=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2791/2020200019
|storemode=property
|title=Towards the Generalized Criterion for Evaluation of Business Process Model Quality
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2791/2020200019.pdf
|volume=Vol-2791
|authors=Andrii Kopp,Dmytro Orlovskyi
}}
==Towards the Generalized Criterion for Evaluation of Business Process Model Quality==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2791/2020200019.pdf
Towards the Generalized Criterion for Evaluation of
Business Process Model Quality
Andrii Kopp [0000-0002-3189-5623] and Dmytro Orlovskyi [0000-0002-8261-2988]
National Technical University “KhPI”, Kyrpychova str. 2, 61002 Kharkiv, Ukraine
{kopp93, orlovskyi.dm}@gmail.com
Abstract. Business process management has become the most widely-used and
reliable approach to organizational management over the last decades. It is also
considered as a part of quality management system in an organization. Business
process modeling is the core of business process management, which is used for
visualization, analysis, and improvement of organizational activities. Moreover,
business process modeling plays an important role in the context of business
process management maturity of an overall enterprise. Therefore, this paper is
focused on the problem of business process model quality evaluation. Existing
approaches based on the process modeling guidelines, measures and corre-
sponding thresholds are reviewed, as well as the refined process modeling rules,
corresponding quality criteria, the generalized quality criterion, and thresholds
for its translation into linguistic values are proposed. The data model and soft-
ware prototype are developed and the validation results are outlined.
Keywords: Business Process Management, Business Process Model, Process
Model Quality, Process Model Metric, Quality Criteria.
1 Introduction
Business process modeling is considered as a key tool of Business Process Manage-
ment (BPM). In paper [1] BPM is considered as both art and science of monitoring
organizational activities in order to provide quality of produced products or services
and find ways to improve these activities. According to Dumas et. al. [1], BPM is
about managing entire chains of events, activities and decisions that ultimately add
value to the organization and its customers. Whereas, business processes are consid-
ered as “chains of events, activities and decisions” that seems quite understandable
and clear [1]. The BPM lifecycle itself starts with the modeling stage. More formally
BPM is considered as the managerial discipline that uses the technologies for the
process oriented management [2]. According to paper [3], a high-level overview of
the BPM lifecycle includes the four key activities: model (create a business process
model to be used for analysis or enactment), enact (use a process model to control and
support concrete cases), analyze (analyze a process using a process model and/or
event log), and manage (all other activities, e.g., adjusting the process, reallocating
resources, or managing large collections of related process models). Business process
models are mostly used in the design and analysis of information systems and are
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
20
considered as a good mechanism for communication among the stakeholders [4].
Therefore, it is important to ensure high quality of created business process models. A
business process model of poor quality can disturb business process implementation
and execution, as well as its performance [5]. While a high-quality model is expected
to be accepted by stakeholders and thus prevents problems of business process im-
plementation, deployment, execution, and continuous improvement [6].
Business process modeling is an essential part of understanding and improving the
activities that an enterprise uses to achieve its business goals, however there was no
generally accepted framework of process model quality [7]. To the best knowledge of
the authors there is still no such quality framework nowadays. Therefore, this paper
proposes evaluation criteria of business process model quality, which are based on
existing best practices and guidelines together with measures and their corresponding
thresholds. The objective of such criteria is to calculate a numerical degree to which a
business process model fulfills requirements of process modeling guidelines. This
definition of business process model quality is derived from ISO 9001’s definition of
quality “degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements” [8].
Nowadays the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) is the leading stand-
ard for modeling business processes. It is provided by the Object Management Group
(OMG) and it is used by business professionals as a standard notation allowing not
only internal communication of the business procedures, but business-IT alignment
and collaboration between business partners as well [9]. According to the latest sur-
vey in the domain of business process modeling [10], BPMN diagrams are used by
64% of respondents. After the BPMN 2.0 notation came up, and original name “Busi-
ness Process Modeling Notation” was changed to “Business Process Model and Nota-
tion”, the graphic notation had been extended with the metamodel, the XML-based
(eXtensible Markup Language) exchange file format, and the execution semantics.
Section 2 and its subsections describe related work in the field of business process
quality management, BPM maturity models, and business process model quality eval-
uation. Business process modeling guidelines, corresponding measures, derived crite-
ria of business process model quality, the generalized quality criterion and its thresh-
old values are outlined in section 3. Section 4 describes how business information,
which BPMN business process models communicate, might be processed for their
further querying and reuse according to an ontology for organizing enterprise archi-
tectural artifacts (to which process models belongs) defined by the Zachman Frame-
work [11]. This section also describes the developed software prototype used to vali-
date the quality criteria proposed in section 3. Discussion of the obtained results is
outlined, as well as conclusion and future work is formulated.
2 Related Work
2.1 Business Process Quality Management and Maturity Models
According to Tobias and Kern [12], BPM has its roots in Total Quality Management
(TQM) appeared in late 1980s and in Business Process Reengineering (BPR) intro-
21
duced in early 1990s by Hammer, Champy, and Davenport. One of BPM meanings is
related to a four-step Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) quality management cycle by
Deming and Shewhart [12]. PDCA is a continuous cycle that consists of the following
four successive stages: planning for change (plan), execution of the plan (do), evalua-
tion of results (check) and standardization of the new, improved process (act) [13].
While TQM takes a scientific, statistical, and evidence-based approach for detecting
and reducing quality anomalies through incremental quality improvement, BPR fo-
cuses on systematically reducing process anomalies through visualization and radical
quality performance improvement [14]. Early BPM concept was focused largely on
the technical aspects of process control, especially those related to production. Under
the TQM paradigm, BPM gradually evolved from the narrow focus on technical is-
sues toward a more management direction [13]. Authors of [12] define BPM as the
management approach that focuses on business processes. A business process is de-
fined as a horizontal sequence of activities that transform an input (need) to an output
(result) to meet the needs of customers or stakeholders [12].
BPM took a more concrete form during the major revision of the ISO 9001 stand-
ard in 2000, and then in 2008 and 2015. These versions of the standard made the shift
of focus from individual quality management requirements to a more holistic process-
oriented approach [13]. The ISO 9001:2015 standard considers process approach as
the one of its quality management principles. A process approach means an organiza-
tion manages their business as a system of processes. A process is described as a set
of interrelated or interacting activities that use inputs to deliver an intended result.
Process inputs and outputs might be tangible (e.g. materials, components or equip-
ment) or intangible (e.g. data, information or knowledge) [8]. Since the revision of
ISO 9001, BPM has had a central role in the implementation of all standards. Now it
has a role of an integrated mechanism of managing the processes [13].
Since BPM is heterogeneously defined in the literature, a need of a standardized
BPM framework has inspired appearance of BPM Maturity Models (BPMMM) [12].
Authors of review [15] refer to a maturity model as to the sequence of discrete maturi-
ty levels used to assess processes in one or multiple business domains. Maturity levels
represent expected or typical evolution of these processes [15]. For example, Capabil-
ity Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) in the area of software engineering emerged
at the beginning of 1990s as a means to improve software development processes to
achieve higher quality, and has been used since then by hundreds of organizations
worldwide. The success of CMMI inspired the development of several maturity mod-
els in other domains, including BPM [15]. In paper [16], the importance and impact of
an organization’s business process maturity on overall performance has been present-
ed. BPMMM presented in this study is based on the maturity model that was defined
for the maturity of software development capability [2]. According to [16], with the
increasing level of an organization’s BPM maturity, the importance and impact of
BPMN models (since BPMN is considered as de-facto standard in business process
modeling) is increasing and becoming critical for overall BPM success.
Table 1 describes BPM maturity levels with respect to the dimensions of awareness
of business processes (ABP), documentation of business processes (DBP), monitoring
of business processes (MBP), and refinement of business processes (RBP).
22
Table 1. BPM maturity levels from a business process modeling viewpoint.
Maturity level ABP DBP MBP RBP Business process modeling viewpoint
(0) Non-existent None None None None None
(1) Ad-Hoc Some None None None Top-level “process landscape”
(2) Repeatable All Some None None Non-standardized process diagrams
(3) Defined All All Some None BPMN models at the descriptive level
(4) Managed and All All All Some BPMN models with defined process
Measurable monitoring activities
(5) Optimized All All All All BPMN models accessible over a reposi-
tory or cloud-based solution
Therefore, to the best our knowledge, the maturity model presented in [16] is the only
maturity model that, unlike BPMMMs reviewed in [15], presents the role of business
process modeling and supporting tools in different process maturity levels.
2.2 Business Process Model Quality
The goal of business process modeling is the representation of organizational activi-
ties, so that current processes may be analyzed and improved. Business process mod-
eling is not only a requirement for ISO 9001 quality standards or BPM maturity mod-
els; it plays an important role in the implementation of work-flow management [17].
Modeling helps visualize the important steps in a business process, how they are
related to each other, which actors and information systems are involved in carrying
out various activities, and where communication takes place with external parties.
Business process models are usually described in a visual way, using figures that are
connected to each other and supported by textual annotations [17]. Graphical notation
of the BPMN 2.0 specification includes following elements to describe business pro-
cesses (see Fig. 1) [18].
Fig. 1. Core elements of BPMN graphical notation.
BPMN business process diagrams basically describe business processes in terms of
events and actions connected through control flows that indicate valid sequences in
the process execution. Gateways are special nodes connected through control flows
that indicate whether the process executes in parallel (AND), alternatively (XOR) or
23
optionally (OR). The beginning of the process is denoted by a start event and its con-
clusion by a set of end event nodes. Each pool represents a process itself, while each
lane represents a human participant in the activity [18].
Authors of [17] proposed a business process model quality framework called SIQ
(it is “Simple enough to be practically applicable, Integrates the most relevant insights
from the BPM field, and deals with Quality” [17]). SIQ defines three quality catego-
ries of the business process model: syntactic quality (conformance to the rules of a
modeling notation), semantic quality (conformance to a captured process), and prag-
matic quality (understandability by readers) [17].
While syntactic quality of designed business process models is checked by model-
ing software tools and checking semantic quality is hardly possible without human
involvement (it requires understanding the domain in question and the exact purpose
of the process model [17]), checking pragmatic quality is of interest for research in
terms of its automation. Mendling, Reijers, and van der Aalst defined Seven Process
Modeling Guidelines (7PMG) framework for creating understandable models that are
less error-prone or improving the quality of existing models [17, 19].
As for quantitative process model quality indicators, various metrics and thresholds
for such metrics were proposed for BPMN process models [19], such as:
• Size (number of events, gateways, tasks, and sequence flows).
• Gateway mismatch (sum of gateway pairs that do not match each other).
• Connectivity coefficient (ratio of the number of arcs to the number of nodes).
• Control flow complexity (sum over all gateways weighted by their potential com-
binations of states after the split).
2.3 Conclusion on Related Work Review
Performed review demonstrates that, despite the lack of clear definition and standards,
BPM is the dynamically growing management approach adopted by many organiza-
tions and considered as the one of quality management principles of ISO 9001 stand-
ard. Business process modeling, being the core technique of BPM, plays an important
role in business process analysis and improvement, and also facilitates increasing of
BPM maturity of an overall organization. Present State-of-the-Art shows there are
heterogeneous metrics and corresponding thresholds used to measure business process
model quality. The generalized measure that could combine viewpoints of size, gate-
way mismatch, nodes connectivity, and control flow complexity is not revealed yet.
3 Business Process Model Quality Evaluation
3.1 Business Process Model Measures
Out of the seven process modeling guidelines provided by the 7PMG framework, we
have left only five by merging G1 and G7, and avoiding the guideline G6 [20]. It is
suggested, that G7 “Decompose a model with more than 31 elements” might be ap-
24
plied as the consequence of G1 “Do not use more than 31 nodes”, so that is why these
guidelines were merged into the single rule R1 “Do not use more than 31 nodes or
decompose a model with more than 31 elements if possible”. The guideline G6 “Use
verb-object activity labels” is avoided, since it belongs to the semantic process model
quality, while the pragmatic quality is considered in this study. Remaining four guide-
lines G2 – G5 are adopted as rules R2 – R5 respectively (see Table 2). For the select-
ed five BPMN modeling rules based on the 7PMG guidelines we need to define crite-
ria that might quantifiably evaluate the degree of fulfillment of each of the modeling
rules R1 – R5 by the analyzed BPMN process model. Such criteria might be derived
from the following measures.
Total number of nodes (TNN). The size of the collection of business process model
nodes, 𝑇𝑁𝑁 = |𝑁|.
Number of invalid elements (NIE). Number of nodes with invalid inputs or outputs
(G2 recommendation should be applied for all types of nodes, not only gateways):
𝑁𝐼𝐸 = ∑𝑡∈𝑇(|𝑡 𝑖𝑛 | ≠ 1 ∨ |𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑡 | ≠ 1) + ∑𝑒∈𝐸(|𝑒 𝑖𝑛 | > 1 ∨ |𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡 | > 1) +
(1)
+ ∑𝑔∈𝐺 ¬[(|𝑔𝑖𝑛 | = 1 ∧ |𝑔𝑜𝑢𝑡 | > 1) ∨ (|𝑔𝑖𝑛 | > 1 ∧ |𝑔𝑜𝑢𝑡 | = 1)] .
Where:
─ 𝑇 is the collection of tasks 𝑡 ∈ 𝑇, 𝐸 is the set of events 𝑒 ∈ 𝐸, 𝐺 is the collection of
gateways 𝑔 ∈ 𝐺;
─ |𝑛𝑖𝑛 | is the size of the set of inputs of the node, |𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑡 | is the size of the set of out-
puts of the node, 𝑛 ∈ 𝑁 = 𝑇 ∪ 𝐸 ∪ 𝐺.
Number of start events (NSE). The size of the set of start events, which is the subset
of the collection of events, 𝑁𝑆𝐸 = |𝐸𝑠 ⊆ 𝐸|.
Number of end events (NEE). The size of the set of end events, which is the subset
of the collection of events, 𝑁𝐸𝐸 = |𝐸𝑒 ⊆ 𝐸|.
Number of mismatched gateways (NMG). The count of gateways that do not have
matching gateways. It is calculated as the difference between numbers of split gate-
ways (with 1 input and more than 1 output) and join gateways (with more than 1 input
and 1 output):
𝑁𝑀𝐺 = |∑𝑔∈𝐺 (|𝑔𝑖𝑛 | = 1 ∧ |𝑔𝑜𝑢𝑡 | > 1) − ∑𝑔∈𝐺 (|𝑔𝑖𝑛 | > 1 ∧ |𝑔𝑜𝑢𝑡 | = 1)|. (2)
Total number of gateways (TNG). The size of the set of gateways, 𝑇𝑁𝐺 = |𝐺|.
Total number of inclusive (OR) gateways (TNI). The size of the collection of inclu-
sive (OR) gateways, which is the subset of the set of gateways, 𝑇𝑁𝐼 = |𝐺𝑜𝑟 ⊆ 𝐺|.
3.2 Criteria of Business Process Model Quality
Using business process model measures proposed in the previous subsection, we have
̅̅̅̅ (see Table 2). These
formulated criteria of business process model quality 𝑟𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1,5
criteria are based on the set of modeling rules R1 – R5 derived from the 7PMG rec-
ommendations for business process modeling [20].
25
Table 2. Modeling rules and corresponding criteria based on the 7PMG framework.
BPMN modeling rule Criteria equation
R1: Do not use more than 31 nodes or 1, 𝑇𝑁𝑁 ≤ 31,
decompose a model with more than 31 𝑟1 = { 31
, 𝑇𝑁𝑁 > 31
elements if possible (merged G1 and G7) 𝑇𝑁𝑁
R2: Avoid nodes with invalid inputs or 𝑁𝐼𝐸
𝑟2 = 1 −
outputs (refined G2) 𝑇𝑁𝑁
R3: Avoid usage of multiple start or mul- 1 1
𝑟3 = min { 2 , }
tiple end events or missing events (G3) 1+ (𝑁𝑆𝐸 − 1) 1 + (𝑁𝐸𝐸 − 1)2
1, 𝑇𝑁𝐺 = 0,
R4: Avoid gateways mismatch (G4) 𝑟4 = { 𝑁𝑀𝐺
1− , 𝑇𝑁𝐺 > 0
𝑇𝑁𝐺
1, 𝑇𝑁𝐺 = 0,
R5: Avoid inclusive (OR) gateways (G5) 𝑟5 = { 𝑇𝑁𝐼
1− , 𝑇𝑁𝐺 > 0
𝑇𝑁𝐺
̅̅̅̅ serves to quantifiably evaluate the degree to which
Each of these criteria 𝑟𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1,5
the analyzed business process model fulfills corresponding rules R1 – R5. Therefore,
̅̅̅̅. By intro-
calculated values of these criteria belong to the interval 𝑟𝑖 ∈ [0,1], 𝑖 = 1,5
ducing these criteria we did contribute to the State-of-the-Art, however, the need for
the generalized quality criterion of business process models still exists.
3.3 Generalized Criterion of Business Process Model Quality
Weighted sum model. In order to define the generalized criterion for BPMN process
model quality evaluation, we used the weighted sum model (WSM) [21]. It is appli-
cable in this case, since all the criteria are expressed in the same unit. Hence the gen-
eralized criterion of business process model quality might be defined as following:
𝑃𝑀𝑄 = ∑5𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 ⋅ 𝑟𝑖 . (3)
Where 𝑤𝑖 , 𝑖 = ̅̅̅̅
1,5 are the relative weights of importance of the criteria 𝑟𝑖 , 𝑖 = ̅̅̅̅
1,5.
Values of the relative weights are based on the ranks of 7PMG recommendations
defined in [20] (see Table 3). Therefore, the generalized quality criterion takes values
in the interval 𝑃𝑀𝑄 ∈ [0,1], where 0 stands for the lowest quality, while 1 indicates
the highest quality of a business process model.
Table 3. Ranks of process modeling rules [20] and weights of corresponding criteria.
Business process modeling rules R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
7PMG ranks 80.5 86.5 101 58.5 104
Introduced quality criteria of process modeling 𝑟1 𝑟2 𝑟3 𝑟4 𝑟5
Weights of the quality criteria 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.28 0.16
26
Quality criterion values translation into linguistic values. Inspired by the approach
shown in [6], we propose the procedure of translation from crisp quality values repre-
sented by the 𝑃𝑀𝑄 criterion into linguistic values (see Table 4). However, while [6]
proposes fuzzification of multiple business process model measures and inference
procedure in order to obtain the linguistic values of process model understandability
and modifiability, our approach is based on the translation of the generalized quality
criterion into the single linguistic value according to the Harrington desirability scale
(see Table 4) [22], which describes the quality of the business process model based on
multiple criteria (see Table 2).
Table 4. Quality criterion translation into linguistic values based on the Harrington scale [22].
Quality level Thresholds Quality level Thresholds
Very high 0.8 ≤ 𝑃𝑀𝑄 ≤ 1 High 0.64 ≤ 𝑃𝑀𝑄 < 0.8
Medium 0.37 ≤ 𝑃𝑀𝑄 < 0.64 Low 0.2 ≤ 𝑃𝑀𝑄 < 0.37
Very low 0 ≤ 𝑃𝑀𝑄 < 0.2 Indefinable |𝑁| = 0 ∨ |𝑇| = 0
4 Results and Discussion
Software Prototype. In order to store analyzed BPMN models in a way they can be
queried and reused, we have applied the ontology defined in Zachman Framework
and elaborated by authors of [11] (see Fig. 2). We also used practitioners experience
in categorization of BPMN artifacts according to the Zachman Framework [23].
Fig. 2. Data model for BPMN process models storage and querying.
As it is shown in Fig. 2, the software prototype operates over the two-tier data stor-
age. The lower layer is based on the in-memory H2 relational database that stores raw
measures of process models, while higher layer is implemented in a form of RDF
(Resource Description Framework) graph under the control of the Apache Jena
framework that offers tools for querying linked data about business process models.
27
The overall architecture of the software prototype is quite simple (see Fig. 3); it is
based on the Spring Boot Java framework on the server side and the single-page An-
gularJS web application on the front-end side. The Camunda BPMN Model API (Ap-
plication Programming Interface) library is used to process XML-based files that
contain BPMN 2.0 definitions of business process models.
Fig. 3. Software prototype architecture.
In order to visualize summary results we used the Microsoft Power BI dashboard
as the alternative for the web-interface under development (see Fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Summary results demonstration using the Power BI dashboard.
Validation Results. At this moment the software prototype allows loading and pro-
cessing of BPMN 2.0 documents in order to evaluate their quality in both numerical
and linguistic forms. It also implements simple querying using the “subject-predicate-
object” form over the stored business process models data. The software usage exam-
ple is shown in Fig. 5. 3390 BPMN 2.0 definitions of business processes from differ-
28
ent domains provided in the GitHub public repository of Camunda [24] were pro-
cessed using the developed prototype.
Fig. 5. Software usage example.
Out of these models, 2606 are of very high quality (see Fig. 4), 470 are of high
quality, and remaining 314 are of medium quality. However, only 1250 models are
considered as those fully conform to the introduced quality criteria (see Fig. 4). It
means, that 1250 models have 𝑃𝑀𝑄 = 1, while remaining 1356 very high-quality
process models still could be improved (𝑃𝑀𝑄 < 1), as well as the 784 models of high
and medium quality. As it is shown in Fig. 3, R2 is the most commonly violated busi-
ness process modeling rule (avoid nodes with invalid inputs or outputs). Other com-
monly violated business process modeling rules are R4 (avoid gateways mismatch)
and R3 (do not use multiple start or multiple end events). Examples of rules violations
detected in the analyzed set of BPMN models are shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Examples of detected rules violations.
29
5 Conclusion and Future Work
In this paper we have introduced the set of business process model measures used to
evaluate the degree to which a business process model fulfills each of the business
process modeling rules derived from the 7PMG framework. By applying the WSM
model [21] and Harrington scale [22], we have obtained the generalized quality crite-
rion, which crisp values could be translated into linguistic values. The data model and
developed software prototype allow storing data about processed BPMN models in
order to simplify their querying and reusing. Early results of business process model
quality evaluation are demonstrated and discussed. Future work includes elaboration
on the data model and the software solution (compliance with the Zachman Frame-
work ontology, advanced querying and versions traceability of BPMN models), and
new results analysis.
References
1. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: Introduction to Business Process Man-
agement. In: Fundamentals of business process management. Heidelberg: Springer (2013).
doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33143-5_1
2. Pavlicek, J., Hronza, R., Pavlickova, P., Jelinkova, K.: The business process model quality
metrics. Workshop on Enterprise and Organizational Modeling and Simulation, 134-148.
Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-68185-6_10
3. Van der Aalst, W. M.: Business process management: a comprehensive survey. Hindawi
Publishing Corporation: ISRN Software Engineering (2013). doi: 10.1155/2013/507984
4. Kahloun, F., Ghannouchi, S. A.: A Classification Algorithm for Assessing the Quality Cri-
teria for Business Process Models. International Conference on Health Information Sci-
ence, 71-81. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-76351-4_8
5. Oukharijane, J., Yahya, F., Boukadi, K., Abdallah, H. B.: Towards an approach for the
evaluation of the quality of business process models. AICCSA 2018, 1-8 (2018). doi:
10.1109/AICCSA.2018.8612811
6. Yahya, F., Boukadi, K., Ben-Abdallah, H., Maamar, Z.: Application of Fuzzy Logic to As-
sess the Quality of BPMN Models. ICSOFT 2017, 188-209. Springer (2018). doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-93641-3_9
7. de Oca, I. M. M., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H. A., Rodriguez-Morffi, A.: A systematic literature
review of studies on business process modeling quality. Information and software technol-
ogy 58, 187-205 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.07.011
8. Tricker, R.: ISO 9001:2015 for Small Business. Taylor & Francis (2016)
9. Bonnet, F., Decker, G., Dugan, L., Kurz, M., Misiak, Z., Ringuette, S.: Making BPMN a
true lingua franca. BPM Trends (2014)
10. Harmon, P.: The State of Business Process Management 2016. BPTrends (2016)
11. Lee, J. Y., Ahn, K., Lee, S.: Applying OWL Ontology to Zachman Framework for Re-
quirement Analysis. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 46, 34-37 (2014). doi:
10.14257/astl.2014.46.08
12. Roeser, T., Kern, E. M.: Surveys in business process management – a literature review.
Business Process Management Journal 21(3), 692-718 (2015). doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-07-
2014-0065
30
13. Chountalas, P. T., Lagodimos, A. G.: Paradigms in business process management specifi-
cations: a critical overview. BPM Journal 25(5), 1040-1069 (2019). doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-
01-2018-0023
14. Saab, N., Helms, R., Zoet, M.: Predictive quality performance control in BPM: proposing a
framework for predicting quality anomalies. Procedia computer science, 138, 714-723
(2018). doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.094
15. Tarhan, A., Turetken, O., Reijers, H. A.: Business process maturity models: A systematic
literature review. Information and Software Technology, 75, 122-134 (2016). doi:
10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.010
16. Polancic, G.: Process Maturity and BPMN. Orbus Software (2013)
17. Reijers, H. A., Mendling, J., Recker, J.: Business process quality management. In Hand-
book on Business Process Management 1, 167-185. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2010).
doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_8
18. Ceballos, H. G., Flores-Solorio, V., Garcia, J. P.: A Probabilistic BPMN Normal Form to
Model and Advise Human Activities. International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent
Systems, 51-69. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26184-3_4
19. Corradini, F., Ferrari, A., Fornari, F., Gnesi, S., Polini, A, Re, B., Spagnolo, G. O.: Quality
Assessment Strategy: Applying Business Process Modelling Understandability Guidelines.
University of Camerino, Italy (2015)
20. Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., van der Aalst, W. M. P.: Seven process modeling guidelines
(7PMG). Information and Software Technology 52, 127–136 (2010). doi:
10.1016/j.infsof.2009.08.004
21. Ghosh, A., Mal, P., Majumdar, A.: Advanced Optimization and Decision-Making Tech-
niques in Textile Manufacturing. CRC Press (2019)
22. Voronin, A.: Multi-Criteria Decision Making for the Management of Complex Systems.
IGI Global (2017). doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2509-7
23. Deconstruct Business Process Model using Zachman Framework Principles, 5 part videos.
https://sunilduttjha.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/deconstruct-business-process-model-using-
zachman-framework-principles-5-part-videos/
24. Camunda – BPMN for research. https://github.com/camunda/bpmn-for-research