Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Business Process Quality Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook on Business Process Management 1

Part of the book series: International Handbooks on Information Systems ((INFOSYS))

Abstract

Process modeling is a central element in any approach to Business Process Management (BPM). However, what hinders both practitioners and academics is the lack of support for assessing the quality of process models – let alone realizing high quality process models. Existing frameworks are highly conceptual or too general. At the same time, various techniques, tools, and research results are available that cover fragments of the issue at hand. This chapter presents the SIQ framework that on the one hand integrates concepts and guidelines from existing ones and on the other links these concepts to current research in the BPM domain. Three different types of quality are distinguished and for each of these levels concrete metrics, available tools, and guidelines will be provided. While the basis of the SIQ framework is thought to be rather robust, its external pointers can be updated with newer insights as they emerge.

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 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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.

    Note that the particular technique being used here is not so relevant.

  2. 2.

    The publication of Curtis et al. (1992) is used as rough birth date of the modern business process modeling discipline. The specific focus of the paper, however, was on software processes.

  3. 3.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siq

  4. 4.

    The use of speech-acts would be a good example of a modeling concept not particularly well supported by the SIQ framework.

  5. 5.

    Note that a process model may certainly contain parts of which the modeler is not completely sure of. The point is that a modeler should model and identify such uncertainty in no uncertain terms that are syntactically correct.

  6. 6.

    In an interview, the famous computer scientist Edsger W. Dijkstra said: “Diagrams are usually of an undefined semantics. The standard approach to burn down any presentation is to ask the speaker, after you have seen his third diagram, for the meaning of his arrows.”

  7. 7.

    http://is.tm.tue.nl/research/woflan.htm

  8. 8.

    http://wiki.daimi.au.dk/cpntools/

  9. 9.

    http://www.exspect.com/

  10. 10.

    See http://www.woped.org

References

  • Adrion WR, Branstad MA, Cherniavsky JC (1982) Validation, verification, and testing of computer software. ACM Comput Surv 14(2):159–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alves A, Arkin A, Askary S, Barreto C, Bloch B, Curbera F, Ford M, Goland Y, Guizar A, Kartha N, Liu CK, Khalaf R, Koenig D, Marin M, Mehta V, Thatte S, van der Rijn D, Yendluri P, Yiu A (2007) Web services business process execution language version 2.0. Committee specification, 31 January 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Rosemann M, von Uthmann C (2000) Guidelines of business process modeling. In: van der Aalst WMP, Desel J, Oberweis A (eds) Business process management Models, techniques, and empirical studies. Springer, Berlin, pp 30–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Kugeler M, Rosemann M (eds) (2003) Process management, a guide for the design of business processes. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodart F, Patel A, Sim M, Weber R (2001) Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inf Syst Res 12(4):384–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm BW, Brown JR, Kaspar JR et al (1978) Characteristics of software quality. TRW Series of Software Technology, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks LR (1967) The suppression of visualization by reading. Q J Exp Psychol 19(4):289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis B, Kellner MI, Over J (1992) Process modeling. Commun ACM 35(9):75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Atri A, Solvberg A, Willcocks L (eds) (2001) Using prototyping in a product-driven design of business processes. In: Proceedings of the open enterprise solutions: systems, experiences, and organizations conference, Luiss Edizioni

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH (1993) Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehnert J, van der Aalst WMP (2004) Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. Int J Cooper Inf Syst 13(3):289–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fliedl G, Kop C, Mayr HC (2005) From textual scenarios to a conceptual schema. Data Knowl Eng 55(1):20–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiks PJM, van der Weide TP (2006) Information modeling: the process and the required competencies of its participants. Data Knowl Eng 58(1):4–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemino A (2004) Empirical comparisons of animation and narration in requirements validation. Requir Eng 9(3):153–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemino A, Wand Y (2005) Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data Knowl Eng 55(3):301–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruhn V, Laue R (2007) What business process modelers can learn from programmers. Sci Comput Program 65(1):4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpin TA, Curland M (2006) Automated verbalization for orm 2. In: Meersman R, Tari Z, Herrero P (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems 2006. OTM 2006 workshops, Montpellier, October 29–November 3. Proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, part II, vol 4278. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1181–1190

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer M, Champy J (1993) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Harpercollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller G, Nüttgens M, Scheer AW (1992) Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage “Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK)”, Heft 89. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie J, Sindre G, Jørgensen HD (2006) Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur J Inform Syst 15(1):91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laue R, Mendling J (2008) The impact of structuredness on error probability of process models. In: Kaschek R, Kop C, Steinberger C, Fliedl G (eds) Information systems and e-business technologies. 2nd international united information systems conference. Lectures notes in business information processing, vol 5. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindland OI, Sindre G, Sølvberg A (1994) Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11(2):42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RE (1989) Models for understanding. Rev Educ Res 59(1):43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RE (2001) Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J (2008) Metrics for process models: empirical foundations of verification, error prediction, and guidelines for correctness, vol 6, Lecture notes in business information processing. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Reijers HA (2008) How to define activity labels for business process models? In: Oberweis A, Hesse W (eds) Proceedings of the third AIS SIGSAND European symposium on analysis, design, use and societal impact of information systems (SIGSAND Europe 2008), Lecture notes in informatics, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Formalization and verification of EPCs with OR-joins based on state and context. In: Krogstie J, Opdahl AL, Sindre G (eds) Proceedings of the 19th conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2007). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4495. Springer, Trondheim, pp 439–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Neumann G, van der Aalst WMP (2007a) Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics. In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) OTM conference 2007. Proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, part I, vol 4803. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 113–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Reijers HA, Cardoso J (2007b) What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso G, Dadam P, Rosemann M (eds) Business process management. 5th international conference, BPM 2007, Brisbane, 24–28 September 2007. Proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4714. Springer, Berlin, pp 48–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Lassen KB, Zdun U (2008a) Transformation strategies between block-oriented and graph-oriented process modelling languages. Int J Bus Process Integr Manag 3(2):297–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Reijers HA, van der Aalst WMP (2008b) Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qut eprint

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendling J, Verbeek HMW, van Dongen BF, van der Aalst WMP, Neumann G (2008c) Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model. Data Knowl Eng 64(1):312–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody DL (2003) Measuring the quality of data models: an empirical evaluation of the use of quality metrics in practice. In: Proceedings of the 11th European conference on information systems, ECIS 2003, Naples, 16–21 June 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody DL (2005) Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl Eng 55(3):243–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook SM (2000) Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the conference on software engineering on the future of software engineering, ACM, New York, pp 35–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang C, Dumas M, Breutel S, ter Hofstede AHM (2006) Translating standard process models to bpel. In: Dubois E, Pohl K (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. 18th international conference, CAiSE 2006, Luxembourg, 5–9 June 2006. Proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4001. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 417–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio A (1991) Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status. Can J Psychol 45(3):255–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philippi S, Hill HJ (2007) Communication support for systems engineering – process modelling and animation with April. J Syst Softw 80(8):1305–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puhlmann F, Weske M (2006) Investigations on soundness regarding lazy activities. In: Dustdar S, Fiadeiro JL, Sheth A (eds) Business process management, 4th international conference, BPM 2006, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4102. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 145–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Recker J, Dreiling A (2007) Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: Toleman M, Cater-Steel A, Roberts D (eds) 18th Australasian conference on information systems. The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, pp 356–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijers HA (2003) Design and control of workflow processes: business process management for the service industry. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reijers HA, van der Aalst WMP (2005) The effectiveness of workflow management systems: predictions and lessons learned. Int J Inf Manag 25(5):458–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosemann M (2006a) Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. Bus Process Manag J 12(2):249–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosemann M (2006b) Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part B. Bus Process Manag J 12(3):377–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheer A-W (2000) ARIS business process modelling. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp A, McDermott P (2001) Workflow modeling: tools for process improvement and application development. Artech House Publishers, Norwood

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Hofstede AHM, Benatallah B, Paik H-Y (eds) (2008) Trade-offs in the performance of workflows–quantifying the impact of best practices, vol 4928, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst WMP (1997) Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma P, Balbo G (eds) Application and theory of petri nets 1997, vol 1248, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 407–426

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst WMP, Lassen KB (2008) Translating unstructured workflow processes to readable BPEL: theory and implementation. Inform Softw Tech 50(3):131–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst WMP, van Dongen BF, Herbst J, Maruster L, Schimm G, Weijters AJMM (2003) Workflow mining: a survey of issues and approaches. Data Knowl Eng 47(2):237–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst WMP, Reijers HA, Weijters AJMM, van Dongen BF, Alves de Medeiros AK, Song M, Verbeek HMW (2007) Business process mining: an industrial application. Inf Syst 32(5):713–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dongen BF, Vullers-Jansen MH, Verbeek HMW, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Verification of the sap reference models using epc reduction, state-space analysis, and invariants. Comput Ind 58(6):578–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Hee K, Sidorova N, Somers L, Voorhoeve M (2006) Consistency in model integration. Data Knowl Eng 56:4–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Aalst WMP (2014) Business process simulation survival guide. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management, vol 1, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 337–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhatalo J, Völzer H, Leymann F (2007) Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through SESE decomposition. In: Krämer BJ, Lin K-J, Narasimhan P (eds) Service-oriented computing – ICSOC 2007. Fifth international conference, Vienna, 17–20 September 2007. Proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4749. Springer, Berlin, pp 43–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek HMW, Basten T, van der Aalst WMP (2001) Diagnosing workflow processes using Woflan. Comput J 44(4):246–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber B, Rinderle S, Reichert M (2007) Change patterns and change support features in process- aware information systems. In: Krogstie J, Opdahl AL, Sindre G (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. 19th international conference, CAiSE 2007, Trondheim, 11–15 June 2007. Proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4495. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 574–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynn MT, Verbeek HMW, van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM, Edmond D (2006) Reduction rules for yawl workflow nets with cancellation regions and or-joins. BPMCenter Report BPM- 06-24, BPMcenter.org

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Hajo A. Reijers

  2. Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien Institute for Information Business, Vienna, Austria

    Jan Mendling

  3. Information Systems School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Jan Recker

Authors
  1. Hajo A. Reijers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Mendling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Recker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hajo A. Reijers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Information Systems, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein

    Jan vom Brocke

  2. School of Information Systems, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Michael Rosemann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Recker, J. (2015). Business Process Quality Management. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds) Handbook on Business Process Management 1. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation