Model-Driven Enterprise Systems Configuration

  • Jan Recker
  • Jan Mendling
  • Wil van der Aalst
  • Michael Rosemann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4001)


Enterprise Systems potentially lead to significant efficiency gains but require a well-conducted configuration process. A promising idea to manage and simplify the configuration process is based on the premise of using reference models for this task. Our paper continues along this idea and delivers a two-fold contribution: first, we present a generic process for the task of model-driven Enterprise Systems configuration including the steps of (a) Specification of configurable reference models, (b) Configuration of configurable reference models, (c) Transformation of configured reference models to regular build time models, (d) Deployment of the generated build time models, (e) Controlling of implementation models to provide input to the configuration, and (f) Consolidation of implementation models to provide input to reference model specification. We discuss inputs and outputs as well as the involvement of different roles and validation mechanisms. Second, we present an instantiation case of this generic process for Enterprise Systems configuration based on Configurable EPCs.


Reference Model Modeling Language Variation Point Enterprise System Enterprise Resource Planning 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Davenport, T.H.: Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosemann, M.: Using Reference Models within the Enterprise Resource Planning Lifecycle. Australian Accounting Review 10, 19–30 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curran, T., Keller, G., Ladd, A.: SAP R/3 Business Blueprint: Understanding the Business Process Reference Model. Enterprise Resource Planning Series. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daneva, M.: Practical Reuse Measurement in ERP Requirements Engineering. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 309–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.: A Configurable Reference Modelling Language. Information Systems (in press, 2006), Also available from:
  6. 6.
    Soffer, P.: Scope Analysis: Identifying the Impact of Changes in Business Process Models. Software Process Improvement and Practice 10, 393–402 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jansen-Vullers, M.H., van der Aalst, W., Rosemann, M.: Mining Configurable Enterprise Information Systems. Data and Knowledge Engineering 56, 195–244 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Argyris, C., Schön, D.: Organizational Learning II. Theory, Method, and Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halmans, G., Pohl, K.: Communicating the Variability of a Software-Product Family to Customers. Software and Systems Modeling 2, 15–36 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modeling. IEEE Software 11, 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lauesen, S., Vinter, O.: Preventing Requirement Defects: An Experiment in Process Improvement. Requirements Engineering 6, 37–50 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mendling, J.: On the Syntax of Reference Model Configuration – Transforming the C-EPC into Lawful EPC Models. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 497–511. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andrews, T., et al.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services. Version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    zur Muehlen, M.: Workflow-based Process Controlling. Foundation, Design and Application of workflow-driven Process Information Systems, Logos, Berlin, Germany (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Aalst, W., Weijters, A., Maruster, L.: Workflow Mining: Discovering Process Models from Event Logs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 16, 1128–1142 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grigori, D., Casati, F., Castellanos, M., Dayal, U., Sayal, M., Shan, M.: Business Process Intelligence. Computers in Industry 53, 321–343 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.W.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). Technical Report 89, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik der Universität Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, Germany (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendling, J., Nüttgens, M.: EPC Markup Language (EPML) - An XML-Based Interchange Format for Event-Driven Process Chains (EPC). Information Systems and e-Business Management (in press, 2006), Also available from:
  19. 19.
    Mendling, J., Recker, J., Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.: Towards the Interchange of Configurable EPCs: An XML-based Approach for Reference Model Configuration. In: Desel, J., Frank, U. (eds.) Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. P-75, pp. 8–21. German Informatics Society, Klagenfurt (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mendling, J., Recker, J., Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.: Generating Correct EPCs from Configured CEPCs. In: 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, Dijon (forthcoming, 2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ziemann, J., Mendling, J.: EPC-Based Modelling of BPEL Processes: a Pragmatic Transformation Approach. In: 7th International Conference MITIP 2005, Genova, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holland, C.P., Light, B.: A Critical Success Factors Model for ERP Implementation. IEEE Software 16, 30–36 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N.: Bridging The Gap Between Organisational Needs And ERP Functionality. Requirements Engineering 5, 180–193 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Puhlmann, F., Schnieders, A., Weiland, J., Weske, M.: Variability Mechanisms for Process Models. PESOA-Report TR 17/2005, DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology and Hasso-Plattner-Institut, Ulm and Potsdam, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reinhartz-Berger, I., Soffer, P., Sturm, A.: A Domain Engineering Approach to Specifying and Applying Reference Models. In: Desel, J., Frank, U. (eds.) Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. P-75, pp. 50–63. German Informatics Society, Klagenfurt (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haugen, Ø., Møller-Pedersen, B., Oldevik, J., Solberg, A.: An MDA-based Framework for Model-driven Product Derivation. In: Hamza, M.H. (ed.) Software Engineering and Applications, pp. 709–714. ACTA Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.: On the User Perception of Configurable Reference Process Models - Initial Insights. In: 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems, Sydney, Australia (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosemann, M., Shanks, G.: Extension and Configuration of Reference Models for Enterprise Resource Planning Systems. In: Finnie, G., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Lo, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, pp. 537–546 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Recker
    • 1
  • Jan Mendling
    • 2
  • Wil van der Aalst
    • 1
    • 3
  • Michael Rosemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Vienna University of Economics and Business AdministrationViennaAustria
  3. 3.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations