Conceptual Modeling of Electronic Content and Documents in ECM Systems Design: Results from a Modeling Project at Hoval

Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)


The implementation of enterprise content management (ECM) software requires careful analysis of an organization’s content and document assets, and conceptual information models can provide substantial input for ECM systems design. In particular, content models can support the documentation of both organizational and technological conditions and can illuminate software-related requirements. Therefore, a conceptual modeling language for electronic content and documents has to meet several conditions: It should facilitate description of how content can be reused in different documents, the creators and users of content, and the software systems involved. In addition, given the vast number of digital assets created and used in today’s organizations, such a language has to safeguard a clear and consistent representation while also being ready for efficient adaptation and maintenance. With the help of the general criteria of conceptual modeling proposed by Becker et al. (e.g., correctness, relevance, clarity), this chapter identifies these and related requirements and argues that they are not sufficiently met by existing modeling approaches. As a response, we propose a novel modeling language that we developed and evaluated during the course of a modeling project at Hoval, to be used in describing electronic content and documents.


Modeling Language Electronic Content Document Type Content Modeling Content Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This chapter is an extension and revision of a paper originally presented at the 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2008) in Toronto, Canada (vom Brocke et al. 2008). The authors thank the anonymous interviewees who assisted them in this research and the review team from AMCIS 2008 for their constructive comments on earlier versions of the paper.


  1. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., & Schütte, R. (1995). Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Modellierung. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 37(5), 435–445.Google Scholar
  2. Boiko, B. (2002). Content management bible. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, D. (2007). Content management and the separation of presentation and content. Technical Communication Quarterly, 17(1), 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fill, H.-G., Gericke, A., Karagiannis, D., & Winter, R. (2007). Modellierung für Integrated Enterprise Balancing. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 49(6), 419–429.Google Scholar
  5. Frank, U. (1997). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer objektorientierten Modellierungslehre. In Fachkongress Smalltalk und Java in Industrie und Ausbildung (pp. 96–102). Erfurt.Google Scholar
  6. Genero, M., Jiménez, L., & Piattini, M. (2000). Measuring the quality of entity relationship diagrams. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (pp. 513–526). Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
  7. Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 87–92.Google Scholar
  8. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  9. Hoval. (n.d.). Von inneren Werten. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from
  10. Kesh, S. (1995). Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. Information and Software Technology, 37(12), 681–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kung, C. H., & Solvberg, A. (1986). Activity modeling and behaviour modeling. In T. W. Olle, H. G. Sol, & A. A. Verrijn-Stuart (Eds.), Information system design methodologies: Improving the practice (pp. 145–171). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moody, D. L., & Shanks, G. G. (1994). What makes a good data model? Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In P. Loucopoulos (Ed.), Entity-relationship approach—ER’94: Business modelling and re-engineering (Lecture notes in computer science 881, pp. 94–111). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Munkvold, B. E., Päivärinta, T., Hodne, A. K., & Stangeland, E. (2006). Contemporary issues of enterprise content management: The case of statoil. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 18(2), 69–100.Google Scholar
  15. O’Callaghan, R., & Smits, M. (2005). A strategy development process for enterprise content management. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1271–1282). Regensburg.Google Scholar
  16. Päivärinta, T., & Munkvold, B. E. (2005). Enterprise content management: An integrated perspective on information management. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, HI.Google Scholar
  17. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2008). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rockley, A., Kostur, P., & Manning, S. (2003). Managing enterprise content: A unified content strategy. Indianapolis: New Riders.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, H. A., & McKeen, J. D. (2003). Developments in practice VIII: Enterprise content management. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 647–659.Google Scholar
  20. Tyrväinen, P., Päivärinta, T., Salminen, A., & Iivari, J. (2006). Guest editorial: Characterizing the evolving research on enterprise content management. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(6), 627–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. vom Brocke, J., Becker, J., Simons, A., & Fleischer, S. (2008). Towards the specification of digital content: The enterprise content modeling language (ECML). In Proceedings of the 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2008) (paper 403). Toronto.Google Scholar
  22. vom Brocke, J., Seidel, S., & Simons, A. (2010). Bridging the gap between enterprise content management and creativity: A research framework. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Kauai, HI.Google Scholar
  23. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., & Cleven, A. (2011a). Towards a business process-oriented approach to enterprise content management: The ECM-Blueprinting framework. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 9(4), 475–496.Google Scholar
  24. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Herbst, A., Derungs, R., & Novotny, S. (2011b). The business drivers behind ECM initiatives: A process perspective. Business Process Management Journal, 17(6), 965–985.Google Scholar
  25. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (2002). Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling–A research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. White, M. (2002). Content management: From vendor selection to successful rollout. Online, 26(6), 20–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Information SystemsUniversity of LiechtensteinVaduzLiechtenstein
  2. 2.European Research Center for Information SystemsUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany

Personalised recommendations