Enterprise Modelling Languages

Just Enough Standardisation?
  • Marija Bjeković
  • Henderik A. Proper
  • Jean-Sébastien Sottet
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 173)


In enterprise modelling, a wide range of models and languages is used to support different purposes. If left uncontrolled, this variety of models and languages can easily result in fragmented perspective on an enterprise, its processes and IT support. A traditional approach to address this problem is to create standard modelling languages that unify and integrate different modelling perspectives, such as e.g. UML, BPMN, and ArchiMate. However, one can observe how, in actual use, the ‘standardising’ and ‘integrating’ effect of these languages erodes. This is typically manifested by the emergence of ‘variants’, ‘light weight versions’, and extensions of the standard dealing with ‘missing aspects’. The empirical data suggests that these ‘variants’ emerge to compensate the inability of a standard language to aptly fit the needs of specific modelling situations. In this paper, we reconsider the drivers and strategies of modelling language standardisation. Relying on an ongoing research, the paper develops a fundamental understanding of the role of fixed language in the context of conceptual and enterprise modelling. This understanding is then used to analyse the ‘variants’ in the actual use of a standard process modelling language, and to discuss the potential insights towards its standardisation strategy.


model modelling language standardisation modelling pragmatics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allwood, J.: Some Remarks On the Relationship Between the Semantic and the Pragmatic Web. In: ICPW, pp. 35–39 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anaby-Tavor, A., Amid, D., Fisher, A., Bercovici, A., Ossher, H., Callery, M., Desmond, M., Krasikov, S., Simmonds, I.: Insights into enterprise conceptual modeling. Data Knowl. Eng. 69(12), 1302–1318 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baddely, A.: Working memory: Theories, models and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology 63, 1–29 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Band, I., Bjeković, M., Chaney, C., Lindokken, K., van Dis, E.: Modeling the Insurance Enterprise. Technical Report W12B, The Open Group (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bannert, M.: Managing cognitive load-recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction 12, 139–146 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjeković, M., Proper, H.A., Sottet, J.S.: Towards a coherent enterprise modelling landscape. In: PoEM (Short Papers), (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjeković, M., Sottet, J.S., Favre, J.M., Proper, H.: Framework for Natural Enterprise Modelling. In: IEEE CBI Conference (2013) (to appear)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H., Roelofs, J.: Concepts and strategies for quality of modeling. In: Innovations in Information Systems Modeling. IGI Publishing (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bubenko Jr., J.A., Persson, A., Stirna, J.: An Intentional Perspective on Enterprise Modeling. In: Salinesi, C., Nurcan, S., Souveyet, C., Ralyté, J. (eds.) Intentional Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering, pp. 215–237. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chiprianov, V., Alloush, I., Kermarrec, Y., Rouvrais, S.: Telecommunications Service Creation: Towards Extensions for Enterprise Architecture Modeling Languages. In: ICSOFT (1), pp. 23–28 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cho, H., Sun, Y., Gray, J., White, J.: Key challenges for modeling language creation by demonstration. In: ICSE FlexiTools Workshop (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark, H.: Arenas of Language Use. University of Chicago Press (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cruse, A.: Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford University Press (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davies, I., Green, P.F., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl. Eng. 58(3), 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Kinderen, S., Gaaloul, K., Proper, H.A.E.: Integrating Value Modelling into ArchiMate. In: Snene, M. (ed.) IESS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 103, pp. 125–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elahi, G., Yu, E.S.K., Annosi, M.C.: Modeling Knowledge Transfer in a Software Maintenance Organization - An Experience Report and Critical Analysis. In: Stirna, J., Persson, A. (eds.) PoEM 2008. LNBIP, pp. 15–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fabro, M.D.D., Valduriez, P.: Towards the efficient development of model transformations using model weaving and matching transformations. Software and System Modeling 8(3), 305–324 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Lindgreen, P., Nilsson, B.E., Oei, J., Rolland, C., Stamper, R., Van Assche, F., Verrijn-Stuart, A., Voss, K.: FRISCO - A Framework of Information System Concepts - The FRISCO Report. Technical report, IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feltus, C., Dubois, E., Proper, H.A., Band, I., Petit, M.: Enhancing the ArchiMate® standard with a responsibility modeling language for access rights management. In: SIN, pp. 12–19 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fernández, H.F., Palacios-González, E., García-Díaz, V., Pelayo, G., Bustelo, B.C., Sanjuán Martínez, O., Cueva Lovelle, J.M.: SBPMN – An easier business process modeling notation for business users. Computer Standards & Interfaces 32(1), 18–28 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fesenko, O.P.: Structure of Linguistic Personality in the Aspect of the Center-Periphery Theory. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 16(3), 397–401 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frank, U.: Some Guidelines for the Conception of Domain-Specific Modelling Languages. In: EMISA, pp. 93–106 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Geeraerts, D., Cuyckens, H. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful Modeling: What’s the Semantics of “Semantics”? IEEE Computer 37(10), 64–72 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Wilmont, I.: Focused Conceptualisation: Framing Questioning and Answering in Model-Oriented Dialogue Games. In: van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Overbeek, S., Proper, E., Barjis, J. (eds.) PoEM 2010. LNBIP, vol. 68, pp. 190–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: Freezing Language; Conceptualisation processes in ICT supported organisations. PhD thesis, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van Reijswoud, V.: Navigating the Methodology Jungle – The communicative role of modelling techniques in information system development. Computing Letters 1(3) (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: Understanding the Requirements on Modelling Techniques. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 262–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iacob, M.E., Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., Proper, H.A., Quartel, D.: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. The Open Group (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Karlsen, A.: Enterprise Modeling Practice in ICT-Enabled Process Change. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) PoEM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 208–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kimelman, D., Hirschman, K.: A Spectrum of Flexibility-Lowering Barriers to Modeling Tool Adoption. In: ICSE FlexiTools Workshop (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kort, C., Gordjin, J.: Modeling Strategic Partnerships Using the E3value Ontology: A Field Study in the Banking Industry. In: Handbook of Ontologies for Business Interaction, pp. 310–325. IGI Global (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.D.: Process models representing knowledge for action: A revised quality framework. EJIS 15(1), 91–102 (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Malavolta, I., Lago, P., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P., Tang, A.: What Industry Needs from Architectural Languages: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 39(6), 869–891 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moody, D.L.: Cognitive load effects on end user understanding of conceptual models: An experimental analysis. In: Benczúr, A.A., Demetrovics, J., Gottlob, G. (eds.) ADBIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3255, pp. 129–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moody, D.: The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification – Final Adopted Specification. Technical Report ptc/03–08–02 (August 2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0 (January 2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    OMG: OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML), Version 1.3 (June 2012)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Opdahl, A., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., Matulevicius, R.: Ontology for Enterprise and Information Systems Modelling. Applied Ontology 7(1), 49–92 (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Proper, H.A., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., Hoppenbrouwers, S.: On Utility-based Selection of Architecture-Modelling Concepts. In: APCCM 2005, pp. 25–34 (2005)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Recker, J.: Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Business Proc. Manag. Journal 16(1), 181–201 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rohrer, T.: Embodiment and Experientialism. In: Geeraerts, D., Cuyckens, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 25–47. Oxford University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rothenberg, J.: The Nature of Modeling. In: Artificial intelligence, Simulation & Modeling, pp. 75–92. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA (1989)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stachowiak, H.: Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer, Germany (1973)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M., Ades, Y.: Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations - A semiotic approach to information systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology 19(1), 15–27 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thalheim, B.: The Theory of Conceptual Models, the Theory of Conceptual Modelling and Foundations of Conceptual Modelling. In: Handbook of Conceptual Modeling, pp. 543–577. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thalheim, B.: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Conceptual Modelling. In: Bouma, G., Ittoo, A., Métais, E., Wortmann, H. (eds.) NLDB 2012. LNCS, vol. 7337, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    van der Linden, D.J.T., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Lartseva, A., Molnar, W.: Beyond terminologies: Using psychometrics to validate shared ontologies. Applied Ontology 7(4), 471–487 (2012)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wilmont, I., Hengeveld, S., Barendsen, E., Hoppenbrouwers, S.: Cognitive mechanisms of conceptual modelling - how do people do it? In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 74–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition - A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Publishing Corporation (1986)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Russell, N.: On the Suitability of BPMN for Business Process Modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zarwin, Z., Bjeković, M., Favre, J.M., Sottet, J.S., Proper, H.: Natural modelling. Journal of Object Technology (to appear, 2014)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zivkovic, S., Kühn, H., Karagiannis, D.: Facilitate Modelling Using Method Integration: An Approach Using Mappings and Integration Rules. In: ECIS, pp. 2038–2049 (2007)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Making the case for measuring mental effort. In: Proceedings of the Second Edition of the International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modelling, p. 6. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    zur Muehlen, M., Ho, D.T.: Service Process Innovation: A Case Study of BPMN in Practice. In: HICSS, p. 372 (2008)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Muehlen, M.z., Recker, J.: How Much Language Is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marija Bjeković
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Henderik A. Proper
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jean-Sébastien Sottet
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Public Research Centre Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenNetherlands
  3. 3.EE-TeamLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations