Skip to main content

An Improved Way for Measuring Simplicity During Process Discovery

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Enterprise and Organizational Modeling and Simulation (EOMAS 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 332))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In the domain of process discovery, there are four quality dimensions for evaluating process models of which simplicity is one. Simplicity is often measured using the size of a process model, the structuredness and the entropy. It is closely related to the process model understandability. Researchers from the domain of business process management (BPM) proposed several metrics for measuring the process model understandability. A part of these understandability metrics focus on the control-flow perspective, which is important for evaluating models from process discovery algorithms. It is remarkable that there are more of these metrics defined in the BPM literature compared to the number of proposed simplicity metrics. To research whether the understandability metrics capture more understandability dimensions than the simplicity metrics, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on 18 understandability metrics. A sample of 4450 BPMN models, both manually modelled and artificially generated, is used. Four dimensions are discovered: token behaviour complexity, node IO complexity, path complexity and degree of connectedness. The conclusion of this analysis is that process analysts should be aware that the measurement of simplicity does not capture all dimensions of the understandability of process models.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/understandBPMN/index.html.

References

  1. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw. Eng. 2013, 1ā€“37 (2013)

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  2. van der Aalst, W., et al.: Business process mining: an industrial application. Inf. Syst. 32(5), 713ā€“732 (2007)

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  3. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern.-Part A: Syst. Hum. 41(3), 449ā€“462 (2011)

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  4. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Discovery Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19345-3

    BookĀ  MATHĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  5. Lassen, K.B., van der Aalst, W.M.: Complexity metrics for workflow nets. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(3), 610ā€“626 (2009)

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  6. Ihaka, R., Gentleman, R.: R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 5(3), 299ā€“314 (1996)

    Google ScholarĀ 

  7. Sarshar, K., Loos, P.: Comparing the control-flow of EPC and petri net from the end-user perspective. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 434ā€“439. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11538394_36

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  8. Recker, J.C., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education, Toowoomba (2007)

    Google ScholarĀ 

  9. Laue, R., Gruhn, V.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: Business Information Systems, Klagenfurt, Austria, January 2006

    Google ScholarĀ 

  10. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: How visual cognition influences process model comprehension. Decis. Support Syst. 96(Suppl. C), 1ā€“16 (2017)

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  11. Mendling, J.: Detection and prediction of errors in EPC business process models. PhD thesis, Wirtschaftsuniversitt Wien Vienna (2007)

    Google ScholarĀ 

  12. Fernndez-Ropero, M., Prez-Castillo, R., Caballero, I., Piattini, M.: Quality-driven business process refactoring. In: International Conference on Business Information Systems (ICBIS 2012), pp. 960ā€“966 (2012)

    Google ScholarĀ 

  13. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) BIS 2008. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 142ā€“153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79396-0_13

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  14. Cardoso, J.: Control-flow complexity measurement of processes and Weyukerā€™s properties. In: 6th International Enformatika Conference. vol. 8, pp. 213ā€“218 (2005)

    Google ScholarĀ 

  15. Figl, K.: Comprehension of procedural visual business process models: a literature review. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59(1), 41ā€“67 (2017)

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  16. Polani, G., Cegnar, B.: Complexity metrics for process models a systematic literature review. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 51(Suppl. C), 104ā€“117 (2017)

    Google ScholarĀ 

  17. Gschwind, T., Koehler, J., Wong, J.: Applying patterns during business process modeling. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 4ā€“19. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85758-7_4

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  18. Pavlicek, J., Hronza, R., Pavlickova, P., Jelinkova, K.: The business process model quality metrics. In: Pergl, R., Lock, R., Babkin, E., Molhanec, M. (eds.) EOMAS 2017. LNBIP, vol. 298, pp. 134ā€“148. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68185-6_10

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  19. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Reducing the cognitive complexity of business process models, pp. 339ā€“345, June 2009

    Google ScholarĀ 

  20. La Rosa, M., Wohed, P., Mendling, J., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.: Managing process model complexity via abstract syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 7(4), 614ā€“629 (2011)

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  21. Muketha, G.: Complexity metrics for measuring the understandability and maintainability of business process models using goal-question-metric (GQM). Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur. 8(5), 219ā€“225 (2008)

    Google ScholarĀ 

  22. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Cardoso, J.: On a quest for good process models: the cross-connectivity metric. In: BellahsĆØne, Z., LĆ©onard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 480ā€“494. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_36

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  23. Kunze, M., Berger, P., Weske, M., Lohmann, N., Moser, S.: BPM academic initiative-fostering empirical research. In: BPM, pp. 1ā€“5 Demos (2012)

    Google ScholarĀ 

  24. Jouck, T., Depaire, B.: Generating artificial data for empirical analysis of control-flow discovery algorithms: a process tree and log generator. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 10, 18 (2018)

    Google ScholarĀ 

  25. van der Aalst, W.: On the representational bias in process mining, pp. 2ā€“7. IEEE, June 2011

    Google ScholarĀ 

  26. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R.: Multivariate Data Analysis, Number Seventh edn. Pearson Education Limited, London (2013)

    Google ScholarĀ 

  27. Child, D.: The Essentials of Factor Analysis. A&C Black, London (2006). Google-Books-ID: rQ2vdJgohH0C

    Google ScholarĀ 

  28. Sim, K.A., Tan, T.S.: Wong, K.B.: On the shortest path in some k-connected graphs, p. 050010 (2016)

    Google ScholarĀ 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Lieben .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

Ā© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Lieben, J., Jouck, T., Depaire, B., Jans, M. (2018). An Improved Way for Measuring Simplicity During Process Discovery. In: Pergl, R., Babkin, E., Lock, R., Malyzhenkov, P., Merunka, V. (eds) Enterprise and Organizational Modeling and Simulation. EOMAS 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 332. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00787-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00787-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00786-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00787-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics