A method for comparing traditional and component-based models in information systems re-engineering

Original Article


Many organisations have become aware of the limitations of their legacy systems to adapt to new technical requirements. Trends towards e-commerce applications, platform independence, reusability of pre-built components, capacity for reconfiguration and higher reliability have contributed to the need to update current systems. Consequently, legacy systems, typically designed and developed using traditional methods, need to be re-engineered into new component-based systems. The objective of the study is to develop a method to compare traditional and component-based models of systems. Design science is the approach used to build and evaluate the method. The method incorporates and integrates existing methodologies for information systems re-engineering and conceptual model evaluation. A case study illustrating the comparison method revealed that a re-engineered component-based conceptual model was capable of representing and enriching all the traditional conceptual model constructs. However, there was a conflict with the use of data flows as these can represent both events and also couplings between processes, data stores, and external agents. Thus, the project derived an additional set of rules to use when generating a component-based model to improve the re-engineering step.


Design science Legacy systems Re-engineering Bunge-Wand-Weber model Component-based systems 


  1. Au YA (2001) Design Science I: The role of design science in electronic commerce research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 7(1):1–17Google Scholar
  2. Bunge M (1977) Treatise on basic philosophy: Volume 3: Ontology 1: The furniture of the world. Reidel, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunge M (1979) Treatise on basic philosophy: Volume 4: Ontology II: A world of systems. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen PP-S (1976) The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1(1):9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chisholm RM (1996) A realistic theory of categories: An essay on ontology. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Deursen AV, Kuipers T (1999) Identifying objects using cluster and concept analysis. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on software engineering (ICSE-99), 246–255Google Scholar
  7. Dussart A, Conseil R, Aubert B, Patry M (2004) An evaluation of inter-organizational workflow modeling formalisms. J Database Manag 15(1):74–104Google Scholar
  8. Evermann J, Wand Y (2001) An ontological examination of object interaction in conceptual modeling. In Proceedings of the 11th workshop on information technologies and systems (WITS 2001), New Orleans, LouisianaGoogle Scholar
  9. Fettke P, Loos P (2003). Ontological evaluation of reference models using the Bunge Wand-Weber-model. In Proceedings of the ninth Americas conference on information systems, Tampa, FL, USA, 2944–2955Google Scholar
  10. Fontannete V, Garcia VC, Perez A, Prado AF (2002) Component-Oriented software re-engineering using transformations. In Proceedings of the international conference on computer science, software engineering, information technology, e-business, and applications, 206–211Google Scholar
  11. Green P, Rosemann M (2000) Integrated process modelling: an ontological evaluation. Inf Syst 25(2):73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Green P, Rosemann M (2005) Business analysis with ontologies. Idea Group Publishing, New York. USGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregor S (2002) Design theory in information systems. Aust J Inf Syst 10(1):14–22Google Scholar
  14. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design research in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1):75–105Google Scholar
  15. Houston K, Norris D (2001) Software components and the UML, In: Heineman GT, Councill, WT (eds) Component Based Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, 243–262Google Scholar
  16. Jacobson I, Lindstrom F (1991) Re-engineering of old systems to an object-oriented approach. In Proceedings of the conference on object-oriented programming systems, languages and applications (OOPSLA 1991), 340–350Google Scholar
  17. Jacobson I (1987) Object oriented development in an industrial environment. In Proceedings of conference on object-oriented programming systems, languages and applications (OOPSLA). Orlando, Florida: ACM Press, 183–191Google Scholar
  18. March S, Smith G (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst 15(4):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nunamaker JF, Chen M 1990, Systems development in information systems research, In Proceedings of the Twenty-third hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press, 631–639Google Scholar
  20. Opdahl AL, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) Understanding and improving the UML metamodel through ontological analysis. J Softw Syst Modell 1(1):43–67Google Scholar
  21. Rosemann M, Green P (2002) Developing a meta model for the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontological constructs. Inf Syst 27:75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scheer A-W (1998) ARIS–business process frameworks, 2nd edn edn. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Uschold M, King M, Moralee S, Zorgios Y (1998) The enterprise ontology. Knowl Eng Rev 13(1):31–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Valverde R, Toleman M (2007) Ontological evaluation of business models: Comparing traditional and component-based paradigms in information systems re-engineering. In: Kishore R, Ramesh R, Sharman R (eds) Ontologies in the context of information systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 49–77Google Scholar
  25. Valverde R (2008) The ontological evaluation of the requirements model when shifting from a traditional to a component-based paradigm in information systems re-engineering. DBA Dissertation, University of Southern QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  26. Verrijn-Stuart AA (2001) A framework of information system concepts. Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.1 Working conference on information system concepts, Brussels, November 15–16Google Scholar
  27. Wand Y, Weber R (1989) An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods. In Falkenberg E, Lindgreen P (eds). Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Information Systems Concepts: An In-Depth Analysis, Namur, Belgium, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 79–107Google Scholar
  28. Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Inf Syst J 3(2):217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wand Y, Weber R (1995) On the deep structure of information systems. Inf Syst J 5(2):203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weber R (1997) Ontological foundations of information systems. Coopers and Lybrand accounting research methodology. Monograph No. 4. MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  31. Weber R, Zhang Y (1996) An analytical evaluation of NIAM’s grammar for conceptual schema diagrams. Inf Syst J 6(2):147–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Whitten JL, Bentley DL, Dittman KV (2001) Systems analysis and design methods. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raul Valverde
    • 1
  • Mark Toleman
    • 2
  • Aileen Cater-Steel
    • 2
  1. 1.John Molson School of BusinessConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.School of Information Systems, Faculty of BusinessUniversity of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations