Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 59, Issue 5, pp 315–329 | Cite as

A Multilevel Model of IT Platforms for the Needs of Enterprise IT Landscape Analyses

  • Monika Kaczmarek-HeßEmail author
  • Sybren de Kinderen
Research Paper


Conceptual modeling supports analyses of IT artifacts and the enterprise action system they are embedded in. However, in this paper it is argued that for IT landscape analyses existing modeling approaches fall short due to, among others, (a) problems with accounting for specifics of the IT domain, e.g., an elaborate technical terminology with various hierarchy levels, and (b) inadequate support for automated analyses within and across those different levels. In this paper, the authors discuss how a designed multilevel model of IT platforms created using the multilevel modeling language FMMLx can help overcome these problems. To this end, limitations of IT platform models created with conventional, two-level modeling languages are shown. Furthermore,  benefits resulting from the application of the selected multilevel modeling language are discussed.


IT landscape analyses Multilevel modeling FMMLx 


  1. Antunes G, Barateiro J, Caetano A, Borbinha J (2015) Analysis of federated enterprise architecture models. In: 23rd ECIS Conference, AISNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson C, Kühne T (2001) The essence of multilevel metamodeling. In: Proceeedings of the 4th Int. Conf. on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools. Springer, London, pp 19–33Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson C, Kühne T (2008) Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. SoSyM 7(3):345–359Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson C, Gerbig R, Fritzsche M (2015) A multi-level approach to modeling language extension in the enterprise systems domain. Inf Syst 54:289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bock A, Frank U (2016) Multi-perspective enterprise modeling - conceptual foundation and implementation with ADOxx. In: Karagiannis D, Mayr H, Mylopoulos J (eds) Domain-specific conceptual modeling: concepts, methods and tools. Springer, Cham, pp 241–267. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39417-611
  6. Bodenstaff L, Wombacher A, Reichert M, Jaeger MC (2008) Monitoring dependencies for SLAs: the MoDe4SLA approach. In: IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, vol 1, pp 21–29Google Scholar
  7. Bucher T, Fischer R, Kurpjuweit S, Winter R (2006) Analysis and application scenarios of enterprise architecture: An exploratory study. In: 2006 10th IEEE EDOCW, pp 28–28. doi: 10.1109/EDOCW.2006.22
  8. Carvalho VA, Almeida JPA (2016) Toward a well-founded theory for multi-level conceptual modeling. SoSyM (online first) pp 1–27. doi: 10.1007/s10270-016-0538-9
  9. Clark T, Willans J (2013) Software language engineering with XMF and XModeler. In: Mernik M (ed) Formal and practical aspects of domain-specific languages: recent developments. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 311–340Google Scholar
  10. Clark T, Sammut P, Willans J (2008) Applied metamodelling: a foundation for language driven development. Ceteva, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  11. de Lara J, Guerra E, Cuadrado JS (2014) When and how to use multilevel modelling. ACM TOSEM 24(2):12:1–12:46. doi: 10.1145/2685615
  12. Florez H, Sánchez M, Villalobos J (2014) Extensible model-based approach for supporting automatic enterprise analysis. In: EDOC conf. 2014, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, EDOC ’14, pp 32–41. doi: 10.1109/EDOC.2014.15
  13. Frank U (2011) The MEMO meta modeling language (MML) and language architecture, 2nd Edn. ICB-Research Report 43, University of Duisburg-EssenGoogle Scholar
  14. Frank U (2014a) Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. SoSyM 13(3):941–962. doi: 10.1007/s10270-012-0273-9 Google Scholar
  15. Frank U (2014b) Multilevel modeling – toward a new paradigm of conceptual modeling and information systems design. BISE 6(6):319–337Google Scholar
  16. Frank U (2016) Designing models and systems to support it management: A case for multilevel modeling. In: Atkinson C, Grossmann G, Clark T (eds) Multi@models,, pp 3–24Google Scholar
  17. Hanschke I (2010) IT landscape management. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 105–217. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-05034-34
  18. Heise D (2013) Unternehmensmodell-basiertes IT-Kostenmanagement als Bestandteil eines integrativen IT-Controllings. Logos, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson P, Lagerström R, Närman P, Simonsson M (2007) Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams. ISF 9(2):163–180. doi: 10.1007/s10796-007-9030-y Google Scholar
  20. Jonkers H, Band I, Quartel D (2012) The ArchiSurance case study. White paper, The Open Group, SpringGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaczmarek M, de Kinderen S (2016) A conceptualization of IT platform for the needs of enterprise IT landscape modeling. In: 18th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), vol 01, pp 74–83. doi: 10.1109/CBI.2016.17
  22. Lago P, Malavolta I, Muccini H, Pelliccione P, Tang A (2015) The road ahead for architectural languages. IEEE Soft 32(1):98–105. doi: 10.1109/MS.2014.28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lankhorst M (2013) Enterprise architecture at work: modeling, communication and analysis, 3rd edn. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Malavolta I, Lago P, Muccini H, Pelliccione P, Tang A (2013) What industry needs from architectural languages: a survey. IEEE TSE 39(6):869–891Google Scholar
  25. Neumayr B, Grün K, Schrefl M (2009) Multi-level domain modeling with m-objects and m-relationships. In: Proc. of the 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Australian Computer Society, Darlinghurst, Australia, pp 107–116Google Scholar
  26. Neumayr B, Schrefl M, Thalheim B (2011) Modeling techniques for multi-level abstraction. In: Kaschek R, Delcambre L (eds) The evolution of conceptual modeling. Springer, Berlin, pp 68–92. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-17505-34
  27. Niemann KD (2005) Von der Unternehmensarchitektur zur IT-Governance: Bausteine für ein wirksames IT-Management. Vieweg+TeubnerGoogle Scholar
  28. Österle H, Becker J, Frank U, Hess T, Karagiannis D, Krcmar H, Loos P, Mertens P, Oberweis A, Sinz EJ (2011) Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. EJIS 20:7–10Google Scholar
  29. Quartel D, Steen MW, Lankhorst M (2010) IT portfolio valuation-using enterprise architecture and business requirements modeling. In: 14th IEEE International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp 3–13Google Scholar
  30. Sandkuhl K, Stirna J, Persson A, Wißotzki M (2014) Enterprise modeling: tackling business challenges with the 4EM method. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A, Martin G (2001) Platform-based design and software design methodology for embedded systems. IEEE Design Test Comput 6:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt R, Möhring M (2016) Enterprise architecture analytics and decision support. In: El-Sheikh E, Zimmermann A, Jain LC (eds) Emerging trends in the evolution of service-oriented and enterprise architectures. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 201–218. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40564-3_11
  33. Schmidt R, Wissotzki M, Jugel D, Möhring M, Sandkuhl K, Zimmermann A (2014) Towards a framework for enterprise architecture analytics. In: Proc. of the 2014 IEEE 18th EDOCW, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 266–275. doi: 10.1109/EDOCW.2014.47
  34. Sun R, Gregor S, Keating B (2015) Information technology platforms: conceptualisation and a review of emerging research in the IS discipline. In: The 26th ACIS, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  35. The Open Group (2013) ArchiMate 2.1 Specification: Open Group Standard. The Open Group Series, Van Haren, ZaltbommelGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2017

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations