Quality Measures for ETL Processes

  • Vasileios Theodorou
  • Alberto Abelló
  • Wolfgang Lehner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8646)


ETL processes play an increasingly important role for the support of modern business operations. These business processes are centred around artifacts with high variability and diverse lifecycles, which correspond to key business entities. The apparent complexity of these activities has been examined through the prism of Business Process Management, mainly focusing on functional requirements and performance optimization. However, the quality dimension has not yet been thoroughly investigated and there is a need for a more human-centric approach to bring them closer to business-users requirements. In this paper we take a first step towards this direction by defining a sound model for ETL process quality characteristics and quantitative measures for each characteristic, based on existing literature. Our model shows dependencies among quality characteristics and can provide the basis for subsequent analysis using Goal Modeling techniques.


ETL business process quality measures 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    KPI library, (cited January 2014)
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    El Akkaoui, Z., Mazón, J.-N., Vaisman, A., Zimányi, E.: BPMN-based conceptual modeling of ETL processes. In: Cuzzocrea, A., Dayal, U. (eds.) DaWaK 2012. LNCS, vol. 7448, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Qutaish, R.: An investigation of the weaknesses of the ISO 9126 Intl. Standard. In: ICCEE, pp. 275–279 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barbacci, M., Klein, M., Longstaff, T., Weinstock, C.: Quality Attributes. Tech. rep., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batini, C., Cappiello, C., Francalanci, C., Maurino, A.: Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(3), 1–52 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Böhm, M., Wloka, U., Habich, D., Lehner, W.: GCIP: Exploiting the generation and optimization of integration processes. In: EDBT, pp. 1128–1131. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briand, L., Morasca, S., Basili, V.: Property-based software engineering measurement. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng. 22(1), 68–86 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chew, E., Swanson, M., Stine, K.M., Bartol, N., Brown, A., Robinson, W.: Performance Measurement Guide for Information Security. Tech. rep. (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dustdar, S., Pichler, R., Savenkov, V., Truong, H.L.: Quality-aware service-oriented data integration: Requirements, state of the art and open challenges. SIGMOD 41(1), 11–19 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El Akkaoui, Z., Zimanyi, E.: Defining ETL worfklows using BPMN and BPEL. In: DOLAP, pp. 41–48. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frakes, W., Terry, C.: Software reuse: Metrics and models. ACM Comput. Surv. 28(2), 415–435 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    García, F., Piattini, M., Ruiz, F., Canfora, G., Visaggio, C.A.: FMESP: Framework for the modeling and evaluation of software processes. In: QUTE-SWAP, pp. 5–13. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gill, G., Kemerer, C.: Cyclomatic complexity density and software maintenance productivity. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng. 17(12), 1284–1288 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jarke, M., Lenzerini, M., Vassiliou, Y., Vassiliadis, P.: Fundamentals of Data Warehouses. Springer (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jogalekar, P., Woodside, M.: Evaluating the scalability of distributed systems. IEEE Trans. on Parallel and Distributed Systems 11(6), 589–603 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kazman, R., Asundi, J., Klein, M.: Quantifying the costs and benefits of architectural decisions. In: ICSE, pp. 297–306 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., Linkman, S.: Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(1), 7–15 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Requirements Engineering, pp. 249–262 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leite, J., Cappelli, C.: Software transparency. Business and Information Systems Engineering 2(3), 127–139 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Majchrzak, T.A., Jansen, T., Kuchen, H.: Efficiency evaluation of open source ETL tools. In: SAC, pp. 287–294. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Muñoz, L., Mazón, J.N., Trujillo, J.: Measures for ETL processes models in data warehouses. In: MoSE+DQS, pp. 33–36. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Naumann, F.: Quality-Driven Query Answering for Integrated Information Systems. LNCS, vol. 2261. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pavlov, I.: A QoX model for ETL subsystems: Theoretical and industry perspectives. In: CompSysTech, pp. 15–21. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Ruiz, F., Mendling, J.: Quality indicators for business process models from a gateway complexity perspective. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(11), 1159–1174 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simitsis, A., Vassiliadis, P., Sellis, T.: Optimizing ETL processes in data warehouses. In: ICDE, pp. 564–575 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simitsis, A., Vassiliadis, P., Dayal, U., Karagiannis, A., Tziovara, V.: Benchmarking ETL Workflows. In: Nambiar, R., Poess, M. (eds.) TPCTC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5895, pp. 199–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simitsis, A., Wilkinson, K., Castellanos, M., Dayal, U.: QoX-driven ETL design: Reducing the cost of ETL consulting engagements. In: SIGMOD, pp. 953–960. ACM, New York (2009b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilkinson, K., Simitsis, A., Castellanos, M., Dayal, U.: Leveraging business process models for ETL design. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 15–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vasileios Theodorou
    • 1
  • Alberto Abelló
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Lehner
    • 2
  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Technische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations