Advertisement

Towards a Multi-stage Strategy to Teach Enterprise Modelling

  • Henderik A. Proper
  • Marija Bjeković
  • Bas van Gils
  • Stijn J. B. A. Hoppenbrouwers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 334)

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the teaching of enterprise modelling. Enterprise models play an increasingly important role in society. In general, such models are not created as mere “one off” artefacts. They rather have a life of their own, covering a broad range of uses (from analysis and understanding, via simulation and design, to execution and monitoring), while involving an even broader variety of stakeholders/audiences. In our view, this increased use of, and even increased dependence on, enterprise models, also makes it important to teach people how to model well.

The aim of this paper is therefore twofold. Firstly, it aims to identify key challenges in teaching enterprise modelling. Secondly, it also aims to provide the humble beginnings of a multi-stage strategy to teach enterprise modelling, meeting these challenges. Both are rooted on a theoretical perspective of modelling, as well as practical experiences. We also reflect on the need for future experimentation and theoretical underpinning of the suggested teaching strategy.

Keywords

Enterprise modelling Teaching enterprise modelling 

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022883727209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambler, S.W., Jeffries, R.: Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for Extreme Programming and the Unified Process. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bakema, G.P., Zwart, J.P.C., Van der Lek, H.: Fully communication oriented NIAM. In: Proceedings of NIAM-ISDM, vol. 2, pp. 1–35, August 1994Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barjis, J.: Collaborative, participative and interactive enterprise modeling. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2009. LNBIP, vol. 24, pp. 651–662. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01347-8_54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck, K., et al.: Manifesto for Agile Software Development (2001). http://www.agilemanifesto.org. Accessed 14 June 2013
  6. 6.
    Bjeković, M., Proper, H.A., Sottet, J.-S.: Embracing pragmatics. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 431–444. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjeković, M., Proper, H.A., Sottet, J.-S.: Enterprise modelling languages. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) BMSD 2013. LNBIP, vol. 173, pp. 1–23. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06671-4_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bjeković, M., Sottet, J.S., Favre, J.M., Proper, H.A.: A framework for natural enterprise modelling. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics (CBI 2013), Vienna, Austria, pp. 79–84. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1109/CBI.2013.20
  9. 9.
    Bleeker, A.I., Proper, H.A., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: The role of concept management in system development - a practical and a theoretical perspective. In: Grabis, J., Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) Forum Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Advanced Information Systems 2004 (CAiSE 2004), Riga, Latvia, pp. 73–82. Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Riga, Latvia, June 2004Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Bommel, P., Buitenhuis, P.G., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A.: Architecture principles - a regulative perspective on enterprise architecture. In: Reichert, M., Strecker, S., Turowski, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2007). Lecture Notes in Informatics, St. Goar am Rhein, Germany, no. 119, pp. 47–60. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Bommel, P., Frederiks, P.J.M., van der Weide, T.P.: Object-oriented modeling based on logbooks. Comput. J. 39(9), 793–799 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., Roelofs, J.: Concepts and strategies for quality of modeling, chap. 9. In: Halpin, T.A., Krogstie, J., Proper, H.A. (eds.) Innovations in Information Systems Modeling. IGI Publishing, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A.E., van der Weide, T.P.: Exploring modelling strategies in a meta-modelling context. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1128–1137. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11915072_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: On the use of object-role modeling for modeling active domains. In: Research Issues in System Analysis and Design, Databases and Software Development, pp. 123–145. IGI Publishing, Hershey (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: QoMo: a modelling process quality framework based on SEQUAL. In: Proper, H.A., Halpin, T.A., Krogstie, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2007), held in conjunction with the 19th Conference on Advanced Information Systems (CAiSE 2007), Trondheim, Norway, pp. 118–127. CEUR-WS.org (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: On the use of object-role modelling to model active domains. In: Halpin, T.A., Krogstie, J., Proper, H.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2008), held in conjunction with the 20th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2008), Montpellier, France, vol. 337, pp. 473–484. CEUR-WS.org, June 2008Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model: towards a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coenen, A., van Gils, B., Bouvy, C., Kerkhofs, R., Meijer, S.: Business modeling experience for a state pension voluntary insurance case. In: van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Overbeek, S., Proper, E., Barjis, J. (eds.) PoEM 2010. LNBIP, vol. 68, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16782-9_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Falkenberg, E.D., et al. (eds.): A Framework of Information Systems Concepts. IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO, IFIP, Laxenburg, Austria (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halpin, T.A., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Data Management Systems, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufman, Burlington (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Halpin, T.A., Proper, H.A.: Database schema transformation and optimization. In: Papazoglou, M.P. (ed.) ER 1995. LNCS, vol. 1021, pp. 191–203. Springer, Heidelberg (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0020532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hilgard, E.R., Bower, G.H.: Theories of Learning. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1975)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S., Wilmont, I.: Focused conceptualisation: framing questioning and answering in model-oriented dialogue games. In: van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Overbeek, S., Proper, E., Barjis, J. (eds.) PoEM 2010. LNBIP, vol. 68, pp. 190–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16782-9_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: A functionalist approach to conceptualisation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2000), Aachener Informatik-Berichte, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.: Asking questions about asking questions in collaborative enterprise modelling. In: Sandkuhl, K., Seigerroth, U., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2012. LNBIP, vol. 134, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34549-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Bleeker, A.I., Proper, H.A.: Facing the conceptual complexities in business domain modeling. Comput. Lett. 1(2), 59–68 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A.E., van der Weide, T.P.: A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In: Delcambre, L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, O. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11568322_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: Formal modelling as a grounded conversation. In: Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., Haraldson, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2005), pp. 139–155. Linköpings Universitet and Hogskolan I Boras, Linköping, Sweden, Kiruna, Sweden, June 2005Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: Towards explicit strategies for modeling. In: Halpin, T.A., Siau, K., Krogstie, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Evaluating Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2005), held in conjunction with the 17th Conference on Advanced Information Systems (CAiSE 2005), Porto, Portugal, pp. 485–492. FEUP, Porto, Portugal (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: Understanding the requirements on modelling techniques. In: Pastor, O., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 262–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11431855_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Iacob, M.E., Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Quartel, D.A.C.: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. The Open Group (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krogstie, J.: A semiotic approach to quality in requirements specifications. In: Kecheng, L., Clarke, R.J., Andersen, P.B., Stamper, R.K., Abou-Zeid, E.S. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 / WG8.1 Working Conference on Organizational Semiotics: Evolving a Science of Information Systems, pp. 231–250. Kluwer, Deventer (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krogstie, J., Sølvberg, A.: Information Systems Engineering - Conceptual Modeling in a Quality Perspective. The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Stockholm, Norway (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lakoff, G.: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1997)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Jonkers, H.: The anatomy of the archimate language. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. (IJISMD) 1(1), 1–32 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lankhorst, M.M., van der Torre, L., Proper, H.A.E., Arbab, F., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.: Foundations. Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. TEES, pp. 41–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53933-0_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    van der Linden, D.J.T., Proper, H.A., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: Conceptual understanding of conceptual modeling concepts: a longitudinal study amongst students learning to model. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Information Systems Engineering (COGNISE 2014) (2014, To appear)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2009.67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules (SBVR). Technical report dtc/06-03-02, Object Management Group, Needham, Massachusetts, March 2006Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pask, G.: Conversation, Cognition, and Learning: A Cybernetic Theory and Methodology. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1975)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Persson, A.: Enterprise Modelling in Practice: Situational Factors and their Influence on Adopting a Participative Approach. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Technology, Kista, Sweden (2001)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Proper, H.A.: Grounded enterprise modelling. DaVinci Series, Nijmegen Institute for Information and Computing Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (2008)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Proper, H.A., Bleeker, A.I., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: Object-role modelling as a domain modelling approach. In: Grundspenkis, J., Kirikova, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Evaluating Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2004), held in conjunctiun with the 16th Conference on Advanced Information Systems 2004 (CAiSE 2004), vol. 3, pp. 317–328. Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Riga, Latvia, June 2004Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Proper, H.A., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: Towards utility-based selection of architecture-modelling concepts. In: Hartmann, S., Stumptner, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2005), Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series, vol. 42, pp. 25–36. Australian Computer Society, Sydney, January 2005Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: EVORM - a conceptual modelling technique for evolving application domains. Data Knowl. Eng. 12, 313–359 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Proper, H.A., van der Weide, T.P.: Modelling as selection of interpretation. In: Mayr, H.C., Breu, H. (eds.) Modellierung 2006. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. P82, pp. 223–232. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, Germany, March 2006Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rothenberg, J.: The nature of modeling. Artificial Intelligence. Simulation & Modeling, pp. 75–92. Wiley, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ruiz, J., Serral, E., Snoeck, M.: A fully implemented didactic tool for the teaching of interactive software systems. In: Hammoudi, S., Ferreira Pires, L., Selic, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, MODELSWARD 2018, Funchal, Madeira - Portugal, 22–24 January 2018, pp. 95–105. SciTePress (2018).  https://doi.org/10.5220/0006579600950105
  49. 49.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43725-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., Poelmans, S.: Assessing the effectiveness of feedback enabled simulation in teaching conceptual modeling. Comput. Educ. 78, 367–382 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Serral, E., De Weerdt, J., Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M.: Automating immediate and personalized feedback taking conceptual modelling education to a next level. In: Tenth IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2016, Grenoble, France, 1–3 June 2016, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2016.7549293
  52. 52.
    Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W.: The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Chicago (1949)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Spyns, P., Meersman, R., Jarrar, M.: Data modelling versus ontology engineering. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 31(4), 12–17 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stachowiak, H.: Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer, Heidelberg (1973).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-8327-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Thalheim, B.: The theory of conceptual models, the theory of conceptual modelling and foundations of conceptual modelling. In: Embley, D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Handbook of Conceptual Modeling, pp. 543–577. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15865-0_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Thalheim, B.: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics of conceptual modelling. In: Bouma, G., Ittoo, A., Métais, E., Wortmann, H. (eds.) NLDB 2012. LNCS, vol. 7337, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31178-9_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tohidian, I.: Examining linguistic relativity hypothesis as one of the main views on the relationship between language and thought. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 38(1), 65–74 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tulinayo, P.F., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.S., Proper, H.A.E.: Integrating system dynamics with object-role modeling. In: Stirna, J., Persson, A. (eds.) PoEM 2008. LNBIP, vol. 15, pp. 77–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89218-2_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tulinayo, F.P., van Bommel, P., Proper, H.A.: Enhancing the system dynamics modeling proces with a domain modeling method. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 22(02), 1350011 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218843013500111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wilmont, I., Barendsen, E., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Hengeveld, S.: Abstract reasoning in collaborative modeling. In: Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Rouwette, E.A.J.A., Rittgen, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 45th Hawaiian International Conference on the System Sciences, HICSS-45; Collaborative Systems track, Collaborative Modeling minitrack. IEEE Explore, Los Alamitos (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST)BelvalLuxembourg
  2. 2.Strategy AllianceLelystadThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of LuxembourgBelvalLuxembourg
  4. 4.HAN University of Applied SciencesArnhemThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations