Towards the Component-Based Approach for Evaluating Process Diagram Complexity | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Towards the Component-Based Approach for Evaluating Process Diagram Complexity

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Modeling and Software Design (BMSD 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 319))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Various authors have defined an extensive set of measures regarding the complexity of process design, which can be objectively measured by using structural complexity metrics. Nevertheless, the research in this area indicates that the percentage of empirically and theoretically validated metrics is relatively small. This suggests that there are still no real examples of the metrics usage within organizations. Despite that we could just validate existing proposals, we feel that a new and enhanced approach to evaluate process diagram complexity is feasible and needed. Thus, in the present paper, we will discuss a possibility of developing a new component-based approach for evaluating process diagram complexity, for which we anticipate that it would be more precise than existing ones, since it will also assess such constituent parts of process diagrams which not only contribute to higher complexity (e.g. complex routing behavior), but also to lower complexity (e.g. decomposition). Moreover, we plan to thoroughly validate our approach both in theory and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
JPY 3498
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
JPY 5719
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
JPY 7149
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • 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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: How visual cognition influences process model comprehension, Decis. Support Syst. 96, 1–16 (2017). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016792361730012X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Geiger, M., Harrer, S., Lenhard, J., Wirtz, G.: BPMN 2.0: the state of support and implementation, Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 80, 250–262 (2018). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167739X17300250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Moody, D.: The Physics of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decis. Support Syst. 51(3), 339–349 (2011). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923611000042

  5. Petrusel, R. Mendling, J. Reijers, H.A.: Task-specific visual cues for improving process model understanding. Inf. Softw. Technol. 79, 63–78 (2016). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584916301173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. La Rosa, M., Wohed, P., Mendling, J., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Managing process model complexity via abstract syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics 7(4), 614–629 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG), Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584909001268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. La Rosa, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Wohed, P., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 7(2), 255–265 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caetano, A., Silva, A., Tribolet, J.: Business process decomposition - an approach based on the principle of separation of concerns. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. 5, 44–57 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases, 14(1), 5–51, July 2003. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022883727209

  11. Figl, K.: Comprehension of procedural visual business process models. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59(1), 41–67 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-016-0460-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dikici, A., Turetken, O., Demirors, O.: Factors influencing the understandability of process models: a systematic literature review, Inf. Softw. Technol. 93, 112–129 (2018). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584916302889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Polančič, G., Cegnar, B.: Complexity metrics for process models – a systematic literature review. Comput. Stand. Interfaces, 51, 104–117, March 2017. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0920548916302276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Adopting the cognitive complexity measure for business process models. In: 2006 5th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics, vol. 1, pp. 236–241 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Marin, M.A.: Exploring complexity metrics for artifact-centric business process models. University of South Africa, Pretoria (2017). http://hdl.handle.net/10500/23179

  16. Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Ruiz, F., Mendling, J.: A study of the effectiveness of two threshold definition techniques. In: 16th International Conference on Evaluation Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), pp. 197–205 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Corradini, F.: A Guidelines framework for understandable BPMN models, Data Knowl. Eng. 113, 129–154, January. 2018. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169023X1630341X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Muketha, G.M., Ghani, A.A.A., Selamat, M.H., Atan, R.: A survey of business process complexity metrics. Inf. Technol. J. 9, 1336–1344 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rolón, E., Cardoso, J., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Analysis and validation of control-flow complexity measures with BPMN process models. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 58–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd edn. PWS Publishing Co., Boston (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Weyuker, E.J.: Evaluating software complexity measures. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 14(9), 1357–1365 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Briand, L.C., Morasca, S. Basili, V.R.: An operational process for goal-driven definition of measures, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(12), 1106–1125 (2002). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=1158285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Latva-Koivisto, A.M.: Finding a complexity measure for business process models. Helsinki Univ. Technol. Syst. Anal. Lab., pp. 1–26 (2001). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.25.2991&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  24. OMG: BPMN 2.0 by Example: non-normative OMG document with BPMN 2.0 examples (2010). http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/10-06-02

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Koroška cesta 46, 2000, Maribor, Slovenia

    Jernej Huber, Gregor Polančič, Mateja Kocbek & Gregor Jošt

Authors
  1. Jernej Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregor Polančič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mateja Kocbek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gregor Jošt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jernej Huber .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics (IMI)/Interdisciplinary Institute for Collaboration and Research on Enterprise Systems and Technology (IICREST), Sofia, Bulgaria

    Boris Shishkov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Huber, J., Polančič, G., Kocbek, M., Jošt, G. (2018). Towards the Component-Based Approach for Evaluating Process Diagram Complexity. In: Shishkov, B. (eds) Business Modeling and Software Design. BMSD 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 319. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94214-8_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94214-8_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94213-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94214-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation