Relating Business Process Models to Goal-Oriented Requirements Models in KAOS

  • George Koliadis
  • Aditya Ghose
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4303)


Business Process Management (BPM) has many anticipated benefits including accelerated process improvement, at the operational level, with the use of highly configurable and adaptive “process aware” information systems [1] [2]. The facility for improved agility fosters the need for continual measurement and control of business processes to assess and manage their effective evolution, in-line with organizational objectives. This paper proposes the GoalBPM methodology for relating business process models (modeled using BPMN) to high-level stakeholder goals (modeled using KAOS). We propose informal (manual) techniques (with likely future formalism) for establishing and verifying this relationship, even in dynamic environments where essential alterations to organizational goals and/or process constantly emerge.


Business Process Satisfaction Relationship Business Process Management Goal Model Business Process Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Business Process Management: The Third Wave. Meghan-Kiffer Press, Tampa (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W.M., ter Hofstede, A.H.: Process-Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology. Wiley-Interscience, Chichester (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGoveran, D.: The benefits of a bpms. Technical report, Alternative Technologies, Felton, California, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Weske, M.: Business Process Management: A Survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Youngblood, M.D.: Winning cultures for the new economy. Strategy and Leadership 28(6), 4–9 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kavakli, E.: Modelling organizational goals: Analysis of current methods. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Nicosia, CY, pp. 1339–1343 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pyke, J., Whitehead, R.: Do better maths lead to better business processes? Business Process Trends (2004),
  8. 8.
    Wynn, D., Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J.: Planning business processes in product development organisation s. In: REBPS 2003 - Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Busines s Process Support, Klagenfurt/Veldern, Austria (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watkins, R., Neal, M.: Why and how of requirements tracing. IEEE Software 11(4), 104–106 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: A guided tour. In: RE 2001 - International Joint Conference on Requirements Engineering, Toronto, pp. 249–263. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    White, S.: Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 1.0. Business Process Management Initiative ( 1.0 edn. (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Letier, E., van Lamsweerde, A.: Deriving operational software. In: FSEí10 - 10th ACM SIGSOFT Symp. on the Foundations of Software Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Letier, E.: Reasoning about Agents in Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering. PhD thesis, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain, Belgium (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Lamsweerde, A., Letier, E.: Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(10), 978–1005 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bider, I., Johannesson, P.: Tutorial on: Modeling dynamics of business processes – key for building next generation of business information systems. in: The 21st international con-ference on conceptual modeling (er2002). In: 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER2002), Tampere, FL, October 7-11 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khomyakov, M., Bider, I.: Achieving workflow flexibility through taming the chaos. In: OOIS 2000 - 6th International Conference on Object Oriented Information Systems, pp. 85–92. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andersson, T., Andersson-Ceder, A., Bider, I.: State flow as a way of analysing business processes - case studies. Logistics Information Management 15(1), 34–45 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Koliadis
    • 1
  • Aditya Ghose
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and Computer ScienceUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations