Content deleted Content added
m + Link(s) |
m + Link(s) |
||
Line 108:
It is stated that the evaluation of the Q-ME framework to the DEMO modeling techniques has revealed the shortcomings of Q-ME. One particular is that it does not include quantifiable metric to express the quality of business modeling technique which makes it hard to compare quality of different techniques in an overall rating.
There is also a systematic approach for quality measurement of modeling techniques known as complexity metrics suggested by Rossi et al. (1996). Techniques of Meta model is used as a basis for computation of these complexity metrics. In comparison to quality framework proposed by [[John Krogstie|Krogstie]], quality measurement focus more on technical level instead of individual model level.<ref name="ReferenceA">Bart-Jan Hommes, ''[http://www.researchgate.net/publication/220260389_Business_Process_Change_A_Study_of_Methodologies_Techniques_and_Tools/file/72e7e52a1d6f118dba.pdf The evaluation of business process modeling techniques],'' phd thesis TU Delft 2004</ref>
Authors (Cardoso, Mendling, Neuman and Reijers, 2006) used complexity metrics to measure the simplicity and understandability of a design. This is supported by later research done by Mendling ''et al.'' who argued that without using the quality metrics to help question quality properties of a model, simple process can be modeled in a complex and unsuitable way. This in turn can lead to a lower understandability, higher maintenance cost and perhaps inefficient execution of the process in question.<ref name="MendlingMoserBPM">J. Mendling, M. Moser, G. Neumann, H. Verbeek, B. Dongen, W. van der Aalst, A Quantitative Analysis of Faulty EPCs in the SAP Reference Model, BPM Center Report BPM-06-08, BPMCenter.org, 2006.</ref>
Line 134:
* Pragmatic quality: whether the model can be understood sufficiently by all relevant stakeholders in the modeling process. That is the model should enable its interpreters to make use of it for fulfilling their need.
From the research it was noticed that the quality framework was found to be both easy to use and useful in evaluating the quality of process models however it had limitations in regards to reliability and difficult to identify defects. These limitations led to refinement of the framework through subsequent research done by [[John Krogstie|Krogstie]]. This framework is called SEQUEL framework by Krogstie ''et al.'' 1995 (Refined further by Krogstie & Jørgensen, 2002) which included three more quality aspects.
* Physical quality: whether the externalized model is persistent and available for the audience to make sense of it.
Line 141 ⟶ 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.
| |||