Resumo As organizações estão inseridas em ambientes dinâmicos, onde mudanças são constantes graças a fatores geográficos, climáticos, financeiros e outros. Com isso, as empresas precisam manter seus processos atualizados e funcionando adequadamente, sem desprezar os requisitos de qualidade. Baseado neste cenário, foi proposto na literatura uma abordagem de configuração de processos chamada BVCCoN. Uma etapa desta abordagem e a modelagem dos requisitos não-funcionais, variabilidade e informação contextual. Contudo, modelar estas três perspectivas e uma atividade que consome tempo e e propensa a erros. Assim, teste artigo propõe o desenvolvimento de um metamodelo para apoiar a modelagem das três visões citadas anteriormente. Além disso, foi desenvolvida uma ferramenta baseada no metamodelo que foi criado. Para ilustrar o uso da ferramenta, uma avaliacão de usabilidade foi realizada.

1. CIn.ufpe.br
1
Support to Dynamic Business Process
Configuration
Tarcísio Pereira, Fernanda Alencar, Jaelson Castro,
Edson Alves e Paulo Lima
tcp@cin.ufpe.br
LER – Laboratório de Engenharia de Requisitos

2. CIn.ufpe.br2
Outline
• Motivation;
• Goals;
• BVCCoN Process;
• BVCCoN-Tool;
• Usability Evaluation;
• Threats to Validity;
• Conclusion and Future Works;

3. CIn.ufpe.br3
Motivation
• The processes are becoming increasingly complex and
heterogeneous;
• Dynamic Business Process;
• Focus on modeling of functional behavioral;
• Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) need taken in account, as well
the context information;
• BVCCoN Approach – Santos (2013)
– Variability;
– NFR;
– Context Information

4. CIn.ufpe.br4
Motivation
• Complex Approach;
– Business Process Models;
– NFRs model;
– Variability model;
– Context information model;
• Lack of tool makes de process slow, hard to understand and error
prone;

5. CIn.ufpe.br5
Goals
• Describe the BVCCoN aprroach;
• Present a modeling tool;

6. CIn.ufpe.br6
BVCCoN Process

7. CIn.ufpe.br7
Variability Elicitation [Airport Check-In]
• Responsible by identifying and discovering possible variations in a
business process model;
• Input: Initial business process model;
• Output: List of variations.

8. CIn.ufpe.br8
Variability Description
• Define the variants and the variation points;

9. CIn.ufpe.br9
Variability Description
• Define variants and variation points;

10. CIn.ufpe.br10
Context Analysis

11. CIn.ufpe.br11
Linking NFRs and Variants
- Var3 – perform online check-in
Response Time ++
Availability ++
Precision ++

12. CIn.ufpe.br12
Perform Configuration
• Analysis
– top-down – prioritizing a NFR;
– bottom-up – selecting a subset of variants;

13. CIn.ufpe.br13
Top-down Configuration
• NFR taken in account : Response Time

14. CIn.ufpe.br14
Bottom-up - Configuration
• Selection of a subset of variants;
• VP1 – Response time ++;
• VP2 – Availability +;
• VP3 – Access Control ++;

15. CIn.ufpe.br15
BVCCoN-Tool
• Abstract Syntax- Variability

16. CIn.ufpe.br16
BVCCoN-Tool
• Concrete Syntax -
Variability

17. CIn.ufpe.br17
BVCCoN-Tool
• Graphical Editor

18. CIn.ufpe.br18
Usability Evaluation
• Scenario: Airport Check-In
• Reference Process

19. CIn.ufpe.br19
Usability Evaluation
• Method proposed by McClelland;
– The method permits identifier the opinion of the participants and
classifies in "favorable", "unfavorable" and "no opinion”;
– It also allows separately classify items in questionnaires that
participants were "favorable," "unfavorable" and "no opinion".

20. CIn.ufpe.br20
Usability Evaluation
• PSSUQ - The Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire – IBM;
– Overall satisfaction;
– System utility;
– Information Quality;
– Interface Quality.
• Widely used in academia;
• Cited by 933 works;
• Meets research objectives.

21. CIn.ufpe.br21
Usability Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
• Average “no opinion” = 57;
• According with the results, it wasn't possible to separate the participants in
"favorable" and "unfavorable";
• According to participants, the tool has a good usability;

22. CIn.ufpe.br22
Usability Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
• Items analysis;
• Average “no opinion” = 3 * 14 = 42;
Item 9: The system gave error
messages that clearly told me how to
fix problems...

23. CIn.ufpe.br23
Threats to Validity
• BVCCoN Approach;
• Very detailed user tasks;
• Failures could be avoided;
• Positive answers.

24. CIn.ufpe.br24
Conclusion
• Through BVCCoN-Tool, three views (non-functional requirements,
variability and contextual information) were modeled;
• According to the users, the usability evaluation had a good
acceptance, concluding that the tool use is viable and practical to be
used in real environments.

25. CIn.ufpe.br25
Conclusion
• Contributions
– BVCCoN approach description;
– BVCCoN-Tool Metamodel;
– Modeling Tool;
– Usability Evaluation;

26. CIn.ufpe.br26
Conclusion
• Future Works
– Perform other usability evaluation;
– Continuous improvement of bvccon-tool;
– Integration with graphical editor BPMN;
– BVCCoN-Tool extension;
– Compilation of models;

27. CIn.ufpe.br
27
Support to Dynamic Business Process
Configuration
Tarcísio Pereira, Fernanda Alencar, Jaelson Castro,
Edson Alves e Paulo Lima
tcp@cin.ufpe.br
LER – Laboratório de Engenharia de Requisitos