A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality

Abstract Context Business process modeling is an essential part of understanding and redesigning the activities that a typical enterprise uses to achieve its business goals. The quality of a business process model has a significant impact on the development of any enterprise and IT support for that process. Objective Since the insights on what constitutes modeling quality are constantly evolving, it is unclear whether research on business process modeling quality already covers all major aspects of modeling quality. Therefore, the objective of this research is to determine the state of the art on business process modeling quality: What aspects of process modeling quality have been addressed until now and which gaps remain to be covered? Method We performed a systematic literature review of peer reviewed articles as published between 2000 and August 2013 on business process modeling quality. To analyze the contributions of the papers we use the Formal Concept Analysis technique. Results We found 72 studies addressing quality aspects of business process models. These studies were classified into different dimensions: addressed model quality type, research goal, research method, and type of research result. Our findings suggest that there is no generally accepted framework of model quality types. Most research focuses on empirical and pragmatic quality aspects, specifically with respect to improving the understandability or readability of models. Among the various research methods, experimentation is the most popular one. The results from published research most often take the form of intangible knowledge. Conclusion We believe there is a lack of an encompassing and generally accepted definition of business process modeling quality. This evidences the need for the development of a broader quality framework capable of dealing with the different aspects of business process modeling quality. Different dimensions of business process quality and of the process of modeling still require further research.

[1]  H. James Nelson,et al.  Research Review: A Systematic Literature Review on the Quality of UML Models , 2011, J. Database Manag..

[2]  Matthias Weidlich,et al.  Using Glossaries to Enhance the Label Quality in Business Process Models , 2009 .

[3]  Mario Piattini,et al.  A conceptual modeling quality framework , 2011, Software Quality Journal.

[4]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Empirical Studies in Process Model Verification , 2009, Trans. Petri Nets Other Model. Concurr..

[5]  Muhammad Ali Babar,et al.  Identifying relevant studies in software engineering , 2011, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[6]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  Factors of process model comprehension - Findings from a series of experiments , 2012, Decis. Support Syst..

[7]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension , 2011, Inf. Syst..

[8]  KitchenhamBarbara,et al.  A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering , 2013 .

[9]  Staðlaráð Íslands,et al.  Gæðastjórnunarkerfi : grunnatriði og íðorðasafn = Quality Management Systems : fundamentals and vocabulary. , 2006 .

[10]  Ruth Sara Aguilar-Savén,et al.  Business process modelling: Review and framework , 2004 .

[11]  Agnes Koschmider,et al.  Recommendation Based Process Modeling Support: Method and User Experience , 2008, ER.

[12]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A Discourse on Complexity of Process Models , 2006, Business Process Management Workshops.

[13]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[14]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A , 2006, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[15]  Jörg P. Müller,et al.  Context-driven Business Process Modelling , 2016 .

[16]  John Krogstie,et al.  Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Nicholas P. Vitalari,et al.  Differences Between Novice and Expert Systems Analysts: What Do We Know and What Do We Do? , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[19]  André L. M. Santos,et al.  Six years of systematic literature reviews in software engineering: An updated tertiary study , 2011, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[20]  Jan Recker,et al.  The Effects of Content Presentation Format and User Characteristics on Novice Developers' Understanding of Process Models , 2011, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Measurement in business processes: a systematic review , 2010, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[22]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part B , 2006, Business Process Management Journal.

[23]  Jan Mendling,et al.  The Impact of Secondary Notation on Process Model Understanding , 2009, PoEM.

[24]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations , 2010, Inf. Syst..

[25]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model , 2008, Data Knowl. Eng..

[26]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[27]  Christopher M. Schlick,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Human Performance and Error in Process Model Development , 2011, ER.

[28]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Business Process Management , 2016, Business & Information Systems Engineering.

[29]  Sarah Ayad.  A quality based approach for the analysis and design of Business Process models , 2012, 2012 Sixth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS).

[30]  Jan Mendling,et al.  What Makes Process Models Understandable? , 2007, BPM.

[31]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Tying Process Model Quality to the Modeling Process: The Impact of Structuring, Movement, and Speed , 2012, BPM.

[32]  Wallace A. Pinheiro,et al.  A P2P Approach for Business Process Modelling and Reuse , 2006, Business Process Management Workshops.

[33]  Mario Piattini,et al.  A Systematic Literature Review on the Quality of UML Models , 2009 .

[34]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering , 2006, ICSE.

[35]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Refactoring large process model repositories , 2011, Comput. Ind..

[36]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Inventing Less, Reusing More, and Adding Intelligence to Business Process Modeling , 2008, DEXA.

[37]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[38]  Filippo Ricca,et al.  “Precise is better than light” a document analysis study about quality of business process models , 2011, Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE 2011).

[39]  Niels Lohmann,et al.  Business Process Management Workshops , 2013, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.

[40]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Detecting Common Errors in Event-Driven Process Chains by Label Analysis , 2011, Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. Int. J. Concept. Model..

[41]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness , 2008, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.

[42]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG) , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[43]  Michiel Renger,et al.  Improving the quality of business process models through separation of generation tasks in collaborative modelling , 2012 .

[44]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Prediction of Business Process Model Quality Based on Structural Metrics , 2010, ER.

[45]  A. Sohal,et al.  Business Process Reengineering A review of recent literature , 1999 .

[46]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Towards Systematic Usage of Labels and Icons in Business Process Models , 2008, EMMSAD.

[47]  Mario Piattini Velthuis,et al.  Measurement in business processes: a systematic review , 2010 .

[48]  Sergio de Cesare,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article Enterprise Information Systems a Literature Review on Business Process Modelling: New Frontiers of Reusability a Literature Review on Business Process Modelling: New Frontiers of Reusability , 2022 .

[49]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[50]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Understanding Business Process Models: The Costs and Benefits of Structuredness , 2012, CAiSE.

[51]  Guttorm Sindre,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Process Models: Empirical Testing of a Quality Framework , 2002, ER.

[52]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[53]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  What business process modelers can learn from programmers , 2007, Sci. Comput. Program..

[54]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[55]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Social software for business process modeling , 2010, J. Inf. Technol..

[56]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Managing Process Model Complexity via Concrete Syntax Modifications , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.

[57]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain , 2007, J. Syst. Softw..

[58]  Rudolf Wille,et al.  Formal Concept Analysis as Mathematical Theory of Concepts and Concept Hierarchies , 2005, Formal Concept Analysis.

[59]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  How Good Is an AS-IS Model Really? , 2012, Business Process Management Workshops.

[60]  Jörg Becker,et al.  Guidelines of Business Process Modeling , 2000, Business Process Management.

[61]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Managing Process Model Complexity Via Abstract Syntax Modifications , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.

[62]  Andreas Oberweis,et al.  Recommendation-based editor for business process modeling , 2011, Data Knowl. Eng..

[63]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Quality indicators for business process models from a gateway complexity perspective , 2012, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[64]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Syntax highlighting in business process models , 2011, Decis. Support Syst..

[65]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Business Process Quality Management , 2015, Handbook on Business Process Management.

[66]  Ron Weber,et al.  An Ontological Model of an Information System , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[67]  Markus Stolze,et al.  Business Process Illustration: Supporting Experience-Grounded Validation of New Business Processes by Subject Matter Experts , 2008, 2008 10th IEEE Conference on E-Commerce Technology and the Fifth IEEE Conference on Enterprise Computing, E-Commerce and E-Services.

[68]  Stefano Biazzo,et al.  Approaches to business process analysis: a review , 2000, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[69]  D. Jannach,et al.  Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering , 2017, Communications in Computer and Information Science.

[70]  Jan Mendling,et al.  On a Quest for Good Process Models: The Cross-Connectivity Metric , 2008, CAiSE.

[71]  Jan Mendling,et al.  On the Usage of Labels and Icons in Business Process Modeling , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..

[72]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering , 2013, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[73]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Error Metrics for Business Process Models , 2007, CAiSE Forum.