Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Analysis of Business Process Model Similarity Measures

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Business Process Management Workshops (BPM 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 281))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

To work efficiently with and unlock the potentials of business process models, measuring their similarity is a basic requirement. Thus, many automatic similarity measurement approaches have been developed during the last years, which utilize very different aspects of a model. At the same time, it is unclear which measures can be meaningfully applied in which context and how they behave in general. Hence, this paper analyzes how the values of existing similarity measures correlate and how corresponding implementations perform with respect to their resource consumption. The results of our analysis show that the similarity values of most measures highly correlate while their performance prohibits the usage of more than 50% of the measures in practice.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Model set “Exams” is available in the model repository at http://rmm.dfki.de.

  2. 2.

    A complete list of investigated publications can be retrieved from http://rmm.dfki.de/docs/BPM2016_ProcessModelSimAnalysis_LiteratureList.pdf.

  3. 3.

    http://rmm.dfki.de.

  4. 4.

    http://www.processconfiguration.com/download.html.

References

  1. Akkiraju, R., Ivan, A.: Discovering business process similarities: an empirical study with SAP best practice business processes. In: Maglio, P.P., Weske, M., Yang, J., Fantinato, M. (eds.) ICSOC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6470, pp. 515–526. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17358-5_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Antunes, G., et al.: The process model matching contest 2015. In: 6th International Workshop on Enterprise Modeling and Information Systems Architectures, pp. 127–155 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Dietrich, H.A., Steinhorst, M., Eggert, M.: Business process compliance checking - applying and evaluating a generic pattern matching approach for conceptual models in the financial sector. Inf. Syst. Front. 18, 1–47 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Becker, M., Laue, R.: A comparative survey of business process similarity measures. Comput. Ind. 63(2), 148–167 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brockmans, S., Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A., Studer, R.: Semantic alignment of business processes. In: 8th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pp. 191–196 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cayoglu, U., et al.: Report: the process model matching contest 2013. In: Lohmann, N., Song, M., Wohed, P. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNBIP, vol. 171, pp. 442–463. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06257-0_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph matching algorithms for business process model similarity search. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03848-8_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Dijkman, R.M., van Dongen, B.F., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., Kunze, M., Leopold, H., Mendling, J., Uba, R., Weidlich, M., Weske, M., Yan, Z.: A short survey on process model similarity. In: Bubenko, J., Krogstie, J., Pastor, O., Pernici, B., Rolland, C., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering, pp. 421–427. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., van Dongen, B.F., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 498–516 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dongen, B., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: Measuring similarity between business process models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Fettke, P., Vella, A., Loos, P.: From measuring the quality of labels in process models to a discourse on process model quality: a case study. In: 45th Hawaii International International Conference on Systems Science, pp. 197–206 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gerke, K., Cardoso, J., Claus, A.: Measuring the compliance of processes with reference models. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5870, pp. 76–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-05148-7_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Juntao, G., Li, Z., Wei, J.: Procuring requirements for ERP software based on semantic similarity. In: International Conference on Semantic Computing, pp. 61–70 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kunze, M., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Behavioral similarity – a proper metric. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23059-2_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., Uba, R., Dijkman, R.M.: Merging business process models. In: On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, pp. 96–113 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. La Rosa, M., Dumas, M., Uba, R., Dijkman, R.M.: Business process model merging: an approach to business process consolidation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 22(2), 11:1–11:42 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Minor, M., Tartakovski, A., Bergmann, R.: Representation and structure-based similarity assessment for agile workflows. In: Weber, R.O., Richter, M.M. (eds.) ICCBR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4626, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74141-1_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Niesen, T., Houy, C.: Zur Nutzung von Techniken der Natürlichen Sprachverarbeitung für die Bestimmung von Prozessmodellähnlichkeiten – Review und Konzeptentwicklung. In: 12 Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp. 1829–1843 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Thaler, T., Dadashnia, S., Sonntag, A., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: The IWi process model corpus. Technical report, Institute for Information Systems (IWi) at the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thaler, T., Hake, P., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Evaluating the evaluation of process matching techniques. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp. 1600–1612 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vogelaar, J.J.C.L., Verbeek, H.M.W., Luka, B., Aalst, W.M.P.: Comparing business processes to determine the feasibility of configurable models: a case study. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 100, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28115-0_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), xiii–xxiii (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yan, Z., Dijkman, R., Grefen, P.: Fast business process similarity search with feature-based similarity estimation. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6426, pp. 60–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16934-2_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Zezula, P., Amato, G., Dohnal, V., Batko, M.: Similarity Search - The Metric Space Approach. Advances in Database Systems, vol. 32. Springer, New York (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Tom Thaler & Peter Fettke

  2. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Andreas Schoknecht & Andreas Oberweis

  3. University of Applied Sciences Zwickau, Zwickau, Germany

    Ralf Laue

Authors
  1. Tom Thaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Schoknecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Fettke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreas Oberweis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ralf Laue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Thaler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    Marlon Dumas

  2. School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo, Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Marcelo Fantinato

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Thaler, T., Schoknecht, A., Fettke, P., Oberweis, A., Laue, R. (2017). A Comparative Analysis of Business Process Model Similarity Measures. In: Dumas, M., Fantinato, M. (eds) Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2016. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 281. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58457-7_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58457-7_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58456-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58457-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation