The Oxford Handbook of Agent-based Computational Management Science

(In Progress)
Friederike Wall (ed.) et al.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197668122.001.0001
Published: 2024 Online ISBN: 9780197668153 Print ISBN: 9780197668122

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Search in this book

CHAPTER

Exploring the Integration of Agent-Based Modelling, Process

Mining, and Business Process Management through a Text
Analytics–Based Literature Review 
Faiza Bukhsh, Ruben Govers, Rob Bemthuis, Maria Iacob

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197668122.013.20
Published: 22 May 2024

Abstract
Agent-based modelling and business process management are two interrelated yet distinct concepts.
To explore the relationship between these two elds, we conducted a systematic literature review to
investigate existing methods and identify research gaps in the integration of agent-based modelling,
process mining, and business process management. Our search yielded 359 research papers, which
were evaluated using prede ned criteria and quality measures. This resulted in a nal selection of
forty-two papers. Our ndings reveal several research gaps, including the need for enhanced
validation methods, the modelling of complex agents and environments, and the integration of
process mining and business process management with emerging technologies. Existing agent-based
approaches within process mining and business process management have paved the way for
identifying the validation methods for performance evaluation. The addressed research gaps primarily
concern validation before delving deeper into speci c research topics. These include improved
validation methods, modelling of complex agents and environments, and a preliminary exploration of
integrating process mining and business process management with emerging technologies.

Keywords: process mining, business process management, agent-based systems, multiagent systems,
systematic literature review
Subject: Knowledge Management, Research Methods, Business and Management
Series: Oxford Handbooks
Collection: Oxford Handbooks Online
1. Introduction

The eld of business process management (BPM) has gained increasing importance in both the literature
and the industry (van der Aalst 2013; Roeser and Kern 2015) due to the value it o ers to businesses (Zairi
1997). BPM is a discipline that encompasses a wide range of methods for discovering, modelling, analysing,
improving, pruning, and automating business processes. Business processes can be represented through

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
languages such as the Business Process Management Notation (BPMN) (Decker et al. 2009) or petri nets
(van der Aalst 1998).

The methods associated with business process discovery and analysis are generally knowledge and labour
intensive. This can lead to variations in the quality of business process models across di erent modellers
and modelling frameworks (Claes et al. 2012). Additionally, business processes can change over time,
making remodelling costly and error prone.

Process mining is a discipline that addresses the challenges of varying quality and continuous change of
business process models (Tiwari, Turner, and Majeed 2008; van der Aalst 2012). This discipline involves the
discovery, analysis, and improvement of business process models (van der Aalst et al. 2012). The discovery
phase typically employs algorithms to extract a process model from an event log. An event log consists of
activities with an accompanying identi er and performer. Such event logs are collected by information
systems such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Examples of mining techniques are the alpha-
miner (Medeiros et al. 2004), heuristic miner (Weijters, van der Aalst, and Medeiros 2006), or fuzzy miner
(Günther and van der Aalst 2007). These techniques are accessible through process mining tools such as
ProM (van Dongen et al. 2005). In the context of business processes, the presence of multiple performers or
agents, who execute activities independently to achieve their respective objectives, is commonplace. These
agents, operating under resource constraints, can be found in diverse systems such as manufacturing
plants, interorganizational supply chains, and software development teams. While a universally accepted
de nition of the term ‘agent’ remains elusive (Macal and North 2008), for our purpose, we adopt the notion
of an agent as a computational entity endowed with the capacity to perceive and act within its environment
(Weiss 1999). Thus, an agent may encompass both human entities and (automated) software systems.

Our chapter seeks to advance knowledge in the intersection of BPM and agent-based systems by identifying
research gaps and providing a comprehensive understanding of the domain. This is particularly important
given the existing literature’s frequent absence of practical applications and reliance on limited empirical
evidence (Tour, Polyvyanyy, and Kalenkova 2021). To achieve this, we conducted a structured literature
review. This methodological approach lays the foundation by surveying the existing body of knowledge and
relevant studies. In doing so, we can identify gaps and discrepancies in the eld, guiding the formulation of
precise and well-directed research inquiries and approaches. The review methodology is outlined in section
2. Subsequently, section 3 presents and discusses the obtained results, while section 4 examines potential
threats to the validity of the study and concludes our ndings.

2. Methodology

This section describes the systematic literature review (SLR) methodology employed in this research, based
on Kitchenham’s guidelines for conducting SLRs (Kitchenham et al. 2009). Figure 1 provides an overview of
the literature search strategy and the number of articles at each step.
 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Figure 1. An overview of the literature search strategy.

To delineate the scope of the review, we de ned the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: What agent-based approaches exist for process mining and/or business process management?

• RQ2: What validation methods are used and how are they performed?

• RQ3: What are the research gaps in the joint eld of agent-based modelling, process mining, and
business process management with regard to the approaches found in RQ1?

The second step in Kitchenham’s methodology is to de ne a search strategy. Three databases were selected
based on their size, relevance, and query possibilities: Springer, Scopus, and IEEE. These databases serve as
a foundation for conducting a comprehensive literature search.

Based on the research goals stated in section 1 and de ned research questions, the following search query
was devised: ‘process mining’ AND (‘bpm’ OR ‘business process management’) OR (‘agent’ OR ‘multi-
agent’ OR ‘multiple agents’ OR ‘MAS’). The search string was derived from the keyword of the research
questions. We used the keyword ‘multi-agent’ even though it is not part of the research questions to reduce
the threat of missing relevant papers. We also utilized multiple synonymous terms such as ‘agent’, ‘agents’,
and ‘multiple agents’, as well as abbreviated terms, to minimize the risk of missing relevant papers. The
query was applied to the full text of the papers rather than just the title, abstract, and keywords. This was
necessary because the Springer database does not support searching only speci c elds, and we desired a
consistent search strategy across all databases. The search was limited to conference papers and journal
articles as the source type. This resulted in 351 papers from Springer, 10 from Scopus, and 4 from IEEE,
totalling 365. After removing 6 duplicates, the nal data set comprised 359 papers. For details, see Figure 1.

According to Kitchenham’s guideline (Kitchenham et al. 2009), an accompanying set of inclusion criteria
(ICs) and exclusion criteria (ECs) should be formulated. For this study, we established the following set of
ICs and ECs:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
• IC1: The article is related to de ned research questions.

• IC2: The article is written in English.

• IC3: The article is available through our university’s access pro le.

• EC1: The article does not provide new techniques or methodologies in the scope of agent-based or
multiple agent-based process mining or business process management.

• EC2: The article is not peer-reviewed (e.g., white papers or blogs).

After applying these criteria to lter the articles, we selected fty research papers for further analysis. These
papers underwent a quality assessment based on multiple criteria, which were evaluated using a scoring
system of 0 (does not comply), 0.5 (partially complies), or 1 (fully complies). During this stage of the
selection process, all fty papers were thoroughly read and evaluated.

Papers were excluded after the quality assessment for two reasons: rst, if the paper did not ful l Q1,
indicating that it was not an agent-based study and therefore did not adhere to IC1. This occasionally
happened as the initial inclusion was based solely on the paper’s abstract, title, and keywords. Second,
papers scoring a total quality score of 5 or lower were also excluded. Table 1 lists the quality criteria, while
Table 2 in Appendix A provides detailed appraisal scores.

Table 1. The quality requirements used for the quality step

Requirement Evaluation description

Q1 Does the paper propose a new agent-based approach or new agent-based application of an approach?

Q2 Does the paper propose a method within the scope of process mining or business process management?

Q3 Is the approach based on defined methods found in Q1 and Q2?

Q4 Is the method of research clearly described?

Q5 Is the proposed method empirically evaluated or validated?

Q6 Is the evaluation and its result explicitly stated?

Q7 Is the method supported by the evaluation?

Q8 Is the purpose of the study clearly defined?

After the initial ltering and quality assessment, twenty-six articles remained for further analysis. To
expand the pool of papers for data extraction, we employed one iteration of the backward snowballing
technique (Wohlin 2014), checking the references of the twenty-six papers for additional relevant studies.
These additional papers were initially evaluated based on their title and, subsequently, their abstract. This
process resulted in the identi cation of sixteen additional papers, bringing the total number of papers to
forty-two. A list of these papers can be found in Appendix A.

The articles that passed the quality assessment and were identi ed through the snowballing technique (see
Table 3 in Appendix B) were then subjected to qualitative data extraction. The goal of this data extraction
was to answer the research questions and included the following items:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
• The research eld, such as agent-based simulation and process mining

• The research method, such as a structured literature review, case study, or opinion paper

• The e ectiveness, based on the article’s validation method, results, and discussion

• The applications of the methodology or artefact

• Whether the research is multiagent based or single agent based

• The underlying techniques used by the researchers, which can range from general (e.g., graph theory)
to speci c (e.g., ‘Fuzzy Miner in ProM’)

• Any future research areas mentioned by the authors

3. Agent-Based Modelling and Business Process Management

This section discusses the relationship between business process management and agent-based modelling
and the grounds for this relationship. This section addresses each research question posed in section 2. We
begin by categorizing the literature found and providing a brief summary of the key points discussed. In the
subsequent part, we examine the validation methods used in the papers and discuss common issues
associated with these methods. Finally, in the concluding subsection, we identify research gaps that
emerged from our analysis using natural language processing (NLP)–based categorization and SLR
methodology.

3.1. Text Analytics for Article Categorization

This section presents a qualitative analysis of the data collected during our SLR. Based on Kitchenham’s
guidelines, the next step is to nd answers to research questions. Extracting knowledge from papers can be
a challenging and time-consuming task. To identify the most prominent points of attention from all
selected papers, we used keyword and word occurrence analysis. We performed the following three
methods: (1) word cloud, (2) NLP clustering for importance identi cation, and (3) Lingo3G analysis. These
methods are based on an analysis of the title, abstract, and keywords of the selected papers. We used the
following tooling:

• Word cloud: Identifying high-frequency words can be e ciently achieved using word clouds. For this
investigation, we utilized the ‘moneylearn’ platform, publicly accessible for analysis. The ndings
revealed prominent terms, with ‘process mining’, ‘simulation’, and several others standing out
signi cantly. The obtained word cloud, presented in Figure 2, visually con rms the dominance of
‘simulation’ and ‘process mining’ in the analysed corpus.
 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Figure 2. The research areas identified through word cloud.

• Google Cloud NLP API: The Google Cloud Natural Language API o ers an advanced solution for
exploring the foundational structure and semantic aspects of textual content by leveraging its
pretrained classi ers. In the context of our research, this service proved invaluable for evaluating
designated scholarly papers and facilitating the formation of clusters based on their content. The
graphical representation in Figure 3 showcases the key terms alongside their corresponding salience
values. Note that higher salience values indicate a greater level of con dence in the relevance and
signi cance of each term in relation to the analysed text.

Figure 3. The research areas identified through Google Cloud Natural Language API.

• Lingo3G analysis: The clustering technique Lingo3G o ers an extensive approach to generating
information-rich clusters. The resulting clusters are visually presented as treemaps, exempli ed in
Figures 4 and 5. Our hierarchical clustering process utilized a maximum clustering size of 0.4, and the
base cluster count base was set as 7, indicating the number of clusters discovered during each
clustering pass. Additionally, a minimum cluster size of 10 was established for subclustering,
signifying the prerequisite number of documents required for creating subclusters within a cluster.
Regarding cluster merging settings, a merge threshold of 0.7 was applied. If the overlap between
clusters surpassed this threshold, the clusters were merged. An analysis of the text’s results section
can be found in Figure 5, complementing the insights provided in Figure 4. It is noteworthy that
process mining emerges as a prominent trend in both gures, reinforcing its signi cance within the
context of the study.
 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Figure 4. The research areas discussed in the results section and the number of papers in each such category (foam tree map).

Figure 5. The research areas and sub-areas discussed in the results section and the number of papers in each such category
and sub-category (pie chart).

Word clouds and NLP-based clustering methodologies have been instrumental in facilitating an initial
categorization of information for subsequent analysis. Leveraging Figures 2 to 5, we have classi ed the
papers into ve main categories. Each category is examined in distinct subsections, wherein we emphasize
the research objectives, validity, and promising avenues for future investigation pertaining to each
category.
3.2. Research Question 1

3.2.1. Category 1: Simulation

In this subsection, we discuss papers that focus on agent-based simulations. We have identi ed eleven
papers in this category. Among these papers, we will identify the simulation techniques used and their

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
relation to agent-based modelling.

A paper of relevance (Halaška and Šperka 2019) demonstrates the application of process mining to a
multiagent simulated company, emphasizing the issue of data availability. Similarly, Šperka et al. (2013)
address the challenge of generating usable event logs. However, both papers lack proper validation and
suggestions for future research. In the absence of studies utilizing real-world data, studies such as those
conducted by Larsen et al. (2019) and Saha et al. (2016) focus on simulated data for process mining. These
results employ simulated agents to generate predictive models for real-world scenarios, such as emergency
rooms. The simulation process encompasses data creation, agent–environment interaction, discretization,
and comparison. For example, the simulator replicates the CASAS data set (Di Federico et al. 2021; Fajar,
Sarno, and Fauzan 2018), although results vary due to the discrete simulation’s inability to account for
interagent communication (Fauzan, Sarno, and Machfud 2019; Halaška and Šperka 2018). As noted by
Šperka et al. (2013) and Larsen (2019), minor alternations in experimental settings can signi cantly impact
simulation outcomes and subsequent decisions. Additionally, Siebers et al. (2007), Bonabeau (2002),
Wagner (2003), and Slaninová et al. (2013) propose multiple statistically signi cant hypotheses for agent-
based simulation.

In summary, the relationship of agent-based simulation and process mining can be characterized as
follows:

• Although simulations serve as e ective validation tools, they often lack validation themselves.

• Various types of simulation studies exist, each focusing on distinct aspects such as identifying agent
pro les, evaluating business performance, or generating data sets.

3.2.2. Category 2: Process Mining

In this section, we brie y examine papers that explore the interaction of process mining and agent-based
modelling.

The work of Ou-Yang, Juan, and Li (2009) presents a process mining approach for converting multiple
agent systems into petri nets. Simulation experiments yielded successful results under the assumption that
there are no more than two agents and that they are in a successive relationship. The ultimate objective of
these experiments was to determine whether a developed multiagent system conforms to reality, rather
than merely to the developer’s understanding of reality (Ou-Yang, Juan, and Li 2009; Ou-Yang and Juan
2010). Process mining tools play a key role in comprehending and experimenting with agent-based
modelling, as demonstrated by López Castro et al. (2021), Jimenez et al. (2018), and Ferreira, Szimanski, and
Ralha (2013).

They employ tools such as Apromore, Nirdizati, and ProM to create predictive models in self-organized
manufacturing systems with multiple agents. Another application of process mining involves the
development of architecture-aware process models for composition-based multiagent systems (Nesterov et
al. 2023; Schönig et al. 2018). Furthermore, process mining in a self-organizing manufacturing system
provides a foundation for more statistically signi cant experimentation with multiple agents (Jimenez et al.
2018). The research by Nesterov and Lomazova (2019) lays the groundwork for Nesterov et al. (2023) and the
opinion paper by van Dongen, van Luin, and Verbeek (2006). The latter proposes a compositional process
mining approach based on graph morphisms to generate interaction patterns. These patterns can then be
used to model typical interfaces for multiagent systems.

In summary, the key points distilled from this discussion on process mining are:

• Process mining can be utilized in an agent-based setting to create models that capture the behaviour of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
multiagent systems.

• Process mining in combination with agent-based modelling is applied across a wide range of domains.

3.2.3. Category 3: Subject-Oriented Business Process Management

This subsection discusses papers that address the three common themes of subject-oriented business
process management (S-BPM). S-BPM is a business process management methodology that o ers an
executable, communication-based perspective on multiple agents, often referred to as subjects or actors.
Agents are modelled in three states: two of which are through messages that can be received and sent, and
the third is through signals.

The research paper by Singer (2016) explores the transformation of an S-BPM model into an executable
through functional programming and a virtual machine environment. The work of Fleischmann et al. (2013)
also examines the meta-model and highlights the operational advantages of S-BPM, although it does not
propose any validation solutions due to the lack of standardization. The nal paper related to S-BPM, by
Sellitto et al. (2020), employs an architectural approach to security and safety by design in the internet of
actors with multiagent systems.

In summary, this discussion on S-BPM can be characterized by the following key points:

• There is a lack of standardization in the adoption of S-BPM in practice.

• While BPM has potential applications in agent-based business process management and Industry 4.0,
further research is required in this area.

3.2.4. Category 4: Business Process Management and Modelling

In this subsection, we discuss papers that focus on business process management and modelling. We have
identi ed several papers in this category that examine various business process management techniques
and their impact on agent-based modelling.

The work of Szimanski et al. (2013) explores an agent–object relationship, utilizing a hierarchical model to
discover the connection between a process model and runtime behaviour. The enhancement of business
models with messaged multiagent systems is addressed by Halaška and Šperka (2020). The work of Halaška
and Šperka (2018) and Šperka et al. (2013) highlights various domains, such as trading and health care,
where business process modelling is used for understanding. Agent evaluations are performed in many
di erent ways, including methods proposed by Jablonski and Talib (2009) and Kabicher and Rinderle-Ma
(2011). Machine learning and postprocessing simulation experiments have demonstrated potential for new
validation methodologies in agent-based modelling and simulation. However, more extensive simulation
studies are needed to enhance validity. The work of Sandita and Popirlan (2015) and Onggo and Karpat
(2011) aimed to research mining agent assignment rules for input data that lack adequate data patterns. A
conceptual model can play a role in pattern identi cation, as advocated by Wooldridge, Jennings and Kinny
(2000) with the GAIA methodology.
Lau et al. (2006) discuss information sharing through agents, analysing and evaluating the impact of
di erent levels of information sharing and comparing agent-based versus centralized approaches. Similar
work by Ferber, Gutknecht, and Michel (2004) introduced organization-centred multiagent system design,
addressing security and compositional approaches to solve weaknesses of agent-centred multiagent system
(MAS) design for organizations. Further research is required to understand the nature of roles, extend
functional views of MASs, establish norms for institutions, and re ect on MAS design principles.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Multiple di erent solutions can yield correct preference process models, as highlighted by Deen and Jayousi
(2006). The work of Cimino and Marcelloni (2011) discusses autonomic tracing of production processes.
Experiments using simulations yielded positive results, verifying the theoretical model. The approach uses
mobile and agent-based computing. The presented model (MOAT) has been applied to real-world forms
with positive results on training costs, supply chain stability, and business decision speed. Although
challenges or failures are not investigated, it is mentioned that a potential loss of autonomy could pose a
problem for management and workers.

From the literature discussed in this subsection, we can draw several conclusions:

• There is a correlation between business process management, business process modelling, process
mining, and simulation studies.

• There is a need for more extensive validation studies.

• Business process management and business process modelling are applicable across various domains
with the aim of describing agent-based conceptual models, business processes, and multiagent
systems.

• Business process management and business process modelling have applications at both the
management and operational levels.

• The studies found only occasionally explain or validate the business value of proposed approaches.

3.2.5. Category 5: Others

This category encompasses four topics: ontologies, work ows, interactive agents, and robot process
automation. These topics, while overlapping and not distinct, are related to agent-based modelling and
therefore grouped in one subsection. In the following, we will discuss each topic:

• Ontology. The paper by Hunka and Kervel (2019) introduces a generic design engineering
methodology for organizations (DEMO) model that facilitates both cocreation and coproduction
through the resource–event–agent (REA) approach. The REA model originated from the accounting
domain and matured into a conceptual framework and ontology for enterprise information
architecture, as per Hunka and Zacek (2014). The subsequent paper by Ito et al. (2018) delineates the
multiagent REA (MAREA) ontology, which is applicable to multiagent business architectures and
simulations. Assessing the ontology was challenging due to a lack of comparable literature, but it was
successfully applied in a process mining and simulation case study (Halaška and Šperka 2018; Šperka et
al. 2013). The authors suggested further research into why the alpha algorithm yielded incorrect results
in the experiment. Hence, it can be concluded that while ontologies are not a prevalent research topic
within agent-based research, they do exist. The REA and MAREA ontological representations can assist
with agent-based modelling. Additional validation across multiple domains is needed to prove their
e ectiveness.

• Work ows. The initial paper in the work ows division by Appio et al. (2018) proposes business rules to
foster open, collaborative networks among companies. The approach uses the semantic web and
 coordinates process execution through work ow models. The subsequent paper by Both et al. (2012)
presents an intelligent agent model that aids human functioning by monitoring work ows and
maintaining process awareness. The simulation study led to positive results and e cient decision-
making by the agent. Therefore, considering static and deterministic approaches, work ows can serve
as a fundamental tool in analysing agent-based models. Supporting reactivity would increase work ow
use cases and allow for real-world validation.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
• Interactive Agents. Lins et al. (2021) concentrate on broadening the use cases of process-aware
conversational agents that communicate with work ow management systems. BPMN standard
provides an aligned foundation for interaction between agent and business process. The subsequent
paper by Rizk et al. (2020) develops a conversational digital assistant that operates with the support of
multiple agents in the background. These agents utilize an understand–act–respond pipeline with an
overhead orchestrator. Therefore, it can be summarized that interactive agents constitute only a small
part of agent-based research. However, the papers found did show that successful approaches can be
developed and that combining the eld with BPM and interactive agents is promising. Additional
validation is needed to con rm these claims.

• Robot Process Automation. The paper by Oberhauser and Stigler (2018) explores agile business
process modelling with micro ows, a topic that also pertains to the previous discussion on work ows.
The proposed artefact represents an automatic, lightweight, and declarative approach for the
work ow-centred orchestration of semantically annotated micro-services. Its implementation
involves agent-based clients, graph-based methods, semantic vocabularies, and constraint mining.
The paper authored by Jennings et al. (2000) explores the independent execution of business processes
within their exclusive business process management system. The agents function in a modular fashion.
A case study conducted at a British telecommunication company demonstrated the functionality and
bene ts of the method to the company. Although robotic process automation does not seem to be
closely integrated with the elds of process mining and business process management, the reviewed
papers indicate potential for future research. Expanding BPMN2.0 to include process mining presents
an interesting avenue for research.

3.3. Research Question 2: Validation Methods

This section discusses validation methods commonly used in the eld and addresses some persistent issues.

Case studies and experiments are common types of validation in agent-based process mining and business
process management. Both rely on event logs or on a multiple-agent simulation for process mining. Despite
papers providing formal proof of an algorithm or modelling theory, concerns persist from a validation
perspective.

One issue pertains to the lack of validation among papers. In the quality appraisal phase, twenty-four
papers were removed. Eighteen of twenty-four papers scored 0.5 or 0 for Q5 and Q6 (of Table 1). This
suggests that both the validation and its explanation were insu cient or nonexistent in eighteen articles.

We found that while papers perform a case study, they often do not extensively investigate or report on
performance instead of critically evaluating the performance of the artefact or theory. For example,
Fleischmann et al. (2013) and Sandita and Popirlan (2015) provide preliminary validation only. This could
enable future researchers and industry participants to apply and validate the artefact or theory themselves.
The lack of sound case studies could be attributed to a shortage of companies or cases for conducting
validation studies, or time constraints associated with longer-lasting case studies.
It must be acknowledged that performing real-world case studies is di cult due to the risk companies face
in losing their competitive advantage, creating an unwillingness to share information for publicized
research. One known example of a real-world case study was performed by N. R. Jennings et al. (2000). This
case study was readapted for Wooldridge, Jennings and Kinny (2000), a strategy that can be useful for future
studies. An example of a simulated company case study can be found in Halaška and Šperka (2019). Their
strategy using MAREA su ers from a narrow use case (as it is solely trade company oriented) and a large set

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
of assumptions, but it still su ces to show the limitations and bene ts of a new approach.

Finally, we will discuss agent-based simulation experiments, a tool used in thirteen papers identi ed
through the SLR. In the previous section, it was mentioned how simulations in combination with a case
study (or experiment) can provide an alternative to real-world validations. However, simulation
experiments occasionally su er from problems, such as a range of assumptions that undermines the
simulation quality. Such assumptions include a strong limitation of the number of agents and interactions
between agents (i.e., only replies and responses, no spontaneous reactions). Other issues with simulation
experiments include experiments conducted in just a single scenario, a lack of evaluative metrics, and a lack
of comparison to previous methodologies. The lack of comparable techniques could explain the latter.

RQ2 can be answered through the following highlights:

• Validation is often missing or is lacking.

• Illustrations of use are often used as replacements for proper validation.

• Case studies that rely on real data are di cult to nd.

• Simulation case studies are common but often su er from numerous assumptions and limitations.

• Validation studies often lack metrics and comparative analysis.

3.4. Research Question 3: Research Gaps

The preceding subsection addressed RQ1 and RQ2. This subsection aims to address the third research
question by synthesizing this information and identifying gaps that could enhance the quality of future
research. The proposed research gaps are in no particular order.

The rst identi ed research gap is that authors frequently advocate for the expansion of models and the
validation of these models. Hence, the rst proposed research gap involves conducting comprehensive
validation studies. However, such validation should precede the expansion of these models to demonstrate
to both the industry and the scienti c community that further research in this area is warranted. The lack of
adequate validation can be attributed in part to industry secrecy and to the variable nature of agent-based
artefacts. An e ort to standardize metrics for assessing the quality of a multiagent system, akin to how
machine learning models are trained, could constitute a signi cant scienti c contribution. A suggested
approach for this involves integrating the elds of agent-based simulations and process mining.
Additionally, comparing centralized approaches with distributed agent-based approaches could yield fresh
insights into both artefact performance and general agent-based performance.

The second identi ed research gap pertains to standardizing methodologies encompassing models,
programming languages, and tools. Despite researchers presenting examples or prototypes of artefacts for
validation or illustration purposes, documentation for future use or integration with other tools is often
lacking. For instance, S-BPM requires a comprehensive speci cation language, according to Fleischmann et
al. (2013), despite extensive research on S-BPM. Standardization coupled with improved usability could also
enhance accessibility for researchers and practitioners using tools for agent-based approaches.
The third identi ed research gap pertains to the need for research on reactive and asynchronous agent
relations, as opposed to successive and deterministic relations and communication. Numerous simulation
studies make assumptions about successive relationships between agents acting in an undisturbed
environment. However, reality does not match this. Communication noise and unpredictable events might
cause a simulation to be overly stable, predictable, or mismatched with reality. Additionally, it would be
interesting to know how di erent levels of information sharing between agents a ect a multiagent system.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
This leads us to the fourth identi ed research gap, which involves the impact of a complex versus a simple
multiple-agent environment on the quality of a simulation. Noise or unpredictable events in experiments
could potentially assist in designing more stable multiagent systems for real-world applications.

The fth research direction could involve expanding compositional approaches for architecture-aware
process models. The idea is that architecture-aware process models can be (re)generated and formally
proven valuable by design. It does require an expansion of proven interfaces that represent agent
interactions and an e cient way to extract these from event logs.

The sixth area of research focuses on visualizations and explanations of a multiagent system.
Visualizations, including statistics that can enhance business decisions, might help people using such
systems better understand how the targeted multiagent system functions and how agents interact within it.
Examples of bene ciaries include managers attempting to improve business processes in a large retail store
or manufacturing plant operators who can gain better real-time insight through live-process mining and
visualization.

The topic of self-interested and evolving agents has been brie y mentioned in several papers. Research into
the e ect of more complex agents on the quality of multiagent systems and simulations might prove useful
for future implementations. This is because changes occur not only in business environments but also in the
people, roles, and processes within this environment.

A single paper brie y links process mining to Industry 4.0, with mentions of digital twins found in the SLR.
Increased volumes of data and the emergence of self-organizing systems might provide a new use case for
process mining and improved production. The work by Osman and Ghiran (2019) conducted exploratory
research, demonstrating that the combination of these elds o ers potential bene ts. There is much to be
discovered, rendering it an intriguing area for exploration.

Lastly, we identi ed a research gap related to another emerging technology. Despite the relative
commonality of cloud-based and decentralized data management solutions at the time of writing, there
could still be room for agent-based data management solutions. Sandita and Popirlan (2015) proposed a
multiagent data management system in JADE. Expanding this research could potentially lead to future
developments.

4. Discussion

The previous section has highlighted research areas, validation methods, and opportunities for future
research based on the results of the SLR. This section provides a brief recap, discussing the key ndings for
each research question.

To answer RQ1, ‘What agent-based approaches exist for process mining and/or business process
management?’ (addressed in subsection 3.2), within the scope of the SLR search query, it was found that
methods vary signi cantly across multiple domains. Approaches for simulation studies were developed to
validate models, measure business performance, and generate data. Process mining was often used in
conjunction with a multiagent system and simulations to capture the multiagent system’s behaviour.
Business process management was closely related to process mining and multiagent system simulation,
mainly with the goal of describing agent-based conceptual models, business processes, and multiple-agent
systems at various levels of abstraction. At lower levels of abstraction, representations of workers are
similar to multiagent systems, while higher levels of abstraction relate to organizational structures. Other
elds occasionally incorporating agent-based approaches are ontology, work ow, interactive agents, and
robotic process automation.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Validation methods for RQ2, ‘What validation methods are used and how are they performed?’ were
discussed in subsection 3.3. This section concludes that validation is often missing or inadequate. Validation
approaches were characterized by illustrations using analytical analysis methods such as mathematical
proofs. Additionally, while case studies and experiments using simulations were common, there was a
noticeable lack of noisy and perturbation event data, as well as metrics and comparative studies.
Furthermore, real-life agent data for multiagent systems validation are largely absent, possibly due to
security and trust concerns.

However, the explored approaches often perform well in experimental settings under certain assumptions,
such as a limited number of agents and solely reactive communication between them. Few studies have
tested these approaches for business use; those that have found that the frameworks are often not user-
friendly and di cult to understand without visualizations of the agent-based approach.

Only a small number of papers were statistically insigni cant or underperformed in experimental settings,
which indicates that the eld of agent-based techniques holds promise.

RQ3, ‘What are the research gaps in the joint eld of agent-based modelling, process mining, and business
process management with regard to the approaches found in RQ1?’ (subsection 3.4) concerns the
identi cation of research gaps and future research directions.

The answers to all the research questions are provided through a systematic literature review. We have
followed Kitchenham’s approach (Kitchenham et al. 2009) with slight modi cations, where we applied a
text analytics approach for literature categorization. The identi ed categorization helped us structure the
information into relevant and identi able groups for better understanding and exploration of results.

In this chapter, we conducted a text analytics–based systematic review to address our research question.
However, our systematic approach presents several threats to validity. First, although our inclusion criteria
were clearly de ned and agreed upon by the assessors, we may have inadvertently excluded relevant articles
by only considering those with relevant titles and abstracts. The content of the papers themselves could
have been important. Nevertheless, as our research primarily focuses on identifying structured methods—
typically de ned once and applied multiple times—the risk of missing a method is relatively low.
Furthermore, through snowballing, we may have identi ed any missing articles, thus mitigating this threat
to validity. Another potential threat to validity is the potential for bias in the selection of studies and data
extraction. To address this concern, we developed a set of quality evaluation questions (refer to section 2.3)
for the critical appraisal of each study (see Appendix A for details). Each study was evaluated against these
quality assessment criteria to minimize bias.

We conducted an evaluation of various validation methods employed in the research. Among the eighteen
analysed, a signi cant portion utilized experiments or case studies involving simulation. This trend can be
attributed to the prevalent focus on agent-based simulations within the scope of the studies, making
simulations an intuitive choice for validation. In contrast, a lesser number of papers opted for case studies
conducted at real companies, which emerged as a less common approach. An additional group of papers
adopted case studies to demonstrate the usability of a particular approach or prototype. However, these case
studies only mostly scratched the surface and did not delve deeply into the performance or limitations of the
proposed methodologies.
Thus, the added value of this research is that it provides an overview of current agent-based methods in
process mining and business process management. Furthermore, text analytics for article categorization
proved to be useful. Additionally, this work allows future researchers and practitioners to identify and
improve upon the identi ed research gaps, outlining a selection of concrete suggestions for future research
with the goal of inspiring communities within the eld.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
References

Adamo, Greta, Stefano Borgo, Chiara Di Francescomarino, Chiara Ghidini, Nicola Guarino, and Emilio M. Sanfilippo. 2017.
ʻBusiness Processes and Their Participants: An Ontological Perspectiveʼ. In Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial
Intelligence, edited by F. Esposito, R. Basili, S. Ferilli, and F. Lisi, 215–228. Springer.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-70169-1_16
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Alberti, Marco, Federico Chesani, Marco Gavanelli, Evelina Lamma, Paola Mello, Marco Montali, Sergio Storari, and Paolo Torroni.
2006. ʻComputational Logic for Run-Time Verification of Web Services Choreographies: Exploiting the Socs-Si Toolʼ. In Web Services
and Formal Methods, 58–72. Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Appio, Francesco P., Mario G. C. A. Cimino, Alessandro Lazzeri, Antonella Martini, and Gigliola Vaglini. 2018. ʻFostering Distributed
Business Logic in Open Collaborative Networks: An Integrated Approach Based on Semantic and Swarm Coordinationʼ.
Information Systems Frontiers 20 (3): 589–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9691-5.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Baumgärtel, Philipp, Johannes Tenschert, and Richard Lenz. 2014. ʻA Query Language for Workflow Instance Dataʼ. In New Trends
in Databases and Information Systems: 17th East European Conference on Advances in Databases and Information Systems, 79–86.
Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Bonabeau, Eric. 2002. ʻAgent-Based Modeling: Methods and Techniques for Simulating Human Systemsʼ. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 99 (suppl. 3): 7280–7287.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Both, Fiemke, Mark Hoogendoorn, Andy van der Mee, Jan Treur, and Michael de Vos. 2012. ʻAn Intelligent Agent Model with
Awareness of Workflow Progressʼ. Applied Intelligence 36 (2): 498–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-010-0273-9.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Chakraborti, Tathagata, Yara Rizk, Vatche Isahagian, Burak Aksar, and Francesco Fuggitti. 2022. ʻFrom Natural Language to
Workflows: Towards Emergent Intelligence in Robotic Process Automationʼ. In International Conference on Business Process
Management, 123–137. Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Chesani, Federico, Paola Mello, and Marco Montali. 2017. ʻAbductive Reasoning on Compliance Monitoring: Balancing Flexibility
and Regulationʼ. In Foundations of Intelligent Systems, 3–16. Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Cimino, Mario G. C. A., and Francesco Marcelloni. 2011. ʻAutonomic Tracing of Production Processes with Mobile and Agent-
Based Computingʼ. Information Sciences no. 5: 935–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2010.11.015.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Claes, Jan, Irene Vanderfeesten, Hajo A. Reijers, Jakob Pinggera, Matthias Weidlich, Stefan Zugal, Dirk Fahland, Barbara Weber,
Jan Mendling, and Geert Poels. 2012. ʻTying Process Model Quality to the Modeling Process: The Impact of Structuring,
Movement, and Speedʼ. In Business Process Management. BPM 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7481, edited by
A. Barros, A. Gal, and E. Kindler, 33–48. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32885-5_3.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Debenham, John, and Simeon Simo . 2012. ʻThe Co-Creation Machine: Managing Co-Creative Processes for the Crowdʼ. In
Advancing Democracy, Government and Governance, 170–177. Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC
Deen, S. Misbah, and Rashid Jayousi. 2006. ʻA Preference Processing Model for Cooperative Agentsʼ. Journal of Intelligent
Information Systems 26 (2): 115–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-006-8436-1.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Di Ciccio, Claudio, Massimo Mecella, Monica Scannapieco, Diego Zardetto, and Tiziana Catarci. 2012. ʻMailOfMine–Analyzing Mail
Messages for Mining Artful Collaborative Processesʼ. In Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis, 55–81. Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Di Federico, Gemma, Erik Ravn Nikolajsen, Mamuna Azam, and Andrea Burattin. 2021. ʻLinac: A Smart Environment Simulator of
Human Activitiesʼ. In International Conference on Process Mining, 60–72. Eindhoven, Cham: Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98581-3_5.
WorldCat

Dorrer, Mikhail, and Alexandra Dorrer. 2020. ʻForecasting e-Learning Processes Using GERT Models and Process Mining Toolsʼ. In
Proceeding of the International Science and Technology Conference, ʻFarEastСon 2019ʼ October 2019, Vladivostok, Russian
Federation, Far Eastern Federal University, 857–866. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Fajar, Aziz, Riyanarto Sarno, and Abd Charis Fauzan. 2018. ʻComparison of Discrete Event Simulation and Agent Based Simulation
for Evaluating the Performance of Port Container Terminalʼ. In 2018 International Conference on Information and Communications
Technology, (ICOIACT), 259–265. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOIACT.2018.8350717.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Fauzan, Abd Charis, Riyanarto Sarno, and Imam Machfud. 2019. ʻSimulation of Agent-Based and Discrete Event for Analyzing Multi
Organizational Performanceʼ. In 2019 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication
(iSemantic), 224–229. Jawa Tengah, Indonesia: IEEE Indonesia Section. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEMANTIC.2019.8884350.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Ferber, Jacques, Olivier Gutknecht, and Fabien Michel. 2004. ʻFrom Agents to Organizations: An Organizational View of Multi-
agent Systemsʼ. In Agent-Oriented So ware Engineering IV, 214–230. Melbourne, Australia: Springer.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Ferreira, Diogo R., Fernando Szimanski, and Celia Ghedini Ralha. 2013. ʻA Hierarchical Markov Model to Understand the Behaviour
of Agents in Business Processesʼ. In Business Process Management Workshops: BPM 2012 International Workshops, Tallinn, Estonia,
September 3, 2012. Revised Papers 10, 150–161. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36285-9_16.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Fleischmann, Albert, Udo Kannengiesser, Werner Schmidt, and Christian Stary. 2013. ʻSubject-Oriented Modeling and Execution
of Multi-Agent Business Processesʼ. In Proceedings—2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology,
IAT 2013, vol. 2, 138–145. Atlanta, GA: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WI-IAT.2013.102.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Günther, Christian W., and Wil M. P. van der Aalst. 2007. ʻFuzzy Mining—Adaptive Process Simplification Based on Multi-Perspective
Metricsʼ. In International Conference on Business Process Management, 328–343. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_24.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Halaška, Michal, and Roman Šperka. 2018. ʻIs There a Need for Agent-Based Modelling and Simulation in Business Process
Management?ʼ Organizacija 51 (4): 255–269. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2018-0019.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Halaška, Michal, and Roman Šperka. 2019. ʻAdvantages of Application of Process Mining and Agent-Based Systems in Business
Domainʼ. In Agents and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications 2018: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference
on Agents and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications (KES-AMSTA-18) 12, 177–186. Gold Coast, Australia: Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92031-3_17.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Halaška, Michal, and Roman Šperka. 2020. ʻMessaged Multi-agent System as a Tool for Strengthening Innovative Capabilities of
Business Modelsʼ. In Agents and Multi-agent Systems: Technologies and Applications 2019: 13th KES International Conference, KES-
AMSTA-2019 St. Julians, Malta, June 2019 Proceedings, 355–365. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8679-
4_29.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Han, Cunliang, Xiaojun Zhang, Huijuan Jiao, Min Wang, and Tiantian Han. 2021. ʻA Review on Financial Robot Process Auto-
Mining Based on Reinforcement Learningʼ. In International Forum on Digital TV and Wireless Multimedia Communications, 471–
484. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Hanachi, Chihab, Walid Gaaloul, and Ravi Mondi. 2012. ʻPerformative-Based Mining of Workflow Organizational Structuresʼ. In E-
Commerce and Web Technologies, 63–75. Springer.

Huang, Biqing, Peng Zhu, and Cheng Wu. 2012. ʻCustomer-Centered Careflow Modeling Based on Guidelinesʼ. Journal of Medical
Systems 36: 3307–3319.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Hull, Richard, and Hamid R. Motahari Nezhad. 2016. ʻRethinking BPM in a Cognitive World: Transforming How We Learn and
Perform Business Processesʼ. In International Conference on Business Process Management, 3–19. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Hunka, Frantisek, and Steven van Kervel. 2019. ʻA Generic DEMO Model for Co-creation and Co-production as a Basis for a Truthful
and Appropriate REA Model Representationʼ. In Business Process Management: Blockchain and Central and Eastern Europe Forum:
BPM 2019 Blockchain and CEE Forum, Vienna, Austria, September 1–6, 2019, Proceedings 17, 203–218. Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30429-4_14.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Hunka, Frantisek, and Jaroslav Zacek. 2014. ʻDetailed Analysis of REA Ontologyʼ. In Advances in Enterprise Engineering VIII: 4th
Enterprise Engineering Working Conference, EEWC 2014, Funchal, Madeira Island, Portugal, May 5–8, 2014. Proceedings 4, 61–75.
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06505-2_5.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Ito, Sohei, Dominik Vymětal, Roman Šperka, and Michal Halaška. 2018. ʻProcess Mining of a Multi-Agent Business Simulatorʼ.
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 24 (4): 500–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-018-9268-6.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Jablonski, Stefan, and Ramzan Talib. 2009. ʻAgent Assignment for Process Management: Pattern Based Agent Performance
Evaluationʼ. In Agents and Data Mining Interaction: 4th International Workshop, ADMI 2009, Budapest, Hungary, May 10–15, 2009,
Revised Selected Papers 4, 155–169. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03603-3_12.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Jennings, Ben, and Anthony Finkelstein. 2010. ʻMicro Workflow Gestural Analysis: Representation in Social Business Processesʼ. In
Business Process Management Workshops: BPM 2009 International Workshops, Ulm, Germany, September 7, 2009. Revised Papers
7, 278–290. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Jennings, Nicholas R., Timothy J. Norman, Peyman Faratin, Paul OʼBrien, and Brian Odgers. 2000. ʻAutonomous Agents for
Business Process Managementʼ. Applied Artificial Intelligence 14 (2): 145–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/088395100117106.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Jiang, Xuesong, Xiumei Wei, and Cui Jing. 2012. ʻBusiness Process Analysis and Modeling Based on Agentʼ. In Emerging Research in
Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence: International Conference, AICI 2012, Chengdu, China, October 26–28, 2012.
Proceedings, 253–257. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Jimenez, Jose-Fernando, Gabriel Zambrano-Rey, Santiago Aguirre, and Damien Trentesaux. 2018. ʻUsing Process-Mining for
Understating the Emergence of Self-Organizing Manufacturing Systemsʼ. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51 (11): 1618–1623.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.258.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Kabicher, Sonja, and Stefanie Rinderle-Ma. 2011. ʻHuman-Centered Process Engineering Based on Content Analysis and Process
View Aggregationʼ. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering: 23rd International Conference, CAiSE 2011, London, UK, June 20-
24, 2011. Proceedings 23, 467–481. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21640-4_35.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Kindler, Ekkart, Vladimir Rubin, and Wilhelm Schäfer. 2005. ʻIncremental Workflow Mining Based on Document Versioning
Informationʼ. In So ware Process Workshop, 287–301. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Kitchenham, Barbara, O. Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman. 2009. ʻSystematic
Literature Reviews in So ware Engineering—A Systematic Literature Reviewʼ. Information and So ware Technology 51 (1): 7–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Larsen, John Bruntse. 2019. ʻAdding Organizational Reasoning to Agent-Based Simulations in GAMAʼ. In Engineering Multi-Agent
Systems: 6th International Workshop, EMAS 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 14-15, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 6, 242–262.
Springer International Publishing.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Larsen, John Bruntse, Andrea Burattin, Christopher John Davis, Rasmus Hjardem-Hansen, and Jørgen Villadsen. 2019. ʻA Data
Driven Agent Elicitation Pipeline for Prediction Modelsʼ. In International Conference on Business Process Management, 570–582.
Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37453-2_46.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Lau, Jason S. K., George Q. Huang, Kai-Ling Mak, and L. Liang. 2006. ʻAgent-Based Modeling of Supply Chains for Distributed
Schedulingʼ. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans 36 (5): 847–861.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2005.854231.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Lins, Luis Fernando, Glaucia Melo, Toacy Oliveira, Paulo Alencar, and Donald Cowan. 2021. ʻPACAs: Process-Aware Conversational
Agentsʼ. In International Conference on Business Process Management, 312–318. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94343-1_24.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

López Castro, Laura María, Sonia Geraldine Martínez, Nestor Eduardo Rodriguez, Luna Violeta Lovera, Hugo Santiago Aguirre,
and Jose-Fernando Jimenez. 2021. ʻDevelopment of a Predictive Process Monitoring Methodology in a Self-Organized
Manufacturing Systemʼ. In Service Oriented, Holonic and Multi-Agent Manufacturing Systems for Industry of the Future: Proceedings
of SOHOMA LATIN AMERICA 2021, 3–16. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80906-5_1.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Ly, Linh Thao, Stefanie Rinderle-Ma, David Knuplesch, and Peter Dadam. 2011. ʻMonitoring Business Process Compliance Using
Compliance Rule Graphsʼ. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2011: Confederated International Conferences:
CoopIS, DOA-SVI, and ODBASE 2011, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece, October 17-21, 2011, Proceedings, Part I, 82–99. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Macal, Charles M., and Michael J. North. 2008. ʻAgent-Based Modeling and Simulation: ABMS Examplesʼ. In 2008 Winter Simulation
Conference, 101–112. Miami, FL: IEEE.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Marrella, Andrea. 2019. ʻAutomated Planning for Business Process Managementʼ. Journal on Data Semantics 8 (2): 79–98.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Medeiros, A. K. Alves de, Boudewijn F. van Dongen, Wil M. P. van der Aalst, and Anton J. M. M. Weijters. 2004. Process Mining:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Extending the Alpha-Algorithm to Mine Short Loops. BETA Publicatie: Working Papers. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven.

Nesterov, Roman, Luca Bernardinello, Irina Lomazova, and Lucia Pomello. 2023. ʻDiscovering Architecture-Aware and Sound
Process Models of Multi-Agent Systems: A Compositional Approachʼ. So ware and Systems Modeling 22 (1): 351–375.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-022-01008-x.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Nesterov, Roman, and Irina A. Lomazova. 2019. ʻAsynchronous Interaction Patterns for Mining Multiagent System Models from
Event Logsʼ. In Proceedings of the MACSPro Workshop, 62–73. Vienna.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Oberhauser, Roy, and Sebastian Stigler. 2018. ʻMicroflows: Leveraging Process Mining and an Automated Constraint Recommender
for Microflow Modelingʼ. In Business Modeling and So ware Design: 7th International Symposium, BMSD 2017, Barcelona, Spain,
July 3–5, 2017, Revised Selected Papers 7, 25–48. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78428-1_2.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Decker, G., Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., and García-Bañuelos, L. 2009. The business process modeling notation. In Modern Business
Process Automation: YAWL and its Support Environment, 347–368. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Onggo, Bhakti S. S., and Onder Karpat. 2011. ʻAgent-Based Conceptual Model Representation Using BPMNʼ. In Proceedings—
Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 671–682. Phoenix Arizona: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2011.6147795.

Osman, Cristina-Claudia, and Ana-Maria Ghiran. 2019. ʻWhen Industry 4.0 Meets Process Miningʼ. Procedia Computer Science 159:
2130–2136. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2019.09.386.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Ou-Yang, C., and Yeh-Chun Juan. 2010. ʻApplying Process Mining Approach to Support the Verification of a Multi-Agent Systemʼ.
Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 19 (2): 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-010-5132-z.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Ou-Yang, C., Yeh-Chun Juan, and C. S. Li. 2009. ʻApplying Petri Net to Analyze a Multi-Agent System Feasibility—A Process Mining
Approachʼ. In Global Perspective for Competitive Enterprise, Economy and Ecology: Proceedings of the 16th ISPE International
Conference on Concurrent Engineering, 93–103. London: Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-762-2_9.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Poggi, Nicolas, Vinod Muthusamy, David Carrera, and Rania Khalaf. 2013. ʻBusiness Process Mining from e-Commerce Web Logsʼ. In
International Conference on Business Process Management: 11th International Conference, BPM 2013, Beijing, China, August 26-30,
2013. Proceedings, 65–80. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Poletaeva, Tatiana, Habib Abdulrab, and Edward Babkin. 2013. ʻDeveloping a Multi-Facet Abstractions Framework for Designing a
New Class of Traceability Applicationsʼ. In Enterprise and Organizational Modeling and Simulation: 9th International Workshop,
EOMAS 2013, Held at CAiSE 2013, Valencia, Spain, June 17, 2013, Selected Papers 9, 115–129. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Reijers, Hajo A., Minseok Song, and Byungduk Jeong. 2009. ʻAnalysis of a Collaborative Workflow Process with Distributed
Actorsʼ. Information Systems Frontiers 11: 307–322.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Rizk, Yara, Vatche Isahagian, Scott Boag, Yasaman Khazaeni, Merve Unuvar, Vinod Muthusamy, and Rania Khalaf. 2020. ʻA
Conversational Digital Assistant for Intelligent Process Automationʼ. In Business Process Management: Blockchain and Robotic
Process Automation Forum: BPM 2020 Blockchain and RPA Forum, Seville, Spain, September 13–18, 2020, Proceedings 18, 85–100.
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58779-6_6.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Roeser, Tobias, and Eva-Maria Kern. 2015. ʻSurveys in Business Process Management—A Literature Reviewʼ. Business Process
Management Journal 21 (3): 692–718.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Saha, Ratul, Madhavan Mukund, and R. P. Jagadeesh Chandra Bose. 2016. ʻTime-Bounded Statistical Analysis of Resource-
Constrained Business Processes with Distributed Probabilistic Systemsʼ. In International Symposium on Dependable So ware
Engineering: Theories, Tools, and Applications, 297–314. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-47677-3_19.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Sandita, Adrian Victor, and Claudiu Ionut Popirlan. 2015. ʻDeveloping a Multi-Agent System in JADE for Information Management
in Educational Competence Domainsʼ. Procedia Economics and Finance 23: 478–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-
5671(15)00404-9.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Schönig, Stefan, Cristina Cabanillas, Ciccio Di Ciccio, Stefan Jablonski, and Jan Mendling. 2018. ʻMining Team Compositions for
Collaborative Work in Business Processesʼ. So ware and Systems Modeling 17 (2): 675–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-
0567-4.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Sellitto, Giovanni Paolo, Helder Aranha, Massimiliano Masi, and Tanja Pavleska. 2020. ʻSecurity and Safety by Design in the
Internet of Actors: An Architectural Approachʼ. In Subject-Oriented Business Process Management. The Digital Workplace–Nucleus of
Transformation: 12th International Conference, S-BPM ONE 2020, Bremen, Germany, December 2-3, 2020, Proceedings 12, 133–142.
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64351-5_9.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Siebers, Peer-Olaf, Uwe Aickelin, Helen Celia, and Christopher Clegg. 2007. ʻA Multi-Agent Simulation of Retail Management
Practicesʼ. In Proceedings of the 2007 summer computer simulation conference. Society for Computer Simulation International
2007. Simulation International, San Diego, CA, United States. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0803.1598.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Singer, Robert. 2016. ʻAgent-Based Business Process Modeling and Execution: Steps Towards a Compiler-Virtual Machine
Architectureʼ. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Subject-Oriented Business Process Management, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2882879.2882880.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Slaninová, Kateřina, Jan Martinovič, Roman Šperka, and Pavla Dráždilová. 2013. ʻExtraction of Agent Groups with Similar
Behaviour Based on Agent Profilesʼ. In Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management: 12th IFIP TC8 International
Conference, CISIM 2013, Krakow, Poland, September 25–27, 2013. Proceedings, 348–357. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40925-7_32.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Šperka, Roman, Marek Spišák, Katerina Slaninová, Jan Martinovič, and Pavla Dráždilová. 2013. ʻControl Loop Model of Virtual
Company in BPM Simulationʼ. In So Computing Models in Industrial and Environmental Applications: 7th International Conference,
SOCOʼ12, Ostrava, Czech Republic, September 5th-7th, 2012, 515–524. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
642-32922-7_53.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Szimanski, Fernando, Célia G. Ralha, Gerd Wagner, and Diogo R. Ferreira. 2013. ʻImproving Business Process Models with Agent-
Based Simulation and Process Miningʼ. In International Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support, 124–
138. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38484-4_10.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Tiwari, Ashutosh, Chris J. Turner, and Basim Majeed. 2008. ʻA Review of Business Process Mining: State‐of‐the‐Art and Future
Trendsʼ. Business Process Management Journal 14 (1): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150810849373.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Tour, Andrei, Artem Polyvyanyy, and Anna Kalenkova. 2021. ʻAgent System Mining: Vision, Benefits, and Challengesʼ. IEEE Access
9: 99480–99494. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3095464.
Google Scholar WorldCat

van der Aalst, Wil M. P. 1998. ʻThe Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Managementʼ. Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers
8 (1): 21–66. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218126698000043.
Google Scholar WorldCat

van der Aalst, Wil M. P. 2012. ʻProcess Mining: Overview and Opportunitiesʼ. ACM Transactions on Management Information
Systems 3 (2): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/2229156.2229157.
Google Scholar WorldCat

van der Aalst, Wil M. P. 2013. ʻBusiness Process Management: A Comprehensive Surveyʼ. International Scholarly Research Notices
So ware Engineering 2013 (1): 1–37.
Google Scholar WorldCat

van der Aalst, Wil, Arya Adriansyah, Ana Karla Alves De Medeiros, Franco Arcieri, Thomas Baier, Tobias Blickle,
Jagadeesh Chandra Bose, P. … & Wynn, M. 2012. ʻProcess Mining Manifestoʼ. In Business Process Management Workshops: BPM
2011 International Workshops, Clermont-Ferrand, France, August 29, 2011, Revised Selected Papers, Part I 9, 169–194. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_19.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

van Dongen, Boudewijn F., J. van Luin, and H. M. W. Verbeek. 2006. ʻProcess Mining in a Multi-Agent Auctioning Systemʼ. In
Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Modelling of Objects, Components and Agents, Turku, 145–160. Hamburg:
Bericht Universität Hamburg, Department Informatik, University of Hamburg.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

van Dongen, Boudewijn F., Ana Karla A. de Medeiros, H. M. W. Verbeek, A. J. M. M. Weijters, and Wil M. P. van der Aalst. 2005. ʻThe
ProM Framework: A New Era in Process Mining Tool Supportʼ. In Applications and Theory of Petri Nets 2005: 26th International
Conference, ICATPN 2005, Miami, USA, June 20-25, 2005. Proceedings 26, 444–454. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Wagner, Gerd. 2003. ʻAOR Modelling and Simulation: Towards a General Architecture for Agent-Based Discrete Event Simulationʼ.
In International Bi-Conference Workshop on Agent-Oriented Information Systems, 174–188. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Weijters, Anton J. M. M., Wil M. P. van der Aalst, and A. K. Alves de Medeiros. 2006. Process Mining with the HeuristicsMiner
Algorithm. BETA Publicatie: Working Papers. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Weiss, Gerhard. 1999. Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Witschel, Hans Friedrich, Bo Hu, Uwe V. Riss, Barbara Thönssen, Roman Brun, Andreas Martin, and Knut Hinkelmann. 2010. ʻA
Collaborative Approach to Maturing Process-Related Knowledgeʼ. In International Conference on Business Process Management,
343–358. Hoboken, NJ: Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Wohlin, Claes. 2014. ʻGuidelines for Snowballing in Systematic Literature Studies and a Replication in So ware Engineeringʼ. In
Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in So ware Engineering, 1–10. London, England.

Wooldridge, Nicholas R., Jennings, Michael, and David Kinny. 2000. ʻThe Gaia Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Designʼ. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3 (3): 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010071910869.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Yaeli, Avi, Segev Shlomov, Alon Oved, Sergey Zeltyn, and Nir Mashkif. 2022. ʻRecommending Next Best Skill in Conversational
Robotic Process Automationʼ. In International Conference on Business Process Management, 215–230. Münster, Germany; Cham:
Springer International Publishing.

Zairi, Mohamed. 1997. ʻBusiness Process Management: A Boundaryless Approach to Modern Competitivenessʼ. Business Process
Management Journal 3 (1): 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637159710161585.
Google Scholar WorldCat
4.1 Appendix A. Quality Appraisal of the Papers

Table 2. Quality appraisal of papers a er the criteria assessment, including papers that were excluded from the SLR due to
not meeting the requirements

Item Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Score

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Bonabeau 2002 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5

Szimanski et al. 2013 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Halaška and Šperka 2019 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6

Poggi et al. 2013 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6

Šperka et al. 2013 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 7.5

Oberhauser and Stigler 2018 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 7

Ou-Yang, Juan, and Li 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Halaška and Šperka 2020 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 7

Jiang, Wei, and Jing 2012 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Dorrer and Dorrer 2020 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 6.5

Hull and Nezhad 2016 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

Larsen et al. 2019 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 7

Hanachi, Gaaloul, and Mondi 2012 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4

Ferreira, Szimanski, and Ralha 2013 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 7

Rizk et al. 2020 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 7.5

Poletaeva, Abdulrab, and Babkin 2013 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 0 1 4.5

Slaninová et al. 2013 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

B. Jennings and Finkelstein 2010 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3

Kabicher and Rinderle-Ma 2011 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

López Castro et al. 2021 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Han et al. 2021 0.5 0 1 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 4.5

Lins et al. 2021 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.5 1 6.5

Witschel et al. 2010 0 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 6.5

Saha, Mukund, and Bose 2016 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 7.5

Chakraborti et al. 2022 0 1 1 0.5 0 0 0 1 3.5

Alberti et al. 2006 0.5 0 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 5

Di Ciccio et al. 2012 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 6

Kindler, Rubin, and Schäfer 2005 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4

Chesani, Mello, and Montali 2017 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5

Yaeli et al. 2022 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 3

Debenham and Simo 2012 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 3

Ly et al. 2011 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
Sellitto et al. 2020 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0 1 1 6

Hunka and Kervel 2019 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 7

Jablonski and Talib 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Di Federico et al. 2021 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Baumgärtel, Tenschert, and Lenz 2014 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 5.5

Adamo et al. 2017 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4.5

Tour, Polyvyanyy, and Kalenkova 2021 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4.5

Fauzan, Sarno, and Machfud 2019 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7

Halaška and Šperka 2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7

Ou-Yang and Juan 2010 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Ito et al. 2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Marrella 2019 0 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 1 4.5

Nesterov et al. 2023 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Schönig et al. 2018 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7.5

Reijers, Song, and Jeong 2009 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 6.5

Both et al. 2012 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 7.5

Appio et al. 2018 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 5.5

Huang, Zhu, and Wu 2012 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 4.5

4.2 Appendix B. Snowballed Papers

Table 3. Overview of the papers found through snowballing a er the quality appraisal

Title Author

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/55833/chapter/454435959 by St Loye's Schoool of Health Studies user on 04 September 2024
ʻAgent-Based Modeling: Methods and Techniques for Simulating Human Systemsʼ Bonabeau

ʻAOR Modelling and Simulation: Towards a General Architecture for Agent-Based Discrete Event Wagner
Simulationʼ

ʻAutonomous Agents for Business Process Managementʼ Jennings et al.

ʻAgent-Based Business Process Modeling and Execution: Steps Towards a Compiler-Virtual Singer
Machine Architectureʼ

ʻA Preference Processing Model for Cooperative Agentsʼ Deen and Jayousi

ʻDeveloping a Multi-Agent System in JADE for Information Management in Educational Sandita and Popirlan
Competence Domainsʼ

ʻAdding Organizational Reasoning to Agent-Based Simulations in GAMAʼ Larsen

ʻUsing Process-Mining for Understating the Emergence of Self-Organizing Manufacturing Jimenez et al.
Systemsʼ

ʻComparison of Discrete Event Simulation and Agent Based Simulation for Evaluating the Fajar, Sarno, and Fauzan
Performance of Port Container Terminalʼ

ʻA Hierarchical Markov Model to Understand the Behaviour of Agents in Business Processesʼ Ferreira, Szimanski, and
Ralha

ʻSubject-Oriented Modeling and Execution of Multi-Agent Business Processesʼ Fleischmann et al.

ʻAgent-Based Conceptual Model Representation Using BPMNʼ Onggo and Karpat

ʻA Multi-Agent Simulation of Retail Management Practicesʼ Siebers et al.

ʻThe Gaia Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and Designʼ Wooldridge and Kinny

ʻAgent-Based Modeling of Supply Chains for Distributed Schedulingʼ Lau et al.

ʻProcess Mining in a Multi-Agent Auctioning Systemʼ van Dongen, van Luin,

and Verbeek

ʻAsynchronous Interaction Patterns for Mining Multiagent System Models from Event Logsʼ Nesterov and Lomazova

ʻFrom Agents to Organizations: An Organizational View of Multi-Agent Systemsʼ Ferber, Gutknecht, and
Michel

ʻAutonomic Tracing of Production Processes with Mobile and Agent-Based Computingʼ Cimino and Marcelloni