@proceedings {2017:benchflow:bpmds,
	title = {Performance Comparison Between BPMN 2.0 Workflow Management Systems Versions},
	year = {2017},
	month = {June},
	publisher = {Springer},
	address = {Essen, Germany},
	abstract = {Software has become a rapidly evolving artifact and Workflow Management Systems (WfMSs) are not an exception. WfMSs{\textquoteright} changes may impact key performance indicators or resource consumption levels may change among different versions. Thus, users considering a WfMS upgrade need to evaluate the extent of such changes for frequently issued workload.  Deriving such information requires running performance experiments with appropriate workloads. 
In this paper, we propose a novel method for deriving a structurally representative workload from a given business process collection, which we later use to evaluate the performance and resource consumption over four versions of two open-source WfMSs, for different numbers of simulated users. In our case study scenario the results reveal relevant variations in the WfMSs{\textquoteright} performance and resource consumption, indicating a decrease in performance for newer versions.},
	keywords = {BenchFlow, BPMN, Performance Regression, Performance Testing, workflow engine, Workflow Management Systems},
	author = {Vincenzo Ferme and Marigianna Skouradaki and Ana Ivanchikj and Cesare Pautasso and Frank Leymann}
}
@conference {benchflow:2017:bpm,
	title = {On the Performance Overhead of BPMN Modeling Practices},
	booktitle = {15th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM2017)},
	year = {2017},
	month = {September},
	pages = {216--232},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	address = {Barcelona, Spain},
	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{\textquoteright}s instances. 
The results reveal statistically different execution performance when applying different modeling practices without total ordering of performance ranks.
},
	keywords = {BenchFlow, BPMN, performance},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-65000-5_13},
	author = {Ana Ivanchikj and Vincenzo Ferme and Cesare Pautasso}
}
@conference {benchflow:2016:caise,
	title = {Micro-Benchmarking BPMN 2.0 Workflow Management Systems with Workflow Patterns},
	booktitle = {Proc. of the 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAISE)},
	year = {2016},
	month = {June},
	pages = {67--82},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	address = {Ljubljana, Slovenia},
	abstract = {Although Workflow Management Systems (WfMSs) are a key component in workflow technology, research work for assessing and comparing their performance is limited. This work proposes the first micro- benchmark for WfMSs that can execute BPMN 2.0 workflows. To this end, we focus on studying the performance impact of well-known workflow patterns expressed in BPMN 2.0 with respect to three open source WfMSs (i.e., Activiti, jBPM and Camunda). We executed all the experiments under a reliable environment and produced a set of meaningful metrics. This paper contributes to the area of workflow technology by defining building blocks for more complex BPMN 2.0 WfMS benchmarks. The results have shown bottlenecks on architectural design decisions, resource utilization, and limits on the load a WfMS can sustain, especially for the cases of complex and parallel structures. Experiments on a mix of workflow patterns indicated that there are no unexpected performance side effects when executing different workflow patterns concurrently, although the duration of the individual workflows that comprised the mix was increased.},
	keywords = {BenchFlow, benchmarking, BPMN, Microbenchmark, workflow engine, Workflow Management Systems, workflow patterns},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_5},
	url = {http://www2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/cgi-bin/NCSTRL/NCSTRL_view.pl?id=INPROC-2016-05\&engl=0},
	author = {Marigianna Skouradaki and Vincenzo Ferme and Cesare Pautasso and Frank Leymann and Andr{\'e} van Hoorn}
}
@demo {benchflow:2015:bpmeter,
	title = {BPMeter: Web Service and Application for Static Analysis of BPMN 2.0 Collections},
	year = {2015},
	month = {August},
	pages = {30-34},
	publisher = {Springer},
	address = {Innsbruck, Austria},
	abstract = {The number of business process models is constantly increasing as companies realize the competitive advantage of managing their processes. Measuring their size and structural properties can give useful insights. With the BPMeter tool, process owners can quickly compare their process with company{\textquoteright}s process portfolio, researchers can statically analyze a process to see which modeling language features have been used in practice, while modelers can obtain an aggregated view over their processes. In this demonstration we show how to use BPMeter, which provides a simple Web application to visualize the results of applying over 100 different size and structure metrics to BPMN 2.0 process models. The visualization features measurements, statistics and the possibility to compare the measurements with the ones obtained from the entire portfolio. Moreover we show how to invoke its RESTful Web API so that the BPMeter analyzer can be easily integrated with existing process management tools.},
	keywords = {BenchFlow, BPMN, Workflow Static Analysis},
	author = {Ana Ivanchikj and Vincenzo Ferme and Cesare Pautasso}
}
@conference {benchflow:2015:bpm,
	title = {A Framework for Benchmarking BPMN 2.0 Workflow Management Systems},
	booktitle = {13th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2015)},
	year = {2015},
	month = {August},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	address = {Innsbruck, Austria},
	keywords = {BenchFlow, BPMN, Workflow Benchmarking},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_18},
	author = {Vincenzo Ferme and Ana Ivanchikj and Cesare Pautasso}
}
