Towards code generation from simulation models: A framework for business process automation


Abstract

Background: Business processes and information systems are closely linked, and the effectiveness of a software product is heavily dependent upon the accurate capture and implementation of business requirements. Numerous software projects experience delays, budget overruns, and quality complications stemming from discrepancies between stakeholder expectations and the features that are ultimately implemented. Simulation provides a dynamic perspective on system behavior, representing it a powerful tool for visualizing and comprehending business workflows prior to their translation into software components. Such comprehension can facilitate clearer requirements, enhance communication, and ultimately foster more efficient and reliable software development.
Methods: This research introduces a framework that bridges the gap between simulation modeling and software implementation. The framework empowers developers to autonomously generate and modify databases, microservices, and interfaces grounded in business process simulation models, thereby removing the necessity to construct such components from the ground up. Initially, the framework was evaluated using a straightforward banking process model to authenticate its core functionalities. Subsequently, it was assessed through the involvement of 61 participants, who were assigned the task of manually developing microservices for an online shopping simulation case study. The identical task was repeated using the proposed framework to evaluate time efficiency and implementation efficacy.
Results: The results show that there is a substantial decrease in development duration and manual development. On average, participants needed between 45 to 60 minutes to manually construct the whole process including database, microservices, and interfaces, whereas the frameworks automated generation mechanism completed the equivalent task in roughly 8 minutes. Beyond time efficiency, the automated methodology yielded more uniform and less erroneous modules, thereby facilitating a clearer alignment between simulated processes and their software representations.
Conclusion: The proposed framework illustrates how simulation models can be seamlessly converted into software products, thereby enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of the software development process. By modifying dependence on manual implementation, the framework promotes superior integration of business process comprehension into software systems, ultimately contributing to swifter, more cost-effective, and higher-quality outcomes in practical development contexts.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].