Guidelines for Modelling

  • Marc Lankhorst
Part of the The Enterprise Engineering Series book series (TEES)


This chapter will help you create good enterprise architecture models. To do so, we discuss the act of modelling as a goal-driven activity, the role of the stakeholders, as well as the modelling process in general. The chapter focuses on the key aspects of modelling: the use of abstraction levels, the choice of modelling concepts and relations, and different ways of structuring and visualising models. The results are presented in the form of guidelines for modelling and visualisation.


Business Process Modelling Action Abstraction Level Enterprise Architecture Modelling Goal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bass L, Clements P, Kazman R, (1998), Software Architecture in Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Biemans FPM, Lankhorst MM, Teeuw WB, Van de Wetering RG (2001), Dealing with the Complexity of Business Systems Architecting. Systems Engineering, 4(2):118–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks FP (1975), The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dijkstra EW (1968), Structure of the ‘THE’-Multiprogramming System, Communications of the ACM, 11(5):341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grice HP (1975), Logic and Conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds.), Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts. pp. 41–58. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Horton W (1991), Illustrating Computer Documentation, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Koning H (2002), Guidelines Concerning Readability of IT-Architecture Diagrams version 1.0, May 17, 2002,
  8. Krogstie J, Lindland OI, Sindre G (1995), Defining Quality Aspects for Conceptual Models, In Falkenberg ED, Hesse W, Olive A (eds.), Information Systems Concepts: Towards a consolidation of views, Proc. IFIP international working conference on information system concepts, pp. 216–231. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  9. Lindland OI, Sindre G, Sølvberg A (1994), Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modeling, IEEE Software, 11(2):42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Miller GA (1956), The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review, 63:81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rechtin E, Maier MW (1997), The Art of Systems Architecting. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  12. Teeuw WB, Berg, H van den (1997), On the Quality of Conceptual Models. In Liddle SW (ed.), Proc. ER’97 Workshop on Behavioral Models and Design Transformations: Issues and Opportunities in Conceptual Modeling, UCLA, Los Angeles.
  13. Veryard R (2004), Business-Driven SOA 2 – How business governs the SOA process, CBDI Journal, June.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Lankhorst
    • 1
  1. 1.NovayEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations