Measuring and visualising the quality of models

2013 IEEE 1st International Workshop on Communicating Business Process and Software Models: Quality, Understandability, and Maintainability, CPSM 2013

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages

  Storch, Arian ^a   Laue, Ralf ^b   Gruhn, Volker ^c  

^a It Factum GmbH   (Germany)

^b School of Economics   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL DETECTION; MAINTAINABILITY; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; MODEL QUALITIES; QUALITY OF SOFTWARES; SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS; SOFTWARE PRODUCTS; SOFTWARE QUALITY; SOFTWARE QUALITY MODELING; UNDERSTANDABILITY;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION;

EID: 84893964314     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/CPSM.2013.6703084     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (65)

1. J. E. Robbins and D. F. Redmiles, "Cognitive support, UML adherence, and XMI interchange in Argo/UML." Information & Software Technology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 79-89, 2000.
2. S. Kühne, H. Kern, V. Gruhn, and R. Laue, "Business process modelling with continuous validation," in Business Process Management Workshops, BPM 2008 International Workshops, ser. LNBIP, vol. 17. Springer, 2008, pp. 212-223.
3. T. Arendt, S. Kranz, F. Mantz, N. Regnat, and G. Taentzer, "Towards syntactical model quality assurance in industrial software development: Process definition and tool support." in Software Engineering, ser. LNI, vol. 183. GI, 2011, pp. 63-74.
4. T. Mens, R. Van Der Straeten, and J.-F. Warny, "Graph-based tool support to improve model quality," in Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on the Quality in Modeling, co-located with MoDELS 2006, 2006.
5. N. Ayewah, D. Hovemeyer, J. D. Morgenthaler, J. Penix, and W. Pugh, "Using static analysis to find bugs," Software, IEEE, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 22-29, 2008.
6. S. Wagner, J. Jürjens, C. Koller, and P. Trischberger, "Comparing bug finding tools with reviews and tests," in Testing of Communicating Systems. Springer, 2005, pp. 40-55.
7. H. Hashiura, S. Matsuura, and S. Komiya, "A tool for diagnosing the quality of Java program and a method for its effective utilization in education," in Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international conference on Applications of computer engineering. World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS), 2010, pp. 276-282.
8. D. L. Moody, "Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions," Data Knowl. Eng., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 243-276, 2005.
9. P. Mohagheghi, V. Dehlen, and T. Neple, "Definitions and approaches to model quality in model-based software development - a review of literature," Information & Software Technology, vol. 51, no. 12, 2009.
10. O. I. Lindland, G. Sindre, and A. Sølvberg, "Understanding quality in conceptual modeling," IEEE Softw., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 42-49, 1994.
11. P. Mohagheghi, V. Dehlen, and T. Neple, "Towardss a tool-supported quality model for model-driven engineering," in Third International Workshop on Quality in Modeling, 2009.
12. L. Sánchez-Golnzález, F. García, F. Ruiz, and M. Piattni, "Toward a quality model for business process models," International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 22, no. 01, 2013.
13. P. Rittgen, "Quality and perceived usefulness of process models," in Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC). ACM, 2010, pp. 65-72.
14. K. Mehmood and S. S.-S. Cherfi, "Evaluating the functionality of conceptual models," in Advances in Conceptual Modeling - Challenging Perspectives, ER 2009 Workshops, ser. LNCS, vol. 5833. Springer, 2009, pp. 222-231.
15. H. Nelson, G. Poels, M. Genero, and M. Piattini, "A conceptual modeling quality framework," Software Quality Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 201-228, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9136-9
16. S. Overhage, D. Birkmeier, and S. Schlauderer, "Quality marks, metrics, and measurement procedures for business process models," Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 229-246, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12599-012-0230-8
17. "Adding preciseness to {BPMN} models," Procedia Technology, vol. 5, no. 0, pp. 407-417, 2012.
18. J. Recker, "Towards an understanding of process model quality. methodological considerations," in Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Information Systems, 2006, pp. 434-445.
19. C. Cares and X. Franch, "Towards a framework for improving goal-oriented requirement models quality," in Anais do WER09 - Workshop em Engenharia de Requisitos, Valparaíso, 2009.
20. G. Poels, A. Maes, F. Gailly, and R. Paemeleire, "Measuring the perceived semantic quality of information models," in Perspectives in Conceptual Modeling, ER 2005 Workshops, ser. LNCS, vol. 3770. Springer, 2005, pp. 376-385.
21. A. Maes and G. Poels, "Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions," Data Knowl. Eng., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 701-724, 2007.
22. J. Koehler, G. Tirenni, and S. Kumaran, "From business process model to consistent implementation: A case for formal verification methods."in EDOC '02: Proceedings of the Sixth International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2002, p. 96.
23. J.-H. Pfeiffer, W. Rossak, and A. Speck, "Applying model checking to workflow verification," in 11th IEEE International Conference on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems. IEEE Computer Society, 2004, pp. 144-151.
24. L. T. Ly, D. Knuplesch, S. Rinderle-Ma, K. Goeser, M. Reichert, and P. Dadam, "Seaflows toolset - compliance verification made easy," in CAiSE'10 Demos, June 2010. [Online]. Available: http://dbis.eprints.uni-ulm.de/ 662/
25. S. Rinderle-Ma and J. Mangler, "Integration of process constraints from heterogeneous sources in process-aware information systems," in 4th International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, EMISA 2011, ser. LNI, vol. 190. GI, 2011, pp. 51-64.
26. M. Kluth, F. Ahlemann, and F. Teuteberg, "SEMAT - Ein Werkzeug zur Ontologiebasierten Analyse und zum Vergleich von Prozessmodellen," in Proceedings of the Workshops colocated with the MobIS2008 Conference, ser. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 420. CEUR-WS.org, 2008, pp. 128-147.
27. S. Ayad, "Gestion de la qualité des modèles de processus mètier: Mèthode et outil," in Actes du XXXème Congrès INFORSID, 2012, pp. 601-610.
28. E. Kindler, "On the Semantics of EPCs: A Framework for Resolving the Vicious Circle." in Business Process Management: Second International Conference, BPM 2004, ser. LNCS, vol. 3080. Springer, 2004, pp. 82-97.
29. W. M. P. van der Aalst, "The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management," The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 21-66, 1998.
30. -, "Challenges in business process management: Verification of business processing using petri nets," Bulletin of the EATCS, vol. 80, pp. 174-199, 2003.
31. B. F. van Dongen, M. Jansen-Vullers, E. Verbeek, and W. M. P. van der Aalst, "Verification of the sap reference models using EPC reduction, state-space analysis, and invariants," Comput. Ind., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 578-601, 2007.
32. J. Vanhatalo, H. Völzer, and F. Leymann, "Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through sese decomposition," Service-Oriented Computing - ICSOC 2007, pp. 43-55, 2007.
33. V. Gruhn and R. Laue, "Complexity metrics for business process models," in 9th International Conference on Business Information Systems. Springer, 2006, pp. 1-12.
34. K. B. Lassen and W. M. P. van der Aalst, "Complexity metrics for workflow nets," Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 610-626, Mar. 2009. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.08.005
35. L. S. González, F. G. Rubio, F. R. González, and M. P. Velthuis, "Measurement in business processes: a systematic review," Business Process Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 114-134, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151011017976
36. H. A. Reijers and J. Mendling, "A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 449-462, 2011.
37. -, "Modularity in process models: Review and effects," in Business Process Management, 6th International Conference, year = 2008, pages = 20-35, publisher = Springer, series = LNCS, volume = 5240,.
38. F. Johanssen and S. Leist, "Wand and webers decomposition model in the context of business process modeling," Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 4, no. 5, 2012.
39. J. Mendling, G. Neumann, and W. M. P. van der Aalst, "Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics," in On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007, ser. LNCS, vol. 4803. Springer, 2007, pp. 113-130.
40. R. Laue and V. Gruhn, "Good and bad excuses for unstructured business process models," in Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (EuroPLoP '2007), 2007, pp. 279-290.
41. M. Dumas, M. L. Rosa, J. Mendling, R. Mäesalu, H. A. Reijers, and N. Semenenko, "Understanding business process models: The costs and benefits of structuredness," in Advanced Information Systems Engineering - 24th International Conference, CAiSE 2012, ser. LNCS, vol. 7328. Springer, 2012, pp. 31-46.
