An Analysis of Strategic Goals and Non-Functional Requirements in

Business Process Management

Adson Carmo

, Marcelo Fantinato

, Lucin

eia Thom

, Edmir Prado

, Mauro Spinola

and Patrick Hung

University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil

Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, ON, Canada

Keywords:

Strategic Alignment, Strategic Goals, Business Processes, Non-Functional Requirements, Systematic Review.

Abstract:

Business processes’ Non-Functional Requirements (NFR) can foster the strategic alignment in organizations.

Our goal was to evaluate to what extent there are approaches that seek to support the modeling of business

processes’ NFR based on strategic goal-related information. To achieve this goal, we conducted a literature

study based on systematic review concepts. As a result, we identiﬁed 19 works addressing strategic goals and

business processes with NFRs. The most commonly used techniques are: i* and Key Performance Indicators

(KPI) for modeling strategic goals and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) for modeling business

processes. According to our analysis, no approach fully addresses business processes’ NFR based on strategic

goals which was our primary question in conducting this study.

1 INTRODUCTION

Organizations need the support of Information Tech-

nology (IT) to quickly evolve their business processes

and gain competitive edge (Lee et al., 2011). How-

ever, the strategic alignment between business and IT

is required to achieve this dynamism (Tallon, 2008).

Strategic alignment enables efﬁcient communication

among the strategic, tactical and operational levels of

an organization (Sousa and Leite, 2014).

Business Process Management (BPM) can sup-

port strategic alignment (de Bruin and Rosemann,

2006). However, only addressing both func-

tional requirements and Non-Functional Require-

ments (NFR), a complete strategic alignment between

business and IT can be achieved. Nevertheless, while

functional requirements have been well explored in

BPM, NFRs have been neglected (Salles et al., 2013).

A good practice is to use strategic goals to iden-

tify business processes’ NFRs since strategic goals

represent the major organizational interests, which in

turn need to be mapped to business processes. Strate-

gic goals are fundamental to strategic alignment since

they are the basis for organizing and planning activi-

ties at the tactical and operational levels.

This paper presents the results of a literature study

conducted to identify and evaluate approaches that

propose using strategic goals as support for modeling

business processes’ NFRs. Although we could ﬁnd

some published literature studies exploring strategic

goals and business processes, none of them was par-

ticularly concerned with business processes’ NFRs.

This study is mainly an empirical and qualitative

research with some quantitative aspects. We focused

on the search for relevant and convenient data re-

ported through scientiﬁc papers that represent prior

experiences. Our goal was to reach new outcomes

from the experimental maturity of the works evalu-

ated. The selected works were evaluated in a pre-

dominantly qualitative way, based on the main infor-

mation presented in each one. From the quantitative

outlook, we do not produce strong statistical evidence

since the number of selected works represents a small

sample to allow in-depth quantitative analyzes. Some

results could be measured in numbers and then classi-

ﬁed and analyzed through basic descriptive statistics.

As main results, we identiﬁed 19 works address-

ing strategic goals, business processes and NFRs. The

most commonly used techniques are: i* and Key

Perfomance Indicators (KPI), for modeling strate-

gic goals; and Business Process Model and Notation

(BPMN), for modeling business processes. Accord-

262

Carmo, A., Fantinato, M., Thom, L., Prado, E., Spinola, M. and Hung, P.

An Analysis of Strategic Goals and Non-Functional Requirements in Business Process Management.

DOI: 10.5220/0006314702620273

In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2017) - Volume 3, pages 262-273

ISBN: 978-989-758-249-3

ing to our analysis, although partial solutions have

been found, no approach fully addresses business pro-

cesses’ NFR based on strategic goals which was our

primary research question in conducting this study.

This paper presents: necessary background and

rationale; summary of related work; description of

the applied research method; analysis of the selected

works; and discussion of the obtained results.

2 STUDY BACKGROUND

We present here the main concepts related to this

study, i.e., strategic goals, BPM and NFRs.

2.1 Strategic Alignment and Goals

Strategic alignment between business and IT refers to

the synchronization between these two organization’s

sides to ensure that the services provided by IT are

adherent to the strategic needs of the business areas

(Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993). Business areas

are those that represent the functions of an organi-

zation, such as: ﬁnance, human resources, manufac-

turing, marketing, logistics, accounting etc. Strategic

alignment represents the dynamic adequacy of the IT

structure and tasks so that it is always in tune with

the organization’s business areas, which represent the

IT’s customers (Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993).

Strategic goals are used to foster strategic align-

ment. Strategic goals are qualitative or quantita-

tive values to be achieved at a predetermined future

time. They represent business or organizational re-

quirements (Janes and Faganel, 2013). Examples of

strategic goals are: “increasing customer satisfaction

to 99% by 2020” and “reducing project execution

time by 25% over the next two years”. Once modeled,

strategic goals are used as the basis for setting expec-

tations and aligning communication among different

organization areas, including the business areas and

IT. Each business area can model speciﬁc subgoals,

which rely on IT services to be met.

IT solutions applied in line with strategic goals

lead to business success (De Bruin and Rosemann,

2006). A strategic goal consists of: description, ex-

pected beneﬁts, ways to achieve it, and ways to mea-

sure its achievement (Pl

osch et al., 2011). Most orga-

nizations represent strategic goals via KPI. KPIs can

model quantitative indicators, which are measurable

and useful for monitoring the progress and success of

strategic goals (Parmenter, 2015).

Organizations can manage their business goals via

KPIs (Parmenter, 2015). Business analysts interpret

the combination of KPIs and their target values as

goals (e.g., “order approval time up to three days”)

(Wetzstein et al., 2009). Metrics varying during pro-

cess execution can inﬂuence KPIs, and IT services

can inﬂuence these metrics (e.g., “processing time”,

“results accuracy”, “services availability” etc.). Thus,

KPIs are speciﬁed based on business goals matched

with expected values, which are transformed into tar-

gets, including delimitations of deviations below and

above the expected value (Friedenstab et al., 2012).

Also related to this context, the i* framework is

a goal-based technique, used to model organizational

contexts based on dependencies among actors (Yu

et al., 1996). The i* framework uses: actor, role, de-

pendency, goal, softgoal, resource and task. It aims

to model the involved actors (whose behavior is ab-

stractly characterized by roles) and the dependencies

among them, so that their goals are reached, resources

are provided, tasks are performed and softgoals are

minimally fulﬁlled (Yu et al., 1996). This technique is

driven by a set of organizational goals to be achieved.

A goal represents a condition or state that stakehold-

ers want to achieve. Goals (also called rigid goals

or concrete goals) are complemented by softgoals,

which represent conditions or a state that the stake-

holders wish to achieve, but without a clear deﬁnition

of the expected values. Softgoals in i* share some

concepts and aims with strategic goals in KPIs.

Other techniques to model strategic goals are:

Tropos, Security i* (Si*), Balanced Scorecard (BSC),

Keep All Objectives Satisﬁed (KAOS), User Re-

quirements Notation (URN) / Goal-oriented Require-

ments (GRL), Uniﬁed Modeling Language (UML) di-

agrams, Business Activity Monitoring (BAM), Busi-

ness Motivation Model (BMM), among others. Al-

though all these techniques are applicable to strategic

goal modeling, they can target different purposes and

work in different degrees of abstraction.

2.2 Business Process Management

BPM is an interdisciplinary area that involves aspects

of business administration and information systems to

manage business processes supported by automated

systems. A business process consists of tasks per-

formed by an organization, in a speciﬁc sequence, to

achieve a speciﬁc goal (Weske, 2012). Examples of

business processes are: “granting real estate credit by

a ﬁnancial organization” and “enrollment of new stu-

dents by an educational organization”.

BPM organizes work to ensure consistent results

and take advantage of opportunities for improvement

(Dumas et al., 2013). BPM includes concepts, tech-

niques and tools to support technical and managerial

aspects of business processes (van der Aalst et al.,

An Analysis of Strategic Goals and Non-Functional Requirements in Business Process Management

263

2003). The BPM lifecycle includes: modeling, im-

plementation, execution, administration, monitoring,

auditing, evaluation and improvement (Weske, 2012).

BPM contributes to achieve the strategic align-

ment between business and IT via management and

improvement of technological solutions related to or-

ganizational value-added business processes (Fanti-

nato et al., 2010). BPM enables one to transform the

dialog between business and IT in an interactive and

iterative approach. BPM combines top-down strate-

gic vision with bottom-up continuous improvement.

Modeling business process means represent

generically all actions and decisions that can be per-

formed during process execution, considering that

different actions can be performed for speciﬁc cases.

The main notation currently used by organizations for

this goal is BPMN (Kocbek et al., 2015). BPMN al-

lows to model business processes assuming their ex-

ecution through the integration of services offered by

various information systems. Before the emergence

of BPMN, many organizations adapted the UML ac-

tivity diagrams for this goal (Mili et al., 2010), which

are focused on software internal processes.

Other techniques to model business processes

are: Event-driven Process Chains (EPC), Role Ac-

tivity Diagrams (RAD), User Requirements Notation

(URN) / Use Case Maps (UCM), Integrated DEFini-

tion’s Process Description Capture (IDEF3), Yet An-

other Workﬂow Language (YAWL), Petri nets, Finite

State Machines (FSM), among others.

2.3 Non-Functional Requirements

NFRs are used mainly in software engineering, al-

though this concept is adaptable to other types of

products (Chung et al., 2000; Pressman, 2009; Som-

merville, 2010). A requirement is a condition, prop-

erty or capability that a product must meet. A func-

tional requirement deﬁnes a behavior (including in-

puts and outputs) that a product must perform. NFRs

deﬁne constraints on how a function can or should be

used, associated with minimum levels of quality.

NFRs typically relate to performance, usabil-

ity, availability, security, technologies that should be

used, and constraints on the development process

(Pressman, 2009). NFRs should consider customer

needs. Failure to meet certain NFRs may render the

entire product ineffective (Sommerville, 2010).

The concept of requirements, both functional and

non-functional, can be mapped from software engi-

neering to BPM by considering business processes as

the product being developed (Charﬁ and Zhi, 2015).

In BPM, functional requirements represent what the

business process must perform while NFRs represent

quality constraints which need to be met during the

process execution. Typical examples of NFRs of soft-

ware engineering may also be used in BPM such as

those related to performance and usability. For ex-

ample, “a sequence of activities in a business process

must run within a maximum of 24 hours”.

NFRs are commonly declared late and informally

during product development, making it difﬁcult their

enforcement (Pressman, 2009; Sommerville, 2010).

This weakness is evident in BPM by BPMN not sup-

porting NFRs (Bocciarelli and D’Ambrogio, 2014).

Moreover, some techniques that have been proposed

to represent business processes’ NFRs have not fully

addressed the problem. Such techniques usually ad-

dress only how to represent NFRs without address-

ing the source of information needed to model them

(Salles and Fantinato, 2012).

Considering the need for strategic alignment, a

business process should be implemented and executed

in line with the strategic goals linked to the scope that

encompasses this process. This alignment could be

supported by NFRs speciﬁed in the business process

model, which is used to guide the process implemen-

tation. Thus, a strategic goal would be represented in

a process model via NFRs, which would in turn be

used to support the process implementation.

3 RELATED STUDIES

We present here an analysis of other reviews – sys-

tematic or not – with a purpose similar to ours. We

identiﬁed six BPM-related reviews that address some

aspect of strategic goals. None of the identiﬁed re-

views fully meets the purpose of our literature study

that is “identifying and assessing approaches that use

strategic goals as support for modeling business pro-

cesses’ NFRs”. In addition, several of the identiﬁed

reviews have been driven to speciﬁc contexts such as

aspect-orientation (Pourshahid et al., 2012) and ser-

vice choreography (Leite et al., 2013) while our study

is intended to be context free.

Evidence that these previously published reviews

have purposes other than our literature study is the

low overlap of selected papers among them. One

of the related reviews evaluated 19 papers, of which

four are also the target of our study, which represents

about only 20% of overlap. However, this existing re-

view presents a broader purpose – “investigating goal-

oriented requirements engineering for business pro-

cesses” (Poels et al., 2013) in a generic way rather

than focused on NFRs. The only other existing over-

lap refers to a single work also evaluated in another re-

view whose main purpose is to evaluate “compliance

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

264

measurement based on goals and indicators” (Sham-

saei et al., 2011). Its authors do not speciﬁcally ad-

dress the representation of business processes’ NFRs;

instead, they are concerned with a following step, i.e.,

measuring how much business processes comply to

strategic goals. We do not identiﬁed any other over-

lap of our study with some other identiﬁed review.

Two additional related reviews were found, but

also without addressing the same target of our study,

and only tangentiating it. The ﬁrst one presents a very

wide proposal, which is “business process modeling

challenges and solutions” (Alotaibi, 2014). Like other

existing reviews, this one is not concerned with the

representation of business processes’ NFRs. Finally,

the latest identiﬁed review is concerned with “busi-

ness process modeling quality” (de Oca et al., 2015),

assuming that the quality of process modeling is key

to achieving strategic goals. Its authors are focused

on identifying approaches that analyze whether pro-

cess models have quality and whether such quality in-

ﬂuences strategic alignment.

4 RESEARCH METHOD

This literature study was based on systematic review

concepts. A systematic review refers to the identiﬁca-

tion, evolution and interpretation of all available rele-

vant research papers that address the issues deﬁned in

a research protocol (Kitchenham and Charters, 2007).

Individual studies evaluated in a review are called pri-

mary studies, and a systematic review is a secondary

study. A systematic review differs from traditional

reviews and surveys because it is a transparent, scien-

tiﬁc and replicable approach used to avoid bias (Biol-

chini et al., 2005). To conduct this literature study, the

guidelines proposed by Kitchenham and Chartes were

used (Kitchenham and Charters, 2007). The follow-

ing subsections present the study planning and con-

duction.

4.1 Need for Literature Study

No previous literature study has been conducted with

the speciﬁc goal presented here (cf. Section 3), with

which our research group is interested. In addi-

tion, given the importance of research relating strate-

gic goals, strategic alignment and BPM, this liter-

ature study may be of interest and utility to other

researchers and the industry. We have empirically

identiﬁed that strategic goals can be an important

source of information for modeling business pro-

cesses’ NFRs. We intend to work along this train of

thought, and hence decided to carry out this study.

We aimed to investigate previous approaches in

this context to be used as the basis by us and other

researchers interested in such subject. The interested

researchers should be able to know which techniques

have been more widely applied in this context as well

as know its features, beneﬁts and drawbacks. With the

outcomes obtained, next research works with the aim

of improving the strategic alignment with the support

of BPM can be developed more consciously.

4.2 Research Questions

The main research question guiding this study is:

“Are there approaches proposed to modeling busi-

ness processes’ NFRs based on strategic goals?”

In addition, in order to better characterize the

found approaches, two subquestions were deﬁned:

• What Strategic Goal Modeling Techniques are

used in the Found Approaches? Per the ratio-

nale presented in Section 2, our empirically raised

hypothesis was that KPIs should be the technique

most often used to model strategic goals in BPM.

Nevertheless, we also expected to ﬁnd other tech-

niques, including, for example, i*.

• What Business Process Modeling Techniques

are Used in the Found Approaches? Per the

rationale presented in Section 2, our empirically

raised hypothesis was that BPMN should be the

technique most often used to model business pro-

cesses in strategic goal-driven BPM. Neverthe-

less, we also expected to ﬁnd other techniques,

including, for example, UML activity diagrams.

4.3 Data Sources and Search Strategy

The selected data sources are Scopus (www.scopus.

com) and Web of Science (pcs.webofknowledge.

com). Both databases together provide access to pa-

pers published and indexed by leading international

publishers in the area of interest, including IEEE,

ACM, Springer, among several others.

As for the search strategy, we created a search

string that expresses the goals of this literature

study and should ﬁlter papers that could answer

our research questions. The following basic search

string was created, without the syntax inﬂuences of

each data source’s search engine: (“business pro-

cess model” OR BPMN OR “activity diagram” OR

“use case maps” OR UCM OR “event-driven pro-

cess chain” OR EPC OR “integrated deﬁnition” OR

“process description capture” OR IDEF3 OR “role

activity diagram” OR RAD OR “yet another work-

ﬂow language” OR YAWL OR “petri nets” OR “state

machine” OR statecharts) AND (“strategic goal” OR

An Analysis of Strategic Goals and Non-Functional Requirements in Business Process Management

265

“business goal” OR “business requirement” OR “or-

ganizational requirement” OR “key performance in-

dicator” OR KPI OR i* OR Si* OR “balanced score-

card” OR BSC OR “keep all objectives satisﬁed” OR

KAOS OR “user requirements notation” OR URN OR

“goal-oriented requirements” OR GRL OR “business

activity monitoring” OR BAM).

Overall, we searched for papers addressing con-

cepts related to both “business process modeling” and

“strategic goals”. To increase the chance of ﬁnd-

ing all related papers, we also used different expres-

sions identiﬁed as synonyms or related to business

process modeling and to strategic goals, which are

resulting of an exploratory study of the area. For

“business process modeling”, we also used the names

and acronyms for the most important process model-

ing notations and languages as introduced in Section

2.2. Moreover, for “strategic goals”, we used similar

or related expressions as presented in Section 2.1 and

2.3. In order to create the string used, a series of it-

erative exploratory searches were conducted, testing

different keyword combinations, in order to minimize

the number of returned records while maximizing the

likelihood of ﬁnding the most important works.

4.4 Selection Strategy

We speciﬁed Inclusion Criteria (IC) and Exclusion

Criteria (EC) aiming to ensure that only papers actu-

ally related to the investigated context were selected

as primary studies for this literature study. Each result

returned by the search engines, in order to be selected

for this literature study, should satisfy both inclusion

criteria and not be eliminated by any of the exclu-

sion criteria. The deﬁned criteria are presented below.

Inclusion Criteria:

• IC-1: the paper addresses strategic goals.

• IC-2: the paper addresses process modeling.

• IC-3: the paper addresses NFRs at some level.

Exclusion Criteria:

• EC-1: the paper is not available on the web.

• EC-2: the publication is not a peer-reviewed sci-

entiﬁc paper such as: technical reports, books,

book chapters, proceedings preface, journal edi-

torials, master’s dissertations, doctoral theses.

• EC-3: the paper is not written in English.

• EC-4: the paper is not primarily related to infor-

mation systems or business administration.

• EC-5: business processes are addressed in the

scope of software engineering instead of BPM.

4.5 Paper Selection

Paper selection was performed in three steps (cf. Fig-

ure 1) described as follows (Kitchenham and Char-

ters, 2007). Table 1 presents the list of the works se-

lected as primary studies for this literature study.

Figure 1: Identiﬁcation and selection of primary studies.

Step 1. Applying Search String to Databases:

the search string was submitted to the chosen data

sources. As a result, 465 records were obtained in

Scopus and 215 in Web of Science. Disregarding

those repeated, 488 initial records were obtained.

Step 2. Applying Inclusion and Exclusion Crite-

ria: each record resulting from the search described

in the previous step was subjected to the inclusion and

exclusion criteria. For this, we analyzed the following

parts of each paper: title, abstract and keywords. For

some cases, a more thorough reading of the content of

the paper was required. Based on this analysis, papers

that did not meet the criteria were removed. When

two similar papers of the same authors were found,

only the most up-to-date and complete one was cho-

sen. As a result, 19 primary studies were selected.

Step 3. Assessing the Quality of Selected Papers:

the exclusion criteria EC-1, EC-2 and EC-3 were used

as quality criteria. For the ﬁrst case (EC-1), we as-

sumed that the unavailability of a paper on the web is

an indication of lack of quality of the publication ve-

hicle, considering the current web readiness. For the

second case (EC-2), we considered that papers peer-

reviewed have a higher quality assurance than those

papers that have not undergone this type of review

process before publication such as invited book chap-

ters. Finally, for the third case (EC-3), we assumed

that papers not published in English also present an

indication of lack of quality considering that the great

majority of high-quality conferences use the English

language as universal standard. No extra paper was

removed since no new criterion was used for this step.

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

266

Table 1: Final list of the 19 works selected as primary studies.

Id Paper title Paper reference PT

P01 A Framework for Integrating Business Processes and Business Requirements (Kazhamiakin et al., 2004) C

P02 B-SCP: A requirements analysis framework for validating strategic alignment of

organizational IT based on strategy, context, and process

(Bleistein et al., 2006) J

P03 A combined approach for supporting the business process model lifecycle (Koliadis et al., 2006) C

P04 Requirements-driven design and conﬁguration management of business pro-

cesses

(Lapouchnian et al., 2007) C

P05 Business process management with the user requirements notation (Pourshahid et al., 2009) J

P06 Scenario-driven approach for business process modeling (Ruokonen et al., 2009) C

P07 Wiki-based requirements management for business process reengineering (Abeti et al., 2009) C

P08 Rule based business process optimization (Aghdasi and Malihi, 2010) C

P09 Towards a pattern-based framework for goal-driven business process modeling (Behnam et al., 2010) C

P10 Synthesizing enterprise strategic model and business processes in active-i* (Xu et al., 2010) C

P11 A method for eliciting goals for business process models based on non-

functional requirements catalogues

(Cardoso et al., 2011) J

P12 Extending BPMN for business activity monitoring (Friedenstab et al., 2011) C

P13 An integration framework for multi-perspective business process modeling (Letsholo et al., 2012) C

P14 Event-driven manufacturing process management approach (Estruch and

Alvaro, 2012) J

P15 A bi-directional mapping between i and BPMN models in the context of business

process management

(Alves et al., 2013) C

P16 Making a link between strategy and process model collections: A multi-layered

approach

(Dallilo et al., 2014) C

P17 Modeling organizational alignment (Sousa and Leite, 2014) C

P18 Combining modelling and simulation approaches: How to measure performance

of business processes

(Bisogno et al., 2016) J

P19 A framework for systematic analysis and modeling of trustworthiness require-

ments using i* and BPMN

(Mohammadi and Heisel,

2016)

Publication Type (PT): C – Conference / J – Journal

5 SELECTED WORKS ANALYSIS

We present here a discussion of the selected works,

per Table 1, following their publication order. We fo-

cused on highlighting how the approaches deal with

modeling of strategic goals and their mapping to busi-

ness processes’ NFRs. All acronyms and initialisms

used in this section are deﬁned in Section 2, except

for those not yet presented in the text.

[P01] “A Framework for Integrating Business Pro-

cesses and Business Requirements” (Kazhamiakin

et al., 2004): this paper proposes a framework for

representing strategic goals using Tropos and imple-

menting related processes through web services or-

chestrated by Web Services Business Process Exe-

cution Language (WS-BPEL). This framework does

not provide an intermediate step of process modeling

prior to its implementation in WS-BPEL. Formal an-

notations are used at all levels to model constraints

to business requirements and to processes. Tropos’

softgoals are used to describe NFRs at the business

requirements level, but no clear direction of how map

them to the web services orchestrations is presented.

[P02] “B-SCP: A requirements Analysis Frame-

work for Validating Strategic Alignment of Orga-

nizational IT based on Strategy, Context, and Pro-

cess” (Bleistein et al., 2006): this paper proposes

cross-referencing processes with organizational goal

models and context diagrams. Tasks, goals and soft-

goals are modeled in i* models, which are integrated

with context diagrams, and in turn are integrated with

RADs to model the processes. In the end, activities

and state descriptions in RADs are cross-referenced

with i*, i.e., processes in RADs are linked to goals in

i*. Softgoals representing NFRs in i* are mapped to

RAD in terms of speciﬁc types of actions, i.e., they

are addressed as functional elements.

[P03] “A Combined Approach for Supporting the

Business Process Model Lifecycle” (Koliadis et al.,

2006): this approach addresses the management of

process change throughout the BPM lifecycle sup-

ported by combined notations. i* models are used

for the organizational context, representing strategic

goals, and BPMN for the operational context, rep-

resenting the process model. The authors’ intent is

to provide a way of expressing changes, which arise

in one model, effectively in the other model. With

this purpose, they present constrained development

methodologies capable of guiding an analyst when re-

ﬂecting changes from an i* model to a BPMN model

and vice-versa. As BPMN does not support the mod-

eling of NFRs, the softgoals speciﬁed using i* for the

An Analysis of Strategic Goals and Non-Functional Requirements in Business Process Management

267

organizational context cannot be mapped to the pro-

cess model. No clear direction is presented on the

treatment of NFRs through this approach.

[P04] “Requirements-driven Design and Con-

ﬁguration Management of Business Processes”

(Lapouchnian et al., 2007): this paper proposes to

use goal models to address process conﬁgurations and

tailor deployed process aiming to meet non-functional

requirements, which represent business priorities or

customer preferences. A technique similar to i* is

used to model strategic goals. NFRs are hence mod-

eled as softgoals in the goal models. Processes are

implemented through WS-BPEL and they are con-

ﬁgured considering the goal models, including their

softgoals. Like paper [P01], this approach does not

provide for an intermediate step of process modeling

prior to its implementation in WS-BPEL. The empha-

sis of this approach is on goal-driven process variabil-

ity. NFRs are not directly addressed at the process

level; instead, processes’ functional requirements are

conﬁgured (i.e., chosen) based on the goal models’

NFRs represented as softgoals.

[P05] “Business Process Management with the

User Requirements Notation” (Pourshahid et al.,

2009): this approach is based on URN extended with

KPI, including GRL for modeling goals and UCM for

modeling processes. A URN-based framework pro-

vides process monitoring and performance manage-

ment capabilities integrated across the BPM lifecy-

cle. KPIs are used to model NFRs linked to processes

models since they are not supported by UCM. In sum-

mary, GRL supports goals and softgoals, which are

used for the functional modeling of processes, and in

turn must be tied to KPIs representing its NFRs.

[P06] “Scenario-driven Approach for Business

Process Modeling” (Ruokonen et al., 2009): this

approach is formed by four steps: ﬁrst, the essential

business requirements, representing strategic goals,

are modeled as scenarios using UML sequence dia-

grams; then, the modeled scenarios are synthesized by

a UML state machine, which represents the process

model; next, the process model is translated into a

process skeleton using a UML activity diagram; and,

ﬁnally, the process skeleton is implemented in WS-

BPEL. Although NFRs is a concern which can be ad-

dressed by this approach, no clear direction is pre-

sented on their treatment through the approach steps.

NFRs can be modeled as exception behavior in sce-

narios but cannot be directly mapped to process mod-

els and hence need to be recovered and addressed only

during translation to process skeletons.

[P07] “Wiki-based Requirements Management for

Business Process Reengineering” (Abeti et al.,

2009): this paper presents an approach to manag-

ing both organizational and system requirements for

process reengineering. The proposed method uses re-

quirements acquired by a semantic wiki to partially

automate the translation from business requirements

description to processes and system artifacts. The se-

mantic wiki is built by means of Si* concepts which

include the modeling of NFRs as softgoals. Processes

are speciﬁed in terms of UML use case diagram (for

the static aspects) and BPMN (for the dynamic inter-

actions). In both UML use case diagram and BPMN,

it is not possible to model the NFRs. Therefore, the

Si* softgoals should be mapped to functional require-

ments at the process level.

[P08] “Rule based Business Process Optimization”

(Aghdasi and Malihi, 2010): these authors propose

process optimization through changing process model

with respect to business goals. KPI-based business

rules represent strategic goals, which are mapped to

rule-based processes. The authors are concerned with

achieving and maintaining strategic alignment by a

changing control. It breaks down business goals into

subgoals so that the desired performance measures

speciﬁed in KPIs are met in business rules. NFRs are

inherently addressed by the approach since it is pro-

posed as a single framework in which all the concepts

involved are systematized in a metamodel.

[P09] “Towards a Pattern-based Framework for

Goal-driven Business Process Modeling” (Behnam

et al., 2010): related to paper [P05], this paper pro-

poses a goal-driven, pattern-based framework to build

processes from organization goals while maintain-

ing traceability between them. Patterns are made

up of goal templates and process templates as well

as their relationships. As notations, URN/GRL and

URN/UCM are respectively used for modeling goals

and processes. Unlike paper [P05], KPIs are not used

here to model NFRs tied to processes models since

they are not supported by UCM. Thus, NFRs are ex-

plicitly addressed only as softgoals in GRL and not

explicitly addressed at the process level.

[P10] “Synthesizing Enterprise Strategic Model

and Business Processes in Active-i*” (Xu et al.,

2010): this paper proposes to combine goals and pro-

cess modeling through i* models and UML activity

diagrams. Potential synergy points between the i*

framework and UML activity diagrams are found by

matching and mapping the major concepts of their

metamodels. This approach aims at: identifying pro-

cesses out of business objectives, extracting business

goals through process abstraction, and identifying

mismatches between business goals and processes. A

combined metamodel is proposed in which both goals

elements (including softgoals) and process elements

are addressed together. This metamodel is presented

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

268

at a higher level of abstraction without presenting a

clear mapping between softgoals and processes.

[P11] “A Method for Eliciting Goals for Business

Process Models based on Non-functional Require-

ments Catalogues” (Cardoso et al., 2011): these au-

thors propose a systematic way of identifying organi-

zational goals for “as-is” process models. They pro-

pose using NFR catalogs, deﬁned by other authors,

to tackle the difﬁculty in identifying business goals

and softgoals to be later used in process modeling.

The approach is based on i* and Tropos. No spe-

ciﬁc notation is used to model processes. Per these

authors, their approach allows modeling processes

aligned with the business goals identiﬁed with the

support of the mentioned catalogs.

[P12] “Extending BPMN for Business Activity

Monitoring” (Friedenstab et al., 2011): this pa-

per proposes a BPMN extension that incorporates

BAM concepts which aims to represent KPIs’ real-

time scores for process activities. A metamodel was

built to systematically describe the aspects of the ex-

tension as well as the symbols added to BPMN to

represent KPIs. The authors recommend that KPIs

should be identiﬁed during the modeling phase in par-

allel with the functional requirements elicitation.

[P13] “An Integration Framework for Multi-

perspective Business Process Modeling” (Letsholo

et al., 2012): a multi-perspective integration frame-

work for process modeling is proposed to better align

organizational goals and processes. The proposed

framework is guided by the six models, proposed by

other authors, which covers the following concerns:

“what”, “how”, “where”, “who”, “when” and “why”).

The authors suggest the following techniques for pro-

cess modeling: (i) goal-oriented – i*, KAOS and

Tropos; (ii) data-oriented – entity-relationship model,

data ﬂow diagrams and UML class diagram; and (iii)

process-oriented – BPMN, IDEF3, UML activity di-

agrams, RAD and EPC. Each suggested technique

can be appropriate at different levels for each con-

cern presented. By this approach, NFRs are inher-

ently addressed when combining the techniques use-

ful for that although this is not explicitly addressed.

[P14] “Event-driven Manufacturing Process Man-

agement Approach” (Estruch and

Alvaro, 2012):

an approach is proposed to manage process through

an event-driven architecture based on BAM concepts.

The proposed approach is based on concepts such

as BAM, KPI and CEP. The notation used to model

processes is BPMN, which is extended to express

logic for both: processing complex events and evalu-

ating related KPIs. NFRs are addressed through CEP

and KPIs which are embedded in BPMN representing

both strategic goals and processes’ NFRs.

[P15] “A Bi-directional Mapping between i* and

BPMN Models in the Context of Business Process

Management” (Alves et al., 2013): this paper ex-

tends the paper [P03] by reﬁning the proposed heuris-

tics to obtain i* models from BPMN models beyond

BPMN from i*. Similar to the paper [P03], the map-

ping from BPMN to i* also addresses NFRs only in-

directly. As NFRs are not modeled in BPMN, they

should be inferred by searching quality attributes re-

lated to the activities performed by the participants.

[P16] “Making a Link between Strategy and Pro-

cess Model Collections: A Multi-layered Ap-

proach” (Dallilo et al., 2014): this paper proposes a

multi-level approach, including a multi-layered meta-

model, which extends BPMN and links strategic goals

with an organization’s collection processes, based on

the Business Motivation Model (BMM) and BPMN.

KPIs link the BMM and BPMN levels. While BPM

represents the strategic goals, BPMN represents the

process modeled to address such goals. KPIs system-

atically models the indicators responsible for assess-

ing if the process execution is meeting the strategic

goals.

[P17] “Modeling Organizational Alignment”

(Sousa and Leite, 2014): this paper proposes a

conceptual model that merges i*, BPMN and KPI.

The i* models are used to interconnect the other

two. KPIs are linked only to the goals (including

the softgoals that represent NFRs), detailing them

by expressing what is necessary to satisfy them.

Accordingly, NFRs are not directly addressed at the

process level through BPMN. KPIs only insert an

implicit link of traceability that helps identify crucial

elements in the process.

[P18] “Combining Modelling and Simulation Ap-

proaches: How to Measure Performance of Busi-

ness Processes” (Bisogno et al., 2016): a method

is proposed to analyze and improve operational per-

formance of processes. The proposed method em-

ploys BPMN and Business Processes Simulation (BP-

Sim) to measure KPIs. Like paper [P09], this work

uses an inverse approach comparing to other ap-

proaches, i.e., strategic goals (speciﬁed as KPIs) are

obtained from process models (modeled in BPMN)

rather than the other way around. Based on process

models, operational performance can then be mea-

sured using BPSim. The method allows testing of

process designs and quantiﬁed measurement of vari-

ations in operational performance through four pre-

deﬁned KPIs. The only mapping between NFR and

BPMN is through the four KPIs which should be

modeled based on the process model evaluation.

[P19] “A Framework for Systematic Analysis and

Modeling of Trustworthiness Requirements using

An Analysis of Strategic Goals and Non-Functional Requirements in Business Process Management

269

i* and BPMN” (Mohammadi and Heisel, 2016):

this paper proposes a framework for analyzing and

modeling user-centered trustworthiness requirements.

These authors use goal models to capture users’ trust

strategic goals, which should motivate design deci-

sions with respect to trustworthiness. These authors

use i* for goal modeling and BPMN for process mod-

eling. The framework supports the reﬁnement of

softgoals right up to the elicitation of correspond-

ing trustworthiness requirements. Trustworthiness-

related NFRs are ﬁrstly speciﬁed as softgoals in i* and

mapped to BPMN, which has been extended to allow

annotations capable of representing such NFRs.

6 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

This section presents a discussion of our study’s over-

all outcomes. First, Figure 2 shows the distribution

of the 19 selected papers in relation to the publica-

tion year. One can see a low number of found papers,

but steadily since 2009. Considering the importance

of strategic alignment for organizations as well as the

importance of the support provided by BPM in this

context, one could expect a larger number of works

related to this research topic. This low number is

probably reﬂex of the negligence commonly associ-

ated to NFRs in this and similar contexts.

Figure 2: Distribution of papers by publication year.

Our main result is the absence of approaches that

fully meet the research problem that motivated this lit-

erature review. Our primary goal was to ﬁnd research

papers proposing some approach to model business

processes’ NFR based on organizational strategic

goals. Per our analysis, no approach has been pro-

posed speciﬁcally for this purpose. Aiming to support

our ﬁndings, Table 2 presents the main characteristics

of the works found and analyzed in Section 5.

As for “strategic goal modeling”, we found eight

techniques used for this purpose in the 19 evaluated

papers. Figure 3 summarizes the techniques used to

model strategic goals. Two techniques stand out: i*

and KPI, respectively present in 47% and 37% of the

papers. Tropos and URN/GRL (the third and forth

most used technique) as well as Si* are associated

with the i* framework, which highlights the impor-

tance of i* for this context. All three other techniques

are used in no more than one paper each. Per Table 2,

one can verify that, for most of the approaches found,

NFRs are modeled at the goal level through the soft-

goal concept (cf. column “NFRs at goal level”). Soft-

goals are used in 13 papers (of the total of 19 papers),

for which goal modeling is always performed with

i* or some i*-related technique. We were expecting

to ﬁnd KPI as the most used technique instead of i*,

since KPI is highly known and used in both industry

and academia. Either way, both technique are widely

used and well distributed in time terms for the period

considered. On the other hand, BSC did not occur in

any of the 19 papers found, although it is also widely

used in industry and in scientiﬁc research.

Figure 3: Techniques used to model strategic goals.

As for “business process modeling”, we found

nine techniques used for this purpose in the 19 evalu-

ated papers. Figure 4 summarizes the techniques used

to model business processes. Corroborating to our ini-

tial expectation, BPMN is notably the most widely

used technique used to model business processes in

this context, present in 53% of the papers. The sec-

ond most widely used technique is UML Activity Di-

agrams, present in 16% of the papers. BPMN is the

most popular notation used to model business pro-

cesses while UML Activity Diagrams is the most pop-

ular technique used to model internal software pro-

cesses. All seven other techniques are used in no more

than two papers each. There are also three papers that

do not mention any particular modeling technique.

Per Table 2, NFRs are not modeled at the process

level for most of works (cf. column “NFRs at process

level”). In ﬁve works, KPI are used to model NFRs

at both goal and process levels. In fact, KPIs are used

to model NFRs in an integrated way for both perspec-

tives. Therefore, there is no direct way of modeling

business processes’ NFRs even for these works.

Figure 4: Techniques used to model business processes.

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

270

Table 2: Summary of the main characteristics of the 19 selected works.

Id Strategic goal modeling Business process modeling Goals’ NFRs Processes’ NFRs

P01 Tropos [None] Softgoals [None]

P02 i* RAD Softgoals [None]

P03 i* BPMN Softgoals [None]

P04 i* [None] Softgoals [None]

P05 KPI, URN/GRL URN/UCM Softgoals + KPI [None]

P06 Sequence diagram Activity diagram, FSM Exception behavior [None]

P07 Si* BPMN, Use cases diagram Softgoals [None]

P08 KPI Rule-based KPI KPI

P09 URN/GRL URN/UCM Softgoals [None]

P10 i* Activity diagram Softgoals [None]

P11 i*, Tropos [None] Softgoals [None]

P12 KPI BPMN KPI KPI

P13 i*, Tropos, KAOS BPMN, Activity diag., RAD, EPC, IDEEF3 [Several] [Several]

P14 KPI, BAM BPMN KPI KPI

P15 i* BPMN Softgoals [None]

P16 KPI BPMN KPI KPI

P17 i*, KPI BPMN Softgoals + KPI [None]

P18 KPI BPMN KPI KPI

P19 i* BPMN Softgoals Annotation

Figure 5 presents a cross-analysis between goal

modeling and process modeling through overlapping

Figures 3 and 4. We found 39 combinations between

a technique to model strategic goals and a technique

to model business processes for Figure 5. The number

of occurrences for each combination is shown within

each circle; larger circles represent a larger number

of occurrences for the respective combination. For

example, two occurrences were found for the com-

bination of i* and RAD. Aligned to Figures 3 and

4, the most widely combinations in this context are

“i* with BPMN” and “KPI with BPMN”, represent-

ing together 26% of found combinations. As for the

other combinations, four are related to some other

goal modeling technique used with BPMN whereas

ten are related to i* or KPI used with some other pro-

cess modeling technique, which represents more 36%

of found combinations. The other 38% refers to com-

binations not involving KPI, i* or BPMN.

Although different techniques were found for both

goal modeling and process modeling, Table 2 indi-

cates the evolution of each one. In terms of goal mod-

eling, i* and KPI are undoubtedly the most used tech-

niques since 2010. On the other hand, in terms of

process modeling, BPMN is practilly the only tech-

nique used in this context since 2011. Therefore, al-

though we did not identify any approach that com-

pletely addresses the modeling of business processes’

NFR based on strategic goals, one can infer that the

way to reach this end, as indicated in the literature,

would be to deﬁne an approach based on i* or KPI

for goal modeling and BPMN for process modeling.

7 CONCLUSION

This paper presented the results of a literature study

conducted to identify and evaluate approaches that

propose the use of strategic goals as support for mod-

eling business processes’ NFRs. To the best of our

knowledge, no previous study has been carried out

with this speciﬁc goal as presented here.

We identiﬁed 19 works addressing strategic goals,

business processes, and NFRs at some level. The

most commonly used techniques are: i* and KPI for

goal modeling and BPMN for process modeling. Al-

though we found partial solutions, no approach fully

addresses business processes’ NFR based on strategic

goals which was our primary research question. Nev-

ertheless, considering the evolution of the techniques

found, we concluded that the indicated way to reach

this end is by deﬁning an approach based on i* or KPI

for goal modeling and BPMN for process modeling.

Our conclusions were obtained from the experi-

mental maturity of the 19 evaluated works. The eval-

uation was primarily qualitative, based on the main

information presented in each paper. In quantitative

terms, we did not produce any strong statistical evi-

dence considering the small sample of found works

which could not allow in-depth quantitative analyses.

In terms of future work, we plan to use the in-

formation obtained from this review to assist in the

proposal of a new approach to address the strategic

alignment between business and IT with BPM as sup-

port. Our proposal should fully address business pro-

cesses’ NFR based on strategic goals through a com-

bination between KPI and BPMN, considering they

are the techniques most widely used in this context.

An Analysis of Strategic Goals and Non-Functional Requirements in Business Process Management

271

Figure 5: Cross-analysis between techniques to model strategic goals and techniques to model business processes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the S

ao Paulo Research

Foundation, Brazil, under grant 2015/16615-0.

REFERENCES

Abeti, L., Ciancarini, P., and Moretti, R. (2009). Wiki-

based requirements management for business process

reengineering. In ICSE Works. on Wikis for Soft. En-

gin., pages 14–24. IEEE.

Aghdasi, M. and Malihi, S. (2010). Rule based business

process optimization. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Indust.

Engin. and Engin. Manag., pages 305–309. IEEE.

Alotaibi, Y. (2014). Business process modelling challenges

and solutions: A literature review. J. of Intel. Manu-

fac., 27(4):1–23.

Alves, R., Silva, C., and Castro, J. (2013). A bi-directional

mapping between i and BPMN models in the con-

text of business process management. In Requir. En-

gin.@Brazil, pages 27.1–27.6. CEUR.

Behnam, S. A., Amyot, D., and Mussbacher, G. (2010). To-

wards a pattern-based framework for goal-driven busi-

ness process modeling. In 8th ACIS Int. Conf. on

Soft. Engin. Res., Manag. and Applic., pages 137–145.

IEEE.

Biolchini, J., Mian, P. G., Natali, A. C. C., and Travassos,

G. H. (2005). Systematic review in software engineer-

ing. Technical Report RT-ES 679/05, PESC - COPPE,

UFRJ, Brazil.

Bisogno, S., Calabrese, A., Gastaldi, M., and Levialdi Ghi-

ron, N. (2016). Combining modelling and simulation

approaches: How to measure performance of business

processes. Bus. Proc. Manag. J., 22(1):56–74.

Bleistein, S., Cox, K., Verner, J., and Phalp, K. (2006). B-

SCP: A requirements analysis framework for validat-

ing strategic alignment of organizational IT based on

strategy, context, and process. Inform. and Soft. Tech.,

48(9):846–868.

Bocciarelli, P. and D’Ambrogio, A. (2014). A model-driven

method for enacting the design-time QoS analysis of

business processes. Soft. and Syst. Model., 13(2):573–

598.

Cardoso, E. C. S., Almeida, J. P. A., Guizzardi, R. S. S., and

Guizzardi, G. (2011). A method for eliciting goals for

business process models based on non-functional re-

quirements catalogues. Int. J. of Inform. Syst. Model.

and Design, 2(2):1–18.

Charﬁ, A. and Zhi, H. (2015). Aspect-based realization of

non-functional concerns in business processes. In 3rd

Int. Conf. on Netw. Syst., pages 140–154. Springer.

Chung, L., Nixon, B. A., Yu, E., and Mylopoulos, J. (2000).

Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineer-

ing. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1 edition.

Dallilo, F., De Albuquerque, J., and Fantinato, M. (2014).

Making a link between strategy and process model

collections: A multi-layered approach. In Int. Conf.

on Soft. Engin. and Knowl. Engin., pages 387–392.

de Bruin, T. and Rosemann, M. (2006). Towards under-

standing strategic alignment of business process man-

agement. In 17th Austral. Conf. on Inform. Syst.,

pages 82.01–82.11. AIS.

De Bruin, T. and Rosemann, M. (2006). Towards under-

standing strategic alignment of business process man-

agement. In 17th Austral. Conf. on Inf. Syst., pages

6–8. AAIS.

de Oca, I. M.-M., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H. A., and

Rodr

ıguez-Morfﬁ, A. (2015). A systematic literature

review of studies on business process modeling qual-

ity. Inform. and Soft. Tech., 58:187–205.

Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., and Reijers, H. A.

(2013). Fundamentals of business process manage-

ment. Springer.

Estruch, A. and

Alvaro, J. A. H. (2012). Event-driven man-

ufacturing process management approach. In 10th Int.

Conf. on Bus. Proc. Manag., pages 120–133. Springer.

Fantinato, M., de Souza, I. M. G., and Toledo, M. B. F.

(2010). Product line in the business process manage-

ment domain. In Kang, K. C., Sugumaran, V., and

Park, S., editors, Applied Software Product Line Engi-

neering, chapter 20, pages 497–530. Auerbach Public.

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

272

Friedenstab, J.-P., Janiesch, C., Matzner, M., and Mller, O.

(2011). Extending bpmn for business activity monitor-

ing. In Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on Syst. Sci., pages

4158–4167. IEEE.

Friedenstab, J.-P., Janiesch, C., Matzner, M., and M

uller, O.

(2012). Extending BPMN for business activity moni-

toring. In 45th Hawaii Int. Conf. on Syst. Sci., pages

4158–4167. IEEE.

Henderson, J. C. and Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strate-

gic alignment: Leveraging information technology for

transforming organizations. IBM Syst. J., 32(1):4–16.

Janes, A. and Faganel, A. (2013). Instruments and methods

for the integration of company’s strategic goals and

key performance indicators. Kybernetes, 42(6):928–

942.

Kazhamiakin, R., Pistore, M., and Roveri, M. (2004).

A framework for integrating business processes and

business requirements. In Int. Enterp. Dist. Object

Comp. Works., pages 9–20. IEEE.

Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for per-

forming systematic literature reviews in software en-

gineering. Technical Report EBSE 2007-001, Keele

University and University of Durham, UK.

Kocbek, M., Jost, G., Hericko, M., and Polancic, G.

(2015). Business process model and notation: The

current state of affairs. Comp. Sci. and Inform. Syst.,

12(2):509–539.

Koliadis, G., Vranesevic, A., Bhuiyan, M., Krishna, A., and

Ghose, A. (2006). A combined approach for support-

ing the business process model lifecycle. In 10th Pa-

ciﬁc Asia Conf. on Inform. Syst., page 76. AIS.

Lapouchnian, A., Yu, Y., and Mylopoulos, J. (2007).

Requirements-driven design and conﬁguration man-

agement of business processes. In 5th Int. Conf. on

Bus. Proc. Manag., pages 246–261. Springer.

Lee, Y.-C., Chu, P.-Y., and Tseng, H.-L. (2011). Cor-

porate performance of ICT-enabled business pro-

cess re-engineering. Indust. Manag. & Data Syst.,

111(5):735–754.

Leite, L. A., Oliva, G. A., Nogueira, G. M., Gerosa, M. A.,

Kon, F., and Milojicic, D. S. (2013). A systematic

literature review of service choreography adaptation.

Serv. Orient. Comp. and Applic., 7(3):199–216.

Letsholo, K., Chioasca, E.-V., and Zhao, L. (2012). An

integration framework for multi-perspective business

process modeling. In 9th Int. Conf. on Serv. Comp.,

pages 33–40. IEEE.

Mili, H., Tremblay, G., Jaoude, G. B., Lefebvre,

E., Elabed,

L., and Boussaidi, G. E. (2010). Business process

modeling languages: Sorting through the alphabet

soup. ACM Comp. Surv., 43(1):4.

Mohammadi, N. G. and Heisel, M. (2016). A framework

for systematic analysis and modeling of trustworthi-

ness requirements using i* and BPMN. In 13th Int.

Conf. on Trust, Priv. and Sec. in Dig. Bus., pages 3–

18. Springer.

Parmenter, D. (2015). Key performance indicators: Devel-

oping, implementing, and using winning KPIs. John

Wiley & Sons.

osch, R., Pomberger, G., and Stallinger, F. (2011). Soft-

ware engineering strategies: Aligning software pro-

cess improvement with strategic goals. In 11th Int.

Conf. on Soft. Proc. Improv. and Capab. Determ.,

pages 221–226. Springer.

Poels, G., Decreus, K., Roelens, B., and Snoeck, M. (2013).

Investigating goal-oriented requirements engineering

for business processes. J. of Datab. Manag., 24(2):35–

71.

Pourshahid, A., Amyot, D., Peyton, L., Ghanavati, S., Chen,

P., Weiss, M., and Forster, A. J. (2009). Business pro-

cess management with the user requirements notation.

Elec. Comm. Research, 9(4):269–316.

Pourshahid, A., Amyot, D., Shamsaei, A., Mussbacher, G.,

and Weiss, M. (2012). A systematic review and as-

sessment of aspect-oriented methods applied to busi-

ness process adaptation. J. of Soft., 7(8):1816–1826.

Pressman, R. S. (2009). Software engineering: a practi-

tioner’s approach.

Ruokonen, A., Pajunen, L., and Syst

a, T. (2009). Scenario-

driven approach for business process modeling. In

IEEE Int. Conf. on Web Serv., pages 123–130. IEEE.

Salles, G. B. and Fantinato, M. (2012). An

alise da

incorporac¸

ao de requisitos n

ao funcionais na mode-

lagem de processos de neg

ocio. In VIII Simp. Bras. de

Sist. de Inf., pages 79–90.

Salles, G. B. M., Fantinato, M., Nishijima, M., and Al-

buquerque, J. P. (2013). A contribution to organiza-

tional and operational strategic alignment: Incorpo-

rating business level agreements into business process

modeling. In 10th Int. Conf. on Serv. Comp., pages

17–24. IEEE.

Shamsaei, A., Amyot, D., and Pourshahid, A. (2011). A

systematic review of compliance measurement based

on goals and indicators. In 4th Int. Works. on Govern.,

Risk and Compl.: Applic. in Inform. Syst., pages 228–

237. Springer.

Sommerville, I. (2010). Software Engineering. Addison-

Wesley, 9th edition.

Sousa, H. and Leite, J. (2014). Modeling organizational

alignment. In 33rd Int. Conf. on Concep. Model.,

pages 407–414. Springer.

Tallon, P. P. (2008). Inside the adaptive enterprise: An in-

formation technology capabilities perspective on busi-

ness process agility. Inform. Tech. and Manag.,

9(1):21–36.

van der Aalst, W. M. P., Hofstede, A. T., and Weske, M.

(2003). Business process management: A survey.

pages 1–12. Springer.

Weske, M. (2012). Business Process Management.

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2 edition.

Wetzstein, B., Leitner, P., Rosenberg, F., Brandic, I., Dust-

dar, S., and Leymann, F. (2009). Monitoring and an-

alyzing inﬂuential factors of business process perfor-

mance. In IEEE Int. Enterp. Dist. Object Comp. Conf.,

pages 141–150. IEEE.

Xu, T., Ma, W., Liu, L., and Karagiannis, D. (2010). Syn-

thesizing enterprise strategic model and business pro-

cesses in active-i*. In IEEE Int. Enterp. Dist. Object

Comp. Works., pages 345–354. IEEE.

Yu, E. S. K., Mylopoulos, J., and Lesp

erance, Y. (1996).

AI models for business process reengineering. IEEE

Expert, 11(4):16–23.

An Analysis of Strategic Goals and Non-Functional Requirements in Business Process Management

273