Activity Diagram Patterns for Modeling Quality Constraints in Business Processes

  • Alexander Foerster
  • Gregor Engels
  • Tim Schattkowsky
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)


Quality management is an important aspect of business processes. Organizations must implement quality requirements, e.g., according to standards like ISO 9001. Existing approaches on business process modeling provide no explicit means to enforce such requirements. UML Activity Diagrams are a well recognized way of representing those business processes. In this paper, we present an approach for enforcing quality requirements in such business processes through the application of process quality patterns to Activity Diagrams. These patterns are defined using a pattern description language, being a light-weight extension of UML Activity Diagrams. Accordingly, such patterns can be used in forward-engineering of business processes that incorporate quality constraints right from the beginning.


UML Activity Diagrams Business Process Process Quality ISO 9001 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(3), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of Dynamic Behavor in UML. In: Moldt, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Modelling of Objects, Components and Agents (MOCA 2002), Aarhus, Denmark, August 2002. DAIMI, vol. 561, pp. 105–120 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambler, S.W.: Process Patterns - Building Large-Scale Systems Using Object Technology. SIGS Books/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ambler, S.W.: More Process Patterns - Delivering Large-Scale Systems Using Object Technology. SIGS Books/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of Behavior. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 47(2), 47–145 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coplien, J.: A Generative Development-Process Pattern Language. In: Coplien & Schmidt 1995, pp. 183–238 (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ebert, J., Engels, G.: Specialization of Object Life Cycle Definitions. Fachberichte Informatik Nr. 19/95, Universität Koblenz-Landau (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler, M.: Analysis Patterns. Addison Wesley, Menlo Park (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns, Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gross, D., Yu, E.S.K.: From Non-Functional Requirements to Design through Patterns. Requirements Engineering 6(1), 18–36 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO 9001:2001: Quality Management Systems – Requirements. ISO International Organization for Standardization (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group, The: UML 2.0 Superstructure (2005), Version 2.0, (Last visited: 03-23-05)
  13. 13.
    Riehle, D., Zullighoven, H.: Understanding and Using Patterns. Software Development. Theory and Practice of Object Systems 2(1), 3–13 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Foerster
    • 1
  • Gregor Engels
    • 1
  • Tim Schattkowsky
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations