Advertisement

Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 315–346 | Cite as

Representation and analysis of enterprise models with semantic techniques: an application to ArchiMate, e3value and business model canvas

  • Artur Caetano
  • Gonçalo Antunes
  • João Pombinho
  • Marzieh Bakhshandeh
  • José Granjo
  • José Borbinha
  • Miguel Mira da Silva
Regular Paper

Abstract

Enterprise models assist the governance and transformation of organizations through the specification, communication and analysis of strategy, goals, processes, information, along with the underlying application and technological infrastructure. Such models cross-cut different concerns and are often conceptualized using domain-specific modelling languages. This paper explores the application of graph-based semantic techniques to specify, integrate and analyse multiple, heterogeneous enterprise models. In particular, the proposal described in this paper (1) specifies enterprise models as ontological schemas, (2) uses transformation mapping functions to integrate the ontological schemas and (3) analyses the integrated schemas with graph querying and logical inference. The proposal is evaluated through a scenario that integrates three distinct enterprise modelling languages: the business model canvas, e3value, and the business layer of the ArchiMate language. The results show, on the one hand, that the graph-based approach is able to handle the specification, integration and analysis of enterprise models represented with different modelling languages and, on the other, that the integration challenge resides in defining appropriate mapping functions between the schemas.

Keywords

Enterprise modelling Model analysis Model integration Semantic techniques Ontology ArchiMate  e3value Business model canvas 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially funded by FCT, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, through projects UID/CEC 50021/2013 and DataStorm EXCL/EEI-ESS 0257/2012, and by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development and demonstration activities under Grant Agreement No. 269940 (TIMBUS project, http://timbusproject.net/).

References

  1. 1.
    Lankhorst M (2004) Enterprise architecture modelling—the issue of integration. Adv Eng Inform 18(4):205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lankhorst M (2013) Enterprise architecture at work: modeling, communication, and analysis, 3rd edn. Springer, NewYorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aleatrati Khosroshahi P, Aier S, Hauder M, Roth S, Matthes F, Winter R (2015) Success factors for federated enterprise architecture model management. In: Persson A, Stirna J (eds), CAiSE 2015 Workshops, LNBIP 215, Springer, Berlin, pp 413–425Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zdravkovic J, Stirna J, Kirikova M, Karagiannis D, Winter R (2015) Advanced enterprise modeling. Bus Inform Syst Eng 57(1):1–2. doi: 10.1007/s12599-014-0367-8 ISSN 2363-7005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bucher T, Fisher R, Kurpjuweit S, Winter R (2006) Enterprise architecture analysis and application. An exploratory study. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on trends in enterprise architecture research (TEAR)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson P, Ekstedt M (2007) Enterprise architecture: models and analyses for information systems decision making. Lightning source incorporatedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Antunes G, Barateiro J, Caetano A, Borbinha J (2015) Analysis of federated enterprise architecture models. In: 23rd European conference on information systems (ECIS)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Narman P, Johnson P, Nordstrom L (2007) Enterprise architecture: a framework supporting system quality analysis. In: 11th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y (2010) Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordijn J (2004) Value creation from E-business models, chapter e-business value modelling using the e3-value ontology. Elsevies, Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Open Group (2013) ArchiMate 2.1 specification. The open groupGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gordijn J, Akkermans JM (2003) Value-based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requir Eng 8(2):114–134Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gordijn J, Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y (2005) Comparing two business model ontologies for designing e-business models and value constellations. In: Proceedings of the 18th BLED eConference, pp 6–8. http://aisel.aisnet.org/bled2005/15
  14. 14.
    de Kinderen S, Gaaloul K, Proper HE (2012a) Integrating value modelling into archimate. In: Exploring services science, Lecture Notes in business information processing, Springer, Berlin, pp 125–139Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pombinho J (2015) Value-oriented enterprise transformation—design and engineering of value networks. Ph.D. thesis, Universidade de Lisboa---Instituto Superior TécnicoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sousa P, Caetano A, Vasconcelos A, Pereira C, Tribolet J (2006) Enterprise architecture modeling with the uml 2.0. In: Rittgen P (ed), Enterprise modelling and computing with UML, Idea Group Inc, pp 67–94Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Caetano A, Silva A, Tribolet J (2009) A role-based enterprise architecture framework. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied computing, pp 253–258. ACMGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frank U (2014) Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Softw Syst Model 13(3):941–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bork D (2015) Using conceptual modeling for designing multi-view modeling tools. In: Americas Conference on information systems (AMCIS) 2015, 21st Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS). http://eprints.cs.univie.ac.at/4315/
  20. 20.
    Zivkovic S, Kuhn H, Karagiannis D (2007) Facilitate modelling using method integration: an approach using mappings and integration rules. In: European conference on information systems (ECIS), pp 2038–2049Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iacob ME, Meertens LO, Jonkers H, Quartel DAC, Nieuwenhuis LJM, Van Sinderen MJ (2013) From enterprise architecture to business models and back. Softw Syst Model 13(3):1059–1083Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fischer R, Aier S, Winter R (2007) A federated approach to enterprise architecture model maintenance. Enterp Model Inform Syst Archit 2:14–22Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bjeković M, Proper HA, Sottet J-S (2012) Towards a coherent enterprise modelling landscape. In: Emerging topics in the practice of enterprise modeling : 5th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on the practice of enterprise modeling, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bjeković M, Proper HA (2013) Challenges of modelling landscapes: pragmatics swept under the carpet? In: Proceedings of third international symposium business modeling and software design, Lecture Notes in business information processing (Book 173), Springer, pp 11–22Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Proper HA, Lankhorst MM (2014) Enterprise architecture—towards essential sensemaking. Enterp Model Inform Syst Archit J 01(01):5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Uschold M, Gruninger M (1996) Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowl Eng Rev 11(02):93–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guizzardi G, Wagner G (2010) Using the unified foundational ontology (ufo) as a foundation for general conceptual modeling languages. In: Theory and applications of ontology: Computer applications, Springer, pp 175–196Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prackwieser C, Buchmann RA, Grossmann W, Karagiannis D (2014) Overcoming heterogeneity in business process modeling with rule-based semantic mappings. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 24(8):1131–1159. http://eprints.cs.univie.ac.at/4243/
  29. 29.
    Gordijn J, Akkermans H (2001) Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE Intell Syst 16(4):11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Offermann P, Blom S, Schönherr M, Bub U (2010) Artifact types in information systems design science—a literature review. In: Winter R, Zhao JL, Aier S (eds), Global perspectives on design science research, volume 6105 of Lecture Notes in computer science, pages, Springer, Berlin, pp 77–92. ISBN 978-3-642-13334-3. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_6
  31. 31.
    von Alan RH, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    de Simoni G (2015) Innovation insight: leveraging ontology to exploit business value hidden in information. Gartner innovation. https://www.gartner.com/doc/2990119/innovation-insight-leveraging-ontology-exploit
  33. 33.
    Chesbrough H (2007) Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy Leadersh 35(6):12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Osterwalder A (2004) The business model ontology: a proposition in a design science approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Lausanne, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales HEC, Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pombinho J, Aveiro D, Tribolet J (2014) Linking value chains—combining e3value and demo for specifying value networks. In: Fourth enterprise engineering working conference (EEWC), Funchal, MadeiraGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Iacob ME, Quartel D, Jonkers H (2012) Capturing business strategy and value in enterprise architecture to support portfolio valuation. In: 16th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meertens LO, Iacob ME, Jonkers H, Quartel D, Nieuwenhuis LJM, van Sinderen MJ (2012) Mapping the business model canvas to archimate. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on applied computing, pp 1694–1701. ACM. http://doc.utwente.nl/82858/
  38. 38.
    Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 5(2):199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Guarino N, Oberle D, Staab S (2009) Handbook on Ontologies, chapter what is an Ontology?, Springer, Berlin, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Studer R, Benjamins R, Fensel D (1998) Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. Data Knowl Eng 25:161–198CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pinto HS, Gómez-Pérez A, Martins JP (1999) Some issues on ontology integration. In: Proceedings of IJCAI99’s workshop on ontologies and problem solving methods: lessons learned and future trends, vol 18, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Davies J, Studer R, Warren P (2006) Semantic web technologies: trends and research in ontology-based systems. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lenzerini D, Milano M, Poggi A (2004) Ontology representation and reasoning. Technical report, University di Roma La SapienzaGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vaculin R (2009) Process mediation framework for semantic web services. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Theoretical Computer Science and Mathematical Logic, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Olivé A (2007) Conceptual modeling of information systems. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Breitman K, Casanova MA, Truszkowski W (2007) Semantic web: concepts, technologies and applications. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    ISO/IEC/IEEE (2011) ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 Systems and software engineering—architecture description. ISO/IEC/IEEEGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Saat J, Franke U, Lagerstrom R, Ekstedt M (2010) Enterprise architecture meta models for it/business alignment situations. In: 14th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Buckl S, Buschle M, Johnson P, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2011) A meta-language for enterprise architecture analysis. In: 16th international conference on exploring modeling methods for systems analysis and design (EMMSAD)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Niemann KD (2005) From enterprise architecture to IT governance. Vieweg / & Sohn Verlag, FriedrGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kurpjuweit S, Winter R (2007) Viewpoint-based meta model engineering. In: 2nd international workshop on enterprise modelling and information systems architectures (EMISA)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Buckl S, Schweda CM, Matthes F (2010) A design theory nexus for situational enterprise architecture management. In: 14th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference workshops (EDOCW)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Caetano A, Pereira C, Sousa P (2011) Generating multiple consistent views from business process models. In Lecture Notes in business information processing, research and practical issues of enterprise information systems. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Antunes G, Bakhshandeh M, Mayer R, Borbinha J, Caetano A (2014) Using ontologies for enterprise architecture integration and analysis. Complex Syst Inform Model Q 1:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mayer R, Antunes G, Caetano A, Bakhshandeh M, Rauber A, Borbinha J (2015) Using ontologies to capture the semantics of a business process for digital preservation. Int J Digit Libr 15(2–4):129–152. doi: 10.1007/s00799-015-0141-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Granitzer M, Sabol V, Onn KW, Lukose D, Tochtermann K (2010) Ontology alignment—a survey with focus on visually supported semi-automatic techniques. Future Internet 2:238–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Miles A, Bechhofer S (2009) Skos: simple knowledge organization system reference, w3c recommendation. Technical report, W3CGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Herre B, Heller H, Burek P, Hoehndorf R, Loebe F, Michalek H (2007) General formal ontology (gfo): a foundational ontology integrating objects and processes. part i: Basic principles. Technical report, Research Group Ontologies in Medicine (Onto-Med), University of LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Inform Syst J 3(4):217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fettke P, Loos P (2003) Ontological evaluation of reference models using the bunge-wand-weber model. In: Proceedings of the AMCIS 2003Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Harris S, Seaborne A (2013) SPARQL 1.1 Query language. W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/
  62. 62.
    Fritscher B, Pigneur Y (2011) Business it alignment from business model to enterprise architecture. In: Advanced information systems engineering workshops, Springer, Berlin, pp 4–15Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    de Kinderen S, Gaaloul K, Proper HA (2012b) Bridging value modelling to archimate via transaction modelling. Softw Syst Model 13(3):1043–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pombinho J, Tribolet J (2012) Modelling the value of a system’s production—matching demo and e3value. In: 6th international workshop on value modelling and business ontology, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dietz JLG (2006) Enterprise ontology: theory and methodology. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dietz JLG, Hoogervorst JAP, Albani A, Aveiro D, Babkin E, Barjis J, Caetano A, Huysmans P, Iijima J, van Kervel S et al (2013) The discipline of enterprise engineering. Int J Organ Des Eng 3(1):86–114Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fox MS, Gruninger M (1998) Enterprise modeling. AI Mag 19(3):109Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Grüninger M, Fox MS (1995) Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI-95 workshop on basic ontological issues in knowledge sharingGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bezerra C, Freitas F, Santana F (2013) Evaluating ontologies with competency questions. In: Web intelligence (WI) and intelligent agent technologies (IAT), 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on, vol 3, pp 284–285. doi: 10.1109/WI-IAT.2013.199
  70. 70.
    Lapão LV, Gregorio J, Ferreira T, Cavaco A, Lovis C, Russo G, da Silva MM (2013) ehealth services for enhanced pharmaceutical care provision: From counseling to patient education. In: IEEE 2nd international conference on serious games and applications for health (SeGAH), pp 1–7Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gregorio J, Ferreira TL, Cavaco A, da Silva MM, Lovis C, Lapão LV (2013a) Community pharmacies and ehealth services: barriers and opportunities for real primary healthcare integration. In: IEEE 26th international symposium on computer-based medical systems (CBMS), pp 393–396Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gregorio J, Cavaco A, da Silva MM, Lovis C, Lapão LV (2013b) Challenges of information technologies adoption to enable community pharmacies ehealth services. Int J Clin Pharm 35(3):490–498Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Artur Caetano
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gonçalo Antunes
    • 2
  • João Pombinho
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marzieh Bakhshandeh
    • 2
  • José Granjo
    • 2
    • 4
  • José Borbinha
    • 1
    • 2
  • Miguel Mira da Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.IST, University of LisbonLisboaPortugal
  2. 2.INESC-IDLisboaPortugal
  3. 3.NOS ComunicaçõesLisboaPortugal
  4. 4.Screen Interaction ABKista, StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations