Process modeling: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:25, 25 October 2017

Revision as of 18:23, 2 November 2017

Line 109:

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, ''[httphttps://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>