Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Classification Algorithm for Assessing the Quality Criteria for Business Process Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Hybrid Intelligent Systems (HIS 2017)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 734))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Business process (BP) models are presented as a major key in the design and analysis of information systems and are considered as a good mechanism for communication among the stakeholders. Therefore, it should be founded on excellence methodologies and directed by a reliable quality approach. That is why, it is important to define the quality of BP models, which should be determined the application of a set of criteria. In this paper, we look for identify a set of typical and consistent criteria considered as substantial, for BP models by focusing on the needs of stakeholders with the aim of achieving good quality. These requirements are established by first passing through a preliminary study that is based on a questionnaire designed in order to assess the importance attributed to the mentioned criteria. The responses given to this questionnaire will be analyzed with an algorithm of classification for data mining in order to identify the quality criteria from the expert’s point of view, given their relative importance.

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

Access this chapter

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Gokçen, T.: Evaluating the complexity of business process models (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kahloun, F., Ghannouchi, S.A.: Quality criteria and metrics for business process models in higher education domain: case of a tracking of curriculum offers process. In: International conference on Enterprise Information Systems (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Taft, T., Duff, R.A., Brukardt, R.L., Pascal, E.L.: Then International Standars Organization ISO 8601 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Henry, S., Kafura, D.: Software structure metrics based on information-flow. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 7(5), 510–518 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sanchez, G.L., Garcia, F., Piattini, M.: Toward a quality framework for business process models. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 22(01), 1349003 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kluza, K., Nalepa, G.J.: Proposal of square metrics for measuring business process model complexity. In: 2012 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 919–922. IEEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Neumann, G., Reijers, H.A: A discourse on complexity of process models. In: International Conference on Business Process Management, pp. 117–128 (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Latva- Koivisto, A.M.: Finding a complexity measure for business process models. Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Corti, C.: BPMETRICS: a software system for the evaluation of some metrics for business process (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sadowska, M.: An approach to assessing the quality of business process models expressed in BPMN. e- Informatica Softw. Eng. J. 9, 57–77 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Antonini, A., Ferreira, A.M, Morasca, S., Pozzi, G.: Software measures for business processes. In: Advances in Databases and Information Systems (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gruhn, V., Laue, L.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: 9th International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS 2006), pp. 1–12 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Khlif, W., Makni, L., Zaaboub, N., Ben-Abdallah, H.: Quality metrics for business process modeling. In: Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Computer Science. World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS), pp. 195–200 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M., Cardoso, J.: On a quest for good process models: the cross-connectivity metric. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 480–494. Springer (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cardoso, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A.: Computing coupling for business process models (2010). http://eden.dei.uc.pt/jcardoso/Research/Papers/Old%20paper%20format/Caise-19th-Coupling-Cardoso-Vanderfeesten.pdf>

  17. Kahloun, F., Ayachi, S.A.: Evaluating the quality of business process models based on measures and criteria in higher education developing a framework for continuous quality improvement. In: ISDA Conference (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vanderfeesten, I., Cardoso, J., Reijers, H.A.: A weighted coupling metric for business process models. CAiSE Forum (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kherbouche, M.O.:Contribution à la gestion de l’évolution des processus métiers. In: Laboratoire d’informatique signal et image de la Cote d Opale. Université du Littoral Cote d Opale, p. 195 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Farideh, H., Pericles, L.: Quality evaluation framework (QEF): modeling and evaluating quality of business processes. Int. J. Acc. Inf. Syst. 15(3), 193–223 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Omg: UMLTM profile for modeling quality of service and fault tolerance characteristics and mechanisms specification2.1 ed.; [formal/2008-04-05] (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  22. van Hee, K., Reijers, H.: Using formal analysis techniques in business process redesign. In: Business Process Management, pp. 51–71 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Li, G., Muthusamy, V., Jacobsen, H.A.: A distributed service-oriented architecture for business process execution. ACM Trans. Web (TWEB) 4(1), 2 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moeller, R.: Sarbanes-Oxley Internal Controls: Effective Auditing with AS5, CobiT and ITIL. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Laird, L.M., Brennan, M.C.: Software Measurement and Estimation: A Practical Approach. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (2006)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Kahloun, F., Ayachi Ghannouchi, S.: Evaluation of the criteria and indicators that determine quality in higher education: a questionnaire proposal. In: International Conference on Intelligent Interactive Multimedia Systems and Services. Springer, Cham (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Morin, V.: Etude comparative d’algorithmes de data mining dans le contexte du jeu vidéo (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory RIADI-GDL, ENSI, Mannouba, Tunisia

    Fouzia Kahloun

  2. High Institute on Management of Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia

    Sonia Ayachi Ghannouchi

Authors
  1. Fouzia Kahloun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonia Ayachi Ghannouchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fouzia Kahloun .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Machine Intelligence Research Labs, Auburn, WA, USA

    Ajith Abraham

  2. Department of Computer Science, South Asian University, Chanakyapuri, Delhi, India

    Pranab Kr. Muhuri

  3. Faculty of Information and Communication Technology, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Durian Tunggal, Melaka, Malaysia

    Azah Kamilah Muda

  4. Machine Intelligence Research Labs, Auburn, WA, USA

    Niketa Gandhi

Appendix A: Table of Questionnaire Responses

Appendix A: Table of Questionnaire Responses

Questions

Frequent Distribution

Reponses

Total

Strongly Disagree

disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

 

1. Is it important to have a strong connection between the process activities?

Frequency

1

1

7

12

28

49

Percent

2

2

14.3

24.5

57.1

100

2. For a given sub-process or activity in a BP model, is it important to know the number of different operations/tasks that share inputs and/or outputs?

Frequency

1

7

10

16

15

49

Percent

2

14.3

20.4

32.7

30.6

100

3. Is the number of activities in the process important to evaluate its quality?

Frequency

13

7

9

11

9

49

Percent

26.5

14.3

18.4

22.4

18.4

100

4. More generally, is the size of the business process model important?

Frequency

6

1

2

5

13

49

Percent

12.2

24.5

10.2

26.5

26.5

100

5. Does the presence of tasks realized in a synchronized and distributed way, in parallel or in a loop impact the quality of the model?

Frequency

8

3

13

15

10

49

Percent

16.3

6.1

26.5

30.6

20.4

100

6. More generally, is it important to measure the complexity of a process model?

Frequency

2

4

11

15

17

49

Percent

4.1

8.2

22.4

30.6

34.7

100

7. Is it important to measure the modularity of a process model?

Frequency

2

3

17

10

17

49

Percent

4.1

6.1

34.7

20.4

34.7

100

8. Is the number of actors involved in a business process important?

Frequency

4

3

13

11

18

49

Percent

8.2

6.1

26.5

22.4

36.7

100

9. Does the quality of business processes depend highly on the availability and competencies of the involved actors?

Frequency

7

6

10

16

10

49

Percent

14.3

12.2

20.4

32.7

20.4

100

10. Does performance in general increase when more resources are allocated to business process activities?

Frequency

17

8

13

7

4

49

Percent

34.7

16.3

26.5

14.3

8.2

100

11. Does the business process have to be executed within a reasonable time during the execution of the activities?

Frequency

3

8

8

16

14

49

Percent

6.1

16.3

16.3

32.7

28.6

100

12. Should the business process have the capacity to choose the type and quantity of resources during its execution?

Frequency

3

4

17

15

10

49

Percent

6.1

8.2

34.7

30.6

20.4

100

13. Is it important that the business process has mechanisms to avoid failure when a defect is detected in the execution of activities? (exception handling, compensation flows, interruptive events, etc.)

Frequency

0

3

4

12

30

49

Percent

0

6.1

8.2

24.5

61.2

100

14. Is it important to model a certain number of exceptions that may be encountered within a business process model

(e.g.:EventNotFoundException,GroupNotFoundException, DocumentAlreadyExistsException…)?

Frequency

4

4

12

9

20

49

Percent

8.2

8.2

24.5

18.4

40.8

100

15. Is it important to be able to restore data (e.g.: recover initiated process instances, process data, process roles and assignments, previous model versions, etc.)?

Frequency

1

4

8

14

22

49

Percent

2

8.2

16.3

28.6

44.9

100

16. Does the number of inputs and/or outputs considered by an activity during an observation interval, impact on the quality of your BP Model?

Frequency

10

8

8

18

5

49

Percent

20.4

16.3

16.3

36.7

10.2

100

17. Is it important to minimize the execution time of an activity for a business process?

Frequency

2

8

14

10

15

49

Percent

4.1

16.3

28.6

20.4

30.6

100

18. Is it important to calculate the response time obtained for the model that corresponds to the time from the request of a user to the response of the corresponding system?

Frequency

2

5

15

13

14

49

Percent

4.1

10.2

30.6

26.5

28.6

100

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kahloun, F., Ayachi Ghannouchi, S. (2018). A Classification Algorithm for Assessing the Quality Criteria for Business Process Models. In: Abraham, A., Muhuri, P., Muda, A., Gandhi, N. (eds) Hybrid Intelligent Systems. HIS 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 734. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76351-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76351-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76350-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76351-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation