Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structuredness and its significance for correctness of process models

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Information Systems and e-Business Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent research has shown that business process models from practice suffer from several quality problems. In particular, the correctness of control flow has been analyzed for industry-scale collections of process models revealing that error ratios are surprisingly high. In the past the structuredness property has been discussed as a guideline to avoid errors, first in research on programming, and later also in business process modeling. In this paper we investigate the importance of structuredness for process model correctness from an empirical perspective. We introduce definitions of two metrics that quantify the (un)structuredness of a process model, the degree of structuredness and the unmatched connector count. Then, we use the event-driven process chain models of the SAP reference model for validating the capability of these metrics to predict error probability. Our findings clearly support the importance of structuredness as a design principle for achieving correctness in process models.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • van der Aalst WMP (1997) Verification of workflow nets. In: Pierre Azéma, Gianfranco Balbo (eds) Application and theory of petri nets 1997, vol 1248 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 407–426

  • van der Aalst WMP (1999) Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf Softw Technol 41(10):639–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst WMP, Lassen KB (2008) Translating unstructured workflow processes to readable BPEL: theory and implementation. Inf Softw Technol 50(3):131–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ammarguellat Z (1992) A control-flow normalization algorithm and its complexity. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 18(3):237–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bache R (1990) Graph theory models of software. Ph.D. Thesis, South Bank University, London

  • Balasubramanian S, Gupta M (2005) Structural metrics for goal based business process design and evaluation. Bus Process Manage J 11(6):680–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basili V, Briand L, Melo W (1996) A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 22(10):751–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Rosemann M, von Uthmann C (2000) Guidelines of business process modeling. In: van der Aalst WMP, Desel J, Oberweis A (eds) Business process management. Models, techniques, and empirical studies. Springer, Berlin, pp 30–49

  • Cardoso J (2005) How to measure the control-flow complexity of web processes and workflows. In: Fischer L (ed) Workflow handbook 2005. Future strategies, lighthouse point

  • Cardoso J (2006) Process control-flow complexity metric: an empirical validation. In: IEEE international conference on services computing (IEEE SCC 06). IEEE Computer Society, USA, pp 167–173

  • Cardoso J, Mendling J, Neumann G, Reijers H (2006) A discourse on complexity of process models. In: Eder J, Dustdar S (eds) Proceedings of the BPM 2006 workshops, workshop on business process design BPI 2006. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4103, pp 115–126

  • Daneva M, Heib R, Scheer A-W (1996) Benchmarking business process models. IWi Research Report 136, Institute for Information Systems, University of the Saarland, Germany

  • Davies I, Green P, Rosemann M, Indulska M, Gallo S (2006) How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl Eng 58(3):358–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehnert J, van der Aalst WMP (2004) Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. Int J Coop Inf Syst 13(3):289–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehnert J, Zimmermann A (2005) On the suitability of correctness criteria for business process models. In: van der Aalst WMP, Benatallah B, Casati F, Curbera F (eds) Business process management, 3rd international conference, BPM 2005, Nancy, France, September 5–8, 2005. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3649, pp 386–391

  • Dumas M, van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM (eds) (2005) Process aware information systems: bridging people and software through process technology. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Erl T (2005) Service-oriented architecture: concepts, technology, and design. Prentice Hall, Upple Saddle Revier

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton NE, Whitty RW (1986) Axiomatic approach to software metrication through program decomposition. Comput J 29(4):329–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris C (2003) What are web services? Communications of the ACM 46(6):31–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore DJ, Green TRG (1984) Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. Int J Man Mach Stud 21(1):31–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruhn V, Laue R (2006a) Complexity metrics for business process models. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on business information systems (BIS 2006). Lecture notes in informatics, vol 85

  • Gruhn V, Laue R (2006b) Adopting the cognitive complexity measure for business process models. In: Yao Y, Shi Z, Wang Y, Kinsner W (eds) Proceedings of the firth IEEE international conference on cognitive informatics, ICCI 2006, July 17–19, Beijing, China, IEEE, pp 236–241

  • Gruhn V, Laue R (2007a) On experiments for measuring cognitive weights for software control structures. In: Zhang D, Wang Y, Kinsner W (eds) Proceedings of the sixth IEEE international conference on cognitive informatics, ICCI 2007, August 6–8, Lake Tahoe, CA, USA, IEEE, pp 116–119

  • Gruhn V, Laue R (2007b) What business process modelers can learn from programmers. Sci Comput Program 65(1):4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruhn V, Laue R (2007c) Good and bad excuses for unstructured business process models. In: Proceedings of 12th European conference on pattern languages of programs (EuroPLoP 2007)

  • Holl A, Valentin G (2004) Structured business process modeling (SBPM). In: Information systems research in Scandinavia (IRIS 27) (CD-ROM)

  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

  • Kafura D (1985) A survey of software metrics. In: ACM’85: Proceedings of the 1985 ACM annual conference on The range of computing : mid-80’s perspective. New York, pp 502–506

  • Kang B-K, Bieman JM (1999) A quantitative framework for software restructuring. J Softw Maint 11:245–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller G, Nüttgens M, Scheer A-W (1992) Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage “Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK)”. Heft 89, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Saarbrücken, Germany

  • Keller G, Teufel T (1998) SAP(R) R/3 process oriented implementation: iterative process prototyping. Addison-Wesley, USA

  • Kiepuszewski B, ter Hofstede AHM, Bussler C (2000) On structured workflow modelling. In: Wangler B, Bergman L (eds) Advanced information systems engineering, 12th international conference CAiSE 2000, Stockholm, Sweden, June 5–9, 2000. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1789, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 431–445

  • Kindler E (2006) On the semantics of EPCs: resolving the vicious circle. Data Knowl Eng 56(1):23–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie J, Sindre G, Jørgensen HD (2006) Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur J Inf Syst 15(1):91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen KB, van der Aalst WMP (2008) Complexity metrics for workflow nets. Inf Softw Technol 51:610–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Lassen KB, Zdun U (2006) Transformation strategies between block-oriented and graph-oriented process modelling languages. In: Lehner F, Nösekabel H, Kleinschmidt P (eds) Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2006, XML4BPM Track, Band 2, pp 297–312, Passau, Germany, February 2006

  • Mendling J (2008) Metrics for process models: empirical foundations of verification, error prediction and guidelines for correctness. Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 6. Springer, Heidelberg

  • Mendling J, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Formalization and verification of EPCs with OR-joins based on state and context. In: Krogstie J, Opdahl AL, Sindre G (eds) Proceedings of the 19th conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2007). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4495, Trondheim, Norway, pp 439–453

  • Mendling J, Neumann G, van der Aalst WMP (2007a) Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics. In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) OTM conference 2007, proceedings, part I. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4803, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 113–130

  • Mendling J, Reijers HA, Cardoso J (2007b) What makes process models understandable?. In: Alonso G, Dadam P, Rosemann M (eds) Business process management, 5th international conference, BPM 2007, Brisbane, Australia, September 24–28, 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4714, Brisbane, Australia, pp 48–63

  • Mendling J, Strembeck M (2008) Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Abramowicz W, Fensel D (eds) Proceedings of the 11th international conference on business information systems (BIS 2008). Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 7, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 142–153

  • Mendling J, Verbeek HMW, van Dongen BF, van der Aalst WMP, Neumann G (2008) Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPCs of the SAP Reference Model. Data Knowl Eng 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 Knowl Eng 55(3):243–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morasca S (1999) Measuring attributes of concurrent software specifications in petri-nets. In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on software metrics. IEEE Computer Society, USA, pp 100–110

  • Nissen ME (1998) Redesigning reengineering through measurement-driven inference. MIS Q 22(4):509–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oulsnam G (1982) Unravelling unstructured programs. Comput J 25(3):379–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang C, Dumas M, Breutel S, ter Hofstede AHM (2006) Translating standard process models to bpel. In: Dubois E, Pohl K (eds) Advanced information systems engineering, 18th international conference, CAiSE 2006, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, June 5–9, 2006. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4001, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 417–432

  • Reijers HA, Vanderfeesten ITP (2004) Cohesion and Coupling Metrics for Workflow Process Design. In: Desel J, Pernici B, Weske M (eds) International conference on business process management (BPM 2004). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3080, Springer, Berlin, pp 290–305

  • Roberts ES (1995) Loop exits and structured programming: reopening the debate. In: SIGCSE ’95: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, New York, pp 268–272

  • Rolón Aguilar E, García F, Ruiz F, Piattini M (2007) An exploratory experiment to validate measures for business process models. In: First international conference on research challenges in information science (RCIS)

  • Scheer A-W (2000) ARIS—business process modeling, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin

  • Selby RW, Basili VR (1991) Analyzing error-prone system structure. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 17:141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen VY, Yu T-J, Thebaut SM, Paulsen LR (1985) Identifying error-prone software. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 11:317–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaishnavi VK, Purao S, Liegle J (2007) Object-oriented product metrics: A generic framework. Inf Sci 177:587–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderfeesten I, Cardoso J, Reijers HA (2007) A weighted coupling metric for business process models. In: Eder J, Tomassen SL, Opdahl A, Sindre G (eds) Proceedings of the CAiSE 2007 forum. CEUR workshop proceedings, vol 247, pp 41–44, Trondheim, Norway

  • Vanderfeesten I, Mendling J, Reijers H, van der Aalst W, Cardoso J (2008) On a quest for good process models: the cross-connectivity metric. In: Bellahsene Z, Leonard M (eds) Proceedings of the 20th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2008), Montpellier, France, June 16–20, 2008. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5074, pp 480–494

  • Vanhatalo J, Völzer H, Leymann F (2007) Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through sese decomposition. In: Krämer BJ, Lin K-J, Narasimhan P (eds) Service-oriented computing—ICSOC 2007, fifth international conference, Vienna, Austria, September 17–20, 2007, proceedings, lecture notes in computer science, vol 4749, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 43–55. ISBN 978-3-540-74973-8

  • Wand Y, Weber R (2002) Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling–A research agenda. Inf Syst Res 13(4):363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyuker EJ (1998) Evaluating software complexity measures. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 14(9):1357–1365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao W, Hauser R, Bhattacharya K, Bryant BR, Cao F (2006) Compiling business processes: untangling unstructured loops in irreducible flow graphs. Int J Web Grid Serv 2(1):68–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Applied Telematics, University of Leipzig, Klostergasse 3, 04109, Leipzig, Germany

    Ralf Laue

  2. Institute of Information Systems, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099, Berlin, Germany

    Jan Mendling

Authors
  1. Ralf Laue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Mendling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Mendling.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Laue, R., Mendling, J. Structuredness and its significance for correctness of process models. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 8, 287–307 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-009-0120-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-009-0120-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation