1 / 15

Assessing Business Process Modeling Languages Using a Generic Quality Framework

Assessing Business Process Modeling Languages Using a Generic Quality Framework. Anna Gunhild Nysetvold* John Krogstie *, § IDI, NTNU * and SINTEF § Norway. Overview of presentation. Quality of models and modeling languages Objectives of business process models

hallie
Télécharger la présentation

Assessing Business Process Modeling Languages Using a Generic Quality Framework

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing Business Process Modeling Languages Using a Generic Quality Framework Anna Gunhild Nysetvold* John Krogstie *,§ IDI, NTNU * and SINTEF§ Norway

  2. Overview of presentation • Quality of models and modeling languages • Objectives of business process models • Description of case - Vital • Evaluation results • Concluding remarks

  3. Framework for quality of models

  4. Quality of modeling languages

  5. Different objectives of business process modeling • Human-sense making and communication • Computer-assisted analysis/simulation • Business Process Management • Gives the context for a traditional system development project • Model deployment and activation : • Through people guided by process 'maps', • Automatically, as in most workflow engines. • Interactively, where the computer and the users co-operate

  6. Description of case-study environment • Vital: One of Norway’s largest insurance companies • Large number of life insurance and pension insurance customers • Going from a functionally oriented architecture to a process/service oriented architecture • Need to support complete business processes in the architecture • Main usage area of process models: Context for system development (but human sense-making and communication is also important)

  7. Approach to evaluation • Identified main criteria based on Vital experiences and the quality framework • approx. 70 requirements derived from the general framework, evaluated according to relevance to Vital • 32 requirements found sufficiently relevant to use in the evaluation • Identify short-list of languages to evaluate • Evaluate languages based on identified criteria • Analytically • Empirically (based on modeling of cases using the same independent modeling tool (METIS)) • Getting feedback from Vital on evaluations as we went along • Evaluations on a 0-3 scale on each criteria

  8. Short-list of languages • BPMN (Business Process Modeling Notations) • UML Activity diagrams • EEML (Extended Enterprise Modeling Language)

  9. BPMN - BPD

  10. UML Activity diagrams

  11. EEML

  12. Overall results

  13. Concluding remarks • The framework found useful after specializing it to specific goals of the organization • Overly simplistic valuation ? • Weighting of importance (base more on metrics for e.g. complexity) • Weighting between expressiveness, learnability, comprehension, technical and organizational appropriateness • On later uses • use several valuation schemes in parallel • Also include evaluation of the meta-model and notation guides as models • Useful to first focus on the language, but language quality is only a mean to achieve model quality. Through including organizational appropriateness, tool-support and appropriate techniques to support the development of high-quality models on all levels is partly included also at this level

  14. Assessing Business Process Modeling Languages Using a Generic Quality Framework Anna Gunhild Nysetvold* John Krogstie *,§ IDI, NTNU * and SINTEF§ Norway

More Related