Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concept into Architecture: A Pragmatic Modeling Method for the Acquisition and Representation of Information

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Data Science and Information Engineering

  • 2240 Accesses

Abstract

Process models are very important in a wide range of application areas, for example, software development or operational management. The first step in modeling a process is gaining information and knowledge engineering. This information documented as process models are a very important part of Enterprise Architectures (EAs). All forces in the NATO use the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF). Process models in the NAF are represented as part of the operational view, the sub-view NOV-5. Process models are often the starting point for modeling or creating an EA. According to the principles of proper modeling, not only the correct use of the syntax is necessary but also the relevance of a model. This is inseparable from the underlying information from which the model is created.

This chapter deals with the creation of a modeling method that allows subject matter experts (SME) in the area to be modeled to get started with EA. The aim of presentation is to use the method to obtain the necessary information for the creation of the process model and represent the information in a human- and machine-readable form. Also, the goal of this contribution is to transform the information syntactically correctly as a NOV-5 process model, using a software developed as part of this contribution. The transformed NOV-5 model is similar to the original representation of the gained information, so this enables the SME to check the created NAF-compliant model for correctness of content and to use the model without knowledge of the NAF.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.sparxsystems.de/uml/neweditions/

References

  1. J. Luftman, T. Brier, Achieving and sustaining business-IT alignment. Calif. Manage. Rev. 42(1), 109–122 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. J.A. Zachman, A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. S. Aier, C. Riege, R. Winter, Unternehmensarchitektur – Literaturüberblick und Stand der Praxis. Wirtschaftsinformatik 50(4), 292–304 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Farwick, B. Agreiter, R. Breu, S. Ryll, K. Voges, and I. Hanschke, “Requirements for Automated Enterprise Architecture Model Maintenance - A Requirements Analysis based on a Literature Review and an Exploratory Survey.,” in ICEIS 2011 - Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, 2011, vol. 4, pp. 325–337.

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. Nowakowski, M. Farwick, T. Trojer, M. Häusler, J. Kessler, R. Breu, Enterprise Architecture Planning: Analyses of Requirements from Practice and Research. Proc. 50th Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., 4847–4856 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. D.T. Ross, K.E. Schoman, Structured Analysis for Requirements Definition. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-3(1), 6–15 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. V. Haren, “TOGAF Version 9.1,” 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Lankhorst, S. J. B. A (Robert Hoppenbrouwers, and J. Campschroer, “Enterprise Architecture at Work,”, Slagter, 2017), pp. 141–170

    Google Scholar 

  9. NATO CONSULTATION COMMAND AND CONTROL BOARD, NAF v3.1 Chapter 5. 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sein, Henfridsson, Purao, Rossi, and Lindgren, Action Design Research. MIS Q. 35(1), 37 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. M.T. Mullarkey, A.R. Hevner, Entering action design research, in International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems, pp. 121–134 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. H. Österle, R. Winter, W. Brenner, Gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik: Ein Plädoyer für Rigor und Relevanz, vol. 62, no. 6 (Infowerk, Nürnberg, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Becker, D. Pfeiffer, Beziehungen zwischen behavioristischer und konstruktionsorientierter Forschung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik, in Fortschritt in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften: Wissenschaftstheoretische Grundlagen und exemplarische Anwendungen, ed. by S. Zelewski, N. Akca, (DUV, Wiesbaden, 2006), pp. 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  14. F.D. Davis, A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1986)

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. Herzhoff, “Zum Zusammenspiel von Frühaufklärung und Szenariotechnik,” in Perspektiven des Strategischen Controllings, no. Abschnitt 2, Wiesbaden Springer 2010, pp. 313–328.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Diehl, W. Stroebe, Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53(3), 497 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. P. Loos, B. Schäffer, Das Gruppendiskussionsverfahren: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendung, vol 5 (Springer, Wiesbaden, 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Gappmaier, C. Gappmaier, Alles Prozess?!: Einfach wirksame Prozessoptimierung in jeder Situation mit der Bildkartenmethode (BKM), vol. 3, in Books on Demand, (UMI, Ann Arbor, 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. G. Tapandjieva, A. Wegmann, Ontology for SEAM Service Models, in 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), no. EPFL-CONF-233594 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  20. C. Lucke, M. Bürger, T. Diefenbach, J. Freter, U. Lechner, Categories of enterprise architecting issues - An empirical investigation based on expert interviews. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2012 - Tagungsband der MKWI 2012, 999–1010 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. R. Gulati, Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Acad. Manag. J. 50(4), 775–782 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. A.R. Hevner, A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 87–92 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  23. H. Österle et al., Memorandum zur gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik. Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forsch. 62(6), 664–672 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. P. Harmon, Business process change: A guide for business managers and BPM and Six Sigma professionals (Elsevier, Cambridge, MA, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  25. M. Cohn, User stories applied: For agile software development (Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  26. F. Bailom, H.H. Hinterhuber, K. Matzler, E. Sauerwein, Das Kano-Modell der Kundenzufriedenheit. Mark. ZFp 18(2), 117–126 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. G.A. Miller, The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63(2), 81 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. W. Horton, Illustrating computer documentation: The art of presenting information graphically on paper and online (Wiley, New York, 1991)

    Google Scholar 

  29. H.-J. Haecker, Neue Überlegungen zu Schriftrichtung und Textstruktur des Diskos von Phaistos. Kadmos 25(2), 89–96 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. R. Knackstedt, J. Pöppelbuß, J. Becker, Vorgehensmodell zur Entwicklung von Reifegradmodellen., in Wirtschaftsinformatik (1), pp. 535–544 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  31. H. Koning, C. Dormann, H. Van Vliet, Practical guidelines for the readability of IT-architecture diagrams, in ACM SIGDOC Annu. Int. Conf. Comput. Doc. Proc., pp. 90–99, (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  32. E.J. Sinz, Konstruktionsforschung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik: Was sind die Erkenntnisziele gestaltungsorientierter Wirtschaftsinformatik-Forschung, Wirtschaftsinformatik Ein Plädoyer für Rigor und Relev., p. 27 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  33. S. Jahnen, S. Pickl, Information Exchange Diagrams for Information Systems and Artificial Intelligence in the Context of Decision Support Systems, in International Conference on Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systesm, pp. 393–401 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  34. T. Murata, Petri Nets : Properties , Analysis and Applikations. Proceedings of the IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. W. Reisig, Petri nets: an introduction, vol 4 (Springer, Berlin, 2012)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. C. Gutwenger, M. Jünger, K. Klein, J. Kupke, S. Leipert, P. Mutzel, A new approach for visualizing UML class diagrams. Proc. 1st ACM Symp. Softw. Vis. 1(May 2014), 179–188 (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. M. Jünger, P. Mutzel, Graph drawing software (Springer, Berlin, 2012)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. M. Eiglsperger, U. Brandes, J. Lerner, C. Pich, Graph Markup Language (GraphML). Handb. Graph Draw. Vis., 517–541 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  39. R. Davison, M.G. Martinsons, N. Kock, Principles of canonical action research. Inf. Syst. J. 14(1), 65–86 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 13(3), 319–339 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davis, User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. T. Jokela, N. Iivari, J. Matero, M. Karukka, The standard of user-centered design and the standard definition of usability: analyzing ISO 13407 against ISO 9241-11, in Proceedings of the Latin American conference on Human-computer interaction, pp. 53–60 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  43. E. Zur, V. Von, P. Zur, O. Von, “Ein Bezugsrahmen zur Evaluation von Sprachen zur Modellierung von Geschäftsprozessen,” no. 36 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  44. C. Schalles, J. Creagh, M. Rebstock, Ein generischer Ansatz zur Messung der Benutzerfreundlichkeit von Modellierungssprachen. Modellierung 161, 15–30 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  45. D.L. Moody, G. Sindre, T. Brasethvik, A. Sølvberg, Evaluating the quality of process models: Empirical testing of a quality framework. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics) 2503, 380–396 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  46. P. Rittgen, “Quality and perceived usefulness of process models,” Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 65–72, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  47. J. Rieman, M. Franzke, and D. Redmiles, “Usability evaluation with the cognitive walkthrough. Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’95, pp. 387–388, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  48. T. Hynek, User Experience Research—treibende Kraft der Designstrategie, in Usability, (Springer, Berlin, 2002), pp. 43–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. U. Frank, Die Konstruktion möglicher welten als chance und herausforderung der Wirtschaftsinformatik, in Wissenschaftstheorie und gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik, (Springer, Cham, 2009), pp. 161–173

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. U. Frank, Towards a Pluralistic Conception of Research Methods in Information Systems Research (ICB, Essen, 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  51. M. Dumas, M. La Rosa, J. Mendling, H.A. Reijers, others, Fundamentals of Business Process Management, vol 1 (Springer, Berlin, 2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. R. Winter, Design science research in Europe. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(5), 470–475 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. S. Gregor, A.R. Hevner, Positioning and presenting design science types of knowledge in design science research. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–355 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fakultät für Informatik, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany

    Sebastian Jahnen, Stefan Pickl & Wolfgang Bein

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

    Sebastian Jahnen, Stefan Pickl & Wolfgang Bein

Authors
  1. Sebastian Jahnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Pickl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wolfgang Bein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Jahnen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. HBS – Hamburg Business School, Institute of Information Systems, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Robert Stahlbock

  2. Department of Computer & Information Science, Fordham University, New York, NY, USA

    Gary M. Weiss

  3. College of Engineering & Computer Science, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, MI, USA

    Mahmoud Abou-Nasr

  4. Department of Computer Science, University of Taipei, Taipei City, Taiwan

    Cheng-Ying Yang

  5. Department of Computer Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Hamid R. Arabnia

  6. School of Computing and Data Sciences, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA

    Leonidas Deligiannidis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Jahnen, S., Pickl, S., Bein, W. (2021). Concept into Architecture: A Pragmatic Modeling Method for the Acquisition and Representation of Information. In: Stahlbock, R., Weiss, G.M., Abou-Nasr, M., Yang, CY., Arabnia, H.R., Deligiannidis, L. (eds) Advances in Data Science and Information Engineering. Transactions on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71704-9_47

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation