Skip to main content

QuOD: An NLP Tool to Improve the Quality of Business Process Descriptions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
From Software Engineering to Formal Methods and Tools, and Back

Abstract

[Context and Motivation] In real-world organisations, business processes (BPs) are often described by means of natural language (NL) documents. Indeed, although semi-formal graphical notations exist to model BPs, most of the legacy process knowledge—when not tacit—is still conveyed through textual procedures or operational manuals, in which the BPs are specified. This is particularly true for public administrations (PAs), in which a large variety of BPs exist (e.g., definition of tenders, front-desk support) that have to be understood and put into practice by civil servants. [Question/problem] Incorrect understanding of the BP descriptions in PAs may cause delays in the delivery of services to citizens, or, in some cases, incorrect execution of the BPs. [Principal idea/results] In this paper, we present the development of an NLP-based tool named QuOD (Quality Analyser for Official Documents), oriented to detect linguistic defects in BP descriptions and to provide recommendations for improvements. [Contribution] QuOD is the first tool that addresses the problem of identifying NL defects in BP descriptions of PAs. The tool is available online at http://narwhal.it/quod/index.html.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://gate.ac.uk.

  2. 2.

    http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml.

  3. 3.

    http://www.jud.ct.gov/legalterms.htm.

  4. 4.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legal_Latin_terms.

  5. 5.

    http://www.plainenglish.co.uk.

  6. 6.

    https://www.languagetool.org.

  7. 7.

    http://narwhal.it.

References

  1. Berry, D., Gacitua, R., Sawyer, P., Tjong, S.F.: The case for dumb requirements engineering tools. In: Regnell, B., Damian, D. (eds.) REFSQ 2012. LNCS, vol. 7195, pp. 211–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28714-5_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Berry, D.M., Kamsties, E., Krieger, M.M.: From contract drafting to software specification: linguistic sources of ambiguity (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chall, J.S., Dale, E.: Readability Revisited: The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Brookline Books, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A.: BPMN: an introduction to the standard. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 34(1), 124–134 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Corradini, F., et al.: A guidelines framework for understandable BPMN models. Data Knowl. Eng. 113, 129–154 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cutts, M.: The Plain English Guide. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Davies, M.: Word frequency data. http://www.wordfrequency.info/free.asp. Accessed 1 Aug 2015

  8. De Angelis, G., Ferrari, A., Gnesi, S., Polini, A.: Collaborative requirements elicitation in a European research project. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1282–1289. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. De Angelis, G., Ferrari, A., Gnesi, S., Polini, A.: Requirements elicitation and refinement in collaborative research projects. J. Softw. Evol. Process 30(12), e1990 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. De Angelis, G., Pierantonio, A., Polini, A., Re, B., Thönssen, B., Woitsch, R.: Modeling for learning in public administrations—the learn PAd approach. Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, pp. 575–594. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39417-6_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Dell’Orletta, F., Montemagni, S., Venturi, G.: Read-it: assessing readability of Italian texts with a view to text simplification. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technologies, pp. 73–83. Association for Computational Linguistics (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ferrari, A., Dell’Orletta, F., Esuli, A., Gervasi, V., Gnesi, S.: Natural language requirements processing: a 4D vision. IEEE Softw. 34(6), 28–35 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferrari, A., Gnesi, S.: Using collective intelligence to detect pragmatic ambiguities. In: 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 191–200. IEEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ferrari, A., et al.: Detecting requirements defects with NLP patterns: an industrial experience in the railway domain. Empir. Softw. Eng. 23(6), 3684–3733 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ferrari, A., Spagnolo, G.O., Witschel, H.F.: Learn PAd - deliverable D4.2 quality assessment strategies for contents (2019). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2643293

  16. Ferrari, A., Witschel, H.F., Spagnolo, G.O., Gnesi, S.: Improving the quality of business process descriptions of public administrations: resources and research challenges. Bus. Process Manag. J. 24(1), 49–66 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gnesi, S., Lami, G., Trentanni, G.: An automatic tool for the analysis of natural language requirements. IJCSSE 20(1), 53–62 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hirst, G.: Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leopold, H., Smirnov, S., Mendling, J.: On the refactoring of activity labels in business process models. Inf. Syst. 37(5), 443–459 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Massey, A.K., Rutledge, R.L., Anton, A., Swire, P.P., et al.: Identifying and classifying ambiguity for regulatory requirements. In: IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 83–92. IEEE (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Plain English Campaign: The A to Z of alternative words. http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/files/alternative.pdf

  22. Sanne, U., Ferrari, A., Gnesi, S., Witschel, H.F.: Ensuring action: identifying unclear actor specifications in textual business process descriptions. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS). Springer (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Silva, T.S., Thom, L.H., Weber, A., de Oliveira, J.P.M., Fantinato, M.: Empirical Analysis of Sentence Templates and Ambiguity Issues for Business Process Descriptions. In: Panetto, H., Debruyne, C., Proper, H., Ardagna, C., Roman, D., Meersman, R. (eds.) OTM 2018. LNCS, vol. 11229. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02610-3_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Thönssen, B., Witschel, H.F., Rusinov, O.: Determining information relevance based on personalization techniques to meet specific user needs. In: Dornberger, R. (ed.) Business Information Systems and Technology 4.0. SSDC, vol. 141, pp. 31–45. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74322-6_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Trudeau, C.R.: The public speaks: an empirical study of legal communication. Scribes J. Leg. Writ. 14(2011–2012), 32 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  26. UK Government: Content design: planning, writing and managing content. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk. Accessed 1 Aug 2015

  27. University of Sheffield: JAPE: regular expressions over annotations. https://gate.ac.uk/sale/tao/splitch8.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2015

  28. Yang, H., Roeck, A.N.D., Gervasi, V., Willis, A., Nuseibeh, B.: Analysing anaphoric ambiguity in natural language requirements. Requir. Eng. 16(3), 163–189 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was possible thanks to the seminal work of Stefania Gnesi and co-authors on the usage of rule-based NLP techniques for detecting ambiguity and other quality issues in requirements specifications [17].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessio Ferrari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ferrari, A., Spagnolo, G.O., Fiscella, A., Parente, G. (2019). QuOD: An NLP Tool to Improve the Quality of Business Process Descriptions. In: ter Beek, M., Fantechi, A., Semini, L. (eds) From Software Engineering to Formal Methods and Tools, and Back. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11865. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30985-5_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30985-5_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30984-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30985-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics