Elvira Rolón, Félix García, Francisco Ruiz, Mario Piattini, Corrado Aaron Visaggio, Gerardo Canfora



The design phase is of special importance in the development of a business process. This phase refers to the modeling, handling and redesigning of processes, but when maintenance tasks have to be performed, this stage may be rather complicated. It implies a heavy investment of time and resources, since it involves both technical developers and business analysts. Moreover, process modeling should permit not only the production of models which are understandable to the users, but also the early detection and correction of errors. All of this adds to the overall quality of the model. We therefore propose a set of measures with which to assess the structural complexity of conceptual business process models. Our aim is to obtain useful indicators to be used when carrying out maintenance tasks on these models, thus obtaining higher quality models by means of an early evaluation of the model’s given quality properties. With the development of a family of experiments, it has been possible to discover a set of measures which may be useful in assessing the usability and maintainability of conceptual business process models.


  1. Andersson, B., Bider, I., et al., 2005. "Towards a Formal Definition of Goal-Oriented Business Process Patterns." Business Process Management Journal 11(6): 650-662.
  2. Bandara, W., Gable, G. G., et al., 2005. "Factors and measures of business process modelling: model building through a multiple case study." European Journal of Information Systems 14: 347-360.
  3. Bider, I., 2005. "Choosing Approach to Business Process Modeling Practical Perspective." Journal of Conceptual Modeling(34).
  4. Briand, L., El Emam, K., et al., 1995. "Theorical and Empirical Validation of Software Product Measures." International Software Engineering Research Network Technical Report ISERN-95-03.
  5. Cardoso, J., 2005. How to Measure the Control-flow Complexity of Web Processes and Workflows. Workflow Handbook. WfMC. Lighthouse Point, FL, USA: 199-212.
  6. Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., et al., 2006. A Discourse on Complexity of Process Models. BPM 2006 Workshops, Workshop on Business Process Design, Viena, Austria, LNCS. J. Eder and Dustdar, S. e. a. (Eds). pp. 115-126.
  7. Ciolkowski, M., Shull, F., et al., 2002. A Familiy of Experiments to Investigate the Influence of Context on the Effect of Inspection Techniques. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE), Keele (UK). (Eds). 48-60.
  8. Francis, J., 2005. Managing BPM, BP Trends.
  9. Gruhn, V. and Laue, R., 2006. Complexity Metrics for Business Process Models. Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS06), Klagenfurt, Austria. W. Abramowicz and Mayr, H. C. (Eds). 1-12.
  10. Havey, M., 2005. BPMI Standars: BPMN and BPML. Essential Business Process Modeling. A. Odewahn and OBrien, M. USA, OReilly: 143-173.
  11. Juristo, N. and Moreno, A., 2001. Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation, Kluwer Academic Pub.
  12. Latva-Koivisto, A. M., 2001. Finding a complexity measure for business process models. Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology.
  13. Mendling, J., Neumann, G., et al., 2005. A Comparison of XML Interchange Formats for Business Process Modeling. Workflow Handbook 2005. L. Fischer. Lighthouse Point, Florida USA: 185-198.
  14. Multamäki, M., 2002. Objective-driven planning of business process modeling. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Helsinki University of Technology.
  15. OMG, 2006. Business Process Modeling Notation. Object Management Group. http://www.bpmn.org/Documents /OMG%20Final%20Adopted%20BPMN%201-0%20 Spec%2006-02-01.pdf.
  16. Perry, D., Porte, A., et al., 2000. "Empirical Studies of Software Engineering: A Roadmap." Future of Software Engineering: pp 345-355.
  17. Rolón, E., Garcia, F., et al., 2006a. Métricas para la Evaluación de Modelos de Procesos de Negocio. 9º Workshop Iberoamericano de Ingeniería de Requisitos y Ambientes de Software (IDEAS06), La Plata, Argentina. (Eds). 419-432.
  18. Rolón, E., Garcia, F., et al., 2007. Experimento Exploratorio para la Validación de Medidas para Modelos de Procesos de Negocio. VI Jornadas Iberoamericanas de Ingeniería del Software e Ingeniería del Conocimiento (JIISIC07), Lima, Perú. (Eds). 283-292.
  19. Rolón, E., Ruiz, F., et al., 2006b. "Applying Software Metrics to evaluate Business Process Models." CLEIElectronic Journal Vol. 9(1, Paper 5).
  20. Smith, H. and Fingar, P., 2003. Business Process Management: The Third Wave. USA, Meghan-Kiffer Press.
  21. Succi, G., Predonzani, P., et al., 2000. Business Process Modeling with Objects, Costs and Human Resources. Systems Modeling for Business Process Improvement. D. Bustard et al, Artech House: 47-60.
  22. Wand, Y. and Weber, R., 2002. "Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling - A Research Agenda." Information Systems Research 13(No. 4): 363-376.
  23. Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W. M. P., et al., 2006. On the Suitability of BPMN for Business Process Modelling. Business Process Management (BPM06), Vienna, Austria, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. S. Dustdar et al (Eds). 161-176.
  24. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., et al., 2000. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Rolón E., García F., Ruiz F., Piattini M., Aaron Visaggio C. and Canfora G. (2008). EVALUATION OF BPMN MODELS QUALITY - A Family of Experiments . In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE, ISBN 978-989-8111-28-9, pages 56-63. DOI: 10.5220/0001762300560063

in Bibtex Style

author={Elvira Rolón and Félix García and Francisco Ruiz and Mario Piattini and Corrado Aaron Visaggio and Gerardo Canfora},
title={EVALUATION OF BPMN MODELS QUALITY - A Family of Experiments},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,
SN - 978-989-8111-28-9
AU - Rolón E.
AU - García F.
AU - Ruiz F.
AU - Piattini M.
AU - Aaron Visaggio C.
AU - Canfora G.
PY - 2008
SP - 56
EP - 63
DO - 10.5220/0001762300560063