A Comparative Analysis of Selected Enterprise Modeling Approaches
Conference paper
- 8 Citations
- 1k Downloads
Abstract
Complexity inherent to the management of organizational action recommends the use of instruments that support the structured description and analysis of organizations. A variety of enterprise modeling (EM) methods have been developed to serve these purposes. To contribute to the elucidation of their conceptual differences, overlaps, and focal points, this paper analyzes four selected EM methods based on a designed analysis framework. It includes an assessment of the methods’ key goals and purposes, central assumptions, and concepts. The paper concludes with a suggestion of future research topics.
Keywords
Enterprise modeling method comparative analysis Download
to read the full conference paper text
References
- 1.Frank, U.: Multi-Perspective Enterprise Modeling: Foundational Concepts, Prospects and Future Research Challenges. SoSyM 13(3), 941–962 (2014)Google Scholar
- 2.Stirna, J., Persson, A.: Evolution of an Enterprise Modeling Method – Next Generation Improvements of EKD. In: Sandkuhl, K., Seigerroth, U., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2012. LNBIP, vol. 134, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods – a review and comparative analysis. ISJ 21(3), 249–268 (2011)Google Scholar
- 4.The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.0 specification: Open Group Standard. Van Haren, Zaltbommel (2012)Google Scholar
- 5.Scheer, A.W.: ARIS - Modellierungsmethoden, Metamodelle, Anwendungen, 4th edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Hubert, Ö., Robert, W. (eds.): Business Engineering. Auf dem Weg zum Unternehmen des Informationszeitalters, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
- 7.Dietz, J.L.G.: Demo: Towards a discipline of organisation engineering. EJOR 128(2), 351–363 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Rolland, C., Nurcan, S., Grosz, G.: Enterprise knowledge development: the process view. Information & Management 36(3), 165–184 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Sandkuhl, K., Wißotzki, M., Stirna, J.: Unternehmensmodellierung: Grundlagen, Methode und Praktiken. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Frank, U.: Multiperspektivische Unternehmensmodellierung: Theoretischer Hintergrund und Entwurf einer objektorientierten Entwicklungsumgebung. Oldenbourg, München (1994)Google Scholar
- 12.Frank, U.: Multi-Perspective Enterprise Modeling (MEMO): Conceptual Framework and Modeling Languages. In: Proceedings of the 35th HICSS (2002)Google Scholar
- 13.Ferstl, O.K., Sinz, E.J.: Modeling of Business Systems Using the Semantic Object Model (SOM). In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, pp. 339–358. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 14.The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9.1. Van Haren, Zaltbommel (2011)Google Scholar
- 15.Alter, S.: Work System Theory: Overview of Core Concepts, Extensions, and Challenges for the Future. JAIS 14(2), 72–121 (2013)Google Scholar
- 16.Strahringer, S.: Metamodellierung als Instrument des Methodenvergleichs. Eine Evaluierung am Beispiel objektorientierter Analysemethoden. Shaker, Aachen (1996)Google Scholar
- 17.Leist-Galanos, S.: Methoden zur Unternehmensmodellierung. Vergleich, Anwendungen und Integrationspotentiale. Logos, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
- 18.Frank, U.: Essential Research Strategies in the Information Systems Discipline: Reflections on Formalisation, Contingency and the Social Construction of Reality. The Systemist, 98–113 (1998)Google Scholar
- 19.Frank, U.: Ein Bezugsrahmen zur Beurteilung objektorientierter Modellierungssprachen – veranschaulicht am Beispiel von OML und UML. Technical Report 6, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz (1997)Google Scholar
- 20.Bork, D., Fill, H.G.: Formal Aspects of Enterprise Modeling Methods: A Comparison Framework. In: Proceedings of the 47th HICSS, pp. 3400–3409 (2014)Google Scholar
- 21.Aier, S., Riege, C., Winter, R.: Unternehmensarchitektur – Literaturüberblick und Stand der Praxis. Wirtschaftsinformatik 50(4), 292–304 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Buckl, S., Schweda, C.M.: On the State-of-the-Art in Enterprise Architecture Management Literature (2011)Google Scholar
- 23.Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis, 3rd edn. The Enterprise Engineering Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Land, M.O., Proper, E., Waage, M., Cloo, J., Steghuis, C.: Enterprise Architecture: Creating Value by Informed Governance. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
- 25.Ettema, R., Dietz, J.L.G.: ArchiMate and DEMO – Mates to Date? In: Albani, A., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) CIAO! 2009. LNBIP, vol. 34, pp. 172–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Alter, S.: Potentially Valuable Overlaps between Work System Theory, DEMO, and Enterprise Engineering. In: 1st Workshop on Enterprise Engineering Theories and Methods, IEEE Conference on Business Informatics 2014, Geneva, pp. 1–8 (2014)Google Scholar
- 27.Wijers, G.M.: Modelling Support in Information Systems Development. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft and Netherlands (1991)Google Scholar
- 28.Dietz, J.L.G., Widdershoven, G.A.M.: Speech acts or communicative action? In: Bannon, L., Robinson, M., Schmidt, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd ECSCW 1991, pp. 235–248. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1991)Google Scholar
- 29.Overbeek, S., Frank, U., Köhling, C.: A language for multi-perspective goal modelling: Challenges, requirements and solutions. CSI 38, 1–16 (2015)Google Scholar
- 30.Heise, D.: Unternehmensmodell-basiertes IT-Kostenmanagement als Bestandteil eines integrativen IT-Controllings. Logos, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
- 31.Alter, S.: A general, yet useful theory of information systems. CAIS 1(13), 1–70 (1999)Google Scholar
- 32.Alter, S.: Work Systems and IT Artifacts - Does the Definition Matter? CAIS 17(14), 299–313 (2006)Google Scholar
- 33.Alter, S.: The Work System Method: Connecting People, Processes, and IT for Business Results. Work System Press, Larkspur (2006)Google Scholar
- 34.Dietz, J.L.G.: The atoms, molecules and fibers of organizations. Data & Knowledge Engineering 47(3), 301–325 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Frank, U.: MEMO Organisation Modelling Language (1): Focus on Organisational Structure. ICB-Research Report 48, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
- 36.Dietz, J.L.G.: Demo-3: Models and representations, version 3.7 (2014)Google Scholar
- 37.Frank, U.: The MEMO Meta Modelling Language (MML) and Language Architecture. 2nd Edition. ICB-Research Report 43, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
- 38.Jung, J.: Entwurf einer Sprache für die Modellierung von Ressourcen im Kontext der Geschäftsprozessmodellierung. Logos, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
- 39.Frank, U.: MEMO Organisation Modelling Language (2): Focus on Business Processes. ICB Research Report 49, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
- 40.Bock, A., Kattenstroth, H., Overbeek, S.: Towards a modeling method for supporting the management of organizational decision processes. In: Proceedings of the Modellierung 2014. LNI, vol. 225, pp. 49–64. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn (2014)Google Scholar
- 41.Heß, M., Schlieter, H., Täger, G.: Modellierung komplexer Entscheidungssituationen in Prozessmodellen – Anwendung am Beispiel der Tumorklassifikation bei Weichteilsarkomen. In: Thomas, O., Nüttgens, M. (eds.) Dienstleistungsmodellierung 2012, pp. 268–290. Springer, Wiesbaden (2012)Google Scholar
- 42.Strecker, S., Heise, D., Frank, U.: RiskM: A multi-perspective modeling method for IT risk assessment. ISF 13(4), 595–611 (2011)Google Scholar
- 43.Frank, U.: Domain-specific modeling languages: Requirements analysis and design guidelines. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A., Clark, T., Cohen, S., Bettin, J. (eds.) Domain Engineering, pp. 133–157. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Moody, D.L.: The Physics of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE TSE 35(6), 756–779 (2009)Google Scholar
- 45.Gulden, J.: Methodical Support for Model-Driven Software Engineering with Enterprise Models. Logos, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
Copyright information
© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014