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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Notes

  1. 1.

    The semantically richer the modeling concepts are, the higher the potential productivity gain as domain-specific concepts do not have to be reconstructed from scratch. However, increasing the semantic richness of the modeling concepts lowers the range of their applicability across different contexts. Hence, semantic richness lowers language reuse. Conversely, the more generic the modeling concepts are, the wider their range of reuse. However, this genericity implies a lower semantic richness and hence, a lower productivity of the modeling process.

  2. 2.

    Deferred instantiation allows to define on each level of abstraction invariant commonalities which are relevant for our purposes, and deferring their instantiation to some not directly proceeding lower level.

  3. 3.

    Virtualization of hardware resources is a common feature of mainframes, in particular it allows (1) to offer redundant (virtual) partitions, which helps with fault tolerance, and (2) to help distributing the ample hardware capabilities offered by a mainframe into smaller, more manageable pieces.

References

  1. Antunes G, Barateiro J, Caetano A, Borbinha J (2015) Analysis of federated enterprise architecture models. In: 23rd ECIS Conference, AISNet

  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 19–33

  3. Atkinson C, Kühne T (2008) Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. SoSyM 7(3):345–359

    Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson C, Gerbig R, Fritzsche M (2015) A multi-level approach to modeling language extension in the enterprise systems domain. Inf Syst 54:289–307

    Article  Google 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 21–29

  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 311–340

  10. Clark T, Sammut P, Willans J (2008) Applied metamodelling: a foundation for language driven development. Ceteva, Sheffield

    Google 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-Essen

  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):319–337

    Google 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, ceur-ws.org, pp 3–24

  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, Berlin

    Google 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, Spring

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lankhorst M (2013) Enterprise architecture at work: modeling, communication and analysis, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google 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):869–891

    Google 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 107–116

  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+Teubner

  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 20:7–10

    Google 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 3–13

  30. Sandkuhl K, Stirna J, Persson A, Wißotzki M (2014) Enterprise modeling: tackling business challenges with the 4EM method. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A, Martin G (2001) Platform-based design and software design methodology for embedded systems. IEEE Design Test Comput 6:23–33

    Article  Google 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, Adelaide

  35. The Open Group (2013) ArchiMate 2.1 Specification: Open Group Standard. The Open Group Series, Van Haren, Zaltbommel

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika Kaczmarek-Heß.

Additional information

Accepted after two revisions by Prof. Dr. Matthes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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, 315–329 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0482-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • IT landscape analyses
  • Multilevel modeling
  • FMMLx