Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Improving Quality of Business Process Models

  • Conference paper
Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2011)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 275))

Abstract

Business process improvement is a key aspect for organizational improvement. We focus the business process improvement in the first stage of process lifecycle, design stage, because it is a means to avoid the propagation of errors to later stages, in which their detection and correction may be more difficult. Since business process improvement is centered in business process models, a proposal of certain steps based on measurement activities on conceptual models (measurement, evaluation and redesign) is described. The application of these steps in business process models produces an increase of the quality of them. Quality is defined as the level of understandability and modifiability, subcharacteristics of the usability and maintainability in ISO 9126. The steps for model improvement have been applied to a real hospital business process model. The model was modified by following expert opinions and modeling guidelines, thus leading to the attainment of a higher-quality model. Our findings clearly support the practical utility of measurement activities for business process model improvement.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Damij, N., et al.: A methodology for business process improvement and IS development. Information and Software Technology 50(11), 1127–1141 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cardoso, J.: Process control-flow complexity metric: An empirical validation. In: SCC 2006: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, pp. 167–173 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Park, R.E., Goethert, W.B., Florac, W.A.: Goal-Driven software Measurement: A Guidebook. Handbook CMU/SEI-96-HB-002 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, 1st edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sparks, G.: An Introduction to UML, The Business Process Model. Enterprise Architect (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wand, Y., Weber, C.: Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling–a research agenda. Info. Sys. Research 13(4), 363–376 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sánchez-González, L., et al.: Measurement in Business Processes: a Systematic Review. Business Process Management Journal 16(1), 114–134 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Delgado, A., Ruiz, F., García-Rodríguez de Guzmán, I., Piattini, M.: MINERVA: Model drIveN and sErvice oRiented Framework for the Continuous Business Process improVement and relAted Tools. In: Dan, A., Gittler, F., Toumani, F. (eds.) ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009. LNCS, vol. 6275, pp. 456–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. ISO/IEC, 9126-1, Software engineering - product quality - Part 1: Quality Model (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Moody, D.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data and Knowledge Engineering 55, 243 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modeling. IEEE Software 11(2), 42–49 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shanks, G., Tansley, E., Weber, R.: Using ontology to validate conceptual models. Commun. ACM 46(10), 85–89 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Krogstie, J., et al.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 91–102 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Briand, L.C., Wüst, J., Ikonomovski, S., Lounis, H.: A Comprehensive Investigation of Quality Factors in Object-Oriented Designs. An Industrial Case Study. Technical Report ISERN-98-29 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vanderfeesten, I., et al.: Quality Metrics for Business Process Models. In: BPM and Workflow Handbook (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Cardoso, J.: On a Quest for Good Process Models: The Cross-Connectivity Metric. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 480–494. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Rolón, E., García, F., Ruiz, F.: Evaluation Measures for Business Process Models. In: Simposioum in Applied Computing, SAC 2006 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jung, J.Y.: Measuring entropy in business process models. International Conference on Innovative Computing. Information and Control, 246–252 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Laue, R., Mendling, J.: Structuredness and its Significance for Correctness of Process Models. Information Systems and E-Business Management (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Meimandi Parizi, R., Ghani, A.A.A.: An Ensemble of Complexity Metrics for BPEL Web Processes. In: Ninth ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed Computing, pp. 753–758 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Huan, Z., Kumar, A.: New quality metrics for evaluating process models. In: Business Process Intelligence Workshop (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rolon, E., et al.: Prediction Models for BPMN Usability and Maintainability. In: BPMN 2009 - 1st International Workshop on BPMN, pp. 383–390 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sánchez González, L., et al.: Assessent and Prediction of Business Process Model Quality. In: CoopIS 2010 - 18th International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 78–95 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rolón, E., et al.: Analysis and Validation of Control-Flow Complexity Measures with BPMN Process Models. In: The 10th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. McCabe, T.J.: A Complexity Measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-2(4), 308–320 (1976)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Nejmeh, B.A.: NPATH: a Measure of Execution Path Complexity and its Applications. ACM 31(2), 188–200 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Coleman, D., Lowther, B., Oman, P.: The Application of Software Maintainability Models in Industrial Software Systems. Journal of Systems and Software 29(1), 3–16 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shatnawi, R.: A Quantitative Investigation of the Acceptable Risk levels of Object-Oriented Metrics in Open-Source Systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 36(2), 216–225 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bender, R.: Quantitative Risk Assessment in Epidemiological Studies Investigatin Threshold Effects. Biometrical Journal 41(3), 305–319 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Sánchez-González, L., et al.: Towards Thresholds of Control Flow Complexity Measures for BPMN Models. In: 26th Symposium On Applied Computing. SAC, vol. 10 (in press, 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sánchez-González, L., et al.: Quality Assessment of Business Process Models Based on Thresholds. In: CoopIS 2010 - 18th International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 78–95 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Van der Aalst, W.: Seven Process Modeling Guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology 52(2), 127–136 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. OMG. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Final Adopted Specification (2006), http://www.omg.org/bpm

  36. Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M.: The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alarcos Research Group, TSI Department, University of Castilla La Mancha, Paseo de la Universidad, nº4, 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain

    Laura Sánchez-González, Francisco Ruiz, Félix García & Mario Piattini

Authors
  1. Laura Sánchez-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francisco Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Félix García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mario Piattini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing, Macquarie University, 2109, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Leszek A. Maciaszek

  2. Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Road, Texas 75080-3021, Richardson, USA

    Kang Zhang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sánchez-González, L., Ruiz, F., García, F., Piattini, M. (2013). Improving Quality of Business Process Models. In: Maciaszek, L.A., Zhang, K. (eds) Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering. ENASE 2011. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 275. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32341-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32341-6_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32340-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32341-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics