Advertisement

Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 1043–1057 | Cite as

Bridging value modelling to ArchiMate via transaction modelling

  • Sybren de Kinderen
  • Khaled Gaaloul
  • Henderik A. Proper
Theme Section Paper

Abstract

The ArchiMate modelling language provides a coherent and a holistic view of an enterprise in terms of its products, services, business processes, actors, business units, software applications and more. Yet, ArchiMate currently lacks (1) expressivity in modelling an enterprise from a value exchange perspective, and (2) rigour and guidelines in modelling business processes that realize the transactions relevant from a value perspective. To address these issues, we show how to connect e \(^{3}\) value, a technique for value modelling, to ArchiMate via transaction patterns from the DEMO methodology. Using ontology alignment techniques, we show a transformation between the meta models underlying e \(^{3}\) value, DEMO and ArchiMate. Furthermore, we present a step-wise approach that shows how this model transformation is achieved and, in doing so, we also show the of such a transformation. We exemplify the transformation of DEMO and e \(^{3}\) value into ArchiMate by means of a case study in the insurance industry. As a proof of concept, we present a software tool supporting our transformation approach. Finally, we discuss the functionalities and limitations of our approach; thereby, we analyze its and practical applicability.

Keywords

ArchiMate e\(^{3}\) DEMO Meta model Model transformation. 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially sponsored by the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg (http://www.fnr.lu), via the CORE and PEARL programmes.

References

  1. 1.
    Baudry, B., Ghosh, S., Fleurey, F., France, R., Le Traon, Y., Mottu, J.M.: Barriers to systematic model transformation testing. Commun. ACM 53(6), 139–143 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bos, L., et al.: Finding the service you need: human centered design of a digital interactive social chart in dementia care (dem-disc). Med. Care Compunet. 5(137), 210 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Buuren, R., Gordijn, J., Janssen, W.: Business case modelling for e-services. In: 18th Bled eConference eIntegration in Action. AIS (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cummins, J.D., Doherty, N.A.: The economics of insurance intermediaries. J. Risk Insur. 73(3), 359–396 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Kinderen, S.: Needs-driven service bundling in a multi-supplier setting–the computational e\(^{3}\)service approach. PhD thesis, VU University Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Kinderen, S., Gaaloul, K., Proper, H.A.: Integrating Value Modelling into ArchiMate. In: Third International Conference on Exploring Service Science. Springer, Geneva, 125–139 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Kinderen, S., Gaaloul, K., Proper, H.A.: On transforming DEMO models to ArchiMate. In: Proceedings of the 2012 EMMSAD/Eurosymposium workshop, Gdansk, Poland, pp. 270–284. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Derzsi, Z., Gordijn, J., Kok, K.: Multi-perspective assessment of scalability of it-enabled networked constellations. In: Sprague, R.H. (ed.) Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 492. IEEE CS (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Devedzić, V.: Understanding ontological engineering. Commun. ACM 45, 136–144 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: The deep structure of business processes. Commun. ACM 49(5), 58–64 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise ontology: theory and methodology. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falconer, S.M., Noy, N.F., Storey, M.A.: Ontology mapping–a user survey. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM2007) at ISWC/ASWC2007, Busan, South Korea, pp. 113–125 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H.: Value based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Req. Eng. J. 8(2), 114–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification. Available at http://www.omg.org/cgibin/doc?ptc/2004-10-02. Accessed on 22 august 2012 (2004)
  16. 16.
    Happel, H., Seedorf, S.: Applications of ontologies in software engineering. In: 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE 2006), held at the 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iacob, M.-E., Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A.: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. The Open Group (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jonkers, H., Band, I., Quartel, D.: The ArchiSurance Case Study. White paper, The Open Group, Spring (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M.M., van Buuren, R., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Bonsangue, M., Van der Torre, L.: Concepts for modeling enterprise architectures. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 13(3), 257–288 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stichting DEMO kenniscentrum. DEMO: The KLM case. http://www.demo.nl/attachments/article/21/080610_Klantcase_KLM.pdf. Last accessed on 22 August (2012)
  21. 21.
    Kessentini, M., Sahraoui, H., Boukadoum, M.: Example-based model-transformation testing. Autom. Softw. Eng. 18(2), 199–224 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klein, M.: Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In: Workshop on ontologies and information sharing, IJCAI, vol. 1, p. 4. CEUR-WS (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kort, C., Gordijn, J.: Modeling strategic partnerships using the e3value ontology—a field study in the banking industry. In: Rittgen, P. (ed.) Handbook of Ontologies for Business Interaction, chapter XVIII. IGI Global, Hershey (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lankhorst, M. M.: Viewpoints Functionality and Examples. Telematica Institute (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lankhorst M. M., et al.: ArchiMate Language Primer. Telematica institute (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lankhorst, M.M., et al.: Enterprise architecture at work: modelling. In: Communication and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Jonkers, H.: The architecture of the ArchiMate language, pp. 367–380. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Levendovszky, T., Karsai, G., Maroti, M., Ledeczi, A., Charaf, H.: Model reuse with metamodel-based transformations. Software Reuse: Methods, Techniques, and Tools, pp. 166–178 (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Op’t Land, M., Middeljans, K., Buller, V.: Enterprise Ontology based Application Portfolio Rationalization at Rijkswaterstaat. In: The 4th Dutch Championship ICT, Architecture (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pijpers, V., Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H.: e3alignment: exploring inter-organizational alignment in networked value constellations. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Appl. 6(5), 59–88 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, Wil M.P., ter Hofstede, Arthur H.M., Wohed, P.: On the suitability of UML 2.0 activity diagrams for business process modelling. In: APCCM ’06: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, pp. 95–104. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: Ten challenges for ontology matching, pp. 1164–1182. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Amstel, M.F.: The right tool for the right job: assessing model transformation quality. In: IEEE 34th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops (COMPSACW), pp. 69–74. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vignaga, A.: Metrics for measuring ATL model transformations. MaTE, Department of Computer Science, Universidad de Chile, Tech. Rep (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Winograd, T.: A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Human-Computer Interact. 3(1), 3–30 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zivkovic, S., Kühn, H., Karagiannis, D.: Facilitate modelling using method integration: an approach using mappings and integration rules. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth European conference on information systems, ECIS 2007, pp. 2038–2049. AIS, St. Gallen (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sybren de Kinderen
    • 1
  • Khaled Gaaloul
    • 1
  • Henderik A. Proper
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Public Research Centre Henri Tudor Luxembourg-KirchbergLuxembourg
  2. 2.iCISRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations