Up-Stream and Down-Stream Quality in Enterprise Modeling Practice – Supporting Model Driven Continuous Improvement in Organizations

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

Abstract

The paper identifies and discusses what is considered to be the three most critical points, both up-stream and down-stream to Enterprise Modeling, for ensuring the usefulness and use of EM results in the continuous improvement of organizations. The model type that is targeted in the cases discussed in the paper is the process model, but other related model types, e.g. goal models and concepts models are also addressed in relation to process models. The points addressed in the paper are: 1) Trigger handling – acting on symptoms or the root cause problem, 2) critical aspects during modeling, and 3) establishing mechanisms for continuous model based business process improvement.

Keywords

Enterprise Modeling process quality successful implementation of enterprise models continuous improvement 

References

  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.
    Bajec, M., Krisper, M.: A methodology and tool support for managing business rules in organisations. Information Systems 30(6), 423–443 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J.: A Requirements-Driven Development Methodology. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 108–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johannesson, P., Boman, M., Bubenko, J., Wangler, B.: Conceptual Modelling. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, 280 pages. Prentice Hall (1997) Series editor Hoare, C.A.R.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Willars, H., et al.: TRIAD Modelleringshandboken N 10:1-6 (in Swedish), SISU, Electrum 212, 164 40 Kista, Sweden (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Yu, E.S.K., Mylopoulos, J.: From E-R to “A-R” - Modelling Strategic Actor Relationships for Business Process Reengineering. In: Loucopoulos, P. (ed.) ER 1994. LNCS, vol. 881, pp. 548–565. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wangler, B., Persson, A., Söderström, E.: Enterprise Modeling for B2B integration. In: International Conference on Advances in Infrastructure for Electronic Business, Science, and Education on the Internet, L’Aquila, Italy, August 6-12. CD-ROM proceedings (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wangler, B., Persson, A., Johannesson, P., Ekenberg, L.: Bridging High-level Enterprise Models to Implemenation-Oriented Models. In: Fujita, H., Johannesson, P. (eds.) New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wangler, B., Persson, A.: Capturing Collective Intentionality in Software Development. In: Fujita, H., Johannesson, P. (eds.) New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques, pp. 262–270. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Niehaves, B., Stirna, J.: Participative Enterprise Modelling for Balanced Scorecard Implementation. In: 14th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2006), Gothberg, Sweden (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gustafsson, J., Höglund, J.: The Common Model of an Enterprise’s Value Objects, Presented in Relevant Business Views. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 23–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Willars, H.: Handbok i ABC-metoden. Plandata Strategi (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oaks, D.: Root Cause Analysis: the Core of Problem Solving and Corrective Action. ASQ Press (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jarl Höglund
    • 1
  • Anne Persson
    • 2
  1. 1.ALLMENTOR ABMälarhöjdenSweden
  2. 2.Informatics Research CentreUniversity of SkövdeSkövdeSweden

Personalised recommendations