes that a process covers multiple perspectives. Accordingly, the article outlines a framework that can be instantiated in different ways to yield quality measures that tackle different process perspectives. The article defines a number of concrete quality measures and evaluates these measures with respect to their ability to discern the impact of controlled perturbations on a BPS model, and their ability to uncover the relative strengths and weaknesses of two approaches for automated discovery of BPS models. The evaluation shows that the proposed measures not only capture how close a BPS model is to the observed behavior, but they also help us to identify the sources of discrepancies.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.