Advertisement

Case Study – Automating Direct Banking Customer Service Processes with Service Oriented Architecture

  • Andreas Eberhardt
  • Oliver Gausmann
  • Antonia Albani
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4277)

Abstract

The direct banking business is characterized by integrated distribution channel politics and holistic sales approaches combined with multi-channel-management. Direct banks in Europe and especially in Germany are currently facing increasing market competition. The crucial factors for growth are product innovation, cost control and the flexibility to react individually to each customer in a rapidly changing business environment. In order to compete, direct banks are forced to undergo a drastic transformation of business processes as well as organizational and managerial structures. The application of new concepts in building information systems is therefore necessary in order to further support business needs and allow for the management and adaptation of systems that are dependent on the fast changing market requirements. This paper shows how the information technology (IT) landscape of one of the five leading direct banks in Germany could be optimized by means of a service-based orientation. The case outlined in this paper focuses on the customer service domain. The main goal is to concurrently reduce costs by automating business processes and to increase the quality of customer services. A reference model for these customer service processes is then introduced. Based on this model, this paper describes a business component-oriented system architecture according to identified business components, and their corresponding services.

Keywords

Business Process Customer Service Service Process Information Object Business Domain 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bundesverband deutscher Banken (2005), http://www.bankenverband.de/index.asp?channel=168247&art=769
  2. 2.
    Online Banking: Der Zuwachs ist ungebrochen (2005), http://www.bankenverband.de/channel/133810/art/1535/index.html
  3. 3.
    Barbier, F., Atkinson, C.: Business Components. In: Barbier, F. (ed.) Business Component-Based Software Engineering, pp. 1–26. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McIlroy, M.D.: Mass Produced Software Components. In: Software Engineering: Report on a Conference by the NATO Science Committee, NATO Scientific Affairs Devision, Brussels (1968)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fellner, K., Turowski, K.: Classification Framework for Business Components. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Maui, Hawaii (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.: Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review 75(5), 84–93 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.: Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press, London (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanchez, R.: Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal 16, 135–159 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J.T.: Modularity, flexibility and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic management Journal 17, 63–76 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schilling, M.A.: Toward a general modular systems theory and its applications to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review 25, 312–334 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ulrich, K.T.: The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy 24, 419–440 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sametinger, J.: Software engineering with reusable components, vol. xvi, p. 272. Springer, Berlin (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kang, K., et al.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simos, M., et al.: Organization Domain Modeling (ODM) Guidebook. 2.0 ed. Informal Technical Report for STARS STARS-VC-A025/001/00 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Albani, A., et al.: Domain Based Identification and Modelling of Business Component Applications. In: Kalinichenko, L.A., Manthey, R., Thalheim, B., Wloka, U. (eds.) ADBIS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2798, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albani, A., Dietz, J.L.G., Zaha, J.M.: Identifying Business Components on the basis of an Enterprise Ontology. In: Interop-Esa 2005 - First International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications, Geneva, Switzerland (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Albani, A., Dietz, J.L.G.: The benefit of enterprise ontology in identifying business components. In: IFIP World Computing Conference, Santiago de Chile (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: The Atoms, Molecules and Fibers of Organizations. Data and Knowledge Engineering 47, 301–325 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Generic recurrent patterns in business processes. In: Mira, J., Álvarez, J.R. (eds.) IWANN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2687, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Reijswoud, V.E., Mulder, J.B.F., Dietz, J.L.G.: Speech Act Based Business Process and Information Modeling with DEMO. Information Systems Journal (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scheer, A.-W.: ARIS - Business Process Modeling, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Selk, B., Klöckner, K., Albani, A.: Enabling interoperability of networked enterprises through an integrative information system architecture for CRM and SCM. In: International Workshop on Enterprise and Networked Enterprises Interoperability (ENEI 2005), Nancy, France (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Selk, B., et al.: Experience Report: Appropriateness of the BCI-Method for Identifying Business Components in large-scale Information Systems. In: Conference on Component-Oriented Enterprise Applications (COEA 2005) in cunjunction with the Net.Objectdays 2005, Erfurt, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jungnickel, D.: The Greedy Algorithm. In: Jungnickel, D. (ed.) Graphs, Networks and Algorithms, pp. 123–146. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kernighan, B.W., Lin, S.: An efficient heurisitc procedure for partitioning graphs. Bell Systems Technical Journal 49, 291–307 (1970)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    OMG, OMG Unified Modelling Language, Version 2.0, in Secondary OMG Unified Modelling Language, Version 2.0, Secondary OMG, Editor: Place Published Pages (2003), http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/modeling_spec_catalog.htm#UML

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Eberhardt
    • 1
  • Oliver Gausmann
    • 2
  • Antonia Albani
    • 3
  1. 1.b.telligent GmbH & Co.KGGarching/MunichGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Business Informatics and Systems EngineeringUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  3. 3.Information Systems DesignDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations