Advertisement

On model-based analysis of organizational structures: an assessment of current modeling approaches and application of multi-level modeling in support of design and analysis of organizational structures

  • Sybren de KinderenEmail author
  • Monika Kaczmarek-Heß
Special Section Paper

Abstract

Conceptual modeling promises to support various analysis questions on organizational structures, such as allocation of tasks, responsibilities, and authority in an organization. In this paper, we first synthesize requirements on an organizational structure analysis from the business scholar literature and assess to what extent and how current modeling languages fulfill these. In particular, we find limitations in the covered scope as well as the information processing capabilities of the reviewed approaches. Second, as a response to identified gaps, we propose multi-level modeling and integrated modeling and programming as a way to support design and analysis of organizational structure. We use the structure of universities as a case scenario. This paper is an extension of our earlier work. Firstly, we add an explicit set of requirements derived from business scholar literature. Secondly, we draw a comparison to the abstraction mechanisms used in conventional meta-modeling, as prominently exemplified by UML class diagrams, and we critically discuss multi-level modeling. Finally, we discuss a prototypical implementation of our multi-level model in the XModeler software tool.

Keywords

Organizational structure Multi-level modeling Conceptual modeling 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Abramowicz, W., Filipowska, A., Kaczmarek, M., Pedrinaci, C., Starzecka, M., Walczak, A.: Organization structure description for the needs of semantic business process management. In: Hepp, M., Stojanovic, N., Hinkelmann, K., Karagiannis, D., Klein, R. (eds.) 3rd International Workshop on Semantic Business Process Management Colocated with 5th European Semantic Web Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almeida, J.P.A., Frank, U., Kuehne, T.: Multi-level modelling (report from dagstuhl seminar 17492). Dagstuhl Rep. 7(12), 18–49 (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, C., Gerbig, R.: Aspect-oriented concrete syntax definition for deep modeling languages. In: Atkinson, C., Grossmann, G., Kühne, T., de Lara, J. (eds) Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Multi-Level Modelling (MULTI), pp. 13–22 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkinson, C., Gerbig, R., Fritzsche, M.: A multi-level approach to modeling language extension in the enterprise systems domain. Inf. Syst. 54, 289–307 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson, C., Gerbig, R., Kühne, T.: Comparing multi-level modeling approaches. In: MULTI 2014: Proceedings of the Workshop on Multi-Level Modelling co-located with ACM/IEEE 17th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages & Systems (MoDELS 2014) Valencia, Spain, September 28, 2014, vol. 1286, pp. 53–61. Aachen (2014). https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/43516/
  6. 6.
    Atkinson, C., Gerbig, R., Metzger, N.: On the execution of deep models. In: EXE 2015: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Executable Modeling co-located with ACM/IEEE 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2015) Ottawa, Canada, September 27, 2015, vol. 1560, pp. 28–33. RWTH, Aachen (2015). https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/43510/
  7. 7.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: The essence of multilevel metamodeling. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, pp. 19–33. Springer, London (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Profiles in a strict metamodeling framework. Sci. Comput. Programm. 44(1), 5–22 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Softw. Syst. Model. 7(3), 345–359 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bock, A.: Beyond narrow decision models: toward integrative models of organizational decision processes. In: 2015 IEEE 17th Conference on Business Informatics, vol. 1, pp. 181–190. IEEE, Boston, MA (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/CBI.2015.34
  11. 11.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. 2 edn, Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Büttner, F., Gogolla, M.: On generalization and overriding in uml 2.0. In: Bezivin, J., Baar, T., Gardner, T., Gogolla, M., Hähnle, R., Hußmann, H., Patrascoiu, O., Schmitt, P.H., Warmer, J. (eds.) OCL and Model Driven Engineering, UML 2004 Conf. Workshop, O. Patrascoiu, Long version: University of Kent, pp. 1–15 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carvalho, V., Almeida, J.A.: A semantic foundation for organizational structures: a multi-level approach. In: 2015 IEEE 19th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 50–59. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A.: Toward a well-founded theory for multi-level conceptual modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 17(1), 1–27 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0538-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Using a well-founded multi-level theory to support the analysis and representation of the powertype pattern in conceptual modeling. In: International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 309–324. Springer, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Child, J.: Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology 6(1), 1–22 (1972).  https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857200600101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clark, T., Frank, U.: Multi-level constraints. In: Hebig, R., Berger, T. (eds.) Proceedings of MODELS 2018 Workshops, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2245, pp. 103–117. CEUR-WS.org (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clark, T., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied metamodelling: a foundation for language driven development. Ceteva, Sheffield (2008). http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/6060/
  19. 19.
    Clark, T., Willans, J.: Software language engineering with xmf and xmodeler. In: Mernik, M. (ed.) Formal and practical aspects of domain-specific languages: recent developments, pp. 311–340. IGI Global (2013). http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/9560/
  20. 20.
    Daft, R.: Organization Theory and Design. SWC-General Business Series. South-Western College Publishing, Nashville, TN (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Donk, D.P., Molloy, E.: From organising as projects to projects as organisations. Int. J. Project Manage. 26(2), 129–137 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eric, S., Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., Mylopoulos, J.: Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. MIT Press, London (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fayol, H.: General and Industrial Management. Pitman Paperbacks. Pitman, New York, NY (1949)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Filipowska, A., Hepp, M., Kaczmarek, M., Markovic, I.: Organisational ontology framework for semantic business process management. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) Business Information Systems, pp. 1–12. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Forest, J.J.F., Altbach, P.G. (eds.): International Handbook of Higher Education. Springer, Dordrecht (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fox, M.S., Barbuceanu, M., Grüninger, M.: An organisation ontology for enterprise modeling: preliminary concepts for linking structure and behaviour. Comput. Ind. 29(1), 123–134 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frank, U.: Delegation: an important concept for the appropriate design of object models. J. Object Oriented Programm. 13(3), 13–18 (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Frank, U.: MEMO organisation modelling language (1): focus on organisational structure. ICB-Research Report 48, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: background and terminological foundation. ICB-Research Report 46, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frank, U.: The MEMO Meta modeling Language (MML) and Language Architecture. 2nd edn. ICB-Research Report 43, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 941–962 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frank, U.: Domain-specific modeling languages: Requirements analysis and design guidelines. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A., Clark, T., Cohen, S., Bettin, J. (eds.) Domain Engineering, pp. 133–157. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 941–962 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0273-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frank, U.: Multilevel modeling - toward a new paradigm of conceptual modeling and information systems design. BISE 6(6), 319–337 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Frank, U.: Power-modelling: Toward a more versatile approach to creating and using conceptual models. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Business Modelling and Software Design, pp. 9–19 (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Frank, U.: Designing models and systems to support it management: a case for multilevel modeling. In: Atkinson, C., Grossmann, G., Clark, T. (eds.) MULTI 2016 Multi-Level Modelling. Proceedings of the Workshop in Saint-Malo, pp. 3–24. ceur-ws.org (2016)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Frank, U.: The flexible multi-level modelling and execution language (FMMLx). version 2.0: Analysis of requirements and technical terminology. Tech. Rep. 66, ICB-Research Report (2018)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Galbraith, J.R.: Matrix organization designs. How to combine functional and project forms. Bus. Horiz. 14(1), 29–40 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gerbig, R.: Deep, Seamless, Multi-Format, Multi-Notation Definition and Use of Domain-Specific Languages. Verlag Dr, Hut (2017)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gerwin, D., Kolodny, H.: Management of Advanced Manufacturing Technology: Strategy, Organization, and Innovation. Wiley Series in Engineering and Technology Management. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (1992)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: A unified foundational ontology and some applications of it in business modeling. In: Grundspenkis, J., Kirikova, M. (eds.) CAiSE’04 Workshops in connection with The 16th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Riga, Latvia, 7–11 June, 2004, Knowledge and Model Driven Information Systems Engineering for Networked Organisations, Proceedings, vol. 3, pp. 129–143. Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gulden, J.: An example application of a multi-level concrete syntax specification with copy-and-complete semantics. In: Clark, T., Frank, U., Wimmer, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Multi-Level Modelling (MULTI) 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Guy, C., Combemale, B., Derrien, S., Steel, J.R., Jézéquel, J.M.: On model subtyping. In: European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications, pp. 400–415. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hanschke, I.: IT Landscape Management, pp. 105–217. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 28(1), 75–106 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Igamberdiev, M., Grossmann, G., Stumptner, M.: A feature-based categorization of multi-level modeling approaches and tools. In: Atkinson, C., Grossmann, G., Clark, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Multi-Level Modelling Co-Located with ACM/IEEE 19th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS 2016), Saint-Malo, France, October 4, 2016, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1722, pp. 45–55. CEUR-WS.org (2016)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jackson, J.H., Morgan, C.P.: Organization Theory: A Macro Perspective for Management. Prentice-Hall, Upple Saddle River, NJ (1978)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jeusfeld, M.A., Neumayr, B.: Deeptelos: multi-level modeling with most general instances. In: Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song, I.Y., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling, pp. 198–211. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Johnston, M.A.: Delegation and organizational structure in small businesses: influences of manage’s attachment patterns. Group Organ. Manag. 25(1), 4–21 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kaczmarek-Heß, M., de Kinderen, S.: A multilevel model of it platforms for the needs of enterprise it landscape analyses. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59(5), 315–329 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kaczmarek-Heß, M., Nolte, M., Fritsch, A., Betz, S.: Practical experiences with multi-level modeling using fmmlx: a hierarchy of domain-specific modeling languages in support of life-cycle assessment. In: Clark, T., Neumayr, B., Rutle, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Multi-Level Modelling (MULTI) 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kehm, B.M., Forest, J.J.F., Altbach, P.G.: International Handbook of Higher Education, pp. 729–745. Springer, Dordrecht (2007)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kehm, B.M. (ed.): Hochschule im Wandel: Die Universität als Forschungsgegenstand. Campus Verlag (2008)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    de Kinderen, S., Kaczmarek-Heß, M.: Modeling organizational structures in the realm of enterprise modeling: limitations of the current paradigm and prospects of multilevel language architectures. In: Gulden, J., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Schmidt, R., Guerreiro, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling–19th International Conference, BPMDS 2018, 23rd International Conference, EMMSAD 2018, Held at CAiSE 2018, Tallinn, Estonia, June 11–12, 2018, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 318, pp. 229–243. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kühne, T.: A story of levels. In: Hebig, R., Berger, T. (eds.) Proceedings of MODELS 2018 Workshops: ModComp, MRT, OCL, FlexMDE, EXE, COMMitMDE, MDETools, GEMOC, MORSE, MDE4IoT, MDEbug, MoDeVVa, ME, MULTI, HuFaMo, AMMoRe, PAINS co-located with ACM/IEEE 21st International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2018), Copenhagen, Denmark, October, 14, 2018. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2245, pp. 673–682. CEUR-WS.org (2018). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2245
  56. 56.
    Kühne, T., Schreiber, D.: Can programming be liberated from the two-level style: multi-level programming with Deepjava. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 42(10), 229–244 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1297105.1297044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lange, A., Atkinson, C.: Multi-level modeling with MELANEE. In: Proceedings of MODELS 2018 Workshops (2018)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: modeling, Communication and Analysis, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    de Lara, J., Guerra, E.: Deep meta-modelling with metadepth. In: Vitek, J. (ed.) Objects, Models, Components, Patterns, pp. 1–20. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    de Lara, J., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S.: When and how to use multilevel modelling. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 24(2), 12:1–12:46 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lawrence, P., Lorsch, J.: Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Harvard Business School Publications. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston (1967)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lazzeretti, L., Tavoletti, E.: Governance shifts in higher education: a cross-national comparison. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 5(1), 18–37 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lee, H., Lee, Y., Noh, B.: A framework for modeling organization structure in role engineering. In: Dongarra, J., Madsen, K., Wasniewski, J. (eds.) PARA 2004, pp. 1017–1024. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Likert, R.: The Human Organization: Its Management and Values. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1967)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Macías, F., Rutle, A., Stolz, V.: Multecore: combining the best of fixed-level and multilevel metamodelling. In: Atkinson, C., Grossmann, G., Clark, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Multi-Level Modelling co-located with ACM/IEEE 19th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages & Systems (MoDELS 2016), Saint-Malo, France, October 4, 2016, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1722, pp. 66–75. CEUR-WS.org (2016)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Macías, F., Rutle, A., Stolz, V., Rodríguez-Echeverría, R., Wolter, U.: An approach to flexible multilevel modelling. Enterp. Modell. Inf. Syst. Archit. 13, 1–35 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.18417/emisa.13.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Malone, T.W.: Modeling coordination in organizations and markets. Manage. Sci. (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.10.1317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Manning, S.: The rise of project network organizations: building core teams and flexible partner pools for interorganizational projects. Res. Policy 46(8), 1399–1415 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., Nielsen, P.A., Stage, J.: Object-Oriented Analysis & Design. Marko Publishing, Aalborg (2000)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mintzberg, H.: The Structuring of Organizations: a Synthesis of the Research. Theory of Management Policy Series. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1979)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J., Quinn, J.: The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2003)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Moody, D.: The physics of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual modelling and telos. In: Loucopoulos, P., Zicari, R. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling, Databases, and CASE: An Integrated View of Information System Development, pp. 49–68. Wiley, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Nadler, D.A., Tushman, M.L.: A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Org. Dyn. 9(2), 35–51 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Närman, P., Johnson, P.: Analyzing coordination and flexibility in organizations using enterprise architecture. In: Dijkman, R., Pires, L.F., Rinderle-Ma, S. (eds.) 2016 IEEE 20th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW), pp. 1–8 (2016)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Närman, P., Johnson, P., Gingnell, L.: Using enterprise architecture to analyse how organisational structure impact motivation and learning. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 10(5), 523–562 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2014.986211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Neumayr, B., Grün, K., Schrefl, M.: Multi-level domain modeling with m-objects and m-relationships. In: Kirchberg, M., Link, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 107–116. Australian Computer Society, Darlinghurst (2009)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Neumayr, B., Schrefl, M., Thalheim, B.: Modeling techniques for multi-level abstraction. In: Kaschek, R., Delcambre, L. (eds.) The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling, pp. 68–92. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Neumayr, B., Schuetz, C.G., Horner, C., Schrefl, M.: Deepruby: Extending ruby with dual deep instantiation. In: Burgueño, L., Corley, J., Bencomo, N., Clarke, P.J., Collet, P., Famelis, M., Ghosh, S., Gogolla, M., Greenyer, J., Guerra, E., Kokaly, S., Pierantonio, A., Rubin, J., Ruscio, D.D. (eds.) Proceedings of MODELS 2017 Satellite Event: Workshops (ModComp, ME, EXE, COMMitMDE, MRT, MULTI, GEMOC, MoDeVVa, MDETools, FlexMDE, MDEbug), Posters, Doctoral Symposium, Educator Symposium, ACM Student Research Competition, and Tools and Demonstrations co-located with ACM/IEEE 20th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2017), Austin, TX, USA, September, 17, 2017, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2019, pp. 252–260. CEUR-WS.org (2017). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2019
  80. 80.
    Nguyen, T., Meek, V.L.: Key considerations in organizing and structuring university research. J. Res. Adm. 46(1), 41–62 (2015)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Odell, J.J.: Advanced Object-oriented Analysis and Design Using UML, 12th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Oh, S., Sandhu, R.: A model for role administration using organization structure. In: Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, SACMAT ’02, pp. 155–162. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    OMG: Organization Structure Metamodel (OSM). In: 2nd Initial Submission in Response To: Organization structure Metamodel RFP, OMG (2006)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    OMG: The OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), version 2.5. Tech. rep. (2015). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/
  85. 85.
    OMG: The OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF), version 2.5.1. Tech. rep. (2016). https://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/
  86. 86.
    OMG: Decision Model and Notation (DMN) version 1.2 (2019)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., Sinz, E.J.: Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 20, 7–10 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Pepenel, M., Voicu, I.I.: The organisational structure of telecommunications companies case study: the ote group. Eur. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2(2), 96 (2010)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Pereira, D., Almeida, J.P.A.: Representing organizational structures in an enterprise architecture language. In: Cuel, R., Young, R. (eds.) 6th Workshop on Formal Ontologies Meet Industry (FOMI 2014), pp. 1–12 (2014)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Roethlisberger, F., William, J.D.: Management and the Worker. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1939)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Rose, L.M., Paige, R.F., Kolovos, D.S., Polack, F.A.: The epsilon generation language. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) Model Driven Architecture–Foundations and Applications. 4th European Conference, ECMDA-FA 2008, Berlin, Germany, June 9–13, 2008, Proceedings, pp. 1–16. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Sandkuhl, K., Wißotzki, M., Stirna, J.: Unternehmensmodellierung: Grundlagen. Methode und Praktiken. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Santos, P.S., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: An ontology-based analysis and semantics for organizational structure modeling in the aris method. Inf. Syst. 38(5), 690–708 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Scheer, A.W.: ARIS–Modellierungsmethoden, Metamodelle, Anwendungen, 4th edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Selway, M., Stumptner, M., Mayer, W., Jordan, A., Grossmann, G., Schrefl, M.: A conceptual framework for large-scale ecosystem interoperability and industrial product lifecycles. Data Knowl. Eng. 109, 85–111 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    SoftwareAG: Aris method manual v.10 (2017) Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sonnenberg, C., vom Brocke, J.: Evaluations in the science of the artificial–reconsidering the build-evaluate pattern in design science research. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) Design Science Research in Information Systems: Advances in Theory and Practice. 7th International Conference, DESRIST 2012, Las Vegas, NV, USA, May 14–15, 2012, Proceedings, DESRIST’12, pp. 381–397. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.1 Specification: Open Group Standard. The Open Group Series. Van Haren, Zaltbommel (2013)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Thompson, J.D.: Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of AdministrativeTheory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1967)Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Töpel, D., Benner, B.: Maintenance of multi-level models – an analysis of elementary change operations. In: Burgueño, L., Corley, J., Bencomo, N., Clarke, P.J., Collet, P., Famelis, M., Ghosh, S., Gogolla, M., Greenyer, J., Guerra, E., Kokaly, S., Pierantonio, A., Rubin, J., Ruscio, D.D. (eds.) Proceedings of MODELS 2017 Satellite Event: Workshops (ModComp, ME, EXE, COMMitMDE, MRT, MULTI, GEMOC, MoDeVVa, MDETools, FlexMDE, MDEbug), Posters, Doctoral Symposium, Educator Symposium, ACM Student Research Competition, and Tools and Demonstrations co-located with ACM/IEEE 20th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2017), Austin, TX, USA, September, 17, 2017, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2019, pp. 243–250. CEUR-WS.org (2017). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2019
  102. 102.
    Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., Zorgios, Y.: The enterprise ontology. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 13(1), 31–89 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    W3C: The Organization Ontology, Tech. rep (2014). https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/
  104. 104.
    Weber, M.: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Free Press, Glencoe, IL (1947)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Weick, K.E.: Making Sense of the Organization. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ (2001)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Yen, T., Tian, Y.: Organizational structure: influencing factors and impact on a firm. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 3, 229–236 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2013.32028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems and Enterprise ModelingUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations