Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

TEC-MAP: A Taxonomy of Evaluation Criteria for Multi-modelling Approaches

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (BPMDS 2023, EMMSAD 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 479))

  • 635 Accesses

Abstract

Over the last fifteen years, various frameworks for data-aware process modelling have been proposed, several of which provide a set of evaluation criteria but which differ in their focus, the terminology used, the level of detail used to describe their criteria and how these are evaluated. In addition, there are well-established evaluation frameworks of a more general nature that can be applied to data-centric process modelling too. A comprehensive and unbiased evaluation framework for (multi-)modelling approaches that also caters for more general aspects such as understandability, ease of use, model quality, etc., does not yet exist and is therefore the research gap addressed in this paper. This paper addresses this gap by using existing evaluation frameworks and developing a taxonomy that is used to categorise all the criteria from existing evaluation frameworks. The results are then discussed and related to the challenges and concerns identified by practitioners.

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 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://merode.econ.kuleuven.be/TEC-MAP.html.

References

  1. Hull, R.: Artifact-centric business process models: brief survey of research results and challenges. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5332, pp. 1152–1163. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88873-4_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Künzle, V., Reichert, M.: PHILharmonicFlows: towards a framework for object-aware process management. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. Res. Pract. 23(4), 205–244 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Steinau, S., Marrella, A., Andrews, K., Leotta, F., Mecella, M., Reichert, M.: DALEC: a framework for the systematic evaluation of data-centric approaches to process management software. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(4), 2679–2716 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-018-0695-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moody, D.L.: The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: ECIS 2003 Proceedings, 2003, p. 79. [Online]. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2003/79

  5. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 91–102 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reijers, H.A., et al.: Evaluating data-centric process approaches: does the human factor factor in? Softw. Syst. Model. 16(3), 649–662 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-015-0491-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, F.D.: A technology Acceptance Model For Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 18, 319–340 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36(1), 157–178 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw 11(2), 42–49 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1109/52.268955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G.: Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In: Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Olivé, A. (eds.) Information System Concepts. IAICT, pp. 216–231. Springer, Boston, MA (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34870-4_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Krogstie, J., Jørgensen, H.D.: Quality of interactive models. In: Olivé, A., Yoshikawa, M., Yu, E.S.K. (eds.), Advanced Conceptual Modeling Techniques, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003, pp. 351–363 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45275-1_31

  13. Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: A conceptual modeling quality framework. Softw. Qual. J. 20(1), 201–228 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9136-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16(11), 1282–1292 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1109/32.60316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Künzle, V., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: Object-aware business processes: properties, requirements, existing approaches. University of Ulm (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Giraldo, F.D., España, S., Giraldo, W.J., Pastor, Ó.: Evaluating the quality of a set of modelling languages used in combination: a method and a tool. Inf Syst 77, 48–70 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IS.2018.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nickerson, R.C., Varshney, U., Muntermann, J.: A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(3), 336–359 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw. Eng. 2013, 507984 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/507984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. ISO: ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 Systems and software engineering — Architecture description. [Online]. https://www.iso.org/standard/50508.html. Accessed 9 Mar 2023

  20. Bernaert, M., Poels, G., Snoeck, M., De Backer, M.: CHOOSE: towards a metamodel for enterprise architecture in small and medium-sized enterprises. Inf. Syst. Front. 18(4), 781–818 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9559-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kleppe, A.G.: A language description is more than a Metamodel. In: 4th International Workshop on Software Language Engineering, ATEM 2007 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ruiz, J., Serral, E., Snoeck, M.: Evaluating user interface generation approaches: model-based versus model-driven development. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(4), 2753–2776 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-018-0698-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Verbruggen, C., Snoeck, M.: Practitioners’ experiences with model-driven engineering: a meta-review. Softw. Syst. Model 22(1), 111–129 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-022-01020-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moody, D.: The physics of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2009.67

  25. Börstler, J., bin Ali, N., Svensson, M., Petersen, K.: Investigating acceptance behavior in software engineering—theoretical perspectives. J. Syst. Softw. 198, 111592 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research has been funded by the KU Leuven research fund, grant C17421017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Center for Information Systems Engineering, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 69, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Charlotte Verbruggen & Monique Snoeck

Authors
  1. Charlotte Verbruggen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monique Snoeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Verbruggen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Han van der Aa

  2. TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Dominik Bork

  3. TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Henderik A. Proper

  4. Munich University of Applied Sciences, Munich, Germany

    Rainer Schmidt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Verbruggen, C., Snoeck, M. (2023). TEC-MAP: A Taxonomy of Evaluation Criteria for Multi-modelling Approaches. In: van der Aa, H., Bork, D., Proper, H.A., Schmidt, R. (eds) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2023 2023. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 479. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34241-7_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34241-7_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-34240-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-34241-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation