<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Simulation Based Multi-Objective Optimization for Dynamic Business Processes</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Tadas Vysockis</string-name>
          <email>tadas.vysockis@vgtu.lt</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Olegas Vasilecas</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Vilnius Gediminas Technical University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Saulėtekio al. 11, Vilnius</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="LT">Lithuania</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>142</fpage>
      <lpage>150</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Business process optimization is one of the main activities in organizations, but it is long and usually time-consuming work. One way to automate this process is to use business process simulation which is one of the most widely applied method for analysing and improving business processes. However, standard simulation models are static e.g. control flow of the process is defined beforehand. In contrast, the concept of dynamic business process states that a set of business process activities might change at a certain point in time. Therefore, in this paper we suggested to combine dynamic business process simulation tool with multi-objective optimization in order to automate business process optimization. The paper highlights main principles of the simulation based multi-objective simulation, describes general problem, presents research hypothesis and research questions.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Dynamic business process</kwd>
        <kwd>Business process simulation</kwd>
        <kwd>Simulation based multi-objective optimization</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        In the modern business world there is a frequent need for enterprises to revise and
improve the structure of their business processes. Business processes are the core of
all organisations, therefore focusing on the optimisation of business processes,
organizations can effectively compete in today’s business environment
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">(Trkman, 2010)</xref>
        ,
but usually a business process optimization is manual work without a formal
automated algorithm or given objectives
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">(Vergidis, et al., 2006)</xref>
        . Furthermore, standard
approaches of business process analysis such as regulation interpretation or interviews
usually do not reflect the real processes because they are dynamic and stochastic by
nature
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11 ref4">(Van Der Aalst, et al., 2010)</xref>
        . Therefore, considering the dynamicity of
business processes makes optimization even more complex task to achieve.
      </p>
      <p>
        Simulation of business process allows to analyse various business scenarios under
different circumstances, provides an understanding of the most important factors
affecting the process. However, standard simulation models are static e.g. control flow
of the process is defined beforehand. In contrast, the concept of dynamic business
process states that a set of business process activities might change at a certain point
in time due to the changes of business process context, therefore a sequence of
activity execution cannot be predefined in advance
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref6">(Kalibatienė, et al., 2016)</xref>
        . Therefore,
dynamic business process simulation tool
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref6">(Vasilecas, et al., 2016)</xref>
        analyses the
processes without a predefined control flow.
      </p>
      <p>Therefore, the goal of this research is to combine the multi-objective optimization
with dynamic business process simulation tool. This method may result in new
approaches and more efficient ways to improve business processes. The following
benefits may be achieved:
1. more than one optimisation function can be selected;
2. at any time, additional rules can be added to the simulation model;
3. several suitable solutions can be found;
4. simulation results can be used for further business process analysis;
5. already created models of business processes can be used to create
simulation models.</p>
      <p>In this paper, we present an ongoing research on dynamic business process
simulation and optimization. The paper highlights main research problems, principles of the
dynamic business process simulation approach and presents the model of simulation
based multi-objective optimization for dynamic business processes. Also presents
research methods and plan how the tool validation will be performed.</p>
      <p>The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reflects the state of the art
in dynamic business process simulation and optimization. Section 3 presents the
problem statement. Section 4 describes research methods which will be used in this
research. The results and analysis will be discussed in Section 5. The last section
concludes the paper.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>State of the Art</title>
      <p>Two main parts of this work – the dynamic business process simulation and
multiobjective optimization – will be described in this section.
2.1</p>
      <p>
        General Problem Definition
A multi-objective optimisation problem involves many goal functions which are to be
either minimised or maximised. All goals are equally important and must be
accomplished during simulation
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">(Zitzler, et al., 2004)</xref>
        . Also, multi-objective optimisation
problem may contain several constraints which any feasible solution must satisfy. We
assume that a solution to the specific problem can be described in terms of the
simulation parameters vector ( ,  , … ,  ) in the simulation parameters space X. The
simulation parameters can be understood as resources or context variables. A function
:  →  evaluates the quality of the specific solution
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">(Zitzler, et al., 2004)</xref>
        .The
problem how to find the best result for specific business process.
2.2
      </p>
      <p>
        Dynamic Business Process Simulation
In the simplest business process simulation case, a process has decision points where
a human or an automated system decides next step based on predefined rules. In more
sophisticated approaches, as in
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">(van Eijndhoven, et al., 2008)</xref>
        , a business process is
divided in a variable and non-variable segment. Non-variable segments stay constant
in all cases. Context, describing external environment or resources of a system, can
also be used to facilitate business process dynamics. E.g. in
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">(Bui, et al., 2013)</xref>
        , a
context is defined through variables and rules to present user’s needs and to adopt
business processes based on them. In
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref6 ref8">(Milani, et al., 2016)</xref>
        , authors propose to identify the
main process, variations of each process and construct variation map to model
families of business process variants. In an even higher level of sophistication, authors,
like
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">(Boukhebouze, et al., 2011)</xref>
        , propose to transform a business process into a set of
Event-Condition-Action (ECA) rules or some variation of ECA rules and after event
arises, check the condition and perform a consequent action.
      </p>
      <p>
        The idea of dynamic business process states that a set of activities might change at
a certain point in time due to the changes of the business process context. However,
the dynamic business processes do not have a pre-defined sequence of steps
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref6">(Kalibatienė, et al., 2016)</xref>
        . In declarative or imperative process modelling languages,
process execution is managed using control-flow, therefore limits the behaviour
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">(Fahland,
et al., 2010)</xref>
        . As opposed to this, in dynamic business process execution activities are
activated based on rules applied to the context, instead of a control flow mechanism,
and it adds further flexibility to the control-flow or permits more complex decisions
based on the data generated during the execution.
      </p>
      <p>
        Due to its ability to use data generated during the execution of the processes and
ability to use complex contextual rules for controlling the execution of the process
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref6">(Vasilecas, et al., 2016)</xref>
        , the dynamic business process simulation was chosen as the
simulation approach.
2.3
      </p>
      <p>
        Business Process Optimization
In the article
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">(Vergidis, et al., 2008)</xref>
        authors suggested following two disciplines
related with business process optimization: scheduling and evolutionary computing.
Scheduling problems are similar to business process optimization problems e.g.
optimal resource allocation. However, most of the scheduling algorithms is based on the
mathematical models which make these approaches complicated. Evolutionary
computing algorithms use the principle of evolution to guide the optimization process
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">(Vergidis, et al., 2008)</xref>
        . These algorithms have been successfully applied to different
areas. In general, evolutionary optimization could benefit business processes by
discovering process designs or evaluate alternative designs.
      </p>
      <p>Table 1 classifies the techniques that are used in practice for different optimization
problems. Math programming is used to optimize a real function by systematically
choosing input values from the allowed set. Furthermore, sometimes a function might
be non-smooth or time-consuming to evaluate therefore to optimize such function
require to use algorithms which do not use derivatives or finite differences other
known as derivative-free optimization. Stochastic programming is used when
uncertainty must be included in the optimization problem. Whereas deterministic
optimization problems are formulated with known parameters, real world problems usually
include some unknown parameters. Simulation optimization is used when other
methods are too expensive because of the complexity of the model. Computer-based
simulation provide information about the model behaviour. In this method, the different
sets of input values are varied and then the effect on the described objectives are
observed.</p>
      <p>
        In
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">(Vergidis, et al., 2006)</xref>
        three following issues with business process optimisation
are described:
1. most business process models are diagrammatic approaches not capable of
quantitative analysis and algorithmic optimisation;
2. the business process optimisation attempts have been mostly manual;
3. there is no attempt to optimise a business process under multiple criteria.
      </p>
      <p>They suggested that business process models should be mathematical in order to be
able to run optimization algorithms. However, as the authors have mentioned before
the large part of the business process models are already graphical therefore it is
possible to create simulation models of them by adding necessary parameters. By doing
like this we can create simulation models and save time and money. Also, the creation
of the mathematical model could be complicated task, other than the creation of the
simulation model.
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Problem Statement</title>
      <p>The main problem of this research is that the accuracy of existing simulation based
multi-objective optimization methods, for dynamic business processes, is not enough.
We are planning to apply evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms in the
context of dynamic business processes simulation. As we described before there is a
quite clear need for automated way to optimize business processes and facilitate their
improvements. Also, it is required to take into account the dynamic nature and
unpredictable factors of the business processes. Therefore, the following research
hypotheses are defined to help find an answer to the defined problem:
H0: Dynamic business process simulation can be used to optimize business processes.
We assume that there is a solution for this optimization problem.</p>
      <p>H1: The optimization goal can be defined as the set of resources and context
variables;
H2: Simulation based multi-objective optimization is more accurate than the
alternative ways to optimize business processes;
H3: Data mining methods can be applied to gather additional information about the
simulation model and improve it.</p>
      <p>Based on the problem and hypotheses the following research questions are defined
in this paper:
RQ1: What methods and techniques exist that use computer simulation to optimize
business processes? What are the limitations of these methods?
RQ2: How existing optimization methods can be applied to the dynamic business
process simulation?
RQ3: What is alternative ways to optimize business process?
RQ4: How simulation data can be used to improve the simulation model? What
methods can be adapted?
4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Research Method</title>
      <p>The research approach is divided in different areas, each one following specific
methodology.</p>
      <p>
        Literature Review: An extensive literature review is performed to present the current
state of research related to dynamic business process simulation and multi-objective
optimization. This helps to get a clear understanding of the existing methods of any
related business process optimisation approaches along with their strengths and
weaknesses. The following good practices of systematic literature review will be
applied
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">(Kitchenham, et al., 2009)</xref>
        .
      </p>
      <p>Improvement of existing dynamic business process simulation tool: This research
must create additional functionality to already existing tool to enable dynamic
business process optimization. Based on the research findings the objectives of the
simulation tool are defined.</p>
      <p>Development of the simulation based multi-objective optimization tool for dynamic
business processes: We will apply existing evolutionary multi-objective algorithms to
get optimal input data for the specific process simulation model. The prototype for the
proposed method will be implemented using C# programming language, .NET
framework and WPF libraries.</p>
      <p>Experimental analysis: Dynamic business process simulation will be used to evaluate
the correctness of the prototype and the results.</p>
      <p>Validation of the tool: A set of different business process scenarios reported in
literature will be tested within the prototype.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Results</title>
      <p>
        What Has Already Been Achieved?
The dynamic business process simulation tool has been implemented. The Fig. 1
shows the simulation approach which has been implemented in the DBPSim tool
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref6">(Vasilecas, et al., 2016)</xref>
        . When the simulation engine evaluates all information
(Resources, Context, Activities and Historical Data), it selects the most suitable activity
to be performed. Once selected, tasks defined in the selected activity are added to the
queue. Afterwards, activity selection sub process repeats again. If additional activity
is found and selected, it means that these two activities are to be performed in parallel.
The steps continue until no other activity is selected. When there are no more
activities to start, a task queue is evaluated. If the task queue is empty, the simulation
engine waits for context change and resumes simulation once the change is detected. If
the task Queue is not empty, then task(s), simultaneous in the next simulation step, are
executed. During update simulation statistic step metrics, such as duration, queue
information, context variables, are stored for further analysis. The activity Update
simulation state updates variables related to simulation execution, such as simulation
time and task queue. After simulation state has been changed, a check is performed to
see if the simulation goal is reached. If the goal has not been reached, perform
simulation step activity starts from the beginning with new or updated simulation variables
or, otherwise, is completed if the goal is reached.
      </p>
      <p>Resources</p>
      <p>Context</p>
      <p>Activities
Select Activity
No</p>
      <p>Historical Data</p>
      <p>Perform Task</p>
      <p>Goal
Yes Reached?</p>
      <p>Update Simulation</p>
      <p>State</p>
      <p>Update Simulation</p>
      <p>Statistics
Activity
Selected?</p>
      <p>No
Is Queue Yes
Empty?</p>
      <p>No</p>
      <p>Yes</p>
      <p>Add All Activity
Tasks to Queue</p>
      <p>Queue</p>
      <p>Resources
Context
Activities
The sub process Select Activity starts with simulation engine selecting a set of
possible activities based on the information in the current simulation step. After a set of
possible activities is generated, activity evaluation is performed. Evaluation is twofold
– the rules of the activities are evaluated to see if they can be performed at all, and the
possible benefit to the process is evaluated. The benefit value is calculated based on
historical data – whether an activity leads to dead end or is not useful to the end.
Upon full evaluation, the simulation engine selects an activity which can be executed
and is the most benefiting to the process execution. This selected activity is returned
back to the simulation engine for execution.
5.2</p>
      <p>What Has Still to Be Done?
The idea of this research is to use evolutionary computation algorithms to find
optimal set of resources for the specified business process. By optimizing input data of
simulation, we can optimize entire business process. First of all, it is necessary to
update the DBPSim tool with the components which will be responsible for the
selection of input resources.</p>
      <p>The Fig. 2 shows the possible approach of simulation based optimization. First, it
is necessary to create the primary simulation model with the required information.
Then the objectives of the process should be defined. As mentioned before more than
one objective function can be defined. Next step is to execute selected evolutionary
algorithm. First time initial input variables will be created at random. Then standard
steps of evolutionary algorithms like evaluation, selection, mutation and
recombination are executed. After this step a new set of resources is generated and then perform
simulation N times. All results are recorded into the database for analysis. After all
iterations of simulation is over then the simulation result is evaluated. Then if
termination criteria are not reached Execute Evolutionary Algorithm sub process repeats
again. Otherwise, process optimization process is over. At the end the best set of
resources will represent the outcome of the optimization.
The new automatic way to optimize business processes by using dynamic business
process simulation tool will be created at the end. The following benefits may be
achieved:
1.
2.</p>
      <p>more than one optimisation function can be selected;
at any time, additional rules can be added to the simulation model;</p>
      <p>several suitable solutions can be found;
simulation results can be used for further business process analysis;
already created models of business processes can be used to create
simulation models.
6</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Validation Plan</title>
      <p>
        The object of study in engineering sciences is an artefact in a context of use
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">(Wieringa
&amp; Daneva, 2015)</xref>
        . The object of this research is to create a business process
optimization tool. During the development process of the tool the prototype is scaled up until it
can operate under the real-world conditions. Based on the article
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">(Wieringa &amp;
Daneva, 2015)</xref>
        lab-to-field generalization is a form of technology validation with
research methods such as simulation, technical action research, and statistical
difference-making experiments in the lab or in the field. Therefore, this research falls under
the lab-to-field generalization and will be validated in a case based practice.
7
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>In this paper the idea how to create simulation based multi-objective optimization
method for dynamic business processes has been presented. The implementation
possibilities have been described. The paper provided explanations of the simulation
based multi-objective optimization mechanism.</p>
      <p>The main conclusions of the paper are as follows:
1. Literature review has shown that multi-objective optimization algorithms can
be used in the simulation and produce decent results.
2. Suggested tool will help business analyst and provide a new way to improve
business processes. The results presented in this paper are promising and it is
necessary to continue research in the area of the simulation based dynamic
business process optimization.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Amaran</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sahinidis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N. V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sharda</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bury</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
          <article-title>Simulation optimization: a review of algorithms and applications</article-title>
          . 4OR,
          <volume>12</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>301</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>333</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Boukhebouze</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Amghar</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Benharkat</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A. N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maamar</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
          <article-title>A rule-based approach to model and verify flexible business processes</article-title>
          .
          <source>International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>287</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>307</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bui</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D. V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Iacob</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            E., van Sinderen, M.
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zarghami</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          )
          <article-title>Achieving flexible process interoperability in the homecare domain through aspect-oriented service composition</article-title>
          . van Sinderen,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al. (eds.):
          <source>Proc. of the IWEI</source>
          <year>2013</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>50</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>64</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fahland</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al. (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
          <article-title>Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: The issue of maintainability</article-title>
          .
          <source>Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>477</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>488</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kalibatiene</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vasilecas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rusinaite</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
          <article-title>Implementing a rule-based dynamic business process modelling and simulation</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proc. of the Electrical, Electronic and Information Sciences (eStream'2015)</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>4</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kalibatienė</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al. (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
          <article-title>New approach on rule and context based dynamic business process simulation</article-title>
          .
          <source>Baltic journal of modern computing (BJMC)</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>408</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>419</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kitchenham</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al. (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
          <article-title>Systematic literature reviews in software engineering-a systematic literature review</article-title>
          ..
          <source>Information and software technology</source>
          ,
          <volume>51</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ) tomas, pp.
          <fpage>7</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>15</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Milani</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dumas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ahmed</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Matulevičius</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
          <article-title>Modelling families of business process variants: A decomposition driven method</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information Systems</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>55</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>72</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ng</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A. H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dudas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pehrsson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Deb</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          )
          <article-title>Knowledge discovery in production simulation by interleaving multi-objective optimization and data mining</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 5th Swedish Production Symposium (SPS'12)</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>6</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>8</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Trkman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
          <article-title>The critical success factors of business process management</article-title>
          ..
          <source>International Journal of Information Management</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>125</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>134</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Van Der Aalst</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W. M. P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nakatumba</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rozinat</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Russell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
          <article-title>Business Process Simulation : How to get it right ?</article-title>
          .
          <source>Handbook on Business Process Management</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>313</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>338</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12. van Eijndhoven,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Iacob</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. E.</given-names>
            , and
            <surname>Ponisio</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M. L.</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
          <article-title>Achieving business process flexibility with business rules</article-title>
          . 12th
          <source>International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC'08)</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>95</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>104</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vasilecas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al. (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
          <article-title>A goal-oriented approach to dynamic business process simulation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In DB&amp;IS (Selected Papers)</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>143</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>154</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vergidis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tiwari</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Majeed</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
          <article-title>Business process improvement using multi-objective optimisation</article-title>
          .
          <source>BT Technology Journal</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>229</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>235</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vergidis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tiwari</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Majeed</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
          <article-title>Business process analysis and optimization: Beyond reengineering</article-title>
          .
          <source>IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics</source>
          , Part C (
          <article-title>Applications</article-title>
          and Reviews),
          <volume>38</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>69</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>82</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wieringa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Daneva</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
          <article-title>Six strategies for generalizing soft-ware engineering theories</article-title>
          .
          <source>Science of computer programming 101</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>136</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>152</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          17.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zitzler</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Laumanns</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bleuler</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
          <article-title>A tutorial on evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Metaheuristics for multiobjective optimisation</article-title>
          , pp.
          <fpage>3</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>37</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>