The Business Process Model Quality Metrics

  • Josef PavlicekEmail author
  • Radek Hronza
  • Petra Pavlickova
  • Klara Jelinkova
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 298)


The Business Process Management is considered as a new way of managing the organization. It’s based on the principles managing the organization when the processes have the key role. It is managerial discipline that uses the technologies for the process oriented management. The authors discuss the possibilities to measure quality of process models’ design and give the answer to the questions: how to measure the BPM quality, if it is possible and, if yes, how to do that. The authors use collaborative usability lab and suggest to implement “pair usability testing” principle for BPM quality evaluation.


Business process model BPMN Measures of quality of process models 



This article was supported by the grant the Faculty of Economic and Management Czech University of Life Sciences Prague number: OP OPPR CZ.07.1.02/0.0/0.0/16_023/0000111


  1. 1.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Company - A Manifesto for Business Revolution (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garimella, K., Lees, M., Williams, B.: BPM basics for Dummies, Software A. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Kaur, J.: Comparative study of capability maturity model. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. Technol. (2014).
  5. 5.
    Hronza, R., Pavlíček, J., Náplava, P.: Míry kvality procesních modelů vytvořených v notaci BPMN. Acta Inform. Pragensia 4(2), 140–153 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jelínková, K.: Návrh měr kvality obchodních procesních modelů. Czech Technical University in Prague (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    OMG, Unified Modeling Language (UML). (2008).
  11. 11.
    OMG, Business Process Model & Notation (BPMN) (2016). 21 Mar 2017
  12. 12.
    Scheer, A.W., Oliver, T., Otmar, A.: Process modeling using event- driven process chains. Process-Aware Information Systems, pp. 119–146. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marsan, M.A., Balbo, G., Conte, G., Donatelli, S., Franceschinis, G.: Modelling with Generalized Stochastic Petri Nets, 1st edn. Wiley, West Sussex (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wright, D.R.: Finite State Machines (2005).
  15. 15.
    Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C., Obermeier, S., Börger, E.: Subject-Oriented Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32392-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Van Der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., Russell, N.: Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and its Support Environment. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03121-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Merunková, I., Merunka, V.: OBA and BORM approach in the organizational modeling and simulation of local government processes and country planning. Procedia Technol. 8, 81–89 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bruce, S.: BPMN Method and Style. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nielsen, J.: Why you only need to test with 5 users. Alertbox 19, 1–4 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pavlicek, J., Hronza, R., Pavlickova, P.: Educational business process model skills improvement. In: Pergl, R., Molhanec, M., Babkin, E., Fosso Wamba, S. (eds.) EOMAS 2016. LNBIP, vol. 272, pp. 172–184. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-49454-8_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lassaková, M.: Návrh a tvorba měr pro výpočet kvality procesních modelů. Czech Technical University in Prague (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neumann, M.: Míry kvality procesních modelů. Czech Technical University in Prague (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hronza, R., Pavlíček, J., Mach, R., Náplava, P.: Míry kvality v procesním modelování. Acta Inform. Pragensia 4(1), 18–29 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mach, R.: Návrh a tvorba nástroje pro optimalizaci procesů na základě analýzy BPM modelů. Czech Technical University in Prague (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pavlicek, J., Bock, R.: Collaborative Usability lab design and methodology to use that, part of HUBRU (2017).
  26. 26.
    Náplava, P., Pergl, R.: Empirical study of applying the DEMO method for improving BPMN process models in academic environment. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics, pp. 18–26. IEEE Operations Center, Piscataway (2015). ISBN 978-1-4673-7340-1Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garmus, D., Herron, D.: Function Point Analysis: Measurement Practices for Successful Software Projects. Addison Wesley Professional, Boston (2001). ISBN 0201699443Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karner, G.: Metrics for objectory. Diploma thesis, University of Linköping, Sweden. No. LiTHIDA - Ex-9344:21, December 1993Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Pavlicek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Radek Hronza
    • 2
  • Petra Pavlickova
    • 3
  • Klara Jelinkova
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Management, Department of Information EngineeringCzech University of Life SciencesPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Faculty of Electrical EngineeringCTUPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Faculty of Information TechnologyCTUPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations