Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Complex Does Compliance Get?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Information Systems Engineering in Responsible Information Systems (CAiSE 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 350))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Metrics have been applied in software engineering to manage the complexity of program code. This paper explores a new application area of the classic software engineering metrics to determine the complexity of compliance rules in business processes. Despite the critical voices noting the rather weak theoretical foundation, metrics provide effective measures for overlooking the concepts that may drive the complexity of a program. Their scope, scalability, and perceived ease of use do not diffuse these doubts, but provide ample reasons to believe that there is more to complexity analysis than numbers, and that a better methodological approach can help to reveal their true potential. Utilizing this potential would be of great importance, not only for establishing effective and efficient compliance management, but also for providing innovative solutions to digitalization trends and increasing data stacks. While some extant work has shown the applicability of software metrics for analyzing the complexity of process models, metrics have not been applied so far to manage the complexity of compliance rules. The approach presented in this paper provides an integrated view on the complexity of compliance rules that are modeled with conceptually different compliance languages. To this end, we review and discuss the literature on software metrics to derive the definitions needed to compute the complexity of compliance rules, and to refurbish the methodological foundation of software engineering metrics.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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.

    A complete documentation of all metric calculations can be retrieved from http://win-dl.informatik.uni-rostock.de/190101_metrics_calculation.pdf.

References

  1. Antoniou, G., et al.: Legal reasoning and big data: opportunities and challenges. In: 17th Workshop Proceedings of MIning and REasoning with Legal texts (MIREL), 17 September 2018, Luxembourg (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.R.; Liplow, L.: Quantitative evaluation of software quality. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 592–605 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cardoso, J.: Business process control-flow complexity: metric, evaluation, and validation. Int. J. Web Serv. Res. 5(2), 49–76 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cardoso, J.: Control-flow complexity measurement of processes and Weyuker’s properties. In: 6th Proceedings of International Enformatika Conference, 23 December 2005, Warsaw, Poland, 213–218 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Curtis, B., Sheppard, S.B., Milliman, P., Borst, M.A., Love, T.: Measuring the psychological complexity of software maintenance tasks with the Halstead and McCabe metrics. IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 2, 96–104 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 411–420 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Edmonds, B.: What is complexity? The philosophy of complexity per se with application to some examples in evolution. In: The evolution of complexity, pp. 1–17. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Elgammal, A., Turetken, O., van den Heuvel, W.J., Papazoglou, M.: Formalizing and appling compliance patterns for business process compliance. Softw. Syst. Model. 15, 119–146 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Erickson, J., Siau, K.: Theoretical and practical complexity of modeling methods. Commun. ACM 50(8), 46–51 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. EUR-Lex: Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fenton, N.E.: Quantitative analysis of faults and failures in a complex software system. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 26, 797–814 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferrer, J., Chicano, F., Alba, E.: Estimating software testing complexity. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(12), 2125–2139 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Governatori, G., Hashmi, M.: No time for compliance. In: 19th IEEE Proceedings of International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), 21–25 September 2015 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Halstead, M.H.: Elements of Software Science Operating and Programming Systems. Series, vol. 7. Elsevier, New York (1977)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Hashmi, M., Governatori, G., Wynn, M.T.: Normative requirements for regulatory compliance: an abstract formal framework. Inf. Syst. Front. 18(3), 429–455 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hashmi, M., Governatori, G.: Norms modeling constructs of business process compliance management frameworks: a conceptual evaluation. Artif. Intell. Law 26(3), 1–55 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Henry, S., Kafura, D.: Software structure metrics based on information flow. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 7(5), 510–518 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kiepuszewski, B.: Expressiveness and Suitability of Languages for Control Flow Modelling in Workflows. PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kitchenham, B.: What’s up with software metrics? - a preliminary mapping study. J. Syst. Softw. 83(1), 37–51 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M.: A visual language for modeling multiple perspectives of business process compliance rules. Softw. Syst. Model. 1701(3), 52–55 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. McCabe, T.J.: A complexity measure. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-2, 308–320 (1976)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Mendling, J.: Detection and prediction of errors in EPC business process models. PhD Thesis, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Moreno-Montes De Oca, I., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., Rodríguez-Morffi, A.: A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Inf. Softw. Technol. 58, 187–205 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pesic, M.: Constraint-based workflow management systems: shifting control to users, PhD Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ramezani, E., Fahland, D., van der Aalst, Wil M.P.: Where did i misbehave? Diagnostic information in compliance checking. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 262–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32885-5_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: 18th Proceedings of Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), 5–7 December 2007, Toowoomba, Australian (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Recker, J., Reijers, H.A., van de Wouw, S.G.: Process model comprehension: the effects of cognitive abilities, learning style, and strategy. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34, 199–222 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Recker, J.: Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Bus. Process Manag. J. 16(1), 181–201 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Shepperd, M., Ince, D.C.: A critique of three metrics. J. Syst. Softw. 26(3), 197–210 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vanderfeesten, I., Cardoso, J., Reijers, H.A., Van Der Aalst, W.M.P.: Quality metrics for business process models. In: BPM and Workflow Handbook, vol. 144, no. 3, pp. 1–12 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany

    Andrea Zasada

Authors
  1. Andrea Zasada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Zasada .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Cinzia Cappiello

  2. Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Marcela Ruiz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Zasada, A. (2019). How Complex Does Compliance Get?. In: Cappiello, C., Ruiz, M. (eds) Information Systems Engineering in Responsible Information Systems. CAiSE 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 350. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21297-1_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21297-1_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-21296-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-21297-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation