Concepts for Comparison in Models to Support Decision Making

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 391)


The cognitive basis of any decision making process is a comparison. This paper presents evidence from two distinct cases showing that decision making is facilitated by selecting specific sets of business concepts for comparison. The first case illustrates modelling of a new business process that does not exist yet. In this case, the concept for comparison is found outside the modelled business system. The second case presents an improvement of an existing business process, where the concepts for comparison are found inside the model of the existing system and compared with the concepts used in the model of the modified system. These cases identify two ways of selecting concepts for comparison that help to make the key decision to implement or not implement a proposed system model.


Purpose of modelling Conceptual model Enterprise model Concepts for comparison Decisions on models 



The authors thank Kirsten Burg-Lehmkuhl and Martijn Bos for their graduation project work on the modelling of cases.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.: Challenges in business process management: verification of business processes using Petri nets. Bull. EATCS 80(174–199), 32 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bakelaar, R., Roubtsova, E., Joosten, S.: A framework for visualization of changes of enterprise architecture. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) BMSD 2016. LNBIP, vol. 275, pp. 140–160. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bos, M.: Evaluation of two ArchiMate based visualization techniques. How to keep track of changes when replacing a spreadsheet application with an information system? Technical report (2018).
  4. 4.
    Dijkstra, R., Roubtsova, E.: Analytic pattern and tool for analysis of a gap of changes in enterprise architectures. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering. SCITEPRESS-Science and Technology Publications (2019)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaaloul, K., Guerreiro, S.: A decision-oriented approach supporting enterprise architecture evolution. In: 2015 IEEE 24th International Conference on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, pp. 116–121. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krogstie, J.: Quality of business process models. Quality in Business Process Modeling, pp. 53–102. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larsson, L., Segerberg, R.: An approach for quality assurance in enterprise modelling. Ph.D. thesis, MSc thesis, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: Improving the quality of data models: empirical validation of a quality management framework. Inf. Syst. 28(6), 619–650 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pohl, J.: Cognitive elements of human decision making. In: Phillips-Wren, G., Ichalkaranje, N., Jain, L.C. (eds.) Intelligent Decision Making: An AI-Based Approach. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 97, pp. 41–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Quality of enterprise models. Enterprise Modeling. TEES, pp. 203–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  11. 11.
    TDAN: Measuring the Quality of Models (2000).
  12. 12.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 3.1 Specification (2012–2019).
  13. 13.
    Trautmann, S.T., Wakker, P.P.: Process fairness and dynamic consistency. Econ. Lett. 109(3), 187–189 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vanderfeesten, I., Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.: Quality metrics for business process models. In: BPM and Workflow Handbook, vol. 144, pp. 179–190 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open UniversityHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations