Process modeling: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:48, 30 March 2015

Revision as of 17:14, 10 August 2015

Line 5:

== Overview ==

Process models are [[wiktionary:Process|process]]es of the same nature that are classified together into a model. Thus, a process model is a description of a process at the type level. Since the process model is at the type level, a process is an instantiation of it. The same process model is used repeatedly for the development of many applications and thus, has many instantiations. One possible use of a process model is to prescribe how things must/should/could be done in contrast to the process itself which is really what happens. A process model is roughly an anticipation of what the process will look like. What the process shall be will be determined during actual system development.<ref name="Rolland1998">[[Colette Rolland]] and Pernici, C. Thanos (1998). ''A Comprehensive View of Process Engineering. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference CAiSE'98''. B. [[Lecture Notes in Computer Science]] 1413. Springer.</ref>

The goals of a process model are to be:

Line 20:

**Pre-defines points at which data can be extracted for reporting purposes.

== Purpose ==

From a theoretical point of view, the [[meta-process modeling]] explains the key concepts needed to describe what happens in the development process, on what, when it happens, and why. From an operational point of view, the meta-process modeling is aimed at providing guidance for method engineers and application developers.<ref name=Rolland1993/>

Line 35:

*Activity-oriented: related set of activities conducted for the specific purpose of product definition; a set of partially ordered steps intended to reach a goal.<ref name="Feiler1993">P.H. Feiler and [[W.S. Humphrey]]. (1993). ''Software Process Development and Enactment: Concepts and Definitions, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on "Software Process"</ref>

* Product-oriented: series of activities that cause sensitive product transformations to reach the desired product.<ref name=Sianipar2014>

{{cite journal

|last1= Sianipar

|first1= C.P.M.

|last2= Yudoko

|first2= G.

|last3= Dowaki

|first3= K.

|last4= Adhiutama

|first4= A.

|year= 2014

|title= Physiological Concept: Visible Modeling for Feasible Design

Line 77:

While notations for fine-grained models exist, most traditional process models are coarse-grained descriptions. Process models should, ideally, provide a wide range of granularity (e.g. Process Weaver).<ref name=Rolland1998/><ref name="Fernström1991">C. Fernström and L. Ohlsson (1991). ''Integration Needs in Process Enacted Environments, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on the Software Process''. IEEE computer Society Press.</ref>

=== By flexibility ===

[[Image:flexibility.png|thumb|right|300px|Flexibility of Method construction approaches <ref name="HBO">

A.F. Harmsen, [[Sjaak Brinkkemper]] and J.L.H. Oei (1994). ''Situational Method Engineering for information Systems Project Approaches''. North Holland</ref>]]

Line 88:

== Quality of methods ==

As the quality of process models is being discussed in this paper, there is a need to elaborate quality of modeling techniques as an important essence in quality of process models. In most existing framework created for understanding the quality, the line between quality of modeling techniques and the quality of models as a result of the application of those techniques are not clearly drawn. This report will concentrate both on quality of process modeling techniques and quality of process models to clearly differentiate the two.

Various frameworks were developed to help in understanding quality of process modeling techniques, one example is Quality based modeling evaluation framework or known as Q-Me framework which argued to provide set of well defined quality properties and procedures to make an objective assessment of this properties possible.<ref name=hommes/>

This framework also has advantages of providing uniform and formal description of the model element within one or different model types using one modeling techniques<ref name=hommes>BJ Hommes, V Van Reijswoud, Assessing the Quality of Business Process Modeling Techniques -Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2000</ref>

Line 127:

Also the broader approach is to be based on semiotics rather than linguistic as was done by Krogstie using the top-down quality framework known as SEQUAL.<ref name=krogstie/><ref>{{cite journal |first=O. |last=Lindland |first2=G. |last2=Sindre |first3=A. |last3=Sølvberg |title=Understanding quality in conceptual modeling |journal=IEEE Software |volume=11 |issue=2 |year=1994 |pages=42–49 |doi=10.1109/52.268955 }}</ref> It defines several quality aspects based on relationships between a model, knowledge Externalisation, ___domain, a modeling language, and the activities of learning, taking action, and modeling.

The framework does not however provide ways to determine various degrees of quality but has been used extensively for business process modeling in empirical tests carried out <ref>D. Moody, G. Sindre, T. Brasethvik and A. Sølvberg, Evaluating the quality of process models: empirical testing of a quality framework. In: S. Spaccapietra, S.T. March and Y. Kambayashi, Editors, Conceptual Modeling – ER 2002, 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Tampere, Finland, October 7–11, 2002, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 2503, Springer (2002), pp. 380–396.</ref>

According to previous research done by Moody ''et al.''<ref>Daniel L. Moody, G. Sindre, T. Brasethvik, A. Sølvberg. Evaluating the Quality of Process Models: Empirical Testing of a Quality Framework</ref> with use of conceptual model quality framework proposed by Lindland ''et al.'' (1994) to evaluate quality of process model, three levels of quality<ref>{{cite book |last=Morris |first=C. W. |year=1970 |title=Foundations of the Theory of Signs |___location=Chicago |publisher=Chicago University Press }}</ref> were identified:

Line 140:

* Social quality: This regards the agreement between the stakeholders in the modeling ___domain.

Dimensions of Conceptual Quality framework<ref>[[John Krogstie|J. Krogstie]], O. Lindland, G. Sindre, Defining quality aspects for conceptual models, in: Proc. IFIP8.1 Working Conference on Information Systems Concepts: Towards a Consolidation of Views, Marburg, Germany, 1995.</ref>

Modeling Domain is the set of all statements that are relevant and correct for describing a problem ___domain, Language Extension is the set of all statements that are possible given the grammar and vocabulary of the modeling languages used. Model Externalization is the conceptual representation of the problem ___domain.

Line 156:

Further work by Krogstie ''et al.'' (2006) to revise SEQUAL framework to be more appropriate for active process models by redefining physical quality with a more narrow interpretation than previous research.<ref name =krogstie>{{cite journal |first=J. |last=Krogstie |first2=G. |last2=Sindre |first3=H. |last3=Jorgensen |title=Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework |journal=European Journal of Information Systems |volume=15 |issue=1 |year=2006 |pages=91–102 |doi=10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000598 }}</ref>

The other framework in use is Guidelines of Modeling (GoM) <ref>J. Becker, M. Rosemann and C. Uthmann, Guidelines of business process modeling. In: W. van der Aalst, J. Desel and A. Oberweis, Editors, Business Process Management. Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, Springer, Berlin (2000), pp. 30–49</ref> based on general accounting principles include the six principles: Correctness, Clarity deals with the comprehensibility and explicitness (System description) of model systems.

Comprehensibility relates to graphical arrangement of the information objects and, therefore, supports the understand ability of a model.

Relevance relates to the model and the situation being presented. Comparability involves the ability to compare models that is semantic comparison between two models, Economic efficiency; the produced cost of the design process need at least to be covered by the proposed use of cost cuttings and revenue increases.

Line 169:

Most experiments carried out relate to the relationship between metrics and quality aspects and these works have been done individually by different authors: Canfora et al. study the connection mainly between count metrics (for example, the number of tasks or splits -and maintainability of software process models;<ref>{{cite journal |first=G. |last=Canfora |first2=F. |last2=Garcia |first3=M. |last3=Piattini |first4=F. |last4=Ruiz |first5=C. |last5=Visaggio |title=A family of experiments to validate metrics for software process models |journal=Journal of Systems and Software |volume=77 |issue=2 |year=2005 |pages=113–129 |doi=10.1016/j.jss.2004.11.007 }}</ref> Cardoso validates the correlation between control flow complexity and perceived complexity; and Mendling et al. use metrics to predict control flow errors such as deadlocks in process models.<ref name=MendlingMoserBPM/><ref>J. Mendling, Detection and prediction of errors in epc business process models, Ph.D. thesis, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, http://wi.wu-wien.ac.at/home/mendling/publications/Mendling%20Doctoral%20thesis.pdf, 2007.</ref>

The results reveal that an increase in size of a model appears to have a negative impact on quality and their comprehensibility.

Further work by Mendling et al. investigates the connection between metrics and understanding <ref name=mendling14/> and<ref>J. Mendling and M. Strembeck, Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: W. Abramowicz and D. Fensel, Editors, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS 2008), Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing vol. 7, Springer-Verlag (2008), p. 142153.</ref> While some metrics are confirmed regarding their impact, also personal factors of the modeler – like competence – are revealed as important for understanding about the models.

Several empirical surveys carried out still do not give clear guidelines or ways of evaluating the quality of process models but it is necessary to have clear set of guidelines to guide modelers in this task. Pragmatic guidelines have been proposed by different practitioners even though it is difficult to provide an exhaustive account of such guidelines from practice.

In,<ref>B.Silver, Ten Tips for Effective Process Modeling,BPMInstitute.org, <http://www.bpminstitute.org/articles/article/article/bpms-watch-ten-tips-for-effective-process-modeling.html>, Wednesday January 30, 2008</ref> 10 tips for process modeling are summarized, many technical definitions and rules are provided, but it does not teach how to create process models that are effective in their primary mission - maximizing shared understanding of the as-is or to-be process.

Most of the guidelines are not easily put to practice but “label activities verb–noun” rule has been suggested by other practitioners before and analyzed empirically.

From the research.<ref>J. Mendling, H.A. Reijers, J. Recker, Activity Labeling in Process Modeling: Empirical Insights and Recommendations, Information Systems. URL: <http://eprints.qut.edu.au/19625/></ref> value of process models is not only dependent on the choice of graphical constructs but also on their annotation with textual labels which need to be analyzed. It was found that it results in better models in terms of understanding than alternative labelling styles.

Line 188:

* G7 Decompose a model with more than 50 elements

7PMG still though has limitations with its use: Validity problem 7PMG does not relate to the content of a process model, but only to the way this content is organized and represented.

It does suggest ways of organizing different structures of the process model while the content is kept intact but the pragmatic issue of what must be included in the model is still left out.

The second limitation relates to the prioritizing guideline the derived ranking has a small empirical basis as it relies on the involvement of 21 process modelers only.

Line 214:

* {{cite web

| url = http://www.modelingconcepts.com/pdf/BPM_V2.pdf

|format=PDF| title = Abstraction Levels for Processes Presentation: Process Modeling Principles

}}

* [http://www.apqc.org/ American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC)], a worldwide organization for process and performance improvement