Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Indicators for Open Issues in Business Process Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9619))

Abstract

[Context and motivation] In the early phases of requirements engineering, often graphical models are used to communicate requirements. In particular, business process models in graphical languages such as BPMN can help to explain the process that a software system should support. These models can then be used to derive more detailed requirements. [Question/Problem] Often, such models are incomplete (showing only the most important cases) or contain labels in natural language that are prone to ambiguities and missing information. The requirements engineer has to identify missing / ambiguous information manually. The aim of this paper is to discuss certain classes of such potential problems and how they can be found automatically. [Principal ideas/results] First, we analyzed a collection of business process models and found that they frequently contain typical types of problems. Second, we described those potential problems in a formal way. We present a catalogue of indicators for potential problems and suggest questions to be asked by a requirements engineer for getting additional information about the depicted process. We also developed a tool prototype that uses a combination of linguistic analysis and inspection of the control flow. This tool prototype was applied to 2098 business process models. [Contribution] The paper presents a catalogue of potential problems in business process models. It also shows how these problems can be identified automatically.

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

References

  1. Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Eggert, M., Schwittay, S.: Generalizability and applicability of model-based business process compliance-checking approaches a state-of-the-art analysis and research roadmap. BuR - Bus. Res. 5(2), 221–247 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berry, D.M., Kamsties, E., Krieger, M.M.: From Contract Drafting to Software Specification: Linguistic Sources of Ambiguity, A Handbook (2003). http://se.uwaterloo.ca/~dberry/handbook/ambiguityHandbook.pdf

  3. Berry, D., Kamsties, E.: Ambiguity in requirements specification. In: do Prado Leite, J.C.S., Doorn, J.H. (eds.) Perspectives on Software Requirements. he Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 753, pp. 7–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Cardoso, E., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Requirements engineering based on business process models: a case study. In: 13th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, pp. 320–327. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chantree, F., Nuseibeh, B., Roeck, A.N.D., Willis, A.: Identifying nocuous ambiguities in natural language requirements. In: International Conference on Requirements Engineering 2006, pp. 56–65. IEEE Computer Society (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chklovski, T., Pantel, P.: VerbOcean: mining the web for fine-grained semantic verb relations. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 33–40. ACL (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. de Oca, I.M.M., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., Rodriguez-Morffi, A.: A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Information and Software Technology (2014). (accepted for publication)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Empson, W.: Seven types of ambiguity. Chatto & Windus, London (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fabbrini, F., Fusani, M., Gnesi, S., Lami, G.: An Automatic Quality Evaluation for Natural Language Requirements. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on RE: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2001), vol. 1 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Lami, G., Maccari, A.: Application of linguistic techniques for use case analysis. In: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 157–164 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database (Language, Speech, and Communication). The MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Fellmann, M., Zasada, A.: State-of-the-art of business process compliance approaches. In: 22 European Conference on Information Systems (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Groefsema, H., Bucur, D.: A survey of formal business process verification: from soundness to variability. In: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design, pp. 198–203 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Checking properties of business process models with logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Modelling, Simulation, Verification and Validation of Enterprise Information Systems, pp. 84–93 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Reducing the cognitive complexity of business process models. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics, pp. 339–345. IEEE Computer Society (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: A heuristic method for detecting problems in business process models. Bus. Proc. Manag. J. 16(5), 806–821 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Detecting common errors in event-driven process chains by label analysis. Enterp. Modell. Inf. Sys. Architect. 6(1), 3–15 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Havel, J., Steinhorst, M., Dietrich, H., Delfmann, P.: Supporting terminological standardization in conceptual models - a plugin for a meta-modelling tool. In: 22nd European Conference on Information Systems (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. de la Vara, J.L., Sánchez, J., Pastor, Ó.: Business process modelling and purpose analysis for requirements analysis of information systems. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 213–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Kiyavitskaya, N., Zeni, N., Mich, L., Berry, D.M.: Requirements for tools for ambiguity fication and measurement in natural language requirements specifications. Requir. Eng. 13(3), 207–239 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Körner, S.J., Brumm, T.: RESI - a natural language specification improver. In: IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, pp. 1–8 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Koschmider, A., Reijers, H.A.: Improving the process of process modelling by the use of domain process patterns. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 9(1), 29–57 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lami, G., Ferguson, R.W.: An empirical study on the impact of automation on the requirements analysis process. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 22(3), 338–347 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leopold, H., Eid-Sabbagh, R., Mendling, J., Azevedo, L.G., Baião, F.A.: Detection of naming convention violations in process models for different languages. Decis. Support Syst. 56, 310–325 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mendling, J., Recker, J., Reijers, H.A.: On the usage of labels and icons in business process modeling. IJISMD 1(2), 40–58 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Miers, D.: Best practice BPM. ACM Queue 4(2), 40–48 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nigam, A., Arya, N., Nigam, B., Jain, D.: Tool for automatic discovery of ambiguity in requirements. IJCSI Int. J. Comput. Sci. 9(5), 350–356 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Osborne, M., MacNish, C.: Processing natural language software requirement specifications. Int. Conf. Requirements Eng. 1996, 229–237 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pap, Z., Majzik, I., Pataricza, A., Szegi, A.: Methods of checking general safety criteria in UML statechart specifications. Reliab. Eng. Sys. Saf. 87(1), 89–107 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Peters, N., Weidlich, M.: Using glossaries to enhance the label quality in business process models. In: Dienstleistungsmodellierung 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Raffo, D., Ferguson, R., Setamanit, S., Sethanandha, B.: Evaluating the impact of requirements analysis tools using simulation. Softw. Process: Improv. Pract. 13(1), 63–73 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Smirnov, S., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Action patterns in business process model repositories. Comput. Ind. 63(2), 98–111 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Storch, A., Laue, R., Gruhn, V.: Flexible evaluation of textual labels in conceptual models. In: Enterprise modelling and information systems architectures - EMISA 2015. (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Verma, K., Kass, A., Vasquez, R.G.: Using syntactic and semantic analyses to improve the quality of requirements documentation. Semantic Web 5(5), 405–419 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for funding the AUTEM project in which this research has been done (grant no. 599444).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Applied Sciences of Zwickau, Dr.-Friedrichs-Ring 2a, 08056, Zwickau, Germany

    Ralf Laue

  2. Paluno - The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Gerlingstr. 16, 45127, Essen, Germany

    Wilhelm Koop & Volker Gruhn

Authors
  1. Ralf Laue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wilhelm Koop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Volker Gruhn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralf Laue .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Maya Daneva

  2. Universidad Politècnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Oscar Pastor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Laue, R., Koop, W., Gruhn, V. (2016). Indicators for Open Issues in Business Process Models. In: Daneva, M., Pastor, O. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9619. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30281-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30282-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation