On the Notion of Goal in Business Process Models

  • Greta AdamoEmail author
  • Stefano Borgo
  • Chiara Di Francescomarino
  • Chiara Ghidini
  • Nicola Guarino
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11298)


Business process modelling languages allow to capture business processes by embracing different paradigms, emphasising different business process elements or characteristics and exploiting different graphical notations. In the literature, several definitions of business process have been proposed which define business processes in terms of (some of) their components and participants. While some of these components, for instance activities or data objects, have been analysed from different perspectives and play a relevant part in the graphical design of a business process model, other relevant components remain in a shadowy area as they do not typically appear in the graphical design of a business process model nor in the annexed documentation. Typical examples of these shadowy elements are business process goals. As a result, while it is extremely clear and well agreed that business processes realise a business goal, it is somehow more difficult to state exactly what this business goal is, or if this business goal is unique. In this paper, we carry on an analysis of business process goals tailored to propose a classification of different types of goals that pertain to a business process.


  1. 1.
    Adamo, G., Borgo, S., Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Guarino, N., Sanfilippo, E.M.: Business processes and their participants: an ontological perspective. In: Esposito, F., Basili, R., Ferilli, S., Lisi, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10640, pp. 215–228. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adamo, G., Borgo, S., Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Guarino, N., Sanfilippo, E.M.: Business process activity relationships: is there anything beyond arrows? In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNBIP, vol. 329, pp. 53–70. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anton, A.I.: Goal-based requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Requirements Engineering, ICRE 1996, pp. 136–144. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgo, S., Masolo, C.: Foundational choices in DOLCE. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies. INFOSYS, pp. 361–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cardoso, E.C.S., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, R.S.S., Guizzardi, G.: A method for eliciting goals for business process models based on non-functional requirements catalogues. IJISMD 2(2), 1–18 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung, L., do Prado Leite, J.C.S.: On non-functional requirements in software engineering. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 363–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davenport, T.: Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garbacz, P., Kutz, O. (eds.): Formal Ontology in Information Systems - Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, FOIS 2014, 22–25 September 2014, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 267. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning and Acting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghidini, C., Di Francescomarino, C., Rospocher, M., Tonella, P., Serafini, L.: Semantics-based aspect-oriented management of exceptional flows in business processes. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Appl. Rev.) 42, 25–37 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghidini, C., Rospocher, M., Serafini, L.: Modeling in a Wiki with MoKi: reference architecture, implementation, and usages. Int. J. Adv. Life Sci. 4(3&4), 111–124 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Harper Business, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heidari, F., Loucopoulos, P., Brazier, F.M.T., Barjis, J.: A meta-meta-model for seven business process modeling languages. In: IEEE 15th Conference on Business Informatics, CBI 2013, pp. 216–221. IEEE Computer Society (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hull, R., et al.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johansson, H.J., McHugh, P., Pendlebury, A.J., Wheeler, W.A.: Business Process Reengineering: Breakpoint Strategies for Market Dominance. Wiley, Hoboken (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2006, pp. 1532–1539. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marrella, A., Lespérance, Y.: A planning approach to the automated synthesis of template-based process models. Serv. Oriented Comput. Appl. 11(4), 367–392 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mili, H., Tremblay, G., Jaoude, G.B., Lefebvre, E., Elabed, L., Boussaidi, G.E.: Business process modeling languages: sorting through the alphabet soup. ACM Comput. Surv. 43(1), 4:1–4:56 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Natschläger, C.: Towards a BPMN 2.0 ontology. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) BPMN 2011. LNBIP, vol. 95, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nicola, A.D., Lezoche, M., Missikoff, M.: An ontological approach to business process modeling. In: Prasad, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd Indian International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 17–19 December 2007, Pune, India, pp. 1794–1813. IICAI (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Business process model and notation (BPMN) version 2.0. Standard (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rolf, M., Asada, M.: What are goals? And if so, how many? In: 2015 Joint IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-EpiRob), pp. 332–339. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rospocher, M., Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: An ontology for the business process modelling notation. In: Garbacz and Kutz [8], pp. 133–146 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanfilippo, E.M., Borgo, S., Masolo, C.: Events and activities: Is there an ontology behind BPMN? In: Garbacz and Kutz [8], pp. 147–156 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scheer, A.: ARIS - vom Geschäftsprozess zum Anwendungssystem. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). [u.a.], 4, durchges. aufl. ednCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Söderström, E., Andersson, B., Johannesson, P., Perjons, E., Wangler, B.: Towards a framework for comparing process modelling languages. In: Pidduck, A.B., Ozsu, M.T., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 600–611. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Soffer, P., Wand, Y.: On the notion of soft-goals in business process modeling. Bus. Process Manag. J. 11(6), 663–679 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der Aalst, W., et al.: Soundness of workflow nets: classification, decidability, and analysis. Formal Aspects Comput. 23(3), 333–363 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings of Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 249–262. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management. Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yu, E.S.K., Mylopoulos, J.: Using goals, rules and methods to support reasoning in business process reengineering. Int. Syst. Acc. Financ. Manag. 5(1), 1–13 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greta Adamo
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Stefano Borgo
    • 2
  • Chiara Di Francescomarino
    • 1
  • Chiara Ghidini
    • 1
  • Nicola Guarino
    • 2
  1. 1.FBK-IRSTTrentoItaly
  2. 2.ISTC-CNR Laboratory for Applied OntologyTrentoItaly
  3. 3.DIBRISUniversity of GenovaGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations