The Communicative Nature of Information Systems Integration as an Enabler for Business IT Alignment

  • Iyad ZikraEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 263)


Patterns of systems integration strive to accommodate the diversity of business ecosystems, including novel Web- and cloud-based services. In this paper, we apply the principles of the language/action paradigm (LAP) to develop a decentralized integration pattern that supports dynamic integration of services. A model is proposed for designing the interacting systems as active and independent entities that seek to communicate with each other. Two modes are enabled in the communication model: an indirect mode, where systems interact via business processes; and a direct mode, where systems directly interface with each other, following four categories. The communication perspective of the proposed integration pattern contributes to realizing the vision of a marketplace for cloud services. It supports a more flexible alternative to centralized integration patterns. The communication model builds on the improved alignment between system design models and the overall organizational design offered by the unifying meta-model for enterprise modeling.


Communication model Systems integration Business IT alignment Integration patterns Meta-Model 


  1. 1.
    Armbrust, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A.D., Katz, R., Konwinski, A., Lee, G., Patterson, D., Rabkin, A., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M.: A view of cloud computing. Commun. ACM 53(4), 50–58 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. IEEE Softw. 20(5), 36–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhatt, G.D.: An empirical examination of the effects of information systems integration on business process improvement. Intl. J. Oper. Product. Manage. 20(11), 1331–1359 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birrell, A.D., Nelson, B.J.: Implementing remote procedure calls. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2(1), 39–59 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buyya, R., Yeo, C.S., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J., Brandic, I.: Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Generation Comput. Syst. 25(6), 599–616 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Creeger, M.: CTO roundtable: cloud computing. Queue Distrib. Comput. 7(5), 1–17 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curry, E.: Message-oriented Middleware. In: Mhamoud, Q.H. (eds.) Middleware for Communications, pp. 1–28. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dietz, J.L.G., Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., van Reijswoud, V.E.: The communicative action paradigm for business modelling – a research agenda. In: Seigerroth, U. (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Language/Action Perspective (LAP 1998), Jönköping International Business School (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dillon, T., Wu, C., Change, E.: Cloud computing: issues and challenges. In: 24th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, p. 27–33 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erl, T.: Service-oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design. Pearson Education India (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    España, S., González, A., Pastor, Ó.: Communication analysis: a requirements engineering method for information systems. In: Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 530–545. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02144-2_41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Estrada, H., Morales-Ramírez, I., Martínez, A. Pastor, O.: From business services to web services: an MDA approach. In: Castro, J., Franch, X., Mylopoulos, J., Yu, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International i* Workshop, CEUR-WS, vol. 586, pp. 31–35 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graham, S., Davis, D., Simeonov, S., Daniels, G., Brittenham, P., Nakamura, Y., Fremantle, P., Koenig, D., Zentner, C.: Building Web Services with Java: Making Sense of XML, SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI. SAMS Publishing, Indianapolis (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habermas, J., McCarthy, T.: The theory of communicative action, vol. 1. In: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press (1985)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hasselbring, W.: Information system integration. Commun. ACM 43(6), 32–38 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaisler, S.H., Armour, F., Valivullah, M.: Enterprise architecting: critical problems. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2005), vol. 08. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal models as architectural knowledge. In: Avgeriou, P., Lago, P., Kruchten, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge, SHARK 2008, pp. 1–2. ACM, Leipzig (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meimaris, M., Vafopoulos, M.: Knowledge-based semantification of business communications in ERP environments. In: Haller, A., Huang, G., Huang, Z., Paik, H.-y., Sheng, Q.Z. (eds.) WISE 2011-2012. LNCS, vol. 7652, pp. 159–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38333-5_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    OMG: Object Management Group. Common Object Resource Broker Architecture (CORBA). Accessed on 25 Nov 2015
  20. 20.
    Pitt, E., McNiff, K.: Java.rmi: The Remote Method Invocation Guide. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richardson, L., Ruby, S.: RESTful Web Services. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stevens, W.R., Fenner, B., Rudoff, A.M.: UNIX Network Programming, vol. 1. Addison-Wesley Professional (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    W3C. SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition). Accessed on 25 Nov 2015
  24. 24.
    W3C. W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 1: Structures. Accessed on 25 Nov 2015
  25. 25.
    Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition, Reissue edition. Addison-Wesley (1987)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Winograd, T.: A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. In: Greif, I. (ed.) Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, pp. 623–653. Morgan-Kaufmann, San Mateo, California (1988)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zikra, I., Stirna, J., Zdravkovic, J.: Analyzing the integration between requirements and models in model driven development. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 342–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21759-3_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zikra, I., Stirna, J., Zdravkovic, J.: Bringing enterprise modeling closer to model-driven development. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, Andreas, L. (eds.) PoEM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 268–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24849-8_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems Sciences (DSV)Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations