Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Framework for Quality Measurement of BPMN Process Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2018 (ICCSA 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10964))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Nowadays organizations are collaborative and process-intensive. Measurement of process models have a variety of applications including process models’ quality evaluation, process improvement and task planning. The objective of this work is to propose a framework for quantifying and linking different quality characteristics of process models built with a standard process modeling language: BPMN. The framework supports the derivation of measures regarding internal quality characteristics of process models, to enable measurement of the quality perceived by process models’ users, at the end of the modeling process. To this aim, a measurement terminology for process modeling was set up in order to support process models’ measures instantiation. This was done through the specification of a set of activities to be developed in order to derive the base measures and indirect measures for prediction of process models’ quality. This work follows a product-oriented approach, by which, quality is assumed as being multi-dimensional concept, with several interrelated characteristics.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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. Melao, N., Pidd, M.: A conceptual framework for understanding business processes and business process modelling. Inf. Syst. J. 10(2), 105–129 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2000.00075.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rolón, E., Cardoso, J., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Analysis and validation of control-flow complexity measures with BPMN process models. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 58–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Aguilar, E.R., et al.: Evaluation measures for business process models, pp. 1567–1568 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  4. OMG, BPMN: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Recker, J.C., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Do process modelling techniques get better? A comparative ontological analysis of BPMN. In: Campbell, B., Underwood, J., Bunker, D. (eds.) 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney, Australia, 30 November– 2 December 2005 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Recker, J., Rosemann, M.: Business process modeling: a comparative analysis. J. Assoc. 10(4), 333–363 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harmon, P., Wolf, C.: Business process modeling survey, December 2011

    Google Scholar 

  8. I.O.f.S. ISO, ISO/IEC 25000:2005 – Software Engineering – Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – Guide to SQuaRE (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Nixon, B.: Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 18(6), 483–497 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1109/32.142871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(3), 243–276 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kueng, P., Kawalek, P.: Goal-based business process models: creation and evaluation. Bus. Process Manage. J. 3(1), 17–38 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Phalp, K., Shepperd, M.: Quantitative analysis of static models of processes. J. Syst. Softw. 52(2–3), 105–112 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0164-1212(99)00136-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Curtis, B., et al.: Process modeling. Commun. ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing - SAC 2006, pp. 1532–1532 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1141277.1141633

  15. Korherr, B., List, B.: Extending the EPC and the BPMN with business process goals and performance measures. In: Book Extending the EPC and the BPMN with Business Process Goals and Performance Measures, Series Extending the EPC and the BPMN with Business Process Goals and Performance Measures, pp. 287–294 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Korherr, B.: Business Process Modelling: Languages, Goals, and Variabilities. VDM Publishing, Saarbrücken (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Jander, K., Lamersdorf, W., Burmeister, B.: Go4Flex: goal-oriented process modelling. In: Essaaidi, M., Malgeri, M., Badica, C. (eds.) Intelligent Distributed Computing IV. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 315, pp. 77–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15211-5_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Popova, V., Sharpanskykh, A.: Formal modelling of organisational goals based on performance indicators. Data Knowl. Eng. 70(4), 335–364 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johannes, J.: ATL Use Case - Model Driven Performance Engineering: From UML/SPT to AnyLogic. Book ATL, TU Dresden (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bocciarelli, P., Ambrogio, A.D.: Automated performance analysis of business processes. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Symposium on Theory of Modeling and Simulation-DEVS Integrative M&S Symposium. Society for Computer Simulation International (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pavlovski, C.J., Zou, J.: Non-functional requirements in business process modeling, vol. 79 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Heinrich, R., et al.: Modeling quality information within business process models. In: Proceedings of the 4th SQMB Workshop, TUM-I1104 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Meneely, A.: Software metrics validation criteria: a systematic literature review. North Carolina State University. Department of Computer Science (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Briand, L., et al.: Theoretical and empirical validation of software product measures. In: International Software Engineering Research Network, Technical report ISERN-95–03 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Briand, L.C., et al.: An operational process for goal-driven definition of measures. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(12), 1106–1125 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Basili, V.R., et al.: The goal question metric approach. In: Marciniak, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 578–583 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  27. García, F., et al.: Towards a consistent terminology for software measurement information and software technology. Inf. Softw. Technol. 48(8), 631–644 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach. Brooks, Baltimore (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Meneely, A.: Validating software metrics : a spectrum of philosophies. ACM Trans. Software Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 21(4), 24 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The work was funded by the Portuguese Ministry of Defense and by the Portuguese Navy/Escola Naval/CINAV.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CINAV, Alfeite, 2810-001, Almada, Portugal

    Anacleto Correia & Mário Simões-Marques

  2. INESC-ID, UL-IST, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1, 1048-001, Lisbon, Portugal

    António Gonçalves

Authors
  1. Anacleto Correia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. António Gonçalves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mário Simões-Marques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anacleto Correia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Osvaldo Gervasi

  2. University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy

    Beniamino Murgante

  3. Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria

    Sanjay Misra

  4. Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia

    Elena Stankova

  5. Polytechnic University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Carmelo M. Torre

  6. University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Ana Maria A.C. Rocha

  7. Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

    David Taniar

  8. Kyushu Sangyo University, Fukuoka shi, Fukuoka, Japan

    Bernady O. Apduhan

  9. Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy

    Eufemia Tarantino

  10. Myongji University, Yongin, Korea (Republic of)

    Yeonseung Ryu

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

Correia, A., Gonçalves, A., Simões-Marques, M. (2018). A Framework for Quality Measurement of BPMN Process Models. In: Gervasi, O., et al. Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2018. ICCSA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10964. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95174-4_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95174-4_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95173-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95174-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation