An Extension of BPMN Meta-model for Evaluation

of Business Processes
Azeem Lodhi, University of Magdeburg, Veit Kppen, University of Magdeburg,
Gunter Saake, University of Magdeburg
Abstract Business process modeling is used for better
understanding and communication of companys processes.
Mostly, business process modeling is discussed from the
information system development perspective. Execution of a
business process involves various factors (costs and time) which
are important and should be represented in business process
models. Controlling of business units uses post execution analysis
for detection of failures for improvement. The process models
conceived for information system development are not sufficient
for post execution analysis. This paper focuses on the challenges
of business process modeling in the post execution context. We
provide a meta model for evaluation of a business process and
discuss BPMN in this context. We also extend existing BPMN
meta model for performance analysis of business processes. The
proposed extensions are presented with the help of an example.
Keywords BPMN extensions, business process analysis,
business process modeling, business process improvement.

I. INTRODUCTION
Different phases of process management (from initial
setting to optimization) require different models [1], [18],
[21]. Phalp and Shepperd distinguish two types of the usage of
business process models [20]. On the one side software
development is in focus, whereas on the other side,
restructuring of business processes is the priority. Different
models and views are required for restructuring and analysis
of business processes [1]. In the UML, there already exist
different types of diagrams to focus on the software
development process.
For improvement of business processes, evaluation is a
necessary step. This is due to the reason that evaluation
provides different measurements that indicate whether
company goals are successfully achieved or not. These
measurements also indicate where deficiencies exist in
business processes. Business analysts try to overcome these
identified deficiencies in order to improve business processes
and interaction of involved elements.
Most of the modeling languages are designed for the
development of information systems [16]. However, using
these modeling languages for analyses of business processes is
not appropriate, specifically after execution, as these models
are not designed for this purpose as discussed in [14].
Availability of analytical data and records of business
objects in business process execution enable us to analyze
processes more carefully. Process mining techniques [26]
provide excellent opportunities to extract knowledge from
business process executions. Process mining fits between the
business process models and business executions. Most of the

research in process mining is focused on alignment of

information technology and business processes. It also
provides different statistics for analyses. Limited research is
carried out to represent process knowledge through business
process models for improvement [14], [16]. Currently,
information is represented as key performance indicators
(KPIs) or represented using different approaches of
visualizations (e.g., pie charts or histograms) which is too
abstract and does not provide process details to business
analysts. Business process modeling has to be further
investigated for adequate representation of business processes,
especially after execution for analysis and improvement.
We discuss a business process lifecycle to explain different
phases from a post execution analysis and improvement
perspective in Section II. Evaluation of business processes and
post execution analysis are further discussed in Section III
where we provide a meta model for evaluation and state the
need for a modeling language. In this paper, we extend our
earlier work [15], [17] with meta model level investigation of
business process and business process modeling notation
(BPMN). We discuss the proposed extensions of BPMN in
Section IV and explain them with the help of a manufacturing
example in Section V. In Section VI, we discuss the related
work in this field followed by Section VII which summarizes
our paper and provides an outlook as well.
II. BUSINESS PROCESS LIFECYCLE
Business process lifecycle starts with the analysis phase
where existing operations of an enterprise are investigated. In
this phase, analysts make different interviews with employees
and prepare an AS-IS (actual) process model. This process
model is used to understand and communicate on the current
working of an enterprise with stakeholders. This AS-IS model
also contains details about enterprise organizational structure
with respect to operations performed. The resulted AS-IS
process model of the analysis phase is investigated for
possible changes in case of change management or for
deficiencies in case of improvement. The analysis phase is
also a starting point for continuous process improvement.
In the design phase, the findings of the analysis phase are
considered and a TO-BE (target) model is prepared. This TOBE model attempts to improve the existing situation or
accommodate the new changes. In this phase, domain experts
define how business processes should be carried out, like what
are inputs, outputs, rules, and actions in processes. In this
phase, new target values are also defined for different business
objects to achieve desired goals (efficiency and effectiveness).

Validation of business processes (simulation) can also be

carried out before implementation. In business process
reengineering, the business situation is also analyzed (analysis
phase) but it is not of the main focus. The main focus for
business process reengineering is the design phase where
different changes are made to improve the operations of an
enterprise.
In the implementation phase, a target design model is tried
to be realized in an enterprise with different technical and
organizational details (like deployment, reorganization of
organizational structure, and allocation of resources).
Different supporting systems are also used for efficiency and
realization of target concept, like information systems. The
implementation phase of business processes with information
technology (IT) can have similar phases of business process
lifecycle because business needs and requirements have to be
mapped into IT services to provide IT support.
After implementation, business processes are executed in
order to fulfill requests of customers (internal or external). In
the execution phase, data about execution of different
instances are stored. This is done with the help of information
systems in form of log files and tables. The recorded
information about execution of a business process is used to
evaluate the business process and its involved elements.
In the evaluation of business processes, different
quantitative measurements are made to evaluate the
performance of business objects like processing time, idle
time, and different costs. These quantitative measurements are
used for qualitative indicators like customer satisfaction and
overall quality. In the evaluation phase, actual values are
compared with target values in order to measure the
performance of involved elements. Therefore, evaluation is
used to see whether objectives of an enterprise or
improvements are achieved or not. The post execution analysis
phase is part of evaluation phase where performances of
business objects are analyzed in different perspectives. This
post execution analysis is the main focus of our research and
we extend business process models for better support for
improvement. Extended models help to identify deficiencies in
business processes. We will further discuss their difference
from the earlier AS-IS model in detail in the next section. The
result of the evaluation phase is recommendations from data
and modeling perspective.
In the subsequent analysis phase, the recommendations
from evaluation phase are incorporated with an existing AS-IS
model and discussed with employees. The improvements in
the existing AS-IS model are made to make it closer to
enterprise objectives. In most cases, the effect of
improvements takes time to be visible in business processes.
Therefore, depending on the kind of changes, a time lag is
incorporated to see the effect of improvements and
changes [9]. In this way, business process management
lifecycle continues to achieve enterprise goals.

Fig. 1. Business process lifecycle adopted from [9] for the post execution
analysis context

III. EVALUATION AND POST EXECUTION ANALYSIS

Business processes are evaluated in order to determine
whether desired objectives are achieved or not. Different parts
of processes and business objects are investigated to measure
the achievement of overall objective as well as their own
performance (business objects and processes). Therefore,
depending on the context, different measurements are made
which are related to specific instance executions, overall
process characteristics, or individual business objects. The
collected actual values of related business objects are
compared with target values to measure the performance of
processes and business objects.
A. Evaluation Meta Model
Evaluation of a business process and its elements can be
divided into two categories, quantitative and qualitative
indicators. Different techniques provide quantitative and
qualitative results about processes and business objects like
statistics and process mining [26]. These results are viewed
from a different perspective like organizational, control, and
operational cf. [14]. Figure 2 shows the classification of
evaluation where dotted lines show examples of classes.

Fig. 2. Classification of evaluation and different examples

Quantitative measurements are direct measurements which

are made to evaluate the performance of business object or
process. These measurements are made at various levels like
for the executive (aggregated in a form of overall profit/loss),
managerial level, and operational level. Different methods and
KPIs are used at each level, we do not go into details of these

IV. AN ANALYTICAL MODELING LANGUAGE

In this section, first we describe the basics of business
process modeling notation (BPMN). We also state the reasons
why we have chosen BPMN over different other modeling
languages for our discussion and extension as an analytical
modeling language for evaluation and analysis of business
processes. We also provide a meta model of BPMN and
further extend it for evaluation of business processes. We
further discuss the proposed extensions of BPMN model using
an example.

lane2

B. Post Execution Analysis

Post execution analysis of business processes is part of the
evaluation phase, where results from the above discussed
measurements (quantitative and qualitative measurements) are
taken to analyze performances from different perspectives
such as process, organizational, and operational. The actual
process model is built from execution logs (collected process
trace data). This process model is compared with the models
before execution. In case of discrepancies between plan and
target values or behavior (execution order), the deficiencies in
business processes are investigated.
In the post execution analysis phase, we focus on
performance of business objects and processes by using
different metrics. This is different from the analysis phase
where we focus on how operations are performed by analyzing
execution order and relation of business objects with processes
(without performance metrics). In the post execution analysis
phase, different analyses are carried out to answer analytical
questions and to find out the root causes of deficiencies.
Similarly, different methods such as data mining and process
mining are applied to improve the existing situation.
Process mining is an analysis technique in which logs of
information systems are used for analyses. Process mining
technique aims at identifying the quality of process model and
adequacy of execution environment [5]. The focus of process
mining is on the process structure itself rather than on the data
perspective [27]. Currently, the knowledge in post execution
analysis is represented at an abstract level using charts and
other models. For a better support in business process
improvement, knowledge should be represented along the
process structure with more details within business process

models. By doing so, models provide further insights to

processes and enable analysts to carry out improvements in
processes.
Most of the existing process modeling methods are strongly
influenced by software development [28], [7]. The process
modeling has to be further investigated for process evaluation,
analysis, and improvement. The graphical process models
developed for information systems development have different
focus and details such as transforming business needs in
information technology services. For example, abstraction is
required for information system development, and certain
details are not considered during modeling (like
implementation details and execution). On the other hand, for
post execution analysis, descriptive models are required and
all details are needed to be represented in models for analysis
and improvement. Therefore, for post execution analysis
within the business process management lifecycle, we need
models which have more focus on business domain and also
support details from an information technology domain.
The gap will occur when existing models are used for
evaluation and improvement as these models will not provide
complete details. Therefore, there is a need to fulfill this gap
and provide models for process analysis and improvement.
This representational gap in post execution context and
challenges are further explained in [14] where we explain
several limitations of modeling languages from different
surveys and evaluations in literature.

lane1

methods as it is out of scope of this paper. Examples are idle

time, operating cost of an organizational resource (employee,
machine). Similarly, process performance attribute examples
are the number of times the process has been successfully
completed. An instance related example is the time taken by a
particular instance to complete a process (which includes
waiting time before a resource is allocated, material is
available for production, or synchronization time).
Qualitative indicators are indirect measurements which are
made from the quantitative measurements. Quantitative
measurements like number of complaints, number of
revisions, number of rejections, number of times a particular
event occurs help to provide quality indicators. For these
indicators certain assumptions are made to define the
degree/level of an indicator. Examples are customer
satisfaction (satisfied, not satisfied), quality of a process (very
good, good, bad), and employee effectiveness. The discussion
of quantitative measurements and qualitative indicators is not
focus of this paper.
Evaluation of a business process can also be investigated
from a structural perspective. In structural perspective,
different measurements are made, for instance, which process
structures or parts are efficient compared to others. For
example, some instance executions are efficient as compared
to others because they took a specific process path.

Fig. 3. Main categories of Business Process Modeling Notation and examples

of some constructs

A. Business Process Modeling Notation

The Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) [3] is a
standard defined by the Object Management Group (OMG)
for modeling business processes. BPMN graphical notations
are used as a tool for communication between business and
technical users. Modeling constructs of BPMN language are
transformed into constructs for execution languages such as
the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) [11]. In
BPMN specifications, BPMN graphical notations are divided
into four basic categories [3]. These categories are shown in
Figure 3 and briefly discussed as follow.
Flow objects consist of activities, involved decision nodes
for their order (sequential, parallel, iterations), and events of
processes. Connecting objects as the name implies are used
to connect the activities and other elements with each other
using different arrows which represent messages and
associations between them. This core set of elements define
the control flow perspective of processes.
Different modeling elements are grouped through
Swimlanes which use pools and lanes [3]. A Pool is used to
represent process participants while lanes are used to partition
these participants and their activities from one to another. A
process participant can either be organizational entities within
an organization or different organizations for collaboration in
a process. Mostly, organizational perspective is provided by
using Swimlanes constructs.
In BPMN, additional information about the process such as
involved data objects and guidelines for operations are
provided by artifacts. These elements consist of data objects,
annotations, and group constructs. There are several other
modeling constructs in these categories for further
specification of a business process. Besides these modeling
constructs, different extensions are also possible in BPMN to
provide further insights about processes in a BPMN model.
An abstract meta model of BPMN is shown in Figure 4.

selection is that in the scope of its definition the support for

XML is already considered [3]. There are already some
attempts to transform BPEL into BPMN (cf. [30]). However,
sometimes it becomes hard to model the extracted data as
things would not be executed in the way they can be modeled.
Different modeling constructs are required to represent
involved business objects such as inputs, rules, and
performance related information. The existing BPMN
notations and meta model do not incorporate the performance
details of business processes. BPMN has certain limitations,
for example, when Swimlanes (Pools and lanes) are used to
represent organizational entities, they just represent
organizational roles. They do not provide any information
about their performance, skills, workload, and working time.
Similarly, data objects involved with activities are represented
very abstractly as no information about their structure and
their contents (values) is shown in a BPMN model. Some
other limitations of BPMN model are also discussed in [22].
Therefore, the BPMN meta model can be extended to include
the performance details of business processes and business
objects.
Details on data collection, computation, and storage of
business objects are out of the scope of this paper. However,
in [15], we have already specified an overall framework in this
context.
Metric values

Events

Artifacts

Activity

Flow
objects

BPMN

Swimlanes

Gateway

Connecting
objects

Dimensional
attributes

Rules/Condition

Probability

Colors

Content/structure

Fig. 5. An extended meta model of Business Process Modeling Notation for

evaluation of business process in a graphical way

Fig. 4. A meta model of Business Process Modeling Notation.

We deliberately kept this meta model simple and abstract

rather than describing different classes and notations in each
category. Further details about different kinds of notations can
be found in [3].
B. BPMN for Evaluation and Analysis of Business Processes
We selected BPMN as a modeling language for discussion
and extension for evaluation and analysis of business
processes because BPMN is more expressive as compared
with other modeling languages. Another reason for BPMN

In Figure 5, we have extended the BPMN meta model for

evaluation of business processes. After execution, the
computed performance data can be represented with the
activities to represent their costs, duration, and other
performance details. Similarly, activities can be represented
using different colors to show costs and their impacts.
Different rules and involved conditions can be represented on
decision points to give better understanding about executions.
Similarly, connecting objects can be extended with probability
of execution for a certain path. Besides representing involved
participants, Swimlanes can also be used to classify activities
in different dimensions based on time, cost, or quality
attributes. Artifacts can provide other statistics and
performance data about different objects such as
organizational units and events.
We further discuss the proposed usage and extensions of
BPMN with the help of an example in the following section.

V. EXAMPLE
Consider an online purchasing scenario where a customer
arrives on a web portal. A customer selects a particular
product to purchase. He adds the product into a shopping
basket and fulfills the order request form with shipping details.
Then, he processes the online payment form. Several other
processes are involved in processing this scenario like
fulfilling an order request, transfer of a payment,
manufacturing the product, and shipping process.
In our scenario, we consider that the ordered product is a
replica shirt (German national football team jersey). Customer
has an option either to print his own name or select from
available star player names. Once the order form is completed,
it is sent to the manufacturer/retailer for further processing. On
the manufacturer side, the required product is checked in
stock. If the required products is not in stock, then a
production order is prepared for manufacturing product
(assume a ready product is not available for printing).
In manufacturing product scenario, first the raw material
(fabric) is collected from the store. Afterwards, it is cut into
required shape for further manufacturing. Then certain cut
pieces go for printing while the rest of the pieces are stitched
according to design. Once printed cut-pieces are available,
they are stitched with other parts, and the whole shirt is
prepared. Quality inspectors examine the quality of the shirt.
The manufacturing process is abstractly shown in Figure 6.
Afterwards, shirts with satisfactory quality are packed for
further processing. Products are handed over to a shipping
agent, and the customer is notified about shipping. When all
these steps are recorded in information systems, we can use
this data to analyze the performance of organizational
elements, ordering of activities, and other involved objects.
Legend

AND

OR

Message End

Collect
raw
material

Cutting

Stitching

C. Swimlanes and Dimensions

In BPMN, Swimlanes (pool and lane) are used to represent
process participants and their interaction during execution. We
propose to use Swimlanes not only to see participant
interaction but also performance of organizational resources
and activities. Based on collected data, process participant
performance should be computed and their lanes should be
colored (like green, yellow, and red). Similarly, activities can
also be aligned using Swimlanes based on their computation in
a particular dimension and their attributes. Consider Figure 7
where three classes are defined in cost dimension to arrange
the activities of processes and their involved elements.
Collect
raw
material

High

Complete
stitching

B. Classification and Colors in Representation

The executional data can be used to specify the usage of
which activities, organizational resources, and involved
elements adds more value to an enterprise. Based on this
information, activities, organization resources, and involved
elements are classified based on a particular dimension. This
classification depends on metrics used in the enterprise,
overall average values can be used for this classification or
user defined threshold values. We recommend that only few
classes should be defined for less cognitive loads of models.
Based on this information, different colors can be used to
indicate the effect of a business object like green for optimal
cost, yellow for high cost, and red for very high cost.
Similarly, these classes can be represented in other dimensions
as well like quality and time. Although, the relation of cost
and time is not that simple as discussed in [29].
During execution the values of operational objects (inputs)
are changed by involved business objects. The change in
values gives us details what operations are already performed
and which path is taken. During analysis, different colors can
also be used to represent the instance executional history, like
which path instance has taken and at which particular stage a
certain decision is taken. Similarly, up to which time process
path was optimal. For this, such data can also be extracted
from information systems logs or operational databases.
Colors can also be used to represent the best practices and
non-optimal paths.

Check
Quality

Cost

Printing

Medium

Prepare
production
order

Swimlanes and other extensions for better understanding and

evaluation of processes using BPMN. We also discuss the
other proposed extensions of Figure 5.

Printing

Complete
stitching

Prepare
production
order

Low

Fig. 6. Process for manufacturing a replica shirt in BPMN model

A. Proposed Usage and Extensions of BPMN

Business process models can be structured differently to
represent performance related information. Here, first we
propose the usage of different colors to represent the impact of
business objects in execution. Afterwards, we discuss the

Cutting

Stitching

Check
Quality

Fig. 7. Process model representation based on different classes of cost

Similarly, different dimension attributes can also be defined

as pools where lanes represent further classes of these

attributes as shown in Figure 8. In Figure 8, activity collect

raw material is represented in two different attributes of time
dimension. This Figure shows that the actual operating time
would be very short but with high idle time. For simplicity, we
have not shown different other involved activities. Moreover,
different dimensions and their attributes can be combined with
one another for further business process analysis.

