Challenges in Enterprise and Information Systems Modeling in the Contexts of Socio Cyber Physical Systems

  • Marite KirikovaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 366)


Nowadays information systems extend beyond the traditional enterprise resource planning systems, which often are regarded as socio-technical systems. With availability of cloud computing, open data, smart devices and smart factories, information systems development requires considering enterprises as socio-cyber-physical systems with emerging relationships to other systems; and handling emerging data available in the cyberspace. Well known frameworks such as ArchiMate enterprise architecture language, Reference Architecture Model Industry 4.0, and Work System framework only partly can cover the needs of socio-cyber-physical systems modeling. There are several challenges in the application of these frameworks in information systems design in the contexts of socio-cyber-physical systems. To meet the identified challenges, some extensions and integration of the frameworks are suggested.


Information system Enterprise Socio cyber physical system ArchiMate RAMI 4.0 Work system framework 


  1. 1.
    Salnitri, M., Paja, E., Giorgini, P.: Preserving compliance with security requirements in socio-technical systems. In: Cleary, F., Felici, M. (eds.) CSP 2014. CCIS, vol. 470, pp. 49–61. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  2. 2.
    ArchiMate® 3.0.1 Specification, an Open Group Standard (2017). Accessed 17 Mar 2019
  3. 3.
    Schweichhart, K.: Reference Architectural Model Industrie 4.0 (RAMI 4.0). Accessed 17 Mar 2019
  4. 4.
    Alter, St.: Defining Information systems as work systems: implication for the IS field. Bus. Anal. Inf. Syst. Paper 22 (2008). Accessed 17 Mar 2019
  5. 5.
    Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K.: A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 4, 188–235 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weik, M.H.: Information system. In: Weik, M.H. (ed.) Computer Science and Communications Dictionary. Springer, Boston (2000). Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Conference on Information Systems ICIS 2019. Accessed 17 Mar 2019
  8. 8.
    The TOGAF® Standard, Version 9.2 Overview. Accessed 17 Mar 2019
  9. 9.
    Franck, T., Iacob, M.-E., van Sinderen, M., Wombacher, A.: Towards an integrated architecture model of smart manufacturing enterprises. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) BMSD 2017. LNBIP, vol. 309, pp. 112–133. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stanescu, A.M., Repta, D., Moisescu, M.A., Sacala, I.S., Benea, M.: Towards a generic enterprise systems architecture based on cyber-physical systems principles. In: Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H. (eds.) PRO-VE 2014. IFIPAICT, vol. 434, pp. 245–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sandkuhl, K., Smirnov, A., Shilov, N.: Cyber-physical systems in an enterprise context: from enterprise model to system configuration. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2015. LNBIP, vol. 228, pp. 148–159. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basl, J.: Analysis of Industry 4.0 readiness indexes and maturity models and proposal of the dimension for enterprise information systems. In: Tjoa, A.M., Raffai, M., Doucek, P., Novak, N.M. (eds.) CONFENIS 2018. LNBIP, vol. 327, pp. 57–68. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pisching, M.A., Pessoa, M.A.O., Junqueira, F., Miyagi P.: PFS/PN technique to model Industry 4.0 systems based on RAMI 4.0. In: 2018 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), vol. 1, pp. 1153–1156 (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mourtzis, D., Gargallis, A. Zogopoulos, V.: Modelling of Customer Oriented Applications in Product Lifecycle using RAMI 4.0. Procedia Manuf. 28, 31–36 (2019). Accessed 31 Mar 2019
  15. 15.
    Pisching, M.A. Pessoa, M.A.O., Junqueira, F., Filho, D.J.S., Miyagi, P.A.: An architecture based on RAMI 4.0 to discover equipment to process operations required by products, Comput. Ind. Eng. 125, 574–591 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nardello, M., Møller, Ch., Gøtze, J.: Organizational learning supported by Reference Architecture Models: Industry 4.0 laboratory study. Complex Syst. Inform. Model. Q. CSIMQ, Issue (12), 22–38 (2017). Accessed 31 Mar 2019
  17. 17.
    Alter, St., Bork, D.: Work System Modeling Method with Different Levels of Specificity and Rigor for Different Stakeholder Purposes (2019). Accessed 31 Mar 2019
  18. 18.
    Alter, S.: The Work System Method: Connecting People, Processes, and IT for Business Results. Work System Press, Lankspur (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alter, S.: Work system theory: overview of core concepts, extensions, and challenges for the future. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 14, 72–121 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frazzon, E.M., Hartmann, J., Makuschewitz, T.H., Sholz-Reiter, B.: Towards socio-cyber-physical systems in production networks. Procedia CIPR 7, 49–54 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anda, A.A.: Modeling adaptive socio-cyber-physical systems with goals and SysML. In: Proceedings of IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 442–447. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stern, H., Becker, H.: Development of a model for the integration of human factors in cyber-physical production systems. Procedia Manuf. 9, 151–158 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Riga Technical UniversityRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations