Integrating Value Modelling into ArchiMate

  • Sybren de Kinderen
  • Khaled Gaaloul
  • H. A. Erik Proper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 103)


Present day enterprises often become service-oriented enterprises, which are comprised of a dynamic network of organisations that collectively provide services. These services express stakeholders’ needs, and can be viewed from different perspectives. In this paper, we consider value web and enterprise architecture perspectives. Specifically, we present a step-wise mapping approach that integrates the value modelling technique e3value into the enterprise architecture language ArchiMate. The main contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we present our initial arrays into how to bridge between e 3 value and ArchiMate and, in doing so, we show how these modelling techniques complement one another. Second, by reflecting on the bridging between e 3 value and ArchiMate, we discuss the limitations of our integration, which provides useful input for future efforts into model integration. We illustrate our approach by means of a case in the insurance domain.


enterprise architecture value web ArchiMate e3value model integration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Tapscott, D., Ticoll, D., Lowy, A.: Digital Capital: Harnessing the Power of Business Webs. Harvard Business Press, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lankhorst, M., et al.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Op ’t Land, M., Proper, H., Waage, M., Cloo, J., Steghuis, C.: Enterprise Architecture – Creating Value by Informed Governance. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jonkers, H., Proper, H., Turner, M.: TOGAF and ArchiMate: A Future Together. The Open Group, White Paper W192 (November 2009),
  5. 5.
    van Buuren, R., Gordijn, J., Janssen, W.: Business case modelling for e-services. In: 18th Bled eConference eIntegration in Action (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(10), 760–773 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cummins, J.D., Doherty, N.A.: The economics of insurance intermediaries. The Journal of Risk and Insurance 73(3), 359–396 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lankhorst, M., et al.: ArchiMate Language Primer. Telematica institute (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lankhorst, M.: Viewpoints Functionality and Examples. Telematica Institute (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernus, P., Nemes, L., Schmidt, G. (eds.): Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Jonkers, H.: The Architecture of the ArchiMate Language. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 367–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gordijn, J., De Leenheer, P., Razo-Zapata, I.: Generating service valuewebs by hierarchical configuration: An ipr case. In: Proceedings of HICSS 44 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H.: Value based requirements engineering: Exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requirements Engineering Journal 8(2), 114–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pijpers, V., Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H.: e3alignment: Exploring inter-organizational alignment in networked value constellations. International Journal of Computer Science & Applications, 59 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Derzsi, Z., Gordijn, J., Kok, K.: Multi-perspective assessment of scalability of it-enabled networked constellations. In: Sprague, R.H. (ed.) Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 492. IEEE CS (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    O.M. Group, Uml 2.0 superstructure specification (2004),
  17. 17.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Wohed, P.: On the suitability of uml 2.0 activity diagrams for business process modelling. In: APCCM 2006: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, pp. 95–104. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ko, R.K.L., Lee, S.S.G., Lee, E.W.: Business process management (bpm) standards: A survey. Business Process Management Journal 15(5) (2009); Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2009) (accepted on December 2, 2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Devedzić, V.: Understanding ontological engineering. Commun. ACM 45, 136–144 (2002), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ehrig, M., Staab, S.: QOM – Quick Ontology Mapping. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 683–697. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Noy, N., Musen, M.: The prompt suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59(6), 983–1024 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Happel, H., Seedorf, S.: Applications of ontologies in software engineering. In: 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE 2006), held at the 5th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2006 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sybren de Kinderen
    • 1
  • Khaled Gaaloul
    • 1
  • H. A. Erik Proper
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CRP Henri TudorLuxembourg-KirchbergLuxembourg
  2. 2.ICISRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations