Measuring and visualising the quality of models

The quality of graphical software or business process models is influenced by several aspects such as correctness of the formal syntax, understandability or compliance to existing rules. Motivated by a standardised software quality model, we discuss characteristics and subcharacteristics of model quality and sugest measures for those quality (sub)characteristics. Also, we extended SonarQube, a well-known tool for aggregating and visualising different measures for software quality such that it can now be used with repositories of business process models as well. This allows assessing the quality of a collection of models in the same way that is already well-established for assessing the quality of software code. Given the fact that models are early software development artifacts (and can even be executable and thus become a part of a software product), such a quality control can lead to the detection of possible problems in the early phases of the software development process.

[1]  Jan Mendling,et al.  The Impact of Activity Labeling Styles on Process Model Quality , 2008, SIGSAND-EUROPE.

[2]  Helen C. Purchase,et al.  Which Aesthetic has the Greatest Effect on Human Understanding? , 1997, GD.

[3]  Andreas Speck,et al.  Applying model checking to workflow verification , 2004, Proceedings. 11th IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, 2004..

[4]  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..

[5]  Jan Recker,et al.  Towards an understanding of process model quality. Methodological considerations , 2006, ECIS.

[6]  Jan Mendling,et al.  On Labeling Quality in Business Process Models , 2009 .

[7]  Peter Rittgen.  Quality and perceived usefulness of process models , 2010, SAC '10.

[8]  Geert Poels,et al.  Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions , 2007, Data Knowl. Eng..

[9]  Ekkart Kindler,et al.  On the Semantics of EPCs: A Framework for Resolving the Vicious Circle , 2004, Business Process Management.

[10]  Samira Si-Said Cherfi,et al.  Evaluating the Functionality of Conceptual Models , 2009, ER Workshops.

[11]  Stefanie Rinderle-Ma,et al.  Integration of Process Constraints from Heterogeneous Sources in Process-Aware Information Systems , 2011, EMISA.

[12]  Frank Teuteberg,et al.  SEMAT - Ein Werkzeug zur Ontologiebasierten Analyse und zum Vergleich von Prozessmodellen , 2008, MobIS Workshops.

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

[14]  Sandra Seiz,et al.  On a Study of Layout Aesthetics for Business Process Models Using BPMN , 2010, BPMN.

[15]  Barbara Paech,et al.  Defining the Quality of Business Processes , 2010, Modellierung.

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

[17]  Jorg Desel,et al.  Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures , 2005 .

[18]  Stefan Kühne,et al.  Business Process Modelling with Continuous Validation , 2008, Business Process Management Workshops.

[19]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Complexity metrics for Workflow nets , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[20]  Anacleto Correia,et al.  Adding Preciseness to BPMN Models , 2012 .

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

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

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

[24]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Understanding the Occurrence of Errors in Process Models Based on Metrics , 2007, OTM Conferences.

[25]  Parastoo Mohagheghi,et al.  Definitions and approaches to model quality in model-based software development - A review of literature , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[26]  David Hovemeyer,et al.  Using Static Analysis to Find Bugs , 2008, IEEE Software.

[27]  Xavier Franch,et al.  Towards a Framework for Improving Goal-Oriented Requirement Models Quality , 2009, WER.

[28]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Challenges in Business Process Management: Verification of Business Processing Using Petri Nets , 2003, Bull. EATCS.

[29]  Nikolaus Regnat,et al.  Towards Syntactical Model Quality Assurance in Industrial Software Development: Process Definition and Tool Support , 2011, Software Engineering.

[30]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Adopting the Cognitive Complexity Measure for Business Process Models , 2006, 2006 5th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics.

[31]  Seiichi Komiya,et al.  A tool for diagnosing the quality of java program and a method for its effective utilization in education , 2010 .

[32]  Sarah Ayad,et al.  Gestion de la qualité des Modèles de Processus Métier : Méthode et Outil , 2012, INFORSID.

[33]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  A heuristic method for detecting problems in business process models , 2010, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[34]  A. Selçuk Güceglioglu,et al.  Using Software Quality Characteristics to Measure Business Process Quality , 2005, Business Process Management.

[35]  Peter Dadam,et al.  SeaFlows Toolset - Compliance Verification Made Easy , 2010, CAiSE Forum.

[36]  Fabian Friedrich,et al.  Measuring Semantic Label Quality Using WordNet , 2009 .

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

[38]  Parastoo Mohagheghi,et al.  Towards a Tool-Supported Quality Model for Model-Driven Engineering , 2008 .

[39]  Jan Jürjens,et al.  Comparing Bug Finding Tools with Reviews and Tests , 2005, TestCom.

[40]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Dimensions of Business Processes Quality (QoBP) , 2008, Business Process Management Workshops.

[41]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Good and Bad Excuses for Unstructured Business Process Models , 2007, EuroPLoP.

[42]  Claire Dormann,et al.  Practical guidelines for the readability of IT-architecture diagrams , 2002, SIGDOC '02.

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

[44]  Patrick Delfmann,et al.  Supporting Distributed Conceptual Modelling through Naming Conventions - A Tool-based Linguistic Approach , 2009, Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. Int. J. Concept. Model..

[45]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A Study Into the Factors That Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[46]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects , 2008, BPM.

[47]  Geert Poels,et al.  Measuring the Perceived Semantic Quality of Information Models , 2005, ER.

[48]  Colin F. Snook,et al.  A Generic Model for Assessing Process Quality , 2000, IWSM.

[49]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management , 1998, J. Circuits Syst. Comput..

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

[51]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Checking Properties of Business Process Models with Logic Programming , 2007, MSVVEIS.

[52]  Sven Overhage,et al.  Quality Marks, Metrics, and Measurement Procedures for Business Process Models , 2012, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[53]  Florian Johannsen,et al.  Wand and Weber’s Decomposition Model in the Context of Business Process Modeling , 2012, Business & Information Systems Engineering.

[54]  Alain Abran,et al.  Measuring Software Functional Size from Business Process Models , 2011, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[55]  Jason E. Robbins,et al.  Cognitive support, UML adherence, and XMI interchange in Argo/UML , 2000, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[56]  Frank Leymann,et al.  Faster and More Focused Control-Flow Analysis for Business Process Models Through SESE Decomposition , 2007, ICSOC.

[57]  Santhosh Kumaran,et al.  From business process model to consistent implementation: a case for formal verification methods , 2002, Proceedings. Sixth International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing.

[58]  Scott W. Ambler,et al.  The elements of UML style , 2002 .

[59]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Recognising Activity Labeling Styles in Business Process Models , 2011, Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. Int. J. Concept. Model..

[60]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Reducing the cognitive complexity of business process models , 2009, 2009 8th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics.

[61]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Verification of the SAP reference models using EPC reduction, state-space analysis, and invariants , 2007, Comput. Ind..

[62]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Berechnung von Komplexitätsmetriken für ereignisgesteuerte Prozessketten , 2006, EPK.