Using Process Indicators to Help the Verification of Goal Fulfillment

Henrique P. de Sá Sousa

1,2

, Vanessa T. Nunes

, Claudia Cappelli

Renata Guizzardi

and Julio Cesar S. P. Leite

Departamento de Matemática, UFRRJ, Seropédica, RJ, Brazil

Departamento de Informática, PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Departamento de Ciência da Computação, UnB, Brasília, DF, Brazil

Departamento de Informática Aplicada, UNIRIO, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Departamento de Informática, UFES, Vitória, ES, Brazil

Keywords: Alignment, Business Process, Business Goal, and BPM.

Abstract: Process modelling is often criticized as lacking proper alignment with business goals. Although there is

literature on different proposals to address the issue, the verification of this alignment remains an obstacle

during process enactment. We make use of key process indicator (KPI) in a process design method to

annotate processes/activities with proper information. The method derives this information from the

business goals and uses it to calculate process indicators. We demonstrate through a real example, modelled

with the ARIS business process model tool, how the method produces proper indicators, which should be

used during process enactment.

1 INTRODUCTION

Business processes models allow the organization to

document information about how it works and help

monitoring organizational development,

modifications and evolutions, in an effective way.

Business processes translate inputs into outputs

creating products, while aiming at achieving goals.

Therefore, we may infer organizational goals

through its processes goals. However, the relation

between processes and goals are not always explicit

and such relations are in general, difficult to

determine.

In order to verify process-goal alignment, it is

not enough to determine the relationship of goals

and processes in a model. It is necessary to define

which elements in the process can help us check if

these alignments are correct and consistent within

the organizations. This is discussed in profusion in

academia, (Guizzardi and Reis, 2015), (Sousa and

Leite, 2014), (Cardoso et al., 2011), (Cappelli et al.,

2010), (Behnam, 2010), (Braubach et al., 2010),

(Singh and Woo, 2009), (Soffer and Wand, 2005)

and (Kueng and Kawalek, 1997), but the state of

practice is still far from these proposals. Difficulties

are numerous, from lack of understanding of the

appropriate level of goals’ abstraction, exacerbated

focus on operational layer, the lack of and effective

ability to measure goals achievement through

business processes execution, to the absence of

appropriate computer support (Cardoso et al., 2011),

(Behnam, 2010), (Braubach et al., 2010), (Singh and

Woo, 2009).

This is particularly present in the scenario of

organizations that model their processes without

identifying and organizing their goals beforehand.

Another issue is that the majority of the business

process model tools available in the market, such as

ARIS tool (ARIS, 2016), while enabling a goal

macro viewpoint through a relation between goal

diagrams and value-chain models, still have different

sort of problems. Some of these problems are: (i)

lack of differentiation between functional and non-

functional goals; (ii) difficulty in identifying

whether the process has activities that when

performed satisfactorily comply with desired goals;

(iii) difficulty in identifying process activities in

which the artefacts used to measure the goals are

produced; (iv) difficult in identifying the actors

responsible or involved in meeting specific goals (in

particular, strategic ones).

The imprecise definition of these elements is due

to the low expression of the goal modelling

languages adopted by these tools. These limitations

Sousa, H., Nunes, V., Cappelli, C., Guizzardi, R. and Leite, J.

Using Process Indicators to Help the Veriﬁcation of Goal Fulﬁllment.

DOI: 10.5220/0006239303450352

In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2017) - Volume 3, pages 345-352

ISBN: 978-989-758-249-3

345

contribute negatively by decreasing, for example,

the ability to assess project risks, the identification

of possible points of failure, the mitigation of

impacts on processes and goals changes, and often

even the prevention of the projection of most

appropriate solutions in a timely manner to attend

internal and external demands.

In this context, this paper presents a method

based on the relationship among goal models,

business processes models, and key performance

indicators (KPIs) to enhance the support for the

analysis of the alignment between processes and

goals. KPI’s are elements that can measure the

achievement of a goal and is calculated using

information produced during process execution. This

analysis enables the verification of business process

capability in producing the information necessary

for the calculation of process indicators, which

allows the verification of goals fulfilment. Thereby,

we seek to provide a solution for the alignment

between process and goal to be obtained and

analysed satisfactorily; avoiding the difficulties

mentioned and allowing the organization to

effectively ensure that processes are modelled in

order to achieve its strategic goals. An overall

strategy related to this proposal was presented in

(Sousa and Leite, 2014), which summarizes Sousa's

dissertation (Sousa, 2012). In this paper, we focus on

the information needed to treat indicators as part of

business processes in the ARIS framework.

The proposed method was used in an industry

real case study, using ARIS platform and supported

by the development of a "script" on ARIS Design

platform, which enables the automation of the

proposed analysis. At the end, a final report

containing information about all the elements

involved is presented (e.g., actors, activities,

information, indicators, goals and processes).

This paper is organized as follows: Section 2

presents related works, Section 3 shows the proposal

and the method used in this work, Section 4 apply

the method in a real scenario, Section 5 explain how

the method was automated in ARIS tool and Section

6 presents conclusions and future works.

2 RELATED WORK

This is not a new issue. Some proposed ideas

indicate forms of organization, formal establishment

and practices for the implementation and evaluation

of the alignment between processes and goals.

Kueng and Kawalek (1997) presented a

methodology to model and evaluate processes at a

conceptual level that supports the specification of

goals and the fundamental purpose of a designed

system. To do so, one ought to (a) define the goals

related to the business process, goal measurement

criteria and constraints; (b) derive and define the

business activities; (c) describe and define roles; and

(d) model the objects that will contain the obtained

information. Although the authors’ aims are

correlated to our, they don´t focus on what is

required for the goals to be systematically measured.

They pose a strong focus on the relation among

goals, activities and how to support process

automation through an object-oriented approach.

An extensively used approach is the Balance

Score Card (BSC) (Kaplan et al, 1996) that guides

organizations on how to translate its mission and

strategy into goals. BSC establishes a

comprehensive set of performance measures that,

when associated to business processes allow the

alignment checking between goals and processes.

However, it is not possible to find out the alignment

between goals and processes.

OMG developed the Business Motivation Model

(BMM) (OMG, 2008), which seeks to provide a

framework for the development, communication and

management of business goals by identifying the

factors that motivate their establishment and the

elements that are part of business plans. The model

presents how these elements and goals are

interrelated through policies and business rules.

Thus, a BMM model seeks to answer, primarily, to

two major questions: a) what is required to achieve

organization’s desires? b) why does each element in

the business plan exist? Although supporting a

person to answer these two questions, BMM does

not try to identify which are the processes and or

activities achieved by each goal.

Other researchers as (OMG, 2008), (Almeida and

Guizzardi, 2008), (Kavakli and Loucopoulos, 2006),

(Yu et al., 2006), (Bresciani et al., 2004), (Liu and

Yu, 2004), (Cysneiros et al., 2003), (Guizzardi et al.,

2003), (Yu, 1996), (Davenport, 1993), have shown

the representation of intentionality in the process

models as a possible solution in order to guarantee

the alignment between goals and business processes.

The explicitness of intentionality seeks to represent

the dependencies between processes and the actors'

needs and desires. It is believed that through this

kind of representation, one can ensure alignment

between goals and processes. However, these works

do not respond what to do with the tons of goal and

process models that are currently already part of the

organizations’ model repositories. Our work on the

other hand may be applied to pre-existing goal and

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

346

process models.

Some approaches focus on the alignment among

different methodologies and tools as Koliadis (2006)

who proposes methodologies to guide analysts to

reflect changes in a i* model (Yu, 1996) (that

represents goals models) into a model using

Business Process Model Notation (BPMN) (that

represent process models) and vice versa. Neiger

and Churilov (2004) follow the same line describing

a framework for integrating business processes

(modelled in ARIS using event-driven process chain

– EPC - notation) and goals (modelled on VFT

framework - Value Focused Thinking - of decision

sciences). These works are interesting especially

because the proposed methods can be applied in

both directions (i.e. goals to processes and processes

to goals). However, the alignment is intuitively

indicated rather than presumed by the indicators, as

in our work. In this respect, we believe our work

provides stronger proof of alignment than the cited

ones.

Other approaches propose the implementation of

part of the methodology through the analysis of the

models generated by various methods, but with

technological constraints that currently do not meet

market needs, such as the one proposed by Halleux

et al. (2008).

Researchers such as Nurcan et al., (2005)

propose a reformulation on the way of thinking in

processes through process modelling oriented to

maps that consist of a representation system based

on intentions and strategies. This map is able to

abstract from business processes details to

emphasize organizational goals and their

satisfaction. Although it is extremely interesting

from a strategic point of view, its use in

organizations requires a reformulation in the way

processes are modelled.

del-Río-Ortega et al. (2012) proposed the

PPINOT metamodel that is based on Process

Performance Indicators (PPI) which are linked to

process elements. In our approach we depart from

the detailment of goals requirements in terms of

business process elements that are used to express

goal satisfaction.

Guizzard et al. (2015) proposed a method that

supports the identification of the activities in a

business process that satisfy organization’s goals.

This work focuses on the alignment between

processes and goals in the operational level by

translating process models into i* models. We go

further into exploring this alignment using indicators

and analysing the existence of the necessary

information to verify goals-process alignment in

their original notation.

For all seen, there are still gaps regarding a

precise verification of operational processes models

to be considered suitable for a performance analysis

in relation to its intended goals. We are convinced

that procedural BPM methods are useful and more

naturally elicited from stakeholders. We understand

that our proposal, by integrating business process

models with goal models, will profit from the fact

that several organizations have their business

processes modelled.

3 THE PROPOSAL

In ARIS, the Organizational Value Chain is

composed by macro processes that can be

decomposed into other processes. A process can

contribute to the achievement of one or more

organizational goals. All defined goals must be

related to at least one process.

Each existing goal in an organization (regardless

of the level of abstraction) requires that a set of

conditions be satisfied in order to the goal can be

considered fulfilled. The term "condition" refers, for

example, to the development of a product, to a

process status, to the production of some

information, to the triggering of a specific event or

anything that can be reached from the execution of a

process. These conditions (or set of conditions)

expected by a goal are defined by elements named as

"indicators". When indicators are linked to goals

they express the conditions that must be reached in

order to consider the goal satisfied. When

interconnected with processes they represent the

conditions that are expected to be reached by a

process instance. There is a smoothly difference,

based on the level of abstraction and perspective.

The business process is accomplished by

executing a set of activities. The successful

conclusion of the process is entirely related to the

production of the necessary conditions for fulfilment

of their goals. That is, the process is responsible for

producing all the expected conditions in order to

achieve the goals related to it. The production of

these conditions is closely linked to the different

states and transformation of information that is

processed during the execution of activities.

As the natural execution of the process generates

the different conditions necessary to achieve the

goals of the process, it is understood that the

indicators must be defined according to the

production of these elements during their execution.

The elements produced by the process are vestiges

Using Process Indicators to Help the Veriﬁcation of Goal Fulﬁllment

347

that indicate if the process actually produced what is

expected, which is defined by the indicators.

Therefore, the elements that are needed to

calculate an indicator are produced in the process

(generally modelled as a product (output) of the

activities). Considering these elements, we

addressed the pre-conditions necessary for the

enactment of a given indicator. Namely, if there is

an absence of information necessary for a given

indicator at design time, we report the possibility of

misalignment among goals and processes.

As such, our work presents a method that checks

the possibility of fulfilment of the goals of a

business process, at design time, making possible a

future analysis of the information generated during

process execution.

3.1 The Method

The proposed method has 5 phases as presented

below:

1. Identify the goals of the process: list the goals

that must be achieved by the process.

2. Identify the purpose of the indicator: define

KPIs that must express the goals satisfaction.

3. Identify the target for the indicator: Identify the

targets for each process goal.

4. Correlate information to calculate the indicator:

Identify and list information needed to

calculate each indicator.

5. Identify the sources of information needed to

calculate the indicator: Check if the

information needed to calculate each KPI are

produced in the related processes or comes

from other processes.

In summary, the proposed method allows the

verification of whether the process produces the

necessary information to calculate the indicators

related to process goals. If so, business process and

goals models are said to be aligned. However, if

some information is missing, then a potential

misalignment between process and goals is reported.

3.2 The Method through ARIS Tool

Figure 1a shows a VAC (Value Added Chain) model

using ARIS tool. It consists of a business process

that is decomposed into two sub-processes: Process

1 and Process 2. Process 1 has its identified goals

(goals 1 and 2). Figure 1b shows the KPIs 1 and 2 of

Goals 1 and 2 respectively and information used to

calculate each KPI. The alignment between goals

and indicators is done by checking where in the

process the information required for calculating

KPIs is produced. Process activities (Figure 1c) are

modelled in EPC language. Process 1 has two roles

(Role 1 and 2) and comprises three activities

(Activities 1, 2 and 3). There is also five information

entities (Information 5, 8 9, and 10). These

information entities are the data necessary to

calculate the KPI`s.

In ARIS tool, each activity can be detailed in its

operational level. Figure 2 (a, b, c) demonstrates

models of activities 1, 2 and 3 respectively,

containing roles, input and output information. The

rectangles represent input or output information

handled during process execution. Information

represented as a puzzles are the ones used to

calculate the KPI’s.

Figure 1: a) Business Process x Goal, b) Goal X Indicator

X Information, and c) Process 1 in detail.

Figure 2: Activities X roles X inputs X outputs.

By analysing the activities of the Process 1, it is

possible to verify that the information needed to

calculate KPI 1 is being produced by activities 1 and

3. However, KPI 2 cannot be calculated because

information 9 and 10 are not being produced by

process 1. Therefore, Process 1 can be verified only

in relation to Goal 1. The method permits to verify if

the process represents or even produces the

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

348

necessary information to calculate the indicators

related to its goals.

4 APPLICATION IN A REAL

SCENARIO

In order to validate the proposed method, it was

applied in the process "Manage requests of project

practices support" of the IT department of a large

Brazilian oil and gas company. This process is

responsible for the analysis, prioritization,

implementation and monitoring of the demands that

come from the organization's business areas to the

Support Department related to Project Practices

(SPP). The process model, in ARIS, comprises 56

activities and is, therefore, too long to be displayed

in its entirety. Thus, its summary is described below:

The process begins with the identification of a

needed SPP service by the customer, who makes

his/her request. Next, the client's business area

manager has the possibility to inform whether he/she

wants to approve all requests from his/her area, only

be notified about the requests or even not being

notified. Upon arriving at the SPP, the demand is

received by the manager, who defines its nature and

decides if the demand can be attended by SPP. Then,

the effort to attend the demand is estimated (in terms

of man-hour) and the demand is analysed by a

responsible in charge, depending on the estimated

value (in HH or cost). If approved, the demand

returns to the manager who will delegate tasks to

performers and monitor the execution of the

attendance. Upon execution, the service is validated

by a validation group. It is approved or not by the

client and at the end he/she fills out a questionnaire

to evaluate the service.

The process "Manage requests of project

practices support" has two goals (defined by the

organization): "Ensure efficiency in attending SPP

demands" and "Ensure the management of SPP

demands attendance process". Due to space reasons,

only the alignment of the first goal is presented in

this section. To be achieved, this goal ought to be

measured, hence indicators (defined by the

organization) are used with this aim. Figure 3 shows

the four indicators necessary to verify the fulfilment

of this goal and the information used in their

calculation. The indicators are: "Adequacy and level

of plan attendance", "Time spent with planning",

"Compliance with effort estimates" and

"Compliance with data estimates". Each of these

indicators is calculated based on two or more

information. For example, the indicator

"Compliance with effort estimates" is calculated

based on the "Estimated effort" and "Real effort".

Figure 3: Indicators X Information of process “Manage

requests of project practices support”

Each indicator has associated with it a

calculation method (defined by the organization).

Table 1 shows each calculation method of the

indicators shown in Figure 3.

To check whether the alignment between the

process "Manage requests of project practices

support" and the goal "Ensure efficiency in attending

SPP demands" exists, it is necessary to identify if the

indicators related to this goal can effectively be

calculated during process execution. To this end, the

information used to calculate this indicator should

result from the execution of activities of that

process.

Table 1: Indicators X Calculation Method.

Indicator Calculation Method

Adequacy and

level of plan

attendance

Does not apply. The manager defines

the adequacy (low, medium or high)

and the level of depth (low, medium or

high) according to his/her experience

in attending demands and the SPP

historical information.

Time spent with

planning

TEMPL = (Planning Time / Estimated

effort) * 100

Compliance

with effort

estimates

EFFest-HH = (Real effort – Estimated

effort) / (Estimated effort) * 100

Compliance

with data

estimates

ESTIMATED_TIME = Estimated end

date – Estimated start date

REAL_TIME = Real end date – Real

start date

DATAest-T = (REAL_TIME –

ESTIMATED_TIME) /

ESTIMATED_TIME * 100

Taking the "Manage requests of project practices

support" process, we find three activities that

effectively provide the information for the

Using Process Indicators to Help the Veriﬁcation of Goal Fulﬁllment

349

calculation of these four indicators. They are

"Estimate demand," "Plan demand implementation"

and "Run demand tasks". These activities are

presented in Figure 4, Figure 5 and

Figure 6

Figure 4: “Estimate demand” activity model.

Figure 5: “Plan demand implementation” activity model.

Figure 6: “Run demand tasks” activity model.

Analysing the models, it is possible to verify

that:

 The indicator "Adequacy and level of plan

attendance" can be calculated based on the

information of adequacy and level of depth,

generated by the activity "Plan demand

implementation";

 The indicator "Time spent with planning" can

be calculated based on the information of the

time spent with the activity "Plan demand

implementation" and on the information of the

estimation effort generated in the activity

"Estimate demand."

 The "Compliance with effort estimates" can be

calculated based on the information of the

estimation effort resulting from the activity

"Estimating demand" and real effort, after the

"Run demand tasks" activity.

 The "Compliance with data estimates" can be

calculated based on the information of

estimated start date and estimated end date

generated in the activity "Plan demand

implementation" and the information of the

real start date and real end date obtained from

the "Run demand tasks" activity.

As all indicators can be calculated from

information obtained in the activities of the "Manage

requests of project practices support” process, then it

is concluded that this process is aligned with the

goal "Ensure efficiency in attending SPP demands”,

and as such, during execution time, it is possible to

calculate possible detours in the process concerning

this specific goal.

5 METHOD AUTOMATION IN

ARIS

The ARIS Business Architect tool has a module

called Script Editor, which is an environment for

script programming. This module offers a set of

specific functions for manipulating elements from

the ARIS database created in the modelling

activities. These scripts can be programed to

navigate through objects and models extracting the

existent information, however, it is also possible to

create elements and models in an automated way.

In the extraction of elements information, ARIS

provides as output files the following formats: RTF,

PDF, HTML, TXT, DOC, XLS and XML. These

reports can feed databases and support services.

The script for our proposal automation was

developed to produce spreadsheets containing

information about the elements. It can be started

from a goal or a process. First, the script checks for

missing elements that would prevent its

implementation. If everything is correct, the script

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

350

will tour the models and their objects, obtaining the

necessary information to fill in the fields of the

spreadsheet.

The report was developed in an XLS format. The

final XLS file has one spreadsheet for each element

(process or goal) involved and one containing

general summary.

Table 2 shows an example of spreadsheet

generated from the analysis applied in a process that

has a relationship with the "Goal 1" (Figure 1). The

information is ordered as follows:

Information about the process that started the

script – name, description, name of goals related

with the process, name of the goals valued by the

script, all the information present in the process.

Information about the goal valued – name,

description, list of indicators names present in the

goal model.

For each indicator related with the goal, the

spreadsheet has: name, description and name of the

necessary information to calculate the indicator

witch are present in the indicators diagram.

For each of group of information the spreadsheet

has: name, description, name of activities where the

information is present in the process, followed by

their roles.

Table 2: Results from process analysis for Goal 1.

Process

Name Process 1

Goal(s) Related Goal 1; Goal 2

Goal evaluated Goal 1

Information been used in the

process

Information 1;

Information 2;

Information 3;

Information 4;

Information 6;

Information 7;

Goal

Name Goal 1

Indicator(s) related KPI 1;

KPI

Name KPI 1

Information necessary to

calculate KPI 1

Information 5;

Information 8;

Information necessary to

calculate KPI 1

Name Information 5

Activity Activity 1; Activity 2;

Role(s) Role 1;

Information necessary to

calculate KPI 1

Name Information 8

Activity Activity 3;

Role(s) Role 2;

Conclusion

All necessary

information to calculate

KPI 1 is in the process.

Finally, a list of the information present in the

indicators model and related to the indicators of the

evaluated goal that were not found in the process are

presented. If all information were found, the

spreadsheet shows a message informing of this

condition. As such, being an automated way to

detected problems with verification of alignment

during design time.

This same information structure is presented in

the other spreadsheets, but the general spreadsheet

(containing the summary of the analysis) will be

created only if exists one more goal or process to be

analysed.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Using modelled processes that are not aligned to the

organizational goals is risky. After all, organizations

must keep up with their own strategies, besides

assuring that organizational processes work towards

achieving such strategies. Nevertheless, the current

scenario shows that BPM methods do not effectively

solve the misalignment problem between goals and

processes. In an attempt to provide a solution for

that, our research provides a method, which has been

used with success in a real case study. The

experience showed that the method supports the

analysis of goals and business alignment, helping the

analyst to identify if there is any need for

reengineering. The paper describes the method and

exemplifies it by means of a case study. As such, we

show that it is possible to detect problems during

design time that will impose obstacles to

misalignment detection at execution time.

As usual, in modelling approaches, it is

paramount to provide effective automated support.

We could achieve the needed results in our case

study, by applying scripts with a first cut prototype.

Nevertheless, in that case, we faced some limitations

due to the BPM suite adopted in the organization

and the fact that it is a proprietary system. For the

future, we plan to provide more sophisticated

support to the user on identifying and analysing the

impact of alignments and misalignments of goals

and processes. Moreover, we also aim at applying

this method in other studies to confirm our findings,

Using Process Indicators to Help the Veriﬁcation of Goal Fulﬁllment

351

and to integrate it to process runtime alignment

verification.

REFERENCES

ARIS, 2016. url: http://www.softwareag.com/corporate/

products/new_releases/aris9/overview/default.asp,

Accessed in: 10/11/2016.

Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., 2008. A Semantic

Foundation for Role-Related Concepts in Enterprise

Modeling. In EDOC 2008, 12th IEEE International

Enterprise Computing Conference. IEEE Computer

Society Press, Munchen, Germany.

Behnam, S.A., Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G., 2010.

Towards a Pattern-Based Framework for Goal-Driven

Business Process Modeling. In Eighth ACIS

International Conference on Software Engineering

Research, Management and Applications. pp 137-145.

Montreal. Canada.

Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Jander, K., Lamersdorf, W.,

Burmeister, B., 2010. Go4Flex: Goal-oriented Process

Modeling. In IDC-2010, 4th International Symposium

on Intelligent Distributed Computing. pp 77-87.

Tangier. Morocco.

Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.,

Perini, A. Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software

Development Methodology, In: Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Vol. 8, pp. 203—236. 2004.

Cappelli, C., Santoro F.M., Leite, J.C.S.P, Batista, T.,

Medeiros, A.L., Romeiro, C.S.C., 2010. Reflections

on the modularity of business process models: The

case for introducing the aspect-oriented paradigm, In

Business Process Management Journal. 16(4):

Emerald. pp 662-687.

Cardoso, E.C.S., Guizzardi, R.S.S., Almeida, J.P.A., 2011.

Aligning Goal Analysis and Business Process

Modeling: A Case Study in Health Care. In

International Journal of Business Process Integration

and Management. v 5. i 2. Inderscience.

Cysneiros Filho, G., Zisman, A. Spanoudakis, G.

Traceability Approach for I* and UML Models, In:

Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on

Software Engineering for Large-Scale Multi-Agent

Systems (SELMAS’03), Portland, May, 2003.

Davenport, T.H., 1993. Process Innovation. Harvard

Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Del-Río-Ortega, M. Resinas, C. Cabanillas, A. Ruiz-

Cortés. On the Definition and Automated Design-

Time Analysis of Process Performance Indicators.

Information Systems, 2012.

Guizzardi, R.S.S, Perini, A., Dignum, V., 2003. Using

Intentional Analysis to Model Knowledge

Management Requirements in Communities of

Practice. Technical Report TR-CTIT-03-53.

Guizzardi, R., Reis, A.N., 2015. A Method to Align Goals

and Business Processes. In ER2015, 34th International

Conference. Stockholm. Sweden. pp 79-93.

Halleux, P., Mathieu, L., Andersson, B., 2008. A Method

to Support the Alignment of Business Models and

Goal Models. In BUSITAL'08, Proceedings of the 3rd

International Workshop on Business/IT-Alignment and

Interoperability. CEUR Workshop Proceeding.

Kaplan S., Norton P., Robert D., 1996. The Balanced

Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action. President

and Fellows of Harvard College. Boston. 1 ed.

Kavakli, E., Loucopoulos, P., 2006. Experiences with

Goal-Oriented Modeling of Organizational Change. In

IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics -

Part C. v 36. I 2. pp 221-235.

Koliadis, G. G., 2006. A. Relating business process

models to goal-oriented requirements models in

KAOS. In Proceeding of Advances in Knowledge

Acquisition and Management., Pacific Rim

Knowledge Acquisition Workshop. pp 25-39.

Kueng, P., Kawalek, P., 1997. Goal-based business

process models: creation and evaluation, In Business

Process Management Journal, v 3. n 1. pp 17-38.

Liu, L., Yu, E., 2004. Intentional Modeling to Support

Identity Management, In ER 2004, 23rd Int.

Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Shanghai,

China. LNCS 3288. Springer. pp 555-566.

Neiger, D., Churilov, L., 2004. Goal-Oriented Business

Process Modeling with EPCs and Value-Focused

Thinking. In Business Process Management, LNCS

3080. pp 98– 115. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

OMG. 2016. Business Motivation Model, url:

http://www.omg.org/spec/BMM. Accessed in:

10/11/2016.

Nurcan, S., Etien, A., Kaabi, A., Zoukar, I., Rolland, C.,

2005. A Strategy Driven Business Process Modelling

Approach. In Business Process Management Journal.

Special issue on Goal-oriented business process

modeling. Emerald. v 11. i 6.

Singh, S.N., Woo C., 2009. Investigating business-IT

alignment through multi-disciplinary goal concepts.

Requirements Engineering, v 14. i 3. Pp 177-207.

Springer-Verlag. New York, Inc.

Soffer, P., Wand, Y., 2005. On the notion of soft goals in

business process modeling, Journal of Business

Process Management. v 11. n 6. pp 663-79.

Sousa, H.P., 2012. Integrating Intentional Modeling to

Business Modeling. Master’s Dissertation.

Departamento de Informática. PUC-Rio.

Sousa, H.P., Leite, J.C.S.P., 2014. Modeling

Organizational Alignment. Conceptual Modeling.

LNCS, v 8824. pp 407-414 Springer.

Yu, E., 1996. Modeling strategic relationships for process

reengineering, 181 f. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Toronto, Toronto, Ont.,Canada.

Yu, E., Strohmaier, M., Deng., X., 2006. Exploring

Intentional Modeling and Analysis for Enterprise

Architecture. In EDOC2016, 10th IEEE International

Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference

Workshops. Proceedings of the Workshop on Trends

in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR). Hong

Kong, China.

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

352