Enterprise Modeling for Business Intelligence

  • Daniele Barone
  • Eric Yu
  • Jihyun Won
  • Lei Jiang
  • John Mylopoulos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 68)


Business Intelligence (BI) software aims to enable business users to easily access and analyze relevant enterprise information so that they can make timely and fact-based decisions. However, despite user-friendly features such as dashboards and other visualizations, business users still find BI software hard to use and inflexible for their needs. Furthermore, current BI initiatives require significant efforts by IT specialists to understand business operations and requirements, in order to build BI applications and help formulate queries. In this paper, we present a vision for BI that is driven by enterprise modeling. The Business Intelligence Model (BIM) aims to enable business users to conceptualize business operations and strategies and performance indicators in a way that can be connected to enterprise data through highly automated tools. The BIM draws upon well-established business practices such as Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Maps as well as requirements and conceptual modeling techniques such as goal modeling. The connection from BIM to databases is supported by a complementary research effort on conceptual data integration.


Business Intelligence Key Performance Indicators Strategic Planning Analytics Enterprise Modeling Conceptual Modeling 


  1. 1.
    Davenport, T.H., Harris, J.G.: Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barone, D., Mylopoulos, J., Jiang, L., Amyot, D.: Business Intelligence Model, version 1.0. Technical Report CSRG-607, University of Toronto (March 2010)
  3. 3.
    Saxena, P.K.: Principles of Management: A Modern Approach. Global India Publications Pvt Ltd (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Program 20(1-2), 3–50 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yu, E.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proc. 3rd IEEE Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering, Washington, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Telecommunication Union: Recommendation Z.151 (11/08): User Requirements Notation (URN) – Language definition,
  9. 9.
    Howard, R., Matheson, J.: Influence diagrams. Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis II (1984)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dealtry, T.R.: Dynamic SWOT Analysis. Dynamic SWOT Associates (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Business Rules Group: The Business Motivation Model: Business Governance in a Volatile World (2007), Ver. 1.3.
  12. 12.
    Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., Schneider, L.: Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 223–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rizzolo, F., Kiringa, I., Pottinger, R., Wong, K.: The conceptual integration modeling framework: Abstracting from the multidimensional model. Technical report, SITE, University of Ottawa (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quinn, K.: How Business Intelligence should work. Information Builders White Papers (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Sebastiani, R.: Goal-oriented requirements analysis and reasoning in the Tropos methodology. Eng. App. Artif. Intel. 18, 159–171 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    BusinessWeek: Toyota drops in auto-quality survey; Ford makes top 5 (update1) (June 2010),
  17. 17.
    List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Biham, E., Youssef, A.M. (eds.) SAC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4356, pp. 1532–1539. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Business Process Management Initiative: Business process management notation. Specification Version 2.0 (June 2010),
  19. 19.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A.: Ten Years Plus with EKD: Reflections from Using an Enterprise Modeling Method in Practice. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on EMMSAD 2007, held in conjunction with the 19th CAiSE 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Information modeling in the time of the revolution. Inf. Syst. 23(3-4), 127–155 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information system architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26(3), 277–293 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu, E., Strohmaier, M., Deng, X.: Exploring intentional modeling and analysis for enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of the EDOC Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (October 2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Office of Management and Budget: FEA Practice Guide. (November 2007),
  24. 24.
    Mazón, J.N., Trujillo, J.: A hybrid model driven development framework for the multidimensional modeling of data warehouses. SIGMOD Record 38(2) (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bleistein, S.J., Cox, K., Verner, J.M., Phalp, K.: B-SCP: A requirements analysis framework for validating strategic alignment of organizational IT based on strategy, context, and process. Information & Software Technology 48(9), 846–868 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andersson, B., Johannesson, P., Zdravkovic, J.: Aligning goals and services through goal and business modelling. Inf. Syst. E-Business Management 7(2) (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pourshahid, A., Amyot, D., Peyton, L., Ghanavati, S., Chen, P., Weiss, M., Forster, A.J.: Business process management with the User Requirements Notation. Electronic Commerce Research 9(4), 269–316 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Babar, A., Zowghi, D., Chew, E.: Using goals to model strategy map for business IT alignment. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on BUSITAL 2010, held in conjunctiun with the 22th CAiSE (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barone, D., Stella, F., Batini, C.: Dependency discovery in data quality. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 53–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koller, D., Friedman, N.: Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniele Barone
    • 1
  • Eric Yu
    • 2
  • Jihyun Won
    • 3
  • Lei Jiang
    • 1
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of InformationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.DISIUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations