Advertisement

Analysis and Validation of Control-Flow Complexity Measures with BPMN Process Models

  • Elvira Rolón
  • Jorge Cardoso
  • Félix García
  • Francisco Ruiz
  • Mario Piattini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 29)

Abstract

Evaluating the complexity of business processes during the early stages of their development, primarily during the process modelling phase, provides organizations and stakeholders with process models which are easier to understand and easier to maintain. This presents advantages when carrying out evolution tasks in process models – key activities, given the current competitive market. In this work, we present the use and validation of the CFC metric to evaluate the complexity of business processes modelled with BPMN. The complexity of processes is evaluated from a control-flow perspective. An empirical evaluation has been carried out in order to demonstrate that the CFC metric can be useful when applied to BPMN models, providing information about their ease of maintenance.

Keywords

Business process models BPMN measurement validation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Succi, G., Predonzani, P., Vernazza, T.: Business Process Modeling with Objects, Costs and Human Resources. In: Bustard, D., Kawalek, P., Norris, M. (eds.) Systems Modeling for Business Process Improvement, pp. 47–60. Artech House (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardoso, J.: How to Measure the Control-flow Complexity of Web Processes and Workflows. In: WfMC (ed.) Workflow Handbook, pp. 199–212. Lighthouse Point, FL (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rolón, E., Ruiz, F., Garcia, F., Piattini, M.: Applying Software Metrics to evaluate Business Process Models. CLEI-Electronic Journal 9(1) (paper 5) (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rolón, E., Garcia, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: An Exploratory Experiment to Validate Measures for Business Process Models. In: First IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2007). IEEE, Ouarzazate (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rolón, E., Garcia, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M., et al.: Evaluation of BPMN Models Quality: a Family of Experiments. In: 3rd International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2008), Funchal, Madeira (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    OMG, Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Specification (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Neumann, G., Reijers, H.A.: A Discourse on Complexity of Process Models. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 117–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghani, A.A.A., Wei, K.T., Muketha, G.M., Wen, W.P.: Complexity Metrics for Measuring the Understandability and Maintainability of Business Process Models using Goal-Question-Metric (GQM). International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security (IJCSNS) 8(5), 219–225 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity Metrics for Business Process Models. In: 9th Int. Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS 2006), Klagenfurt, Austria (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cardoso, J.: Control-flow Complexity Measurement of Processes and Weyuker’s Properties. In: 6th International Enformatika Conference. Transactions on Enformatika, Systems Sciences and Engineering, Budapest, Hungary (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Adopting the Cognitive Complexity Measure for Business Process Models. In: 5th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI 2006), Beijing, China (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendling, J., Neumann, G.: Error Metrics for Business Process Models. In: 19th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAISE 2007), Trondheim, Norway (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendling, J.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models. Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Vienna, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mendling, J., Neumann, G., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Understanding the Occurrence of Errors in Process Models based on Metrics. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 113–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muehlen, M.z., Recker, J.: How Much Language is Enough? Theoretical and Practivcal Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Briand, L., Morasca, S., Basili, V.: Property-Based Software Engineering Measurement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22(1), 68–86 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Basili, V., Rombach, H.: The TAME Project: Towards Improvement-Oriented Software Environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14(6), 728–738 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cardoso, J.: Process control-flow complexity metric: An empirical validation. In: IEEE International Conference on Service Computing (SCC 2006), Chicago, USA (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elvira Rolón
    • 1
  • Jorge Cardoso
    • 2
  • Félix García
    • 3
  • Francisco Ruiz
    • 3
  • Mario Piattini
    • 3
  1. 1.Autonomous University of Tamaulipas - FIANS UniversityTamaulipasMéxico
  2. 2.SAP ResearchGermany and University of CoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Alarcos Research GroupUniversity of Castilla La Mancha Paseo de la Universidad No. 4Ciudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations