Eliciting Goals for Business Process Models with Non-Functional Requirement Catalogues

1. Renata S.S. Guizzardi rguizzardi@inf.ufes.br Eliciting Goals for Business Process Models with Non-Functional Requirement Catalogues Workshop on Ontologies in Conceptual Modeling Valencia, Spain July, 2010

2. Knowledge Management KM can be defined as a systematic process for acquiring, organizing and communicating knowledge to all members of an organization, enabling them to be more effective and productive in their work. Conveying to people the right piece of information at the right place, in the right time.

3. Effort vs. Knowledge availability Detachment from daily working practices Lack of trust Lack of motivation Knowledge Management Pitfalls • “There is no time for filling in the system with new knowledge.” • “Oh, it’s too much effort to fill in the system, and then I can never find something useful in it when I need it.” • “What if someone does something wrong with the knowledge I give away?” • “Why should I share my knowledge if knowledge is power?”

4. Two views of Knowledge Management • Codification: systematically storing worker’s knowledge • Personalization: supporting worker’s in their natural knowledge sharing processes. (Hansen et al. 1999)

5. Theoretical Framework knowledge management theories constructivism genetic epistemology knowledge spiral autonomy non-hierarchical knowledge sharing social interaction situated learning social-historical constructivism physical meaningful artifacts perturbation context communities of practice constructionism distributed knowledge management dialogue and context in learning

6. Applying Agents as a Modeling Paradigm • Concepts • which are able to capture the human dimension • which are closer to people (communication to the user is made easier) social ability desires goal intention belief learning ability

7. Combining Different Agent-oriented Modeling Languages

8. Methodology Requirements • Developing a good understanding of the organizational setting before jumping into the solution space. • Designing the system with an enough amount of detail to enable coding

9. Key question What are the right set of abstractions for each activity (or phase) in the system development process? Ontological Approach

10. overall organizational goals Methodology stakeholdersgoals Developing Effective KM Solutions negotiating and reconciling these goals

11. ARKnowD: Agent-oriented Recipe for KM Systems Development ARKnowD= Tropos AORML RequirementsModel + Architectural Design + Detailed Design

12. ARKnowD: Agent-oriented Recipe for KM Systems Development • Agents as development paradigm • Cognitive and social characteristics. • Combining Existing work • Tropos for Analysis & AORML for Design • MDD-inspired Transformation from Tropos to AORML • Agent Ontology • Clarifying definition of applied concepts. • Assisting the transformation from Tropos to AORML. • Evaluating and adjusting ARKnowD’s notation.

13. Tropos’ Language • Actor • Resource • Goal • Softgoal • Plan • Dependency • Decomposition • Contribution • Means-end

14. Characteristics of Tropos • Potential • gives particular attention to requirements engineering, this makes it a natural candidate for organizational modeling • is based in goal modeling: represent organization’s and stakeholders’ goals • provides an abstract view of the organization (actors, goals, dependencies…), allowing us to leave details for later development cycles • Limitations • does not provide tools to model agent’s interaction and behavior with an appropriate amount of detail • due to large use, constructs are extremely overloaded (there is no consensus regarding their use)

15. Agent-Object-Relationship Modeling Language (AORML) • Agent • Object • Action (Communicative Action) • Interaction • Event • Commitment/Claim • Association • Specialization • Composition • Do/Perceive (the action)

16. Characteristics of AORML • Potential • offers the means to model agent’s information, interaction and internal behavior in detail • naturally captures reactive behavior by using rules • models both agents and objects • provides deontic modeling constructs such as commitments and claims, which form the basis for the establishment of such norms and contracts. • Limitations • lacks constructs specific for requirements analysis • limited case tools support so far

17. UFO-C: Social and Mental Moments

18. UFO-C: Dependency vs. Delegation

19. Fixing Incompleteness in Tropos

20. Fixing Construct Overload in AORML

21. Transformation Rules • MDD metamodel transformation: from CIM to PIM

22. Early Requirements Late Requirements Architectural Design Detailed Design Transformation ARKnowD Tropos AORML

23. Ongoing Work • Evolving UFO-C • ARKnowD’s Case Tool • Completing previous work on implementing the transformation from Tropos to AORML on an existing tool (TAOM4E). • Extending the methodology to coding (MDD: PIM to PSM). • Organizational Patterns • (Semi)-automatically recognizing the Constructivist KM Principles in the Tropos models.

24. But... Business Process Modeling KM support does notalwaysrequire a supporting system.

25. Business ProcessModelingfocusesona detailed understanding of the chain of activities that deliver the organization’sproductsandservices.

26. Mainbenefits • Allowing traceability between goals and business process models • How goals are operationalized into BP. • How BP impact the achievement of goals. • Providing Modularity both to Goal and BP models. • Diagnosing needs for reengineering. • Developing process-oriented information systems which are aligned with organization’s goals.

27. CombiningGoalsand BPM OrganizationalModel = Tropos ARIS-EPC Goalmodeling + Business ProcessModeling

28. Example - BPM A Fragmentof a Business ProcessModel in ARIS: Diagnosing a Patient

29. BPM Approaches NeglectGoals ARIS goal model

30. Limitationsofgoalmodelsof BPM approaches • Do notallowan in depthgoalanalysis • Unclearsemantics for decomposition. • It does notmodelalternatives. • It does notallowone to reasonabouthow a goaldirectlyimpactsothergoals. • Weak connection to processes • Relationaboutgoalsand processes is notclear. • Lackofmethodologicalguidance to elicitandmodelgoals.

31. Transformation Atualmente: Tropos+ARIS Tropos - objetivos ARIS - processos Requisitos Iniciais Requisitos Finais VAC EPC FAD ? ? ? ?

32. Case Study • A case study in a real organizationwasconductedwiththepurposeofsupportingtheinvestigationregardingtherelationsbetweengoalsand processes. • Threephases: • Elicitationphase: goalmodelsandBPMswerecaptured; • Harmonizationphase: a goaltaxonomywascreated to help in thealignmentofgoalsandBPs; • Alignmentphase: UFO is applied to clarifythesemanticsoftheelementsofbothmodels, enablingthealingment.

33. ElicitationPhase • Preliminarly, standard methodswereapplied: interviews andobservationof work. processorientedgoals • NonFunctionalRequirements (NFR) Catalogues wereapplied, helping to elicit allowed a more strategicpointofview

34. NFR Catalogue (Chung et al., 2000)

35. Adjusting NFRs BP Requirements • NFRs have been originally proposed for system requirements elicitation. We should adjust them for eliciting BP requirements. • Approach: translating NFRs to the medical goal domain, relating the existing NFR types to selecting goals in our models. • One big distinction: • originally, they lead to Tropossoftgoals • in our case, they may lead both to Tropos goals and softgoals.

36. A Model without NFR

37. A Model with Catalogue

38. A few examples • Accessibility - Access patient’s data records; • Confidentiality - Maintain healthcare information private; • Completeness - Obtain complete information about patient’s treatment; • Accuracy - Obtain accurate information about patient’s treatment; • Traceability - Obtain traceability for information in patient’s treatment (refined into Obtain traceability in investigation of patient’s condition, Obtain traceability in relation to treatment administered to patient and Obtain traceability in relation to physicians who prescribed patient’s treatment); • Integrability - Integrate service with other hospital departments, Integrate service with municipal and state health services and Integrate service with specialists in areas related to rheumatology; • Trust and confidence to the provider (assurance) - Trust physician • Empathy – provide patient withcaring and personalized attention

39. Harmonization Phase • Taxonomy to guide how goals connect to processes (or portions of processes) • Total of 15 different goal types, classified according to 6 dimensions. • Examples: • Dimension: Level of abstraction • Fundamental goal (provide medical care to patient) • Process goal (diagnose patient health state) • Activity goal (prescribe patient’s treatment) • Dimension: Temporal Aspect • AS-IS (approvethetreatmentproposedbytheresident) • Change goal (standardizediagnosiscuesheets) • TO-BE (coordinatepatientcarewithotherhealthcareproviders)

40. Acknowledgements This research is funded by the Brazilian Research Funding Agencies FAPES (grant number 45444080/09) and CNPq (grants number 481906/2009-6)