Enterprise Resource Planning Requirements Process: The Need for Semantic Verification

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 4)


This paper reviews the relevance of requirements determination in the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) enterprise software era. State-of-the-art requirements determination methods must contain, facilities for allowing semantic verification. We will introduce a conceptual modelling approach that fulfills this requirement and that can be used in the process of ERP configuration and requirements determination in general. The fact-based conceptual modelling approach that we will use in this paper is CogNIAM.


ERP systems Requirements determination Requirements elicitation Semantic verification Fact-based modelling CogNIAM 


  1. 1.
    Bansal, V., Negi, T.: A metric for ERP complexity. LNBIP 7, 369–379 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrett, A., Edwards, J.: Knowledge elicitation and knowledge representation in a large domain with multiple experts. Exp. Syst. Appl. 8(1), 169–176 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boehm, B.: Software Engineering Economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1981)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B: Software Risk Management. IEEE computer society press, Los Alamitos (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bollen, P.: The Natural Language Modeling Procedure’. In: Halevy, A., Gal, A. (eds.) Proceedings Fifth Workshop on Next Generation Information Technologies and Systems (NGITS’2002), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2382, pp. 123–146. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bollen, P.: On the applicability of requirements determination methods. Ph.D thesis. Faculty of Management and Organization. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bollen, P.: Natural language modeling for business application semantics. J. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2(3), 18–48 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boudreau, M. ERP Implementation and Forms of Organizational Change. Working paper Georgia State University (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Breuker, J., Wielinga, B.: Knowledge acquisition as modeling expertise; The KADS methodology. Paper presented at the 1st European workshop on knowledge acquisition for knowledge based systems. Reading University (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Browne, G., Rogich, M.: An empirical investigation of user requirements elicitation: comparing the effectiveness of prompting techniques. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 17(4), 223–249 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Byrd, T., Cossick, K., Zmud, R.: A synthesis of research on requirements analysis and knowledge acquisition techniques. MIS Q. 16(1), 117–138 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, P.: The entity-relationship model: towards a unified view of data. ACM TODS 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daneva, M., Wieringa, R.: A coordination complexity model to support requirements engineering for cross-organizational ERP. Requirements Engineering, 14th IEEE International Conference, pp. 311–314 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davenport, T.: Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Bus. Rev. 76(4), 121–131 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davenport, T., Short, J.: The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Manag. Rev. 31(4), 11–27 (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dullea, J., Song, I.-Y., Lamprou, I.: An analysis of structural validity in entity-relationship modeling. Data Knowl. Eng. 47, 167–205 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flynn, D.: Information Systems Requirements: Determination and Analysis. McGraw-Hill, London (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldin, L., Berry, D.: Abstfinder, a prototype natural language text abstraction finder for use in requirements elicitation. Aut. Softw. Eng. 4, 375–412 (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hammer, M.: Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Bus. Rev. 68 (4), 104–112 (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lalioti, V., Loucopoulos, P.: Visualisation of conceptual specifications. Inf. Syst. 19(3), 291–309 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lang, M., Duggan, J.: A tool to support collaborative software requirements management. Requir. Eng. 6, 161–172 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Light, B.: The maintenance implications of the customization of ERP software. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. Res. Pract. 13, 415–429 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lundeberg, M., Goldkuhl, G., Nilsson, G.: A systematic approach to information systems development. Inf. Syst. 4, 1–12, 93–118 (1979)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Madapusi, A., D’Souza, D.: The influence of ERP system implementation on the operational performance of an organization. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 32, 24–34 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Molenaar, T.: Siebel zet in op personeelsbeheer. Computable 43: 26 oktober: p. 11 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nijssen, G.M.: On the gross architecture for the next generation database management systems. In: Gilchrist, B., (ed.) Information Processing’77, pp. 327–335 (1977)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nijssen, G.M., Le Cat, A.: Kennis Gebaseerd Werken: de manier om kennis productief te Maken. PNA Publishing, Heerlen (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nijssen, M., Lemmens, I.: Verbalization for business rules and two flavors of verbalization for fact examples. LNCS 5333, 760–769 (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nijssen, M., Lemmens, I., Mak, R.: Fact-orientation applied to develop a flexible employment benefits system. LNCS 5872, 745–756 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Niu, N., Easterbrook, S.: Exploiting COTS-based RE methods: an experience report. LNCS 5030, 212–216 (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nurcan, S., Rolland, C.: A multi-method for defining the organizational change. Inf. Softw. Technol. 45, 61–82 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N.: Bridging the gap between organisational needs and ERP functionality. Requir. Eng. 5, 180–193 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Siriginidi, S.: Enterprise resource planning in reengineering business. Bus. Process Manag. 6(5), 376–391 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Skok, W., Legge, M.: Evaluating enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems using an interpretive approach. Knowl. Process Manag. 9(2), 72–82 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Soffer, P., Golany, B., Dori, D., Wand, Y.: Modelling off-the-shelf. Information systems requirements: an ontological approach. Require. Eng. 6, 183–199 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Soffer, P., Golany, B., Dori, D.: ERP modeling: a comprehensive approach. Inf. Syst. 28(6), 673–690 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stock exchange kills projects to focus on Taurus. (1989). EditorialGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Computing NoSystem problems leave Inland revenue with £ 20 of taxpayers’ cash (2002). Computer Weekly. February 14Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Theory, T., Yang, D., Fry, J.: A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended E-R model. ACM Comput. Surv. 18(2), 197–222 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tsichritzis, D., Klug, A.: The ANSI/X3/SPARC DBMS framework. Info. Syst. 3, 173–191 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Viller, S., Bowers, J., Rodden, T.: Human factors in requirements engineering: a survey of human sciences literature relevant to the improvement of dependable systems development processes. Interact. Comput. 11(6), 665–698 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wagner, E., Scott, S.V., Galliers, R.: The creation of ‘best practice’ software: myth, reality and ethics. Inf. Organ. 16, 251–275 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wetherbe, J.: Executive information requirements: getting it right. MIS Q. 15(1), 51–65 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wijers, G.: Modelling support in information systems development. Doctoral thesis. Technical University Delft (1991)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu, I.-L., Shen, Y.-C.: A model for exploring the impact of purchasing strategies on user requirements determination of e-SRM. Inf. Manag. 43, 411–422 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yourdon, E., Constantine, L.: Structured Design. Prentice Hall, (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations