Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Quality in Business Process Modeling pp 53–102Cite as

Quality of Business Process Models

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In this chapter, we describe the concept of quality and give a high-level overview of the area of quality of models and other IT-artifacts. As illustrated there is quite a bit of overlap in the quality-notions used in different subfields of IT. We start with a brief description of general system quality notions, exemplified with ISO9000 and ISO9126. We then discuss data quality and model quality for different types of models (requirements models, data models, and enterprise models). Sect. 2.2 describes more generic, comprehensive frameworks, such as SEQUAL and the work of Nelson et al. Then, we focus more specifically on the quality of business processes and business process models.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Andersen Consulting Process Excellence Handbook (1997). http://www.scribd.com/doc/31730974/Process-Excellence-Handbook#scribd

  • Arkilic, I.G., Reijers, H.A., Goverde, R.R.H.M.J.: How good is an as-is model really? In: Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) Business Process Management Workshops. Springer, Berlin, pp. 89–100 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Batini, C., Scannapieco, M.: Data Quality: Concepts, Methodologies and Techniques. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Batini, C., Cappiello, C., Francalanci, C., Maurino, A.: Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(3) (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J., Rosemann, M., Schütte, R.: Guidelines of Modelling (GoM). Wirtschaftsinformatik 37(5), 435–445 (in German) (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling in Business Process Management Volume 1806 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 30–49 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M.: Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., Luckmann, T.: The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin, London (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso, J., et al.: A discourse on complexity of process models. In Business Process Management Workshops. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Claes, J., et al.: Tying process model quality to the modeling process: the impact of structuring, movement, and speed. In Business Process Management Conference, pp. 33–48 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R.: Business Process Modelling with Aris: A Practical Guide. Springer, Berlin (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A.M., Overmeyer, S., Jordan, K., Caruso, J., Dandashi, F., Dinh, A., Kincaid, G., Ledeboer, G., Reynolds, P., Sitaram, P., Ta, A., Theofanos, M.: Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification. In: Proceedings of the First International Software Metrics Symposium, Baltimore, pp. 141–152 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P.J.: What is software quality? Commun. ACM 35(1), 13–15 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumas, M., et al.: Understanding business process models: the costs and benefits of structuredness. In Ralyté, J., et al. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp. 31–46 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumas, M, La Rosa, M, Mendling, J, Reijers, H.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Effinger, P., Jogsch, N., Seiz, S.: On a study of layout aesthetics for business process models using BPMN. In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M., Weske, M. (eds.) Business Process Modeling Notation. Springer, Berlin, pp. 31–45 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Lindgreen, P., Nilsson, B.E., Oei, J.L.H., Rolland, C., Stamper, R.K., Assche, F.J.M.V., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., Voss, K.: A Framework of information system concepts—The FRISCO Report, IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Figl, K., Laue, R.: Cognitive complexity in business process modeling. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 452–466 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortnow, L.: CACM viewpoint: time for computer science to grow up. Commun. ACM 52(8), 33–35 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, U.: Evaluation of reference models. In Fettke, P., Loos, P. (eds.) Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis IGI. Idea Group, Hershey (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gane, C., Sarson, T.: Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: 2 Approaches for business process model complexity metrics. In: Abramowicz, Mayr, H.C. (eds.) Technologies for Business Information Systems. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 13–24 (2007a)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Detecting common errors in event-driven process chains by label analysis. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Architect. 6(1), 3–15 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hella, L., Krogstie, J.: A structured evaluation to assess the reusability of models of user profiles. In: Proceeding of EMMSAD—Conference on Evaluating Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, Hammamet, Tunis (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 9000: Quality management systems—fundamentals and vocabulary. International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kano, N.: Attractive quality and must-be quality. J. Japanese Soc. Qual. Control 14(2), 39–48 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J., Vanhatalo, J.: Process anti-patterns: how to avoid the common traps of business process modeling. In: Tech. Rep. Report RZ-3678. IBM Zurich Reseach Lab (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J.: Supporting a decentralized organization using WWW: the ISDO’95 conference Invited talk at the IFIP 8.1. Conference on Information Systems Development for Decentralized Organizations. Trondheim, Norway (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J.: Using quality function deployment in software requirements specification. Paper presented at the Fifth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundations for Software Quality (REFSQ’99), Heidelberg, Germany, June 14–15 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J.: A semiotic approach to quality in requirements specification. In: Proceedings of IFIP 8.1. Working Conference on Organizational Semiotics, Montreal, Canada, 23–25 July (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J.: Evaluating UML using a generic quality framework. In: Liliana F. (ed.) UML and the Unified Process, pp. 1–22. IRM Press, USA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J.: Integrated Goal, Data and Process modeling: From TEMPORA to Model-Generated Work-Places. In Paul Johannesson & Eva Søderstrøm (Eds.), Information Systems Engineering From Data Analysis to Process Networks (pp. 43–65): IGI. (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J.: Model-based Development and Evolution of Information Systems: A Quality Approach. Springer, Berlin (2012a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J.: Quality of Business Process Models. Proceedings PoEM’2012, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 134, 76–90. (2012b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J.: Quality of conceptual data models. In: Proceedings 14th ICISO, Stockholm Sweden, April (2013a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J.: A Semiotic framework for data quality. In: Proceedings EMMSAD 2013, Valencia, Spain, June (2013b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J.: Capturing Enterprise Data Integration Challenges Using a Semiotic Data Quality Framework Business & Information Systems Engineering February 2015, Vol. 57, Issue 1, pp. 27–36 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J., Jørgensen, H.D.: Quality of interactive models. In: First International Workshop on Conceptual Modelling Quality (IWCMQ’02). 11 Oct 2002. Tampere, Finland. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, B.R., Krogstie, J., Maiden, N., Lockerbie, J., Wessel, D., Knipfer, K.: Collaborative Modelling of Reflection to Inform the Development and Evaluation of Work-Based Learning Technologies Proceedings of i-KNOW 2012. ACM Press, New York (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson L., Segerberg R.: An Approach for Quality Assurance in Enterprise Modelling, MSc thesis. Stockholm University, Sweden (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, K.B., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Complexity metrics for Workflow nets. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(3), 610–626 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laue, R., Mendling, J.: The impact of structuredness on error probability of process models. In: Kaschek, R., et al. (eds.) Information Systems and E-Business Technologies. Springer, Berlin, pp. 585–590 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Laue, R., Mendling, J.: Structuredness and its significance for correctness of process models. IseB 8(3), 287–307 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y., Strasunskas, D., Hakkarainen, S., Krogstie, J., Sølvberg, A.: Semantic annotation framework to manage semantic heterogeneity of process models. Paper presented at the CAiSE’2006, Luxembourg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, P. (ed): A framework for information systems concepts. Interrim report FRISCO (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindland, O.I.: A Prototyping Approach to Validation of Conceptual Models in Information Systems Engineering. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, IDT, NTH (1993)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models, in Institute of Information Systems and New Media. Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (WU Wien), Austria (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., Neumann. G.: Error metrics for business process models. In International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., Recker, J.: Towards systematic usage of labels and icons in business process models. In: Halpin, T., Proper, H.A., Krogstie, J. (eds.) 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, CEUR Workshop Proceedings Series, Montpellier. See http://ceur-ws.org/ France (2008)

  • Mendling, J., Reijers., H.A.: The impact of activity labeling styles on process model quality. In European Symposium on Analysis, Design, Use and Societal Impact of Information Systems. Marburg, Germany (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In Abramowicz, W.F.D. (eds.) Business Information Systems. Springer, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 142–153 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M., (eds.) Business Process Management, Alonso. Springer, Berlin, pp. 48–63 (2007a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., Neumann, G., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics. In: Meersman, R.T.Z., (ed.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, pp. 113–130 (2007b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., et al.: Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 312–329 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Recker, J.: Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 467–482 (2010a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., Recker, J., Reijers, H.A.: On the usage of labels and icons in business process modeling. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 1(2), 40–58 (2010b)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010c)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., et al.: Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models. J. Syst. Softw. 85(5), 1188–1197 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, D.L.: Metrics for evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Conceptual Modelling (ER ‘98), Singapore, November 16–19. Elsevier Lecture Notes in Computer Science (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, D.L.: The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2003, Naples, 16–21 June (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: What makes a good data model? Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach (ER’94), pp. 94–111. Manchester, England (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, D.L., Sindre, G., Brasethvik,T., Sølvberg, A.: Evaluating the Quality of Process Models: Empirical Testing of a Quality Framework. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T., Kambayashi, Y. (eds.) Proceedings ER 2002, LNCS 2503, pp. 214–231 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Montes de Oca, I., Snoeck, M.: Pragmatic Guidelines for Business Process Modeling. Technical report KU Leuven (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero M., Piattini, M.: A conceptual modeling quality framework. Softw. Qual. J. 20(1), (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nossum, A., Krogstie, J.: Integrated Quality of Models and Quality of Maps. Proceedings EMMSAD. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, K.: The Three dimensions of requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of CAiSE’93, Springer, LNCS 685 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, R., Shanks, G.: A semiotic information quality framework. In: IFIP WG8.3 International Conference on Decision Support Systems (DSS 2004), Prato, Italy, 1–3, pp. 658–672 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, R., Shanks, G.: A semiotic information quality framework: Development and comparative analysis. J. Inf. Technol. 20(2), 88–102 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages. In: Latour, T., Petit, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the CAiSE Workshops at the 18th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2006), Luxembourg, Luxembourg, pp. 521–532. Presses Universitaries de Namur, Belgique (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reggio, G., et al.: On business process modelling with the UML: a discipline and three styles. Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell’Informazione (DISI). University of Genova, Italy (2011a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F.: Precise is better than light—a document analysis study about quality of business process models. In First International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (2011b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects. In Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 20–35 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: On the usefulness of subprocesses. In Business Process Models. BPM center report, Eindhoven, p. 32 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Transac. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A 41(3), 449–462 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36(5), 881–897 (2011a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijers, H.A., et al.: Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decision Support Systems, 51(3), 339–349 (2011b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Recker, J.: Business Process quality management. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 2nd ed. Springer, Berlin (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolón, E., et al.: An exploratory experiment to validate measures for business process models. In: International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science. Ouarzazate, Morocco (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolón, E., et al.: Prediction models for BPMN usability and maintainability. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (2009a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolón, E., et al.: Analysis and validation of control-flow complexity measures with bpmn process models. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. Springer, Berlin, pp. 58–70 (2009b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosemann, M., Recker, J.: Systemic Ideation: A playbook for creating innovative ideas more consciously. 360° Bus. Transform. J. 13 Jul (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., Lorensen, W.: Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-González, L., et al.: Quality assessment of business process models based on thresholds. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P., (eds.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, p. 78–95. (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-González, L., et al.: Towards thresholds of control flow complexity measures for BPMN models. In ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM (2011a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-González, L., et al.: Improving quality of business process models. In: Maciaszek, L.A., Zhang, K., (eds.) Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering, ENASE 2011. Springer: Beijing, pp. 130–144. 8 (2011b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-González, L., et al.: Quality indicators for business process models from a gateway complexity perspective. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(11), 1159–1174 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A.,Wiβotzki, M.: Enterprise Modelling—Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer, Berlin (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrepfer, M., et al.: The impact of secondary notation on process model understanding. In: The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, Working Conference. Stockholm, Sweden (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedera, W., Rosemann, M., Doebeli, G.: A process modelling success model: insights from a case study. 11th European Conference on Information Systems, Naples, Italy (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, A., McDermott, P.: Workflow Modeling: Tools for Process Improvement and Application Development, Artech House (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, B. Ten tips for effective process modeling. BPMS watch, (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, B., BPMN: Method and Style. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Snoeck, M., Moreno-Montes de Oca, I., Haegemans, T., Schedeman, B., Hoste, T.: Testing a Selection of BPMN Tools for Their Support of Modelling Guidelines. Proceedings PoEM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsichritzis, D., Klug, A.: The ANSI/X3/SPARC DBMS framework. Inf. Syst. 3, 173–191 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Work flow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(3), 5–51 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderfeesten, I., et al.: On a quest for good process models: the cross-connectivity metric. In: Bellahsene, Z., Leonard, M., (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 480–494. (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhatalo, J., Volzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through sese decomposition. In 5th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vienna, Austria (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J. Inform. Syst. 3(4), 217–237 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling—a research agenda. Inf. Syst. Res. 13(4), 363–376 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, B., et al.: Refactoring large process model repositories. Comput. Ind. 62(5), 467–486 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoch, B.E.: Business Process Reengineering—En praktisk innføring og veiledning. Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad og Bjorke AS, Bergen (1994)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

    John Krogstie

Authors
  1. John Krogstie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Krogstie .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Krogstie, J. (2016). Quality of Business Process Models. In: Quality in Business Process Modeling. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42512-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42512-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42510-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42512-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation