Affordance-Driven Software Assembling

  • Ondřej DvořákEmail author
  • Robert PerglEmail author
  • Petr KrohaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 334)


Nowadays, the pace of technology innovation and disruption accelerates. This poses a challenge of transforming complex functionalities of enterprise systems to a new technological environment. In this paper, we explain how enterprise engineering \(\tau \)-theory and \(\beta \)-theory may help to manage the relationship between system function and its construction (F/C), thus facilitating changing technology challenges more rigorously and efficiently. We introduce the notion of Affordance-Driven Assembling (ADA) and its simplified version Objectified Affordance-Driven Assembling (O-ADA), which together with the so-called Semantic Descriptions represent a software-engineering approach enabling reasoning about users and their purposes versus components and their properties. Our experiments show that engineering methods based on these theories may increase reusability of code and improve important metrics such as costs, time reduction and error rate decrease, especially when switching to a new technology. We also discuss existing approaches related to ADA and O-ADA.


Component-based systems Semantic descriptions Software architecture EE theories ADA O-ADA 



This research has been supported by SGS17/211/OHK3/3T/18.


  1. 1.
    OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML). Superstructure, V2.1.2 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alija, N.: Justification of software maintenance costs. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. Softw. Eng. 7, 15–23 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azevedo, C., Iacob, M.E., Almeida, J., van Sinderen, M., Ferreira Pires, L., Guizzardi, G.: Modeling resources and capabilities in enterprise architecture: a well-founded ontology-based proposal for archimate. Inf. Syst. 54, 235–262 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck, K., Andres, C.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boehm, B.W., Madachy, R., Steece, B., et al.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II with CDROM. Prentice Hall PTR (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breivold, H.P., Crnkovic, I., Eriksson, P.: Evaluating software evolvability. In: Software Engineering Research and Practice in Sweden, p. 96 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy: The Furniture of The World, vol. 3. World D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy: A World of Systems, vol. 4. World D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1979)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crotty, J., Horrocks, I.: Managing legacy system costs: a case study of a meta-assessment model to identify solutions in a large financial services company. Appl. Comput. Inf. 13(2), 175–183 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Deursen, A., Klint, P., Visser, J.: Domain-specific languages: an annotated bibliography. SIGPLAN Not. 35, 26–36 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dietz, J.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dietz, J., Hoogervorst, J.: Theories in Enterprise Engineering Memorandum - TAOGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dietz, J., Hoogervorst, J.: Theories in Enterprise Engineering Memorandum - BETA (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dietz, J., Hoogervorst, J.: Technical Report TR-FIT-15-01 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gemino, A., Parker, D.: Use case diagrams in support of use case modeling: deriving understanding from the picture. J. Database Manag. 20(1), 1–24 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibson, J.J.: The theory of affordances. In: Perceiving, Acting and Knowing. Towards an Ecological Psychology. Wiley, Hoboken (1977)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guizzardi, G., de Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.S.: Grounding software domain ontologies in the unified foundational ontology (UFO): the case of the ode software process ontology. In: CIbSE, pp. 127–140 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iacob, M.E., Quartel, D., Jonkers, H.: Capturing business strategy and value in enterprise architecture to support portfolio valuation. In: 2012 IEEE 16th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp. 11–20. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Linden, D., Neugschwandtner, G., Mannaert, H.: Towards evolvable state machines for automation systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Systems (ICONS), pp. 148–153 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mannaert, H., Verelst, J., De Bruyn, P.: Normalized Systems Theory, From Foundations for Evolvable Software Towards a General Theory for Evolvable Design. Normalized Systems Institute (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miranda, G., Azevedo, C., Guizzardi, G., Almeida, J.: An ontological analysis of capability modeling in defense enterprise architecture frameworks (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taivalsaari, A.: On the notion of inheritance. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 28(3), 438–479 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vanhoof, E., De Bruyn, P., Aerts, W., Verelst, J.: Building an evolvable prototype for a multiple GAAP accounting information system. In: Aveiro, D., Pergl, R., Gouveia, D. (eds.) EEWC 2016. LNBIP, vol. 252, pp. 71–85. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Information TechnologyPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations