Quality-Driven Business Process Refactoring

Authors: María Fernández-Ropero, Ricardo Pérez-Castillo, Ismael Caballero, Mario Piattini

Abstract:

Appropriate description of business processes through standard notations has become one of the most important assets for organizations. Organizations must therefore deal with quality faults in business process models such as the lack of understandability and modifiability. These quality faults may be exacerbated if business process models are mined by reverse engineering, e.g., from existing information systems that support those business processes. Hence, business process refactoring is often used, which change the internal structure of business processes whilst its external behavior is preserved. This paper aims to choose the most appropriate set of refactoring operators through the quality assessment concerning understandability and modifiability. These quality features are assessed through well-proven measures proposed in the literature. Additionally, a set of measure thresholds are heuristically established for applying the most promising refactoring operators, i.e., those that achieve the highest quality improvement according to the selected measures in each case.

Keywords: business process model, modifiability, refactoring, understandability

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1328742

References:

[1] Weske, M., Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. 2007, Leipzig, Alemania: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 368.
[2] Sánchez-González, L., et al., Quality assessment of business process models based on thresholds. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2010, 2010: p. 78-95.
[3] Reijers, H.A. and J. Mendling, A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions on, 2011(99): p. 1-14.
[4] Dijkman, R., et al., Identifying refactoring opportunities in process model repositories. Information and Software Technology, 2011.
[5] Rolon, E., et al. Evaluation measures for business process models. 2006: ACM.
[6] Rolon, E., et al. Prediction models for BPMN usability and maintainability. 2009: IEEE.
[7] Cardoso, J. Process control-flow complexity metric: An empirical validation. 2006: IEEE.
[8] Mendling, J., H. Reijers, and J. Cardoso, What makes process models understandable? Business Process Management, 2007: p. 48-63.
[9] Mendling, J. and M. Strembeck. Influence factors of understanding business process models. 2008: Springer.
[10] Weber, B., et al., Survey paper: Refactoring large process model repositories. Comput. Ind., 2011. 62(5): p. 467-486.
[11] Leopold, H., S. Smirnov, and J. Mendling, Refactoring of process model activity labels, in Proceedings of the Natural language processing and information systems, and 15th international conference on Applications of natural language to information systems. 2010, Springer-Verlag: Cardiff, UK. p. 268-276.
[12] ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 25000:2005 in Software and system engineering - Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)- Guide to SQuaRE. 2005.
[13] ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 25010:2011, in Systems and software engineering - System and software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and software quality models. 2011.
[14] Koehler, J., et al., Combining Quality Assurance and Model Transformations in Business-Driven Development, in Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance, S. Andy, et al., Editors. 2008, Springer-Verlag. p. 1-16.
[15] Smirnov, S., H. Reijers, and M. Weske. A semantic approach for business process model abstraction. 2011: Springer.