Collect raw
material

Collect raw
material
Fig. 8. Process model in time dimension with alignment of activities
according to its different attributes

When we represent performance details using Swimlanes in

the BPMN model, we can find out which activities are
consuming time and taking high costs. Afterwards, these
activities can be further investigated to identify their
deficiencies for improvement.
D. Other Extensions
In Figure 9, we propose new symbols to represent different
operational objects (e.g. physical), organizational resources (if
not represented in lanes/pool), and data objects with attributes.
These symbols are necessary to provide more understanding
of business scenarios and their corresponding process models.
Similarly, the values of attributes are very important in case of
business rules and conditions. It is due to the fact that values
of attributes play a major role in deciding the route of an
instance. Similarly predicates on a connecting object or
gateway represent involved condition of the flow. Based on
these extended notations, we represent an extended business
process model of our example in Figure 9. The colors red,
yellow, and green represent the business objects with high,
medium, and low cost respectively.
VI. RELATED WORK
Most of the research in business process modeling domain
is related to the information system, like information system
development [2], workflow management [24], simulation of
business processes [12], alignment of IT services with
business processes [25], or configuration of information
systems [8]. The focus of research on business process
modeling after execution is limited. The approaches which
analyze business processes after execution use same models
which are conceptualized for information system development
like some process mining [26] tools use Petri nets [24].
A survey on business process analysis for optimization and
improvement is provided in [28]. In that survey, the authors
categorize different approaches to notational, formal and semi

formal categorizing. Their survey indicates the lack of

business process modeling languages for post executional
phases. However, they do not provide any extensions or
examples of modeling languages which we have provided in
this paper. The concept of excluding activities at the abstract
level and including them at the detailed level is also discussed
in [8], [3] whereas in [4], it is discussed at the attribute level.
Different views of models are generated based on the
environment (role) of execution as discussed in [6], but they
only discuss them from the software process perspective. The
concept needs to be applied in a business process domain.
In [19], the author presents an approach to transform
business process dimensions (time, business rules, and
information) into BPMN constructs that could be implemented
in a BPMN modeling tool. However, the author does not
discuss it from post execution analysis and improvement
perspective. Here, we provide different extensions of BPMN
for better understanding and representation. There are some
other attempts as well where BPMN models are extended in
particular dimension like knowledge in [23] or for modeling
process goal and their measures [13].
Several business process intelligence cockpits exist which
represent performance metrics in different models like
histograms, radial graphs, and several other techniques.
Similarly, process mining tools (like ProM [27], EVS [10])
also exhibit performance metrics through different graphical
models. In ARIS PPM tool, frequent paths are represented by
their weight of connecting arrows. However, performance
metrics are represented using traditional statistical approaches.
Though these KPIs visualization techniques lack the support
of business process modeling language to provide overall
process perspective for improvement. Similarly, these
approaches provide the facilities in one perspective and for
other perspectives other techniques have to be used.
VII. SUMMARY & OUTLOOK
In this paper, we discussed business process lifecycle from
the post execution analysis perspective. We provided a meta
model for evaluation of business processes and discussed
existing modeling languages for performance. We also
provided the meta model of BPMN and extended this meta
model with other elements for business process evaluation.
We used a manufacturing example to explain the proposed
usage and extensions of BPMN for analysis and improvement
of business processes.
In future, a tool support for generating such extended
models from information system logs files will be provided.
Application of the proposed analytical modeling language in
industrial case studies is also planned.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Azeem Lodhi is supported by a grant from the federal state

of Saxony-Anhalt in Germany. This work is partially
supported by the German Ministry of Education and Science
(BMBF), within the ViERforES-II project No. 01IM10002B.

Legend
Cost

Introducto
Growth
ry
Stage
Stage

Maturity
Stage

Decline
Stage

Total
Marke
t
Sales

Time

High

Medium

Low Material Statistics

material

Prepare
production
order

Collect
raw
material

Cutting

Stitching

Complete
stitching

Printing

Introducto
Growth
ry
Stage
Stage

Maturity
Stage

Decline
Stage

Total
Marke
t
Sales
Time

Check
Quality

Quality=satisfied

Fig. 9. Performance based extended BPMN model with involved business objects

REFERENCES
1.

2.
3.

4.

5.
6.

7.
8.

9.

Aguilar-Savn, R.S. Business process modelling: Review and

framework. International Journal of Production Economics 90, 2 (July
2004), p. 129149.
Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. Unified Modeling Language
User Guide, 2 ed. Addison-Wesley, May 2005.
BPMI.ORG, and OMG. Business Process Modeling Notation
Specification, Final Adopted Specification, February 2006. Object
Management Group, USA, February 2006. [Online]. Available:
http://bpmn.org/Documents/OMG_Final Adopted BPMN 1-0 Spec 0602-01.pdf
Browning, T.R. The many views of a process: Toward a process
architecture framework for product development processes. Syst. Eng.
12, 1 (2009), p. 6990.
Chang, J.F. Business Process Management Systems: Strategy and
Implementation. Auerbach Publications, September 2005.
Correal, D., Casallas, R. Using domain specific languages for software
process modeling. In ACM OOPSLA, Workshop on Domain-Specific
Modeling (2007).
Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J. Process modeling. Communications
of the ACM 35, 9 (1992), p. 75-90.
Dreiling, A., Rosemann, M., Van der Aalst, W., Sadiq, W. From
conceptual process models to running systems: A holistic approach for
the configuration of enterprise system processes. Decision Support
Systems 45, 2 (2008), p. 189207.
Gernert, C., Kppen V. Handbuch-IT in der Verwaltung. ch.
Geschftsprozesse optimal gestalten, Springer, (2006), p. 195224.

10. Ingvaldsen, J.E., Gulla, J.A., Hegle, O.A., Prange, A. Empirical

business models. In CAiSE Short Paper Proceedings (2005), vol. 161 of
CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.
11. Jordan, D., Evdemon, J. Web services business process execution
language Version 2.0. OASIS Standard, April 2007. [Online].
http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0Available:
OS.pdf
12. Klink, S., Li, Y., Oberweis, A. INCOME2010 -A toolset for developing
process-oriented information systems based on Petri nets. In Simutools
08: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Simulation tools
and techniques for communications, networks and systems & workshops
(Belgium, 2008), ICST, p. 18.
13. Korherr, B., List, B. Extending the EPC and the BPMN with business
process goals and performance measures. In Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS) (3)
(2007), J. Cardoso, J. Cordeiro, and J. Filipe, Eds., p. 287294.
14. Lodhi, A., Kppen, V., Saake, G. Post execution analysis of business
processes: Taxonomy and challenges, University of Magdeburg,
Technical Report 9, 2010.
15. Lodhi, A., Kppen, V., Saake, G. Business process improvement
framework and representational support. In Proceedings of The Third
International Conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction
(IHCI) (Prague, Czech Republic, August 2011), Springer.
16. Lodhi, A., Kppen, V., Saake, G. Business process modeling: Active
research areas and challenges, University of Magdeburg, Technical
Report 1, 2011.
17. Lodhi, A., Kppen, V. Business process modeling for post execution
analysis and Improvement. In The 5th IEEE International Conference on
Software, Knowledge Information, Industrial Management, and

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.
23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

Applications (SKIMA) (Benevento, Italy, September 2011), IEEE

Computer Society (to appear).
Macintosh, A. The need for enriched knowledge representation for
enterprise modelling. In Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Enterprise
Modelling, IEEE Colloquium (Digest No. 078) (London, April 1993),
IEEE Computer Society, p. 3/1 3/3.
Penicina, L. The approach of transformation between business process
dimensions in BPMN modeling tool. In Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference on Information and Software Technologies
(Lithuania, Kaunas, April 2009), p. 7281.
Phalp, K., Shepperd, M. Quantitative analysis of static models of
processes. Journal of Systems and Software 52, 2-3 (June 2000), p. 105
112.
Phalp, K. The CAP framework for business process modelling.
Information and Software Technology 40, 13 (November 1998), p. 731
744.
Recker, J. Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with
BPMN. Business Process Management Journal 16, 1 (2010), p.181201.
Supulniece, I., Businska, L., Kirikova, M. Towards extending BPMN
with the knowledge dimension. In Enterprise, Business-Process and
Information Systems Modeling, Van der Aalst et al., Ed., vol. 50 of
Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Springer 2010, p.
6981.
Van der Aalst, W. The application of Petri nets to workflow
management. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 8 (1998),
p. 2166.
Van der Aalst, W. Business alignment: Using process mining as a tool
for delta analysis and conformance testing. Requirement Engineering 10,
3 (2005), p. 198211.
Van der Aalst, W., Reijers, H.A., Weijters, A., Van Dongen, B.,
Medeiros, A., Song, M., Verbeek, H. Business process mining: An
industrial application. Information Systems 32, 5 (2007), p. 713732.
Van der Aalst, W., Van Dongen, B., Gnther, C., Rozinat, A.,
Verbeek, H., Weijters, A. ProM: The process mining toolkit. In
Proceedings of the BPM 2009 Demonstration Track (September 2009),
A. K. A. de Medeiros and B. Weber, Eds., vol. 489 of CEUR Workshop
Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, p. 14.
Vergidis, K., Tiwari, A., Majeed, B. Business process analysis and
optimization: Beyond reengineering. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
Part C: Applications and Reviews, IEEE Transactions on 38, 1 (2008),
p. 6982.
Vullers, M.J., Kleingeld, P., Loosschilder, M., Reijers, H.A.
Performance measures to evaluate the impact of best practices. In
Proceedings of Workshops and Doctoral Consortium of the 19th
International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering
(BPMDS) (2007), Tapir Academic Press Trondheim, p. 359368.

30. Weidlich, M., Decker, G., Grosskopf, A., Weske, M. BPEL to BPMN:
The myth of a straight-forward mapping. In Proceedings of the 16th
International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS)
(Monterrey, Mexico, 2008), Springer.
Azeem Lodhi graduated from University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan with
masters in computer science in 2005. He completed his second masters in data
and knowledge engineering from University of Magdeburg, Germany in 2009.
Currently, he is a PhD. student and member of the Database and Information
Systems Research group in Faculty of Computer Science, University of
Magdeburg, Germany.
Azeem Lodhi worked as a Research Assistant in the business informatics
research group from 2006 to 2009. His research interests include business
process analysis, business process improvement, and modeling.
He holds a scholarship grant from the Federal State of Saxony-Anhalt,
Germany. He can be reached at [email protected] See
also http://wwwiti.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~mkhanlod/
Veit Kppen received his MSc degree in Economics from HumboldtUniversitt zu Berlin, Germany in 2003. He received a Dr. rer. pol. (PhD) in
2008 from Freie Universitt Berlin, Germany.
During 2003-2008, he worked as a faculty member at the Institute of
Production, Information Systems and Operation Research, Freie Universitt
Berlin, Germany. From 2008, he is a member of the Database and Information
Systems Research Group at the Faculty of Computer Science, University of
Magdeburg, Germany. Currently he is the project coordinator of a project
funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research.
His research interests include Business Intelligence, data quality,
interoperability aspects of embedded devices and process management. He
can be reached at [email protected] See also http://wwwiti.cs.unimagdeburg.de/~vkoeppen/
Gunter Saake received the diploma and the Ph. D. degree in computer
science from the Technical University of Braunschweig, F. R. G., in 1985 and
1988, respectively. From 1988 to 1989 he was a visiting scientist at the IBM
Heidelberg Scientific Center where he joined the Advanced Information
Management project. In January 1993 he received the Habilitation degree for
computer science from the Technical University of Braunschweig. Since May
1994, Gunter Saake is full professor and head of the research group Databases
and Information Systems at the University of Magdeburg Germany.
He is member of ACM, IEEE Computer Society, EATCS, GI and of the
organization committees of GI FG 2.5.1 `Databases' and GI AK `Foundations
of Information Systems'.
He can be reached at [email protected] See also http://wwwiti.cs.unimagdeburg.de/~saake/