On the Explanatory Capabilities of Enterprise Modeling Approaches

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 211)


The capability of an enterprise modeling approach to support the provision of knowledge on selected aspects of an enterprise may be apprehended as its explanatory capability. We argue that this capability encompasses two aspects: the capability to represent “the things happening in an enterprise” and the ‘self-explanatory’ capability that relates to the understandability of the approach and the resulting models. In this paper, we propose an analysis framework that can be used to assess the explanatory capabilities of enterprise modeling approaches. The framework is structured according to the four explanatory causes of Aristotle. We demonstrate the applicability of the framework by analyzing three selected enterprise modeling approaches.


Enterprise model Explanatory capability Analysis framework 


  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.
    Bock, A., Kaczmarek, M., Overbeek, S., Heß, M.: A comparative analysis of selected enterprise modeling approaches. In: Frank, U., Loucopoulos, P., Pastor, Ó., Petrounias, I. (eds.) PoEM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 197, pp. 148–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirikova, M.: Explanatory capability of enterprise models. Data Knowl. Eng. 33(2), 119–136 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Krogstie, J.: Modelling of the people, by the people, for the people. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 305–318. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. The Enterprise Engineering Series, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frank, U.: Power-modelling: toward a more versatile approach to creating and using conceptual models. In: Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on BMSD, pp. 9–19 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Strahringer, S.: Metamodellierung als Instrument des Methodenergleichs. Evaluierung am Beispiel objektorientierter Analysemethoden. Shaker, Aachen (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stachowiak, H.: Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer, Wien (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M.: Enterprise Architecture: Models and Analyses for Information Systems Decision Making. Lightning Source Incorporated (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cilliers, P.: Making sense of a complex world. In: Aaltonen, M. (ed.) The Third Lens: Multi-Ontology Sense-Making & Strategic Decision-Making, pp. 99–110. Ashgate, Hampshire (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McIntyre, L.: Complexity: a philosopher’s reflections. Complex. 3(6), 26–32 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modelling: background and terminological foundation. ICB-Research Report 46, Universität Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rumbaugh, J.: Objects in the constitution - enterprise modeling. J. Object-Oriented Program. 5(8), 18–24 (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leist-Galanos, S.: Methoden zur Unternehmensmodellierung. Vergleich, Anwendungen und Integrationspotentiale. Logos, Berlin (2006) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buckl, S., Schweda, C.M.: On the state-of-the-art in enterprise architecture management literature. Technical report, sebis, Technical University Munich (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bork, D., Fill, H.G.: Formal aspects of enterprise modeling methods: a comparison framework. In: Proceedings of HICSS-47, pp. 3400–3409 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bjeković, M., Proper, H.A., Sottet, J.-S.: Embracing pragmatics. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 431–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Juarrero, A.: Causality and explanation. In: Allen, P., Maguire, S., McKelvey, B. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Complexity and Management, pp. 155–164. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKelvey, B.: Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 19(3), 313–341 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaminska-Labbe, R., McKelvey, B., Thomas, C.: On the coevolution of causality: a study of aristotelian causes & other entangled influences. Working paper, CERAM, Sophia Antipolis, France (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kosiol, E.: Organisation der Unternehmung. Gabler, Wiesbaden (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    March, J.G., Simon, H.A.: Organizations. Wiley, New York (1958)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cyert, R.M., March, J.G.: A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1963)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taylor, J.R.: Rethinking the Theory of Organizational Communication: How to Read an Organization. Ablex, Norwood (1993)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Figl, K., Laue, R.: Cognitive complexity in business process modeling. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 452–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sarshar, K., Loos, P.: Comparing the control-flow of EPC and Petri Net from the end-user perspective. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 434–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dahlbom, B., Mandahl, M.: A theory of information technology use. In Kerola, I.P. (ed.) Precedings of the 17th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia, pp. 66–67. University of Oulu (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barnes, J.: The Complete Works of Aristotle. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gutenberg, E.: Die Unternehmung als Gegenstand betriebswirtschaftlicher Theorie: Unveränderter Nachdruck der Auflage Berlin 1929. Gabler, Wiesbaden (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grochla, E.: Einführung in die Organisationstheorie. Poeschel, Stuttgart (1978)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J.P., Clark, T.: Communication, organizing and organization. Organ. Stud. 32(9), 1149–1170 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nielsen, J.: Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In: Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 152–158. ACM, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aranda, J., Ernst, N., Horkoff, J., Easterbrook, S.: A framework for empirical evaluation of model comprehensibility. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering, p. 7. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.0 specification: Open Group Standard. The Open Group Series. Van Haren, Zaltbommel (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory & Methodology. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Demo-3: Models and representations (version 3.7) (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Frank, U.: MEMO Organisation Modelling Language (2): Focus on Business Processes. ICB Research Report 49, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Frank, U.: MEMO Organisation Modelling Language (1): Focus on Organisational Structure. ICB-Research Report 48, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Köhling, C.: Entwurf einer konzeptuellen Modellierungsmethode zur Unterstützung rationaler Zielplanungsprozesse in Unternehmen. Ph.D. thesis, University of Duisburg-Essen (2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Strecker, S., Frank, U., Heise, D., Kattenstroth, H.: MetricM: a modeling method in support of the reflective design and use of performance measurement systems. ISeB 10(2), 241–276 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jung, J.: Entwurf einer Sprache für die Modellierung von Ressourcen im Kontext der Geschäftsprozessmodellierung. Logos, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heise, D.: Unternehmensmodell-basiertes IT-Kostenmanagement als Bestandteil eines integrativen IT-Controllings. Logos, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Demo: towards a discipline of organisation engineering. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 128(2), 351–363 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9.1. Van Haren, Zaltbommel (2011)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Décosse, C., Molnar, W.A., Proper, H.A.: What does DEMO Do? A qualitative analysis about DEMO in practice: founders, modellers and beneficiaries. In: Aveiro, D., Tribolet, J., Gouveia, D. (eds.) EEWC 2014. LNBIP, vol. 174, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Information Systems and Enterprise Modeling, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems (ICB)University of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations