Advertisement

Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp 433–448 | Cite as

Process-Driven Data Quality Management Through Integration of Data Quality into Existing Process Models

Application of Complexity-Reducing Patterns and the Impact on Complexity Metrics
  • Paul Glowalla
  • Ali SunyaevEmail author
State of the Art

Abstract

The importance of high data quality and the need to consider data quality in the context of business processes are well acknowledged. Process modeling is mandatory for process-driven data quality management, which seeks to improve and sustain data quality by redesigning processes that create or modify data. A variety of process modeling languages exist, which organizations heterogeneously apply. The purpose of this article is to present a context-independent approach to integrate data quality into the variety of existing process models. The authors aim to improve communication of data quality issues across stakeholders while considering process model complexity. They build on a keyword-based literature review in 74 IS journals and three conferences, reviewing 1,555 articles from 1995 onwards. 26 articles, including 46 process models, were examined in detail. The literature review reveals the need for a context-independent and visible integration of data quality into process models. First, the authors present the enhancement of existing process models with data quality characteristics. Second, they present the integration of a data-quality-centric process model with existing process models. Since process models are mainly used for communicating processes, they consider the impact of integrating data quality and the application of patterns for complexity reduction on the models’ complexity metrics. There is need for further research on complexity metrics to improve the applicability of complexity reduction patterns. Lacking knowledge about interdependency between metrics and missing complexity metrics impede assessment and prediction of process model complexity and thus understandability. Finally, our context-independent approach can be used complementarily for data quality integration with specific process modeling languages.

Keywords

Data quality Information quality Process modeling Process model Model integration Model complexity Model understandability 

Supplementary material

12599_2013_297_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (35 kb)
(PDF 35 kB)

References

  1. Balka E, Whitehouse S, Coates ST, Andrusiek D (2012) Ski hill injuries and ghost charts: socio-technical issues in achieving e-health interoperability across jurisdictions. Information Systems Frontiers 14(1):19–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballou D, Wang R, Pazer H, Kumar Tayi G (1998) Modeling information manufacturing systems to determine information product quality. Management Science 44(4):462–484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandara W, Gable GG, Rosemann M (2005) Factors and measures of business process modelling: model building through a multiple case study. European Journal of Information Systems 14(4):347–360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basu A, Blanning RW (2003) Synthesis and decomposition of processes in organizations. Information Systems Research 14(4):337–355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batini C, Cappiello C, Francalanci C, Maurino A (2009) Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Computing Surveys 41(3):1–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker J, Rosemann M, von Uthmann C (2000) Guidelines of business process modeling. In: van der Aalst WMP, Desel J, Oberweis A (eds) Business process management, models, techniques, and empirical studies Google Scholar
  7. Buhl HU, Röglinger M, Stöckl S, Braunwarth KS (2011) Value orientation in process management. Bus Inf Syst Eng 3(3):163–172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capgemini (2013) IT-Trends-Studie. http://www.de.capgemini.com/it-trends-studie. Accessed 2013-03-25
  9. Cappelli C, Leite JCSP, Batista T, Silva L (2009) An aspect-oriented approach to business process modeling. In: Proc 15th workshop on early aspects, Charlottesville, pp 7–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardoso J (2006) Process control-flow complexity metric: an empirical validation. In: Proc IEEE international conference on services computing, Chicago, pp 167–173 Google Scholar
  11. Davidson B, Lee YW, Wang R (2004) Developing data production maps: meeting patient discharge data submission requirements. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management 6(2):223–240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dehnert J, van der Aalst WM (2004) Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 13(3):289–332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dejaeger K, Hamers B, Poelmans J, Baesens B (2010) A novel approach to the evaluation and improvement of data quality in the financial sector. In: Proc international conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  14. English LP (1999) Improving data warehouse and business information quality: methods for reducing costs and increasing profits. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  15. Figl K, Laue R (2011) Cognitive complexity in business process modeling. In: Mouratidis H, Rolland C (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 452–466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forrester Research (2011) Trends in data quality and business process alignment. http://www.enterpriseiq.com.au/documents/whitepapers/Trends_in_Data_Quality_and_Business_Process_Alignment.pdf. Accessed 2013-03-25
  17. Gaynor M, Shankaranarayanan G (2008) Implications of sensors and sensor-networks for data quality management. International Journal of Information Quality 2(1):75–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glowalla P, Balazy P, Basten D, Sunyaev A (2014) Process-driven data quality management – an application of the combined conceptual life cycle model. In: Proc 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Hawaii Google Scholar
  19. Glowalla P, Sunyaev A (2012) A process management perspective on future ERP system development in the financial service sector. AIS Transactions on Enterprise Systems 3(1):18–27 Google Scholar
  20. Glowalla P, Sunyaev A (2013) Managing data quality with ERP systems – insights from the insurance sector. In: Proc European conference on information systems, Utrecht Google Scholar
  21. Gruhn V, Laue R (2006) Complexity metrics for business process models. In: Proc 9th international conference on business information systems, Klagenfurt Google Scholar
  22. Gruhn V, Laue R (2009) Reducing the cognitive complexity of business process models. In: Proc 8th IEEE international conference on cognitive informatics, Los Alamitos, pp 339–345 Google Scholar
  23. Guceglioglu AS, Demirors O (2005) Using software quality characteristics to measure business process quality. In: Aalst W, Benatallah B, Casati F, Curbera F (eds) Business process management. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 374–379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hakim LA (2008) Modelling information flow for surgery management process. International Journal of Information Quality 2(1):60–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harkness WL, Segars AH, Kettinger WJ (1996) Sustaining process improvement and innovation in the information services function: lessons learned at the Bose Corporation. MIS Quarterly 20(3):349–368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haug A, Zachariassen F, van Liempd D (2011) The costs of poor data quality. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 4(2):168–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Helfert M, von Maur E (2001) A strategy for managing data quality in data warehouse systems. In: Proc conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  28. Ishikawa K (1993) Guide to quality control. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo Google Scholar
  29. Kahn BK, Katz-Haas R, Strong DM (2001) Organizational realism meets information quality idealism: the challenges of keeping an information quality initiative going. In: Proc conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  30. Katz-Haas R, Lee YW (2002) Understanding hidden interdependencies between information and organizational processes in practice. In: Proc international conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  31. Keenan SL, Simmons T (2005) CSDQ: a user-centered approach to improving the quality of customer support data. In: Proc international conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  32. Klesse M, Herrmann C, Maier D, Mügeli T, Brändli P (2004) Customer investigation process at Credit Suisse: meeting the rising demand of regulators. In: Proc international conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  33. Knight S (2011) The combined conceptual life-cycle model of information quality. Part 1. An investigative framework. International Journal of Information Quality 2(3):205–230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ko RK, Lee SS, Lee EW (2009) Business process management (BPM) standards: a survey. Business Process Management Journal 15(5):744–791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kovac R, Lee YW, Pipino L (1997) Total data quality management: the case of IRI. In: Proc conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  36. Kovac R, Weickert C (2002) Starting with quality: using TDQM in a start-up organization. In: Proc international conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  37. Kurzlechner W (2011) Die Top-10-Listen der IT-Trends 2012. http://www.cio.de/strategien/2298020/. Accessed 2012-02-07
  38. La Rosa M, ter Hofstede AH, Wohed P, Reijers HA, Mendling J, van der Aalst WM (2011a) Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 7(2):255–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. La Rosa M, Wohed P, Mendling J, ter Hofstede AH, Reijers HA, van der Aalst WM (2011b) Managing process model complexity via abstract syntax modifications. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 7(4):614–629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laue R, Gruhn V (2007) Approaches for business process model complexity metrics. In: Abramowicz W, Mayr HC (eds) Technologies for business information systems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 13–24 Google Scholar
  41. Laue R, Mendling J (2010) Structuredness and its significance for correctness of process models. Information Systems and e-Business Management 8(3):287–307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laumann M, Rosenkranz C (2008) Analysing information flows for controlling activities within supply chains: an Arvato (Bertelsmann) business case. In: Proc European conference on information systems (ECIS), Galway Google Scholar
  43. Lee YW, Chase S, Fisher J, Leinung A, McDowell D, Paradiso M, Simons J, Yarsawich C (2007) CEIP maps: context-embedded information product maps. In: Proc Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS), Cambridge Google Scholar
  44. Lee YW, Strong DM (2003) Knowing-why about data processes and data quality. Journal of Management Information Systems 20(3):13–39 Google Scholar
  45. Lee YW (2006) Journey to data quality. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  46. Lindland OI, Sindre G, Solvberg A (1994) Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11(2):42–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Loshin D (2001) Enterprise knowledge management. The data quality approach. Morgan Kaufmann, San Diego Google Scholar
  48. Madnick SE, Wang RY, Lee YW, Zhu H (2009) Overview and framework for data and information quality research. Journal of Data and Information Quality 1(1):1–22 Google Scholar
  49. Mendling J (2008) Metrics for process models. Empirical foundations of verification, error prediction, and guidelines for correctness. Springer, Heidelberg Google Scholar
  50. Mendling J, Neumann G, van der Aalst WM (2007) Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics. In: Proc OTM conference on cooperative information systems, Vilamoura, pp 113–130 Google Scholar
  51. Mendling J, Reijers HA, van der Aalst WMP (2010) Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Journal of Information and Software Technology 52(2):127–136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mendling J, Strembeck M (2008) Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Abramowicz W, Fensel D (eds) LNBIP LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 142–153 Google Scholar
  53. Meyer MH, Zack MH (1996) The design and development of information products. Sloan Management Review 37(3):43–59 Google Scholar
  54. Mielke M (2005) IQ principles in software development. In: Proc international conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  55. Millard FH, Lavoie M (2000) Developing data product maps for total data quality management: the case of Georgia Vital Records. In: Proc conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  56. Moody D (2009) The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6):756–779 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ofner MH, Otto B, Österle H (2012) Integrating a data quality perspective into business process management. Business Process Management Journal 18(6):1036–1067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Otto B (2011) Data governance. Bus Inf Syst Eng 3(4):241–244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Overhage S, Birkmeier D, Schlauderer S (2012) Quality marks, metrics, and measurement procedures for business process models: the 3QM-framework. Bus Inf Syst Eng 4(5):229–246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Recker J (2010) Continued use of process modeling grammars: the impact of individual difference factors. European Journal of Information Systems 19(1):76–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Recker J, Indulska M, Rosemann M, Green P (2010) The ontological deficiencies of process modeling in practice. European Journal of Information Systems 19(5):501–525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Recker JC, Rosemann M, Indulska M, Green P (2009) Business process modeling – a comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(4):333–363 Google Scholar
  63. Redman TC (2004) Data: an unfolding quality disaster. DM Review 14(8):21–23 Google Scholar
  64. Reijers HA, Mendling J (2011) 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rosemann M (2006) Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part a. Business Process Management Journal 12(2):249–254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rosemann M, Green P, Indulska M, Recker JC (2009) Using ontology for the representational analysis of process modelling techniques. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 4(4):251–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosemann M, Recker JC, Flender C (2008) Contextualisation of business processes. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 3(1):47–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shankaranarayanan G, Cai Y (2006) Supporting data quality management in decision-making. Decision Support Systems 42(1):302–317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shankaranarayanan G, Wang R (2007) IPMAP research status and direction. In: Proc international conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  70. Shankaranarayanan G, Wang RY, Ziad M (2000) IP-MAP: representing the manufacture of an information product. In: Proc conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  71. Shankaranarayanan G, Ziad M, Wang RY (2003) Managing data quality in dynamic decision environments: an information product approach. Journal of Database Management 14(4):14–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thi TTP, Helfert M (2007) Modelling information manufacturing systems. International Journal of Information Quality 1(1):5–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Uba R, Dumas M, García-Bañuelos L, Rosa M (2011) Clone detection in repositories of business process models. In: Rinderle-Ma S, Toumani F, Wolf K (eds) Business process management. Springer, Heidelberg Google Scholar
  74. Vanderfeesten I, Reijers HA, Mendling J, Aalst WM, Cardoso J (2008) On a quest for good process models: the cross-connectivity metric. In: Proc 20th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, Montpellier, pp 480–494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vanhatalo J, Völzer H, Koehler J (2009) The refined process structure tree. In: Sixth international conference on business process management – five selected and extended papers. Data & Knowledge Engineering, vol 68(9), pp 793–818 Google Scholar
  76. Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Information Systems Journal 3(4):217–237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wand Y, Weber R (1995) On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal 5(3):203–223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang RY (1998) A product perspective on total data quality management. Communications of the ACM 41(2):58–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang RY, Allen TJ, Harris W, Madnick S (2002) An information product approach for total information awareness. MIT Sloan working paper no 4407-02; CISL no 2002-15 Google Scholar
  80. Weber B, Reichert M, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2011) Refactoring large process model repositories. Computers in Industry 62(5):467–486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26(2):xiii–xxiii Google Scholar
  82. Xie S, Helfert M (2010) Assessing information quality deficiencies in emergency medical service performance. In: Proc international conference on information quality, Cambridge Google Scholar
  83. Zack MH (1996) Electronic publishing: a product architecture perspective. Information & Management 31(2):75–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems and Information Systems QualityUniversity of CologneKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations