Towards a Domain-Specific Method for Multi-Perspective Hospital Modelling – Motivation and Requirements

  • Michael Heß
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7939)


The paper motivates the design and development of a domain-specific method for Multi-Perspective Hospital Modelling and presents requirements the method should fulfil. The contribution follows the design science research process and the identified requirements serve as basis for evaluating related work from the medical informatics and information systems discipline. As out of all evaluated approaches, the Multi-Perspective Enterprise Modelling method fulfils the requirements to the greatest extent, it is to be extended towards the proposed Multi-Perspective Hospital Modelling method.


Unify Modeling Language Medical Activity Clinical Pathway Enterprise Modelling Design Science Research 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nagel, E. (ed.): Das Gesundheitswesen in Deutschland. Struktur, Leistungen, Weiterentwicklung, 5th edn. Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, Köln (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Field, M.J., Lohr, K.N.: Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. The National Academies Press (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Bleser, L., Depreitere, R., De Waele, K., Vanhaecht, K., Vlayen, J., Sermeus, W.: Defining pathways. Journal of Nursing Management 14(7), 553–563 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hsiao, W.C., Sapolsky, H.M., Dunn, D.L., Weiner, S.L.: Lessons of the New Jersey DRG payment system. Health Affairs 5(2), 32–45 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rotter, T., Kinsman, L., James, E., et al.: Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs (review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 7(3) (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frank, U., van Laak, B.: Anforderungen an Sprachen zur Modellierung von Geschäftsprozessen. Tech Report 34, Universität Koblenz-Landau. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Koblenz (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: Foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Journal of Software and Systems Modelling (2012), doi:10.1007/s10270-012-0273-9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., et al.: Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. EJIS 20, 7–10 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly 28(1), 75–106 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hevner, A.R.: The three cycle view of design science research. SJIS 19(2), 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heise, D., Heß, M., Strecker, S., Frank, U.: Rekonstruktion eines klinischen Behandlungs-pfads mithilfe domänenspezifischer Erweiterungen einer Geschäftsprozessmodellierungssprache: Anwendungsfall und Sprachkonzepte. In: Thomas, O., Nüttgens, M. (eds.) Dienstleistungsmodellierung 2010, pp. 210–227. Physica, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moody, D.L.: The physics of notations: Toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE TSE 35(6), 756–779 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heß, M., Schlieter, H., Täger, G.: Modellierung komplexer Entscheidungssituationen in Prozessmodellen – Anwendung am Beispiel der Tumorklassifikation bei Weichteilsarkomen. In: Thomas, O., Nüttgens, M. (eds.) Dienstleistungsmodellierung 2012, pp. 268–290. Springer, Gabler (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jung, J.: Entwurf einer Sprache für die Modellierung von Ressourcen im Kontext der Geschäftsprozessmodellierung. Logos, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Küttner, T., Roeder, N.: Definition Klinischer Behandlungspfade. In: Roeder, N., Küttner, T. (eds.) Klinische Behandlungspfade. Mit Standards erfolgreicher arbeiten, pp. 19–27. Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, Köln (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Short, M.S.: Charting by Exception on a Clinical Pathway. Nursing Management 28(8), 45–46 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frank, U.: Outline of a method for designing domain-specific modelling languages. ICB Research Report 42, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tuddenham, W.J.: The use of logical flow charts as an aid in teaching roentgen diagnosis. American Journal of Rentgenology 102(4), 797–803 (1968)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Society for Medical Decision Making: Proposal for Clinical Algorithm Standards. Medical Decision Making 12(2), 149–154 (1992)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ohno-Machado, L., Gennari, J.H., Murphy, S., Jain, N.L., et al.: The guideline interchange format: A model for representing guidelines. JAMIA 5, 357–372 (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peleg, M., Tu, S., Bury, J., Ciccarese, P., et al.: Comparing Computer-interpretable Guideline Models: A Casestudy Approach. JAMIA 10(1), 52–68 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peleg, M., Boxwala, A.A., Tu, S., Wang, D., Ogunyemi, O., Zeng, Q.: Guideline Interchange Format 3.5 Technical Specification (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sutton, D., et al.: Evaluation of PROforma as a language for implementing medical guidelines in a practical context. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 6, 1–11 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tu, S., Campbell, J.R., Glasgow, J., Nyman, M.A., et al.: The sage guideline model: Achievements and overview. JAMIA 14(5), 589–598 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.W.: Semantische Prozeßmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozeketten (EPK). Heft 89, Universität des Saarlandes, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Saarbrücken (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Staud, J.: Geschäftsprozessanalyse. Ereignisgesteuerte Prozessketten und objektorientierte Geschäftsprozessmodellung für Betriebswirtschaftliche Standardsoftware, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Software AG: ARIS Method. ARIS Platform. Version 7.2, Darmstadt (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen, P.P.S.: The Entity Relationship Model – Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM TODS 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language Specification Version 2.3 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    OMG: Business Process Model And Notation (BPMN). Version 2.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performances. Harvard Business Review 70(1), 71–79 (1992)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frank, U.: MEMO: Visual Languages for Enterprise Modelling. Tech Report 18, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Koblenz (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Frank, U.: MEMO Organisation Modelling Language (2): Focus on Business Processes. ICB Research Report 49, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frank, U.: MEMO Organisation Modelling Language (1): Focus on Organisational Structure. ICB-Research Report 48, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Frank, U., Lange, C.: E-MEMO: A Method to support the Development of customized Electronic Commerce Systems. ISeB 5(2), 93–116 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kirchner, L.: Eine Methode zur Unterstützung des IT-Managements im Rahmen der Unternehmensmodellierung. Logos, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Strecker, S., et al.: MetricM: A modeling method in support of the reflective design and use of performance measurement systems. ISeB 10(2), 241–276 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schauer, H.: Unternehmensmodellierung für das Wissensmanagement – Eine multi-perspektivische Methode zur ganzheitlichen Analyse und Planung. VDM, Saarbrücken (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Frank, U.: The MEMO Meta Modelling Language (MML) and Language Architecture, 2nd edn. ICB-Research Report 43, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gulden, J., Frank, U.: MEMOCenterNG. A full-featured modeling environment for organisation modeling and model-driven software development. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE 2010, Hammamet (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rumbaugh, J., et al.: The unified modeling language reference manual, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Heß
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group Information Systems and Enterprise Modelling, Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems, Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationUniversity of Duisburg-EssenGermany

Personalised recommendations