A Comparative Analysis of Selected Enterprise Modeling Approaches

  • Alexander Bock
  • Monika Kaczmarek
  • Sietse Overbeek
  • Michael Heß
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 197)


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.


Enterprise modeling method comparative analysis 


  1. 1.
    Frank, U.: Multi-Perspective Enterprise Modeling: Foundational Concepts, Prospects and Future Research Challenges. SoSyM 13(3), 941–962 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 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. 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. 4.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.0 specification: Open Group Standard. Van Haren, Zaltbommel (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scheer, A.W.: ARIS - Modellierungsmethoden, Metamodelle, Anwendungen, 4th edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hubert, Ö., Robert, W. (eds.): Business Engineering. Auf dem Weg zum Unternehmen des Informationszeitalters, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Demo: Towards a discipline of organisation engineering. EJOR 128(2), 351–363 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rolland, C., Nurcan, S., Grosz, G.: Enterprise knowledge development: the process view. Information & Management 36(3), 165–184 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sandkuhl, K., Wißotzki, M., Stirna, J.: Unternehmensmodellierung: Grundlagen, Methode und Praktiken. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frank, U.: Multiperspektivische Unternehmensmodellierung: Theoretischer Hintergrund und Entwurf einer objektorientierten Entwicklungsumgebung. Oldenbourg, München (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frank, U.: Multi-Perspective Enterprise Modeling (MEMO): Conceptual Framework and Modeling Languages. In: Proceedings of the 35th HICSS (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 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. 14.
    The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9.1. Van Haren, Zaltbommel (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 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. 16.
    Strahringer, S.: Metamodellierung als Instrument des Methodenvergleichs. Eine Evaluierung am Beispiel objektorientierter Analysemethoden. Shaker, Aachen (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leist-Galanos, S.: Methoden zur Unternehmensmodellierung. Vergleich, Anwendungen und Integrationspotentiale. Logos, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 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. 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. 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. 21.
    Aier, S., Riege, C., Winter, R.: Unternehmensarchitektur – Literaturüberblick und Stand der Praxis. Wirtschaftsinformatik 50(4), 292–304 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buckl, S., Schweda, C.M.: On the State-of-the-Art in Enterprise Architecture Management Literature (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis, 3rd edn. The Enterprise Engineering Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 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. 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. 27.
    Wijers, G.M.: Modelling Support in Information Systems Development. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft and Netherlands (1991)Google Scholar
  28. 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. 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. 30.
    Heise, D.: Unternehmensmodell-basiertes IT-Kostenmanagement als Bestandteil eines integrativen IT-Controllings. Logos, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alter, S.: A general, yet useful theory of information systems. CAIS 1(13), 1–70 (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alter, S.: Work Systems and IT Artifacts - Does the Definition Matter? CAIS 17(14), 299–313 (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alter, S.: The Work System Method: Connecting People, Processes, and IT for Business Results. Work System Press, Larkspur (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: The atoms, molecules and fibers of organizations. Data & Knowledge Engineering 47(3), 301–325 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Frank, U.: MEMO Organisation Modelling Language (1): Focus on Organisational Structure. ICB-Research Report 48, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Demo-3: Models and representations, version 3.7 (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 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. 38.
    Jung, J.: Entwurf einer Sprache für die Modellierung von Ressourcen im Kontext der Geschäftsprozessmodellierung. Logos, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Frank, U.: MEMO Organisation Modelling Language (2): Focus on Business Processes. ICB Research Report 49, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Bock
    • 1
  • Monika Kaczmarek
    • 1
  • Sietse Overbeek
    • 1
  • Michael Heß
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Information Systems and Enterprise Modelling Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems (ICB) Faculty of Business Administration and EconomicsUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations