Investigating the Evolvability of Financial Domain Models

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 284)


Evolvability is a characteristic dealing with change in Information Systems (IS). As the requirements evolve in time, the complexity of the system may increase. In turn, the ability to change it decreases. Consequently, the cost of a change can become unbearable. A domain model is an important abstraction covering key aspects of IS. Similarly to the IS it represents, it can suffer with the same evolvability issues. The goal of this paper is to assess combinatorial effects (CE) in a financial industry domain model, more specifically a domain model of financial risk management. It reveals difficulties related to identifying combinatorial effects in domain models in general and presents some insights on the nature of combinatorial effects on this level.


Domain model Normalized systems Evolvability Combinatorial effect 



We warmly thank Belfius and COPS GmbH which enabled us to settle down the discussed financial domain model. This research has been supported by SGS grant No. OHK3-006/17.


  1. 1.
    Hilbert, M., López, P.: The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science 332(6025), 60–65 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marketline: Mobile apps in the united states. website, February 2016.
  3. 3.
    Fuchs, C.: Internet and Society. Social Theory in the Information Age. Routledge, London (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ciraci, S., Van Den Broek, P.: Evolvability as a quality attribute of software architectures (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lehman, M.M.: Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proc. IEEE 68(9), 1060–1076 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Behutiye, W.N., Rodrguez, P., Oivo, M., Tosun, A.: Analyzing the concept of technical debt in the context of agile software development: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 82, 139–158 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Op’t Land, M., Krouwel, M.R., Dipten, E., Verelst, J.: Exploring normalized systems potential for Dutch MoD’s agility. In: Harmsen, F., Grahlmann, K., Proper, E. (eds.) PRET 2011. LNBIP, vol. 89, pp. 110–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23388-3_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook, S., Ji, H., Harrison, R.: Software evolution and software evolvability. Technical report, University of Reading, UK (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simon, H.: The architecture of complexity. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 106, 467–482 (1962)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J.T.: Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strateg. Manag. J. 17, 63–76 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baldwin, C., Clark, K.: Managing in an age of modularity. Harv. Bus. Rev. 75, 84–93 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J., Zhang, Y.: Product modularity: definitions and benefits. J. Eng. Des. 14(3), 295–313 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sako, M.: Modularity and outsourcing. In: The Business of Systems Integration, pp. 229–253. Oxford University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campagnolo, D., Camuffo, A.: The concept of modularity in management studies: a literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12, 259–283 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mannaert, H., Verelst, J., De Bruyn, P.: Normalized systems software architectures. Normalized Systems Institute (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huysmans, P., Verelst, J., Oost, H.M.A.: Integrating information systems using normalized systems theory: four case studies. In: 17th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics, 13–16 July 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Nuffel, D.: Towards desdesign modular and evolvable business processes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Antwerp (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huysmans, P.: On the feasibility of Normalized Enterprises: applying Normalized Systems Theory to the high-level design of enterprises. Ph.D. thesis, University of Antwerp (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Bruyn, P.: Generalizing normalized systems theory: towards a foundational theory for enterprise engineering. Ph.D. thesis (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vanhoof, E.: Evolvable accounting information systems: applying design science methodology and Normalized Systems theory to tackle combinatorial effects of multiple GAAP. Ph.D. thesis, University of Antwerp (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dahl, O.J., Dijkstra, E.W., Hoare, C.A.R.: Structured Programming. Academic Press Ltd., Cambridge (1972)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith, B.: Object-oriented programming. In: Advanced ActionScript 3, pp. 1–23. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Codd, E.F.: Relational database: a practical foundation for productivity. Commun. ACM 25(2), 109–117 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Webber-Cross, G.: Learning Microsoft Azure. Packt Publishing Ltd., Birmingham (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mannaert, H., Verelst, J., Ven, K.: The transformation of requirements into software primitives: studying evolvability based on systems theoretic stability. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(12), 1210–1222 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saunders, A., Cornett, M.: Financial Institutions Management. A Risk Management Approach, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: Minimum capital requirements for market risk. website, January 2016.
  28. 28.
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: International convergence of capital measurement and capital standards. website, June 2006.
  29. 29.
    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: Fundamental review of the trading book. website, May 2012.
  30. 30.
    Eesaar, E.: The database normalization theory and the theory of normalized systems: finding a common ground. Baltic J. Modern Comput. 4(1), 5–33 (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eesaar, E.: On applying normalized systems theory to the business architectures of information systems. Baltic J. Modern Comput. 2(3), 132–149 (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oorts, G., Mannaert, H., De Bruyn, P., Franquet, I.: On the evolvable and traceable design of (Under) graduate education programs. In: Aveiro, D., Pergl, R., Gouveia, D. (eds.) EEWC 2016. LNBIP, vol. 252, pp. 86–100. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39567-8_6 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chongsombut, O., Verelst, J., De Bruyn, P., Mannaert, H., Huysmans, P.: Towards applying normalized systems theory to create evolvable enterprise resource planning software: a case study. In: Lavazza, L. (ed.) The Eleventh International Conference on Software Engineering Advances: ICSEA 2016, 21–25 August 2016, Rome, Italy, pp. 172–177 (2016)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Bruyn, P., Van Nuffel, D., Verelst, J., Mannaert, H.: Towards applying normalized systems theory implications to enterprise process reference models. In: Albani, A., Aveiro, D., Barjis, J. (eds.) EEWC 2012. LNBIP, vol. 110, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29903-2_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accountancy and FinanceUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Information TechnologyCzech Technical UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Management Information SystemsUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations