Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systems-Thinking Heuristics for the Reconciliation of Methodologies for Design and Analysis for Information Systems Engineering

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 385))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1911 Accesses

Abstract

Many competing, complementary, generic, or specific methodologies for design and analysis co-exist in the field of Information System Engineering. The idea of reconciling these methodologies and their underlying theories has crossed the minds of researchers many times. In this paper, we inquire into the nature of such reconciliation using the interpretivist research paradigm. This paradigm acknowledges the existence of diverse points of view as ways of seeing and experiencing the world through different contexts. We examine why it might be impossible to reconcile these methodologies that each represents a point of view. Instead of searching for the one (overarching, universal, global, ultimate) methodology that reconciles all others, we explain why we should think about reconciliation as an ongoing practice. We propose to the community a set of heuristics for this practice. The heuristics are a result of our experience in reconciling a number of methods that we created as part of our research during the past 20 years. We illustrate the use of the heuristics with an example of use cases and user stories. We believe these heuristics to be of interest to the Information Systems Engineering community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We could interpret pomodoro as pomo d’oro, meaning a golden apple. Thus, the tomato becomes a golden apple, if we only look at the representation (ontology) of methods. We anecdotally call this heuristic the “Golden Tomato” heuristic.

  2. 2.

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” from Animal Farm: A Fairy Story, 1945 by George Orwell.

  3. 3.

    “Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.” from Aedh Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven, 1899 by William Butler Yeats.

References

  1. Antoniou, G., Kehagias, A.: A note on the refinement of ontologies. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 15(7), 623–632 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ashby, W.R.: An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall Ltd., Boca Raton (1957)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Bainbridge, L.: Ironies of automation. In: Automatica (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Banathy, B.H., Jenlink, P.M.: Systems inquiry and its application in education. In: Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Borgo, S., Masolo, C.: Foundational choices in DOLCE. In: Handbook on Ontologies (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Checkland, P., Holwell, S.: Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field. John Wiley, Hoboken (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cho, J., Trent, A.: Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qual. Res. 6(3), 319–340 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cockburn, A.: Structuring use cases with goals. J. Object-Oriented Program. 10(5), 56–62 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cohn, M.: Succeeding with Agile: Software Development using Scrum. Pearson Education, London (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dalpiaz, F., Sturm, A.: Conceptualizing requirements using user stories and use cases: a controlled experiment. In: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Euzenat, J.: An API for ontology alignment. In: International Semantic Web Conference (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-49612-0

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Fowler, M., Distilled, U.: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gordijn, J., Akkermans, J.: Value-based requirements engineering: : exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requirements Eng. 8, 114–134 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquis. 5(2), 199–221 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. stud. 43(5–6), 907–928 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guarino, N., Giaretta, P.: Ontologies and knowledge bases. towards a terminological clarification. Towards very large knowledge bases (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Guizzardi, G.: Ontology, ontologies and the “i” of fair. Data Intell. 2, 181–191 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guizzardi, G., de Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.S.S.: Grounding software domain ontologies in the unified foundational ontology (UFO): the case of the ODE software process ontology. In: Conferencia Iberoamericana de Software Engineering, CIbSE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., de Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.S.S., Almeida, J.P.A.: Towards ontological foundations for the conceptual modeling of events. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Guizzardi, R.S.S.: Agent-oriented Constructivist Knowledge Management. Ph.D. thesis (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Haldane, J.B.S.: The truth about death. J. Genet. (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hameed, A., Preece, A.D., Sleeman, D.H.: Ontology reconciliation. In: Handbook on Ontologies (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_12

  25. Haren, V.: TOGAF Version 9.1 A Pocket Guide (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hotie, F., Gordijn, J.: Value-based process model design. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 61(2), 163–180 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0496-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jackson, M.: Some complexities in computer-based systems and their implications for system development. In: International Conference on Computer Systems and Software Engineering (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Klein, G., et al.: seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel. In: ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Klein, H.K., Myers, M.D.: A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q. 23, 67–93 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kostova, B., Etzlinger, L., Derrier, D., Regev, G., Wegmann, A.: Requirements elicitation with a service canvas for packaged enterprise systems. In: International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kostova, B., Gordijn, J., Regev, G., Wegmann, A.: Comparison of two value modeling methods: e\(^{3}\) value and SEAM. In: International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I.: Requirements engineering with viewpoints. Softw. Eng. J. 11(1), 5–18 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kranzberg, M.: Technology and history: “Kranzberg’s laws”. Technol. Cult. 27(3), 544–560 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kuhn, T.S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago press, Chicago (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Kulynych, B., Overdorf, R., Troncoso, C., Gürses, S.F.: POTs: protective optimization technologies. In: Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lê, L.S., Wegmann, A.: An RM-ODP based ontology and a CAD tool for modeling hierarchical systems in enterprise architecture. In: Workshop on ODP for Enterprise Computing (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Le Goues, C., Jaspan, C., Ozkaya, I., Shaw, M., Stolee, K.T.: Bridging the gap: from research to practical advice. IEEE Softw. 35(5), 50–57 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Martin, R.: The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Press, Boston (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.: Autopoiesis. A theory of living organization, Autopoiesis (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Müter, L., Deoskar, T., Mathijssen, M., Brinkkemper, S., Dalpiaz, F.: Refinement of user stories into backlog items: linguistic structure and action verbs. In: Knauss, E., Goedicke, M. (eds.) REFSQ 2019. LNCS, vol. 11412, pp. 109–116. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15538-4_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Narasipuram, M.M., Regev, G., Kumar, K., Wegmann, A.: Business process flexibility through the exploration of stimuli. Int. J. Bus. Process Integr. Manage. IJBPIM 3(1), 36–46 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nardi, J.C., et al.: A commitment-based reference ontology for services. Inf. Syst. 54, 263–288 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: PROMPT: algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(10), 760–773 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: Validity and qualitative research: an oxymoron? Qual. Quant. 41, 233–249 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9000-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Regev, G., Bajic-Bizumic, B., Golnam, A., Popescu, G., Tapandjieva, G., Saxena, A.B., Wegmann, A.: A philosophical foundation for business and IT alignment in enterprise architecture with the example of SEAM. In: International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Regev, G., Wegmann, A.: Business process flexibility: Weick’s organizational theory to the rescue. In: Workshop on Business Process Modelling (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schekkerman, J.: How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework. Trafford Publishing, Bloomington (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sowa, J.F.: Conceptual graphs as a universal knowledge representation. Comput. Math. Appl. 23(2–5), 75–93 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  50. Walsham, G.: The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Inf. Syst. Res. 6(4), 376–394 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Hintea, D., Kolp, M., Poelmans, S.: Bridging user story sets with the use case model. In: Link, S., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9975, pp. 127–138. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47717-6_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Kolp, M., Mirbel, I.: Unifying and extending user story models. In: Jarke, M., et al. (eds.) CAiSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8484, pp. 211–225. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07881-6_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Weber, R.: Editor’s comments: the reflexive researcher. MIS Q. (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wegmann, A.: On the systemic enterprise architecture methodology (SEAM). In: International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wegmann, A., Kotsalainen, A., Matthey, L., Regev, G., Giannattasio, A.: Augmenting the Zachman enterprise architecture framework with a systemic conceptualization. In: International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wegmann, A., Naumenko, A.: Conceptual modeling of complex systems using an RM-ODP based ontology. In: International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wegmann, A., Regev, G., Rychkova, I., Julia, P., Perroud, O.: Early requirements and business-IT alignment with SEAM for business. In: International Conference on Requirements Engineering, RE (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Weick, K.E.: Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14(4), 516–531 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Weick, K.E.: Cartographic Myths in Organizations. Mapping Strategic Thought. Wiley, New York (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Weick, K.E.: Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Weinberg, G.: An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. Wiley, Hoboken (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Weinberg, G.M.: Rethinking Systems Analysis and Design. Little, Brown, Boston (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.W., da Silva Santos, L.B., Bourne, P.E., et al.: The fair guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Intellect Books, Chicago (1986)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zave, P., Jackson, M.: Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 6(1), 1–30 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LAMS, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Blagovesta Kostova, Gil Regev & Alain Wegmann

  2. Université Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Irina Rychkova

  3. Triune Continuum Enterprise, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andrey Naumenko

Authors
  1. Blagovesta Kostova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irina Rychkova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrey Naumenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gil Regev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alain Wegmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blagovesta Kostova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Fabiano Dalpiaz

  2. Stockholm University, Kista, Sweden

    Jelena Zdravkovic

  3. The Institute of Digital Innovation and Research, Dublin, Ireland

    Pericles Loucopoulos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kostova, B., Rychkova, I., Naumenko, A., Regev, G., Wegmann, A. (2020). Systems-Thinking Heuristics for the Reconciliation of Methodologies for Design and Analysis for Information Systems Engineering. In: Dalpiaz, F., Zdravkovic, J., Loucopoulos, P. (eds) Research Challenges in Information Science. RCIS 2020. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 385. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50316-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50316-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50315-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-50316-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation