Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Quality Marks, Metrics, and Measurement Procedures for Business Process Models

The 3QM-Framework

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Business & Information Systems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The availability of high-quality business process models is a central prerequisite for a successful process management. Nevertheless, in practice process models exhibit a large number of quality deficits, among them grammatical, content-related, and stylistic defects. In addition, there exist only very few approaches to determine the quality of business process models. In this paper, we present the 3QM-Framework, an analytical approach to systematically determine the quality of business process models. The 3QM-Framework makes three contributions: it provides quality marks, metrics, and measurement procedures to quantify the quality level as elements of a theoretically justified quality model. The applicability of the 3QM-Framework has been empirically evaluated in case studies. The results of a survey that was conducted among experts moreover attest its practical relevance.

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

Access this article

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

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Survey materials can be found in the online appendix.

References

  • Aczél J, Saaty TL (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 27(1):93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzert H (2008) Lehrbuch der Softwaretechnik, Band 2, Softwaremanagement, 2nd edn. Spektrum, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J (2011) Geschäftsprozessmodellierung. In: Kurbel K, Becker J, Gronau N, Sinz E, Suhl L (eds) Enzyklopädie der Wirtschaftsinformatik – Online-Lexikon, 5th edn. Oldenbourg, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Schütte R (2004) Handelsinformationssysteme, 2nd edn. Verlag Moderne Industrie, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Rosemann M, Schütte R (1995) Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Modellierung. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 37(5):435–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Rosemann M, von Uthmann C (2000) Guidelines of business process modeling. In: Proc business process management conference. Lect Notes Comput Sci, vol 1806. Springer, Berlin, pp 30–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkmeier DQ, Klöckner S, Overhage S (2010) An empirical comparison of the usability of BPMN and UML activity diagrams for business users. In: Proc 18th European conference on information systems, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones A, Wand Y, Weber R (2009) Guidelines for empirical evaluations of conceptual modeling grammars. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(6):495–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfmann P, Herwig S, Lis L (2009) Unified enterprise knowledge representation with conceptual models – capturing corporate language in naming conventions. In: Proc 30th international conference on information systems, Phoenix

    Google Scholar 

  • Denger C, Olsson T (2005) Quality assurance in requirements engineering. In: Aurum A, Wohlin C (eds) Engineering and managing software requirements. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–186

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fellmann M, Hogrebe F, Thomas O, Nüttgens M (2011) Checking the semantic correctness of process models. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures 6(3):25–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemino A, Wand Y (2004) A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering 9(3):153–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Given LM (2008) The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadar I, Soffer P (2006) Variations in conceptual modeling: classification and ontological analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7(8):569–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly 28(1):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2):39–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Indulska M, Recker J, Rosemann M, Green PF (2008) Representational deficiency of process modelling languages: measures and implications. In: Proc 16th European conference on information systems. Galway, Ireland

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2000) Quality management systems: fundamentals and vocabulary. ISO/IEC 9000-2000, International Organization for Standardization

  • ISO/IEC (2001) Software engineering – product quality – part 1: quality model. ISO/IEC Standard 9126-1, International Organization for Standardization

  • Krogstie J, Sindre G, Jørgensen H (2006) Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15(1):91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindland OI, Sindre G, Sølvberg A (1994) Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11(2):42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March ST, Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4):251–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin B, Ringham F (2006) Key terms in semiotics. Continuum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald MP, Aron D (2010) Leading in times of transition: the 2010 CIO Agenda. Gartner, Inc

  • Melenovsky MJ (2005) Business process management’s success hinges on business-led initiatives. Gartner, Inc

  • Mendling J (2008) Metrics for process models: empirical foundations of verification, error prediction, and guidelines for correctness. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J (2009) Empirical studies in process model verification. In: Proc transactions on petri nets and other models of concurrency II. Lect Notes Comput Sci, vol 5460. Springer, Berlin, pp 208–224

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Reijers HA, van der Aalst WMP (2010) Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology 52(2):127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Stremberg M, Recker J (2012) Factors of process model comprehension − findings from a series of experiments. Decision Support Systems 53(1):195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Verbeek H, van Dongen B, van der Aalst W, Neumann G (2008) Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model. Data & Knowledge Engineering 64(1):312–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody DL (2005) Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55(3):243–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody DL (2009) The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6):756–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody DL, Shanks GG (1994) What makes a good data model? Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In: Proc 13th international conference on the entity-relationship approach, Manchester. Lect Notes Comput Sci, vol 881. Springer, Berlin, pp 94–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody DL, Sindre G, Brasethvik T, Sølvberg A (2003) Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework. In: Proc 25th international conference on software engineering, Portland. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 295–307

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Morris CW (1938) Foundations of the theory of signs. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Nöth W (1990) Handbook of semiotics. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2003) UML 2.0 superstructure specification. Adopted specification, ptc/03-08-02, Object Management Group

  • OMG (2007) Business process model and notation (BPMN) 2.0. Request for proposal. BMI/2007-06-05, Object Management Group

  • Overhage S, Schlauderer S, Birkmeier D (2011) Sind Ereignisgesteuerte Prozessketten besser für Fachanwender geeignet als UML Aktivitätsdiagramme? Eine empirische Untersuchung. In: Proc 10th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Zürich, vol 2, pp 745–755

    Google Scholar 

  • Overhage S, Schlauderer S, Birkmeier D (2012) Sagt ein Geschäftsprozessdiagramm mehr als tausend Worte? Eine empirische Studie zur Verwendbarkeit von EPK und Normsprache für Fachanwender. Universität Augsburg, Augsburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Patig S, Casanova-Brito V, Vögeli B (2010) IT requirements of business process management in practice – an empirical study. In: Proc 8th business process management conference, Hoboken. Lect Notes Comput Sci, vol 6336. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 13–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Poels G, Maes A, Gailly F, Paemeleire R (2005) Measuring the perceived semantic quality of information models. In: Proc ER Workshops AOIS, BP-UML, CoMoGIS, eCOMO, and QoIS, Klagenfurt. Lect Notes Comput Sci. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 376–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Recker J, Indulska M, Rosemann M, Green P (2009) Business process modeling – a comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(4):333–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Recker J, Rosemann M, Green PF, Indulska M (2011) Do ontological deficiencies in modeling grammars matter? Management Information Systems Quarterly 35(1):57–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 32(7):841–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierachy process. Interfaces 24(6):19–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheer AW, Thomas O, Adam O (2005) Process modeling using event-driven process chains. In: Dumas M, van der Aalst WMP, Hofstede AHM (eds) Bridging people and software through process technology. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütte R (1998) Vergleich alternativer Ansätze zur Bewertung der Informationsmodellqualität. In: Proc Fachtagung Modellierung betrieblicher Informationssysteme, Koblenz

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütte R, Rotthowe T (1998) The guidelines of modeling – an approach to enhance the quality in information models. In: Proc 17th international conference on conceptual modeling, Singapore. Lect Notes Comput Sci, vol 1507. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 240–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok TA (2001) Signs: an introduction to semiotics, 2nd edn. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok TA, Danesi M (2000) The forms of meaning: modeling systems theory and semiotic analysis. de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok TA, Danesi M (eds) (2010) Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics: N-Z. de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks GG, Darke P (1997) Quality in conceptual modelling: linking theory and practice. In: Proc 3rd Pacific Asia conference on information systems, Brisbane, pp 805–814

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville I (1992) Software engineering, 4th edn. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeda H, Veerkamp P, Tomiyama T, Yoshikawa H (1990) Modeling design processes. AI Magazine 11(4):37–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaishnavi V, Kuechler W (2004) Design science research in information systems. http://ais.affiniscape.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=279

  • Vanderfeesten I, Cardoso J, Mendling J, Reijers HA, van der Aalst W (2007) Quality metrics for business process models. In: Fischer L (ed) BPM & workflow handbook 2007: future strategies, Lighthouse Point, pp 179–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Weske M (2007) Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Business Information Systems & Systems Engineering, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 16, 86159, Augsburg, Germany

    Sven Overhage, Dominik Q. Birkmeier & Sebastian Schlauderer

Authors
  1. Sven Overhage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dominik Q. Birkmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebastian Schlauderer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Overhage.

Additional information

Accepted after two revisions by Prof. Dr. Rosemann.

This article is also available in German in print and via http://www.wirtschaftsinformatik.de: Overhage S, Birkmeier DQ, Schlauderer S (2012) Qualitätsmerkmale, -metriken und -messverfahren für Geschäftsprozessmodelle. Das 3QM-Framework. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK. doi: 10.1007/s11576-012-0335-1.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(DOCX 39 kB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Overhage, S., Birkmeier, D.Q. & Schlauderer, S. Quality Marks, Metrics, and Measurement Procedures for Business Process Models. Bus Inf Syst Eng 4, 229–246 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-012-0230-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-012-0230-8

Keywords