Advertisement

Model-Based Architecture for Learning in Complex Organization

  • Francesco Basciani
  • Gianni Rosa
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 692)

Abstract

To improve their service quality modern organization employees have to understand and put in action latest procedures and rules while coping with quickly changing contexts and decreasing resources. To this end a model-based architecture with interrelated enriched models is required in order to fosters an informative learning approach in the learning-by-doing paradigm. Such architecture enables organization employees to learn by accessing and studying enriched business process models and related material in a process-driven learning approach. Zachman Framework is used to organize all the models through the definition of the relations among them.

Keywords

Model driven engineering Enterprise architecture Zachman framework Learning Organizations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleague Barbara Re from University of Camerino who provided us model fragments in the scenario discussed in Sect. 2. We also thank professor Alfonso Pierantonio for the precious comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

This research was supported by the EU through the Model-Based Social Learning for Public Administrations (Learn Pad) FP7 project (619583) For further informations visit the website: http://www.learnpad.eu. It is possible to find the repository hosting the platform implementation, concerning the part described in this article, here: https://github.com/LearnPAd/learnpad/tree/master/lp-model-transformer.

References

  1. 1.
    Business Process Model OMG. Notation (BPMN) 2.0. Object Management Group: Needham, MA, 2494:34 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OMG. Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN), V 1.0. Technical report, Object Management Group OMG (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG. Business Motivation Model (BMM). Technical report, Object Management Group OMG (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akehurst, D., Kent, S.: A relational approach to defining transformations in a metamodel. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 243–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45800-X_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pierantonio, A., Rosa, G.: Design and initial implementation of metamodels for describing business processes in public administrations. Deliverable D3.2 - EU FP7 Project Learn PAdGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pierantonio, A., Rosa, G.: Domain Analysis of business processes in public administrations. Deliverable D3.1 - EU FP7 Project Learn PAdGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Re, B., Sergiacomi, A.: Demonstrators BP and Knowledge models. Deliverable D8.1 - EU FP7 Project Learn PAdGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basciani, F., Ruscio, D., Iovino, L., Pierantonio, A.: Automated chaining of model transformations with incompatible metamodels. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (eds.) MODELS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8767, pp. 602–618. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_37 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bézivin, J.: On the unification power of models. Softw. Syst. Model. 4(2), 171–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, K., Sztipanovits, J., Abdelwalhed, S., Jackson, E.: Semantic anchoring with model transformations. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11581741_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czarnecki, K., Foster, J.N., Hu, Z., Lämmel, R., Schürr, A., Terwilliger, J.F.: Bidirectional transformations: a cross-discipline perspective. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 260–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02408-5_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Del Fabro, M.D., Bézivin, J., Jouault, F., Valduriez, P., et al.: Applying generic model management to data mapping. In: Proceedings of the Journées Bases de Données Avancées (BDA 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A., Rosa, G.: Managing uncertainty in bidirectional model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering, SLE 2015, pp. 49–58, New York, NY, USA. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hausmann, J.H., Kent, S.: Visualizing model mappings in UML. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, pp. 169–178. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hay, D.C.: The Zachman Framework: An Introduction. The Data Administration Newsletter, Issue 1. Essential Strategies Inc. (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heisig, P.: Process modelling for knowledge managementGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hinkelmann, K., Merelli, E., Thönssen, B.: The role of content and context in enterprise repositories. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Advanced Enterprise Architecture and Repositories - AER 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Inmon, W.H., Zachman, J.A., Geiger, J.G.: Data Stores, Data Warehousing and the Zachman Framework: Managing Enterprise Knowledge. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laforcade, P., Choquet, C.: Next step for educational modeling languages: the model driven engineering and reengineering approach. In: Null, pp. 745–747. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marc, M., Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise architecture modelling-the issue of integration. Adv. Eng. Inf. 18(4), 205–216 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Melnik, S., Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: Rondo: a programming platform for generic model management. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 193–204. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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, pp. 155–162. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pereira, C.M., Sousa, P.: A method to define an enterprise architecture using the Zachman framework. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1366–1371. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pierantonio, A., Rosa, G., Silingas, D., Thönssen, B., Woitsch, R.: Metamodeling architectures for business processess in organizations. Projects Showcase@ STAF 2015, p. 27 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reiter, T., Kapsammer, E., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W.: Model integration through mega operations. In: Accepted for Publication at the Workshop on Model-driven Web Engineering (MDWE 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tupper, C.: Data Architecture: from Zen to Reality. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu, E., Strohmaier, M., Deng, X.: Exploring intentional modeling and analysis for enterprise architecture. In: 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, EDOCW 2006, pp. 32–32. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zachman, J.A.: The framework for enterprise architecture-cell definitions. ZIFA report (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zachman, J.A.: The Zachman Framework For Enterprise Architecture. A Primer For Enterprise Engineering And Manufacturing (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienze dell’Informazione e MatematicaUniversità degli Studi dell’AquilaL’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations