From Expert Discipline to Common Practice: A Vision and Research Agenda for Extending the Reach of Enterprise Modeling

Abstract

The benefits of enterprise modeling (EM) and its contribution to organizational tasks are largely undisputed in business and information systems engineering. EM as a discipline has been around for several decades but is typically performed by a limited number of people in organizations with an affinity to modeling. What is captured in models is only a fragment of what ought to be captured. Thus, this research note argues that EM is far from its maximum potential. Many people develop some kind of model in their local practice without thinking about it consciously. Exploiting the potential of this “grass roots modeling” could lead to groundbreaking innovations. The aim is to investigate integration of the established practices of modeling with local practices of creating and using model-like artifacts of relevance for the overall organization. The paper develops a vision for extending the reach of EM, identifies research areas contributing to the vision and proposes elements of a future research agenda.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allemang D, Hendler J (2011) Semantic web for the working ontologist: effective modeling in RDFS and OWL. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anaya V, Berio G, Harzallah M, Heymans P, Matulevičius R, Opdahl AL, Panetto H, Verdecho M J (2010) The unified enterprise modelling language—overview and further work. Comput Ind 61(2)

  3. Benkenstein M, Fellmann M, Leyer M, Sandkuhl K (2016) The value of enterprise modelling: towards a service-centric perspective. In: Horkoff J, Jeusfeld MA, Persson A (eds) The practice of enterprise modeling. In: 9th IFIP WG 8.1. Working Conference, PoEM 2016, pp 299–306

  4. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J et al (2001) The semantic web—a new form of web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities. Sci Am 284(5):34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berzisa S, Bravos G, González TC, Czubayko U, España S, Grabis J et al (2015) Capability driven development: an approach to designing digital enterprises. Bus Inf Syst Eng 57(1):15–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bizer C, Heath T, Berners-Lee T (2009) Linked data-the story so far. Semantic services, interoperability and web applications: emerging concepts. Int J Semant Web Inf Syst 5(3):205–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blohm I, Leimeister JM, Krcmar H (2013) Crowdsourcing: how to benefit from (too) many great ideas. MIS Q Exec 4(12):199–211

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bork D, Fill HG (2014) Formal aspects of enterprise modeling methods: a comparison framework. In: Proceedings of the 2014 47th International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE

  9. Bork D, Fill HG, Karagiannis D, Miron ET, Tantouris N, Walch M (2015) Conceptual modelling for smart cities: a teaching case. Inter Design Arch J 27:10–27

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brenner W, Karagiannis D, Kolbe L, Krüger J, Leifer L, Lamberti H, Leimeister J, Österle H, Petrie C, Plattner H, Schwabe G, Uebernickel F, Winter R, Zarnekow R (2015) User, use & utility research—the digital user as new design perspective in business and information systems engineering. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(1):55–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Corradi G, Gherardi S, Verzelloni L (2010) Through the practice lens: where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Manag Learn 41(3):265–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dalkir K (2013) Knowledge management in theory and practice. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Delfmann P, Herwig S, Lis L, Stein A, Tent K, Becker J (2010) Pattern specification and matching in conceptual models—a generic approach based on set operations. Enterp Model Inf Syst Archit 5(3):24–43

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dietz JLG (2006) Enterprise ontology—theory and methodology. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dietz JLG (2008) Architecture. Building strategy into design. Academic Service, The Hague

  16. Fellmann M, Zarvic N, Metzger D, Koschmider A (2015) Requirements catalog for business process modeling recommender systems WI 2015, Osnabrück, Germany, March 4–6. In: Thomas O, Teuteberg F (eds) Smart enterprise engineering: 12. Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik 2015, pp 393–407

  17. Fill HG (2011) On the conceptualization of a modeling language for semantic model annotations. In: CAiSE 2011 Workshops, Springer. LNBIP vol. 83, pp 134–148

  18. Fill HG (2016) SeMFIS: a flexible engineering platform for semantic annotations of conceptual models. Semant Web 8(5):747–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fill HG, Johannsen F (2016) A knowledge perspective on big data by joining enterprise modeling and data analyses. In: Bui TX, Sprague RH (eds) 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE

  20. Fill HG, Karagiannis D (2013) On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the adoxx meta modelling platform. Enterp Model Inf Syst Archit 8(1):4–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fill HG, Redmond T, Karagiannis D (2012) FDMM: A formalism for describing ADOxx meta models and models. In: Leszek M, Cuzzocrea A, Cordeiro J (eds) Proceedings of ICEIS 2012, vol. 3. SciTePress, Lisbon, pp 133–144

  22. Fischbach M, Puschmann T, Alt R (2013) Service lifecycle management. Bus Inf Syst Eng 5(1):45–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Frank U (2014a) Multilevel modeling—toward a new paradigm of conceptual modeling and information systems design. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(6):319–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Frank U (2014b) Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Softw Syst Model 13(3):941–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Frank U, Strecker S, Fettke P, vom Brocke J, Becker J, Sinz E (2014) The research field “modeling business information systems”—current challenges and elements of a future research agenda. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(1)

  26. Fraser MD, Kumar K et al (1994) Strategies for incorporating formal specifications in software development. Commun ACM 37(10):74–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gardner D, Fehskens L, Naidu M, Rouse WB, Ross JW (2012) Point-counterpoint: enterprise architecture and enterprise transformation as related but distinct concepts. J Enter Transform 2(4):283–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gruber T (2008) Collective knowledge systems: where the social web meets the semantic web. J Web Sem 6(1):4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gutschmidt A, Sandkuhl K, Borchardt U (2017) Multi-touch table or plastic wall? Design of a study for the comparison of media in modeling workshops, 2016. In: Abramowicz W, Alt R, Franczyk B (eds) Business information systems workshops 2016, LNBIP 263. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 123–135

  30. Henderson-Sellers B, Ralyté J, Ågerfalk PJ, Rossi M (2014) Situational method engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–274

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hermans FFJ (2012) Analyzing and visualizing spreadsheets. PhD thesis, Software Engineering Research Group, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

  32. Hoppenbrouwers SJBA, Rouwette EAJA (2012) A dialogue game for analysing group model building: framing collaborative modelling and its facilitation. Int J Org Design Eng 2(1):19–40

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hoppenbrouwers SJBA, van Stokkum W (2013) From dialogue games to mthinklets: overview and synthesis of a collaborative modeling approach. Int J E-Collab 9(4):32–44

    Google Scholar 

  34. ISO/IEC 24744 (2014) Software engineering—metamodel for development methodologies. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=62644. Accessed 23 Nov 2017

  35. Iyer B, Basole R (2016) Visualization to understand ecosystems. Commun ACM 59(11):27–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kolb J, Rudner B, Reichert M (2013) Gesture-based process modeling using multi-touch devices. IJISMD 4(4):48–69

    Google Scholar 

  37. Krogstie J (2016) Quality in business process modeling. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  38. Krogstie J, Dalberg V, Jensen SM (2006) Process modeling value framework. In: Manolopoulos Y, Filipe J, Constantopoulos P, Cordeiro J (eds) Selected papers from ICEIS 2006, LNBIP 3. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 309–321

    Google Scholar 

  39. Krogstie BR, Schmidt AP, Kunzmann C, Krogstie J, Mora S (2013) Linking reflective learning and knowledge maturing in organizations. In: ARTEL@ EC-TEL, pp 13–28

  40. Kusel A, Schönböck J, Wimmer M, Kappel G, Retschitzegger W, Schwinger W (2015) Reuse in model-to-model transformation languages: are we there yet? Softw Syst Model 14(2):537–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Leimeister JM (2010) Collective intelligence. Bus Inf Syst Eng 4(2):245–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lillehagen F, Krogstie J (2009) Active knowledge modelling of enterprises. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  43. Luff P, Heath C (1998) Mobility in collaboration. In: ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, ACM

  44. Luff P, Hindmarsh J, Heath C (2000) Workplace studies: recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  45. Maier S, Minas M (2015) Recording, processing, and visualizing changes in diagrams. In: IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing

  46. Martens A, Fettke P, Loos P (2015) Inductive development of reference process models based on factor analysis WI 2015, Osnabrück, March 4–6. In: Thomas O, Teuteberg F (eds) Smart Enterprise Engineering: 12. Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik 2015, pp 438–452

  47. Matthes F, Neubert C, Schneider AW (2013) Fostering collaborative and integrated enterprise architecture modeling. J Enterp Model Inf Syst Architectures 8(1)

  48. Narayanan NH, Hübscher R (1998) Visual language theory: towards a human-computer interaction perspective. In: Marriott K (ed) Visual language theory. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  49. Neumann G, Sobernig S, Aram M (2014) Evolutionary business information systems—perspectives and challenges of an emerging class of information systems. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(1):33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5(1):14–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Obrst L (2003) Ontologies for semantically interoperable systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, New Orleans, ACM Press

  52. Opdahl AL, Berio G, Harzallah M, Matulevičius R (2012) An ontology for enterprise and information systems modelling. Appl Ontol 7(1):49–92

    Google Scholar 

  53. Oppl S (2016) Towards scaffolding collaborative articulation and alignment of mental models. In: Proceedings of ICKM 2016. Elsevier Procedia Computer Science

  54. Orlikowski W (1993) Learning from notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation. Inf Soc 9(3):237–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Probst G, Raub S, Romhardt K (2000) Managing knowledge—building blocks for success. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  56. Reschenhofer T, Bhat M, Hernandez-Mendez A, Matthes F (2016) Lessons learned in aligning data and model evolution in collaborative information systems. In: Proc. International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)

  57. Ross JW, Quaadgras A (2012) Enterprise architecture is not just for architects. Center for Information Systems Research Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  58. Roth S, Hauder M, Matthes F (2013) Collaborative evolution of enterprise architecture models. 8th International Workshop on Models at Runtime (Models@run.time 2013)

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

    Google Scholar 

  60. Schatzki TR (2001) Practice minded orders. In: Schatzki TR, Knorr Cetina K, Savigny E (eds) The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge, London

  61. Star S, Griesemer J (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Stirna J, Persson A, Sandkuhl K (2007) Participative enterprise modeling: experiences and recommendations. International conference on advanced information systems engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 546–560

    Google Scholar 

  63. Studer R, Benjamins VR, Fensel D (1998) Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. Data Knowl Eng 25(1):161–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Theunissen T, van Heesch U (2016) The disappearance of technical specifications in web and mobile applications. In: Proceedings of ECSA

  65. Thomas O, Fellmann M (2007) Semantic business process management: ontology-based process modeling using event-driven process chains. IBIS 2(1):29–44

    Google Scholar 

  66. Van Deursen A, Klint P, Visser J (2000) Domain-specific languages: an annotated bibliography. Sigplan Not 35(6):26–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Vernadat FB (1996) Enterprise modelling and Integration. Chapman & Hall

  68. von Hippel (2005) Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user innovation. J Betriebswirtschaft 55(1):63–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Weiss S, Aier S, Winter R (2013) Institutionalization and the effectiveness of enterprise architecture management. In: International Conference on Information Systems, AIS

  70. Winter R (2004) Architektur braucht Management. Wirtschaftsinformatik 46(4):317–319

    Google Scholar 

  71. Winter R (2014) Architectural thinking. Bus Inf. Syst Eng 6(6):361–364

    Google Scholar 

  72. Yoon Y, Myers B (2015) Semantic zooming of code change history. In: IEEE symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing

  73. Zdravkovic J, Stirna J, Kirikova M, Karagiannis, D, Winter R (2015) Advanced enterprise modeling. Bus Inf Syst Eng 57(1)

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is a result of the Dagstuhl seminar no. 16192 on, Supporting Organizational Efficiency and Agility: Models, Languages and Software Systems (see http://www.dagstuhl.de/de/programm/kalender/semhp/?semnr=16192).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prof. Dr. Kurt Sandkuhl.

Additional information

Accepted after two revisions by Prof. Dr. Bichler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sandkuhl, K., Fill, H., Hoppenbrouwers, S. et al. From Expert Discipline to Common Practice: A Vision and Research Agenda for Extending the Reach of Enterprise Modeling. Bus Inf Syst Eng 60, 69–80 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0516-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Enterprise modeling
  • Grass roots modeling
  • Research agenda