Advertisement

Four Enterprise Modeling Perspectives and Impact on Enterprise Information Systems

  • Boris ShishkovEmail author
  • Aglika Bogomilova
  • Magdalena Garvanova
Conference paper
  • 22 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1159)

Abstract

The alignment between Enterprise Modeling (EM) and Software Specification (SS) is still uncertain, this leading to enterprise information systems of low quality. Hence, only the EM-driven software generation could help aligning software functionalities to domain requirements. This inspires the emergence of innovative approaches, such as the SDBC (Software Derived from Business Components) approach, considered by us. It steps on a conceptual invariance (embracing concepts whose essence goes beyond the barriers between social and technical disciplines), while SDBC also builds upon this, to accommodate a modeling duality featuring (1) technology-independent EM rooted in social theories; (2) SS rooted in computing paradigms. The proposed EM-SS alignment is component-based, featuring a potential re-use of modeling constructs, such that the modeling effectiveness and efficiency are stimulated. We consider particularly (1), observing insufficient EM maturity in general: many analysts conduct intuitive EM (not scientifically grounded); they often fail to be exhaustive (some mainly focus on behavior, others – on data, and so on); some analysts mix up essential business things with information exchange that