Modeling Digital Enterprise Ecosystems with ArchiMate: A Mobility Provision Case Study

  • Benedikt PittlEmail author
  • Dominik BorkEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10371)


Currently there is a shift from product centered enterprises to product-service centered enterprises which rely on a network of customers, suppliers and partners called enterprise ecosystems. This trend also affects the underlying IT architecture which has to integrate and provide software components (e.g. services) as well as hardware components (e.g. sensors) leading to a digital enterprise ecosystem. This digital ecosystem is complex so that modeling approaches which aim on simplifying complexity are eligible for their design and management. In the paper at hand, we show that existing enterprise modeling approaches are inappropriate for modeling digital enterprise ecosystems comprehensively. By using a case-based analysis we sketch extension points for a digital enterprise ecosystem modeling method based on ArchiMate.


Domain-specific modeling Enterprise ecosystem Enterprise modeling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Al-Fedaghi, Sabah: Enterprise Architecture: An Alternative to ArchiMate Conceptualization. In: Silhavy, Radek, Silhavy, Petr, Prokopova, Zdenka, Senkerik, Roman, Kominkova Oplatkova, Zuzana (eds.) CSOC 2017. AISC, vol. 575, pp. 68–77. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-57141-6_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asghar, M.H., Negi, A., Mohammadzadeh, N.: Principle application and vision in internet of things (iot). In: Computing, Communication & Automation (ICCCA), 2015 International Conference on. pp. 427–431. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbosa, O., Alves, C.: A systematic mapping study on software ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Software Ecosystems, Brussels, Belgium, June 7th, 2011. pp. 15–26 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bock, A., Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling - conceptual foundation and implementation with adoxx. In: Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, Concepts, Methods and Tools, pp. 241–267. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bork, D., Fill, H.G.: Formal aspects of enterprise modeling methods: a comparison framework. In: System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on. pp. 3400–3409. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bork, D.: A Development Method for the Conceptual Design of Multi-View Modeling Tools with an Emphasis on Consistency Requirements. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bamberg (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bork, D.: Using conceptual modeling for designing multi-view modeling tools. In: 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2015, Puerto Rico, August 13–15, 2015. Association for Information Systems (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buchmann, R.A.: Modeling Product-Service Systems for the Internet of Things: The ComVantage Method. In: Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, pp. 417–437. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buchmann, R.A., Karagiannis, D.: Domain-specific diagrammatic modelling: a source of machine-readable semantics for the internet of things. Cluster Computing 20(1), 895–908 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chew, E.K.: Service innovation for the digital world. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures 9(1), 70–89 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engelsman, W., Jonkers, H., Quartel, D.: Archimate® extension for modeling and managing motivation, principles, and requirements in togaf®. White paper, The Open Group (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferstl, O.K., Sinz, E.J., Bork, D.: Tool support for the semantic object model. In: Dimitris Karagiannis, Heinrich C. Mayr, J.M. (ed.) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, pp. 291–310. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fill, H.G.: Semantic evaluation of business processes using semfis. In: Dimitris Karagiannis, Heinrich C. Mayr, J.M. (ed.) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, pp. 149–170. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling (memo) conceptual framework and modeling languages. In: System Sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on. pp. 1258–1267. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gericke, A., Fill, H.G., Karagiannis, D., Winter, R.: Situational method engineering for governance, risk and compliance information systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology. p. 24. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haren, V.: TOGAF Version 9.1. Van Haren Publishing (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Höfferer, P.: Achieving business process model interoperability using metamodels and ontologies. In: ECIS. pp. 1620–1631 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iacob, M.E., Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A.: ArchiMate 1.0 Specification. Zaltbommel: Van Haren Publishing (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, R.A., Burzynski, P., Reimer, U., Walch, M.: Fundamental conceptual modeling languages in omilab. In: Dimitris Karagiannis, Heinrich C. Mayr, J.M. (ed.) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, pp. 3–30. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karagiannis, Dimitris, Kühn, Harald: Metamodelling Platforms. In: Bauknecht, Kurt, Tjoa, A.Min, Quirchmayr, Gerald (eds.) EC-Web 2002. LNCS, vol. 2455, pp. 182–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45705-4_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.): Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, Concepts, Methods and Tools. Springer (2016),.
  22. 22.
    Krogstie, J.: Modeling of digital ecosystems: Challenges and opportunities. In: Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises. pp. 137–145. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kurbel, K.E.: Developing Information Systems. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lankhorst, M.: Introduction to enterprise architecture. In: Enterprise Architecture at Work, pp. 1–10. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liles, D.H., Presley, A.R.: Enterprise modeling within an enterprise engineering framework. In: Proceedings of the 28th conference on Winter simulation. pp. 993–999. IEEE Computer Society (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lyytinen, K., Rose, G.M.: The disruptive nature of information technology innovations: the case of internet computing in systems development organizations. MIS quarterly pp. 557–596 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marshall, C.: Enterprise modeling with UML: designing successful software through business analysis. Addison-Wesley Professional (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mertins, K., Jochem, R.: Integrated enterprise modeling: method and tool. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin 18(2), 63–66 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual modelling and Telos. Conceptual Modelling, Databases, and CASE: an Integrated View of Information System Development, New York: John Wiley & Sons pp. 49–68 (1992)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nachira, F., Dini, P., Nicolai, A.: A network of digital business ecosystems for europe: roots, processes and perspectives. European Commission, Bruxelles, Introductory Paper (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    OpenGroup: Archimate standard (2016), accessed: 2017–02-23.
  32. 32.
    Panetto, H., Jardim-Goncalves, R., Molina, A.: Enterprise integration and networking: theory and practice. Annual Reviews in Control 36(2), 284–290 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise modeling. Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer 309 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group Knowledge Engineering, Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations