Evolution of an Enterprise Modeling Method – Next Generation Improvements of EKD

  • Janis Stirna
  • Anne Persson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 134)


The field of Enterprise Modeling (EM) consists of many methods and method development is one of the key activity areas of EM practitioners and researchers. This paper ponders on future improvements for one EM method, namely Enterprise Knowledge Development (EKD). A number of improvements to the EKD method are identified and discussed, based on empirical observations. The improvements fall into four categories: the modeling language, the modeling process, tool support, and other improve- ments. The paper can be seen as a step towards a new and improved version of EKD.


Enterprise Modeling Enterprise Modeling method method evolution 


  1. 1.
    Persson, A., Stirna, J.: An explorative study into the influence of business goals on the practical use of Enterprise Modelling methods and tools. In: Tenth International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD 2001), Royal Holloway, University of London, September 5-7 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bubenko Jr., J.A., Persson, A., Stirna, J.: An Intentional Perspective on Enterprise Modeling. In: Salinesi, C., Nurcan, S., Souveyet, C., Ralyté, J. (eds.) An Intentional Perspective on Enterprise Modeling. Springer (2010) ISBN 978-3-642-12543-0Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bubenko Jr., J.A., Persson, A., Stirna, J.: User Guide of the Knowledge Management Approach Using Enterprise Knowledge Patterns. Deliverable D3. IST Programme project Hypermedia and Pattern Based Knowledge Management for Smart Organisations, project no. IST-2000-28401, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Persson, A.: The Practice of Participatory Enterprise Modelling – a Competency Perspective. In: Johannesson, P., Söderström, E. (eds.) Information Systems Engineering - from Data Analysis to Process Networks, pp. 129–157. Idea Group Inc. (2008) ISBN-13: 978-1-59904-567-2Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A.: An Enterprise Modeling Approach to Support Creativity and Quality in Information Systems and Business Development. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Proper, E. (eds.) Innovations in Information Systems Modeling: Methods and Best Practices. IGI Global (2008) ISBN 978-1-60566-278-7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London (1967)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Persson, A., Stirna, J.: Towards Defining a Competence Profile for the Enterprise Modeling Practitioner. In: van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Overbeek, S., Proper, E., Barjis, J. (eds.) PoEM 2010. LNBIP, vol. 68, pp. 232–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A.: Purpose Driven Competency Planning for Enterprise Modeling Projects. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 662–677. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Willars, H.: Handbok i ABC-metoden. Plandata Strategi (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A., Sandkuhl, K.: Participative Enterprise Modeling: Experiences and Recommendations. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Persson, A.: Enterprise Modelling in Practice: Situational Factors and their Influence on Adopting a Participative Approach, PhD thesis, Stockholm University (2001) ISSN 1101-8526Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nilsson, A.G., Tolis, C., Nellborn, C. (eds.): Perspectives on Business Modelling: Understanding and Changing Organisations. Springer (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stirna, J.: The Influence of Intentional and Situational Factors on EM Tool Acquisition in Organisations, Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weigers, K.: Software Requirements. Microsoft Press (2003) ISBN 978-0735618794Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A Multi-Model View of Process Modelling. Requirements Engineering 4(4) (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OMG, Business Process Model and Notation, version 2.0, OMG (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Basic RuleSpeak Guidelines, Business Rule Solutions, LLC, Version 2.2 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gailly, F., Poels, G.: Ontology-Driven Business Modelling: Improving the Conceptual Representation of the REA Ontology. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 407–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zikra, I., Stirna, J., Zdravkovic, J.: Bringing Enterprise Modeling Closer to Model-Driven Development. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) PoEM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 268–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zikra, I., España, S., Ruiz, M., Pastor Lopez, O., Stirna, J.: Aligning Communication Analysis with the Unifying Meta-Model for Enterprise Modeling. In: Proc. of ISD 2012. Springer (to appear, 2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J.: Evaluation of Task Pattern Use in Web-based Collaborative Engineering. In: Proc. of the 34th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), EUROMICRO. IEEE (2008) ISBN 978-0-7695-3276-9Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lillehagen, F., Krogstie, J.: Active Knowledge Modeling of Enterprises. Springer (2008) ISBN: 978-3-540-79415-8Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rolland, C., Stirna, J., Prekas, N., Loucopoulos, P., Persson, A., Grosz, G.: Evaluating a Pattern Approach as an Aid for the Development of Organisational Knowledge: An Empirical Study. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wesenberg, H.: Enterprise Modeling in an Agile World. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) PoEM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 126–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A.: Anti-patterns as a Means of Focusing on Critical Quality Aspects in Enterprise Modeling. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2009 and EMMSAD 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 407–418. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What Makes Process Models Understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krogstie, J.: Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems: A Quality Approach. Springer (2012) ISBN 978-1-4471-2935-6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janis Stirna
    • 1
  • Anne Persson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityKistaSweden
  2. 2.Informatics Research CentreUniversity of SkövdeSkövdeSweden

Personalised recommendations