Understanding business process models: The costs and benefits of structuredness

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 7328 LNCS, Issue , 2012, Pages 31-46

  Dumas, Marlon ^a   La Rosa, Marcello ^b,c   Mendling, Jan ^d   Mäesalu, Raul ^a   Reijers, Hajo A ^e   Semenenko, Nataliia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^c CSIRO   (Australia)

^d VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

^e EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

process model complexity; process model understandability; structured process model

Indexed keywords

BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; COSTS AND BENEFITS; INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES; MODEL PROPERTIES; PROCESS MODEL; STRUCTURED PROCESS; UNDERSTANDABILITY;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 84867749416     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-31095-9_3     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Agarwal, R., De, P., Sinha, A.P.: Comprehending object and process models: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4), 541-556 (1999)
2. Rolón Aguilar, E., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: An exploratory experiment to validate measures for business process models. In: First International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS (2007)
3. Canfora, G., García, F., Piattini, M., Ruiz, F., Visaggio, C.A.: A family of experiments to validate metrics for software process models. Journal of Systems and Software 77(2), 113-129 (2005)
4. Cardoso, J.: Evaluating workflows and web process complexity. In: Fischer, L. (ed.) Workflow Handbook 2005, pp. 284-290. Future Strategies, Inc., Lighthouse Point (2005)
5. Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering 20(6), 476-493 (1994)
6. Fahland, D., Favre, C., Jobstmann, B., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: Instantaneous Soundness Checking of Industrial Business Process Models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 278-293. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
7. Green, T.R.G., Petre, M.: Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A 'cognitive dimensions' framework. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 7(2), 131-174 (1996)
8. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Good and bad excuses for unstructured business process models. In: Proc. of EuroPLoP, pp. 279-292. UVK-Universitaetsverlag Konstanz (2008)
9. Hauser, R., Friess, M., Kuster, J.M., Vanhatalo, J.: An Incremental Approach to the Analysis and Transformation of Workflows Using Region Trees. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C 38(3), 347-359 (2008)
10. Hauser, R., Koehler, J.: Compiling Process Graphs into Executable Code. In: Karsai, G., Visser, E. (eds.) GPCE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3286, pp. 317-336. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
11. Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Bussler, C.J.: On Structured Workflow Modelling. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 431-445. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
12. Koehler, J., Hauser, R.: Untangling Unstructured Cyclic Flows-A Solution Based on Continuations. In:Meersman, R. (ed.) OTM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3290, pp. 121-138. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
13. Laue, R., Mendling, J.: Structuredness and its significance for correctness of process models. Inf. Syst. E-Business Management 8(3), 287-307 (2010)
14. Lee, G.S., Yoon, J.-M.: An empirical study on the complexity metrics of petri nets. Microelectronics and Reliability 32(3), 323-329 (1992)
15. Liu, R., Kumar, A.: An Analysis and Taxonomy of Unstructured Workflows. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 268-284. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
16. Mäesalu, R.: Complexity and Understandability Comparison between Unstructured and Structured Business Process Models. Master's thesis, University of Tartu (June 2011), http://tinyurl.com/75gfnuz
17. McCabe, T.J.: A complexity measure. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering 2(4), 308-320 (1976)
18. Mendling, J., Lassen, K.B., Zdun, U.: On the transformation of control flow between block-oriented and graph-oriented process modelling languages. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 3(2), 96-108 (2008)
19. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven Process Modeling Guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology 52(2), 127-136 (2010)
20. Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
21. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Recker, J.: Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 467-482 (2010)
22. Nissen, M.E.: Redesigning reengineering through measurement-driven inference. MIS Quarterly 22(4), 509-534 (1998)
23. Oulsnam, G.: Unravelling unstructured programs. Comput. J. 25(3), 379-387 (1982)
24. Petre, M.: Why looking isn't always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38(6), 33-44 (1995)
25. Polyvyanyy, A., García-Bañuelos, L., Dumas, M.: Structuring Acyclic Process Models. Information Systems (to appear, 2012)
26. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A Study into the Factors that Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, Part A (2010)
27. Reijers, H.A., Freytag, T., Mendling, J., Eckleder, A.: Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decision Support Systems 51(3), 339-349 (2011)
28. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A 41(3), 449-462 (2011)
29. Rieger, M., Ducasse, S., Lanza, M.: Insights into system-wide code duplication. In: Proceedings of 11th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pp. 100-109. IEEE (2004)
30. Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Mendling, J., Ruiz, F.: Quality Assessment of Business Process Models Based on Thresholds. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T.S., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6426, pp. 78-95. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
31. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Cardoso, J.: On a Quest for Good Process Models: The Cross-Connectivity Metric. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 480-494. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
32. Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and More Focused Control-Flow Analysis for Business Process Models Through SESE Decomposition. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 43-55. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
33. Vanhatalo, J., Volzer, J., Kohler, J.: The Refined Process Structure Tree. DKE 68(9), 793-818 (2009)
34. Wohlin, C.: Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction, vol. 6. Springer (2000)
35. Zhang, F., D'Hollander, E.H.: Using Hammock Graphs to Structure Programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(4), 231-245 (2004)