42. V. Gruhn and R. Laue, "What business process modelers can learn from programmers," Sci. Comput. Program., vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 4-13, 2007.
43. H. C. Purchase, "Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding?" in Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Graph Drawing. London, UK, UK: Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 248-261. [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=647549.728779
44. H. Koning, C. Dormann, and H. van Vliet, "Practical guidelines for the readability of it-architecture diagrams," in Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference on Computer documentation. ACM, 2002, pp. 90-99. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/584955.584969
45. P. Effinger, N. Jogsch, and S. Seiz, "On a study of layout aesthetics for business process models using BPMN," in Business Process Modeling Notation - Second International Workshop, ser. LNBIP, vol. 67. Springer, 2010, pp. 31-45.
46. J. Mendling and H. A. Reijers, "The impact of activity labeling styles on process model quality," in SIGSAND-EUROPE 2008: Proceedings of the Third AIS SIGSAND European Symposium on Analysis, Design, Use and Societal Impact of Information Systems, ser. LNI, vol. 129. GI, 2008, pp. 117-128.
47. P. Delfmann, S. Herwig, L. Lis, and A. Stein, "Supporting distributed conceptual modelling through naming conventions - a tool-based linguistic approach," Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 3-19, 2009.
48. H. Leopold, S. Smirnov, and J. Mendling, "Recognising activity labeling styles in business process models," Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 16-29, 2011.
49. -, "On Labeling Quality in Business Process Models," in EPK 2009, Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten, ser. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2009.
50. F. Friedrich, "Measuring semantic label quality using WordNet," in EPK 2009, Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten, 2009.
51. G. N. Suarez, J. Freund, and M. Schrepfer, in BPMN 2.0 Handbook: Methods, Concepts, Case Studies and Standards in Business Process Management Notion.
52. S. W. Ambler, The Elements of UML Style. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
53. D. Silingas and E. Mileviciene, BPMN 2.0 Handbook, Second edition, ch. Refactoring BPMN Models: From 'Bad Smells' to Best Practices and Patterns.
54. M. L. Rosa, A. H. M. ter Hofstede, P. Wohed, H. A. Reijers, J. Mendling, and W. M. P. van der Aalst, "Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications," IEEE Trans. Industrial Informatics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 255-265, 2011.
55. V. Gruhn and R. Laue, "Checking properties of business process models with logic programming." in Modelling, Simulation, Verification and Validation of Enterprise Information Systems (MSVVEIS) 2007. INSTICC Press, 2007, pp. 84-93.
56. -, "A heuristic method for detecting problems in business process models," Business Process Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, 2010.
57. -, "Reducing the cognitive complexity of business process models," in IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics, 2009.
58. V. Gruhn, R. Laue, and F. Meyer, "Berechnung von Komplexitätsmetriken für ereignisgesteuerte Prozessketten," in EPK 2006, Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten, ser. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 224, 2006, pp. 189-202.
59. J. Mendling, L. Sánchez-González, F. García, and M. L. Rosa, "Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 1188-1197, 2012.
60. J. Mendling, H. A. Reijers, and W. M. P. van der Aalst, "Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG)," Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 127-136, Feb. 2010. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof. 2009.08.004
61. M. Heravizadeh, J. Mendling, and M. Rosemann, "Dimensions of business processes quality (QoBP)." in Business Process Management Workshops, ser. LNBIP, vol. 17. Springer, 2008, pp. 80-91.
62. M. Satpathy, R. Harrison, C. F. Snook, and M. J. Butler, "A generic model for assessing process quality," in New Approaches in Software Measurement, 10th International Workshop, ser. LNCS, vol. 2006. Springer, 2000, pp. 94-110.
63. A. S. Güceglioglu and O. Demirörs, "Using software quality characteristics to measure business process quality," in Business Process Management, 3rd International Conference, BPM 2005, 2005, pp. 374-379.
64. R. Heinrich and B. Paech, "Defining the quality of business processes," in Modellierung 2010, ser. LNI, vol. 161. GI, 2010, pp. 133-148.
65. C. Monsalve, A. Abran, and A. April, "Measuring software functional size from business process models," International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 21, no. 03, pp. 311-338, 2011.