Skip to main content

An Approach to Business Process Model Structuredness Analysis: Errors Detection and Cost-Saving Estimation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
ICTERI 2021 Workshops (ICTERI 2021)

Abstract

This paper considers business process model structuredness issues, which are mostly related to inaccurate usage of gateways. According to related work in the process model structuredness domain, split gateways ought to match respective join gateways of the same type, while the existing mismatch measure allows evaluating model structuredness only by degrees of split and join gateways. Thus, the current measure of process model structuredness is not accurate enough and process model shortcomings may remain undetected, which may affect negatively model understandability, maintainability, and increase the error probability of business process models. Hence, error fixing costs may grow exponentially during later stages of the information system lifecycle. Therefore, we have proposed an improved gateway mismatch measure and a model to detect design issues and suggest changes necessary to achieve a sufficient level of business process model structuredness. The software tool for business process model structuredness analysis was developed to perform experiments with a large set of business process models of different industries. Analysis of obtained results, including sample business process models, detected design issues, and estimated efforts and cost-saving benefits are outlined. Conclusions were made, and future work was formulated.

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

References

  1. Ahrend, N.: Opportunities and limitations of BPM initiatives in public administrations across levels and institutions. Doctoral thesis. Humboldt University, Berlin (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Introduction to business process management. In: Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) Fundamentals of Business Process Management, pp. 1–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33143-5_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Kahloun, F., Ayachi Ghannouchi, S.: A classification algorithm for assessing the quality criteria for business process models. In: Abraham, A., Muhuri, P.K., Muda, A.K., Gandhi, N. (eds.) HIS 2017. AISC, vol. 734, pp. 71–81. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76351-4_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Pavlicek, J., Hronza, R., Pavlickova, P., Jelinkova, K.: The business process model quality metrics. In: Pergl, R., Lock, R., Babkin, E., Molhanec, M. (eds.) Enterprise and Organizational Modeling and Simulation, pp. 134–148. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68185-6_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Tricker, R.: ISO 9001:2015 for Small Business. Taylor & Francis (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Khudori, A.N., Kurniawan, T.A., Ramdani, F.: Quality evaluation of EPC to BPMN business process model transformation. J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci. 5(2), 207–220 (2020). https://doi.org/10.25126/jitecs.202052176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mohammadi, N.A., Heisel, M.: A framework for systematic refinement of trustworthiness requirements. Information 8(2), 46–68 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/info8020046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ceballos, H.G., Flores-Solorio, V., Garcia, J.P.: A probabilistic BPMN normal form to model and advise human activities. In: Baldoni, M., Baresi, L., Dastani, M. (eds.) EMAS 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9318, pp. 51–69. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26184-3_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Mendling, J.: Detection and prediction of errors in EPC business process models. Doctoral thesis. WU, Vienna (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mendling, J., Sanchez-Gonzalez, L., Garcia, F., La Rosa, M.: Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models. J. Syst. Softw. 85(5), 1188–1197 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Corradini, F., Ferrari, A., Fornari, F., Gnesi, S., Polini, A., Spagnolo, G.O.: A guidelines framework for understandable BPMN models. Data Knowl. Eng. 13, 129–154 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2017.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kluza, K., Nalepa, G.J., Lisiecki, J.: Square complexity metrics for business process models. In: Mach-Król, M., Pełech-Pilichowski, T. (eds.) Advances in Business ICT. AISC, vol. 257, pp. 89–107. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03677-9_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Mroczek, A., Ligeza, A.: A note on BPMN analysis. Towards a taxonomy of selected potential anomalies. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, vol. 2, pp. 1097–1102 (2014). https://doi.org/10.15439/2014F185

  14. Kahloun, F., Ghannouchi, S.A.: Improvement of quality for business process modeling driven by guidelines. Procedia Comput. Sci. 126, 39–48 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Krogstie, J.: SEQUAL specialized for business process models. In: Krogstie, J. (ed.) Quality in Business Process Modeling, pp. 103–138. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42512-2_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Sanchez-Gonzalez, L., et al.: Quality indicators for business process models from a gateway complexity perspective. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(11), 1159–1174 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2012.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sampathkumaran, P.B.: Computing the cost of business processes. Dissertation. Munchen (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Baumann, F., Milutinovic, A., Roller, D.: Software engineering inspired cost estimation for process modelling. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Eng. 10(2), 576–586 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1111791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Defect prevention: reducing costs and enhancing quality. https://www.isixsigma.com/industries/software-it/defect-prevention-reducing-costs-and-enhancing-quality/. Accessed 03 May 2021

  20. https://github.com/camunda/bpmn-for-research. Accessed 03 May 2021

  21. https://github.com/freebpmnquality/bpmn_structuredness. Accessed 03 May 2021

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 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

Orlovskyi, D., Kopp, A. (2022). An Approach to Business Process Model Structuredness Analysis: Errors Detection and Cost-Saving Estimation. In: Ignatenko, O., et al. ICTERI 2021 Workshops. ICTERI 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1635. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14841-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14841-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14840-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-14841-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics