Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support

International Conference on Evaluation and Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Development

BPMDS 2018, EMMSAD 2018: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling pp 213–228Cite as

The Power/Generality Trade-Off in Decision and Problem Modeling: Theoretical Background and Multi-level Modeling as a Resolution

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 318))

Abstract

A central conflict in decision and problem solving support is known as the ‘Power/Generality’ trade-off. The incorporation of a high level of domain-specific concepts and mechanisms in a decision instrument will increase the instrument’s power but will do so at the cost of the instrument’s generality. This paper has two purposes. First, it brings to attention the power/generality conflict in conceptual decision and problem solving modeling, and it demonstrates the resultant problems in relation to an existing enterprise decision modeling language. Second, the paper proposes the use of a multi-level modeling paradigm as a possible resolution of the conflict, and it proposes concrete re-conceptualizations for an existing modeling language to alleviate the associated problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Newell, A.: Heuristic programming: ill-structured problems. In: Aronofsky, J.S. (ed.) Progress in Operations Research, vol. III, pp. 361–414. Wiley, New York (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  2. de Mast, J., Lokkerbol, J.: An analysis of the Six Sigma DMAIC method from the perspective of problem solving. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 139(2), 604–614 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fensel, D., Motta, E.: Structured development of problem solving methods. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 13(6), 913–932 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Klinker, G., Bhola, C., Dallemagne, G., Marques, D., McDermott, J.: Usable and reusable programming constructs. Knowl. Acquis. 3(2), 117–135 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beys, P., Benjamins, V.R., van Heijst, G.: Remedying the reusability-usability tradeoff for problem-solving methods. In: Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems (KAW96) (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Frank, U.: Multiperspektivische Unternehmensmodellierung: Theoretischer Hintergrund und Entwurf einer objektorientierten Entwicklungsumgebung. Oldenbourg, München (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Knackstedt, R.: Adaptive reference modeling: integrating configurative and generic adaptation techniques for information models. In: Becker, J., Delfmann, P. (eds.) Reference Modeling, pp. 27–58. Physica, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Winter, R.: Design solution analysis for the construction of situational design methods. In: Ralyté, J., Mirbel, I., Deneckère, R. (eds.) ME 2011. IAICT, vol. 351, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19997-4_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldstein, W.M., Weber, E.U.: Content and discontent: indications and implications of domain specificity in preferential decision making. In: Goldstein, W.M., Hogarth, R.M. (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making, pp. 566–617. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Object Management Group: Decision model and notation: Beta 1. OMG Document dtc/2014-02-01 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Plataniotis, G., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A.: EA Anamnesis: an approach for decision making analysis in enterprise architecture. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 5(3), 75–95 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bock, A.: Beyond narrow decision models: toward integrative models of organizational decision processes. In: 17th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics (CBI 2015), pp. 181–190. IEEE Computer Society (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Horkoff, J., Barone, D., Jiang, L., Yu, E.S., Amyot, D., Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Strategic business modeling: representation and reasoning. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 1015–1041 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fill, H.G., Karagiannis, D.: On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the ADOxx meta modelling platform. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. 8(1), 4–25 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Infrastructure: Version 2.4.1. OMG Document formal/2011-08-05

    Google Scholar 

  16. Atkinson, C., Gutheil, M., Kennel, B.: A flexible infrastructure for multilevel language engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 742–755 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Frank, U.: Multilevel modeling: toward a new paradigm of conceptual modeling and information systems design. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 6(6), 319–337 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carvalho, V.A., Almeida, J.P.A.: Toward a well-founded theory for multi-level conceptual modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 17(1), 205–231 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Frank, U.: Enterprise modelling: the next steps. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. 9(1), 22–37 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen, P.P.S.: The entity-relationship model–toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Graham, I.: Object Oriented Methods, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hastie, R.: Problems for judgment and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 653–683 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Keeney, R.L.: Decision analysis: an overview. Oper. Res. 30(5), 803–838 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Simon, H.A.: The New Science of Management Decision, Revised edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lundberg, C.C.: Administrative decisions: a scheme for analysis. In: Gore, W.J., Dyson, J.W. (eds.) The Making of Decisions, pp. 17–30. Free Press, New York (1964)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kirsch, W.: Entscheidungsprozesse: Erster Band: Verhaltenswissenschaftliche Ansätze der Entscheidungstheorie. Gabler, Wiesbaden (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jonassen, D.H., Hung, W.: Problem solving. In: Seel, N.M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, pp. 2680–2683. Springer, New York (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_208

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Dery, D.: Decision-making, problem-solving and organizational learning. Omega 11(4), 321–328 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bock, A., Kattenstroth, H., Overbeek, S.J.: Towards a modeling method for supporting the management of organizational decision processes. In: Fill, H.G., Karagiannis, D., Reimer, U. (eds.) Modellierung 2014. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. P-225, pp. 49–64. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bock, A., Frank, U.: MEMO GoalML: a context-enriched modeling language to support reflective organizational goal planning and decision processes. In: Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song, I.-Y., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9974, pp. 515–529. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46397-1_40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 941–962 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Strecker, S., Heise, D., Frank, U.: RiskM: a multi-perspective modeling method for it risk assessment. Inf. Syst. Front. 13(4), 595–611 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Group Information Systems and Enterprise Modeling, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Alexander C. Bock

Authors
  1. Alexander C. Bock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander C. Bock .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Jens Gulden

  2. University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Iris Reinhartz-Berger

  3. Munich University of Applied Sciences, Munich, Germany

    Rainer Schmidt

  4. INESC-ID, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Sérgio Guerreiro

  5. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Wided Guédria

  6. Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

    Palash Bera

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Bock, A.C. (2018). The Power/Generality Trade-Off in Decision and Problem Modeling: Theoretical Background and Multi-level Modeling as a Resolution. In: Gulden, J., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Schmidt, R., Guerreiro, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2018 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 318. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91704-7_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91704-7_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91703-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91704-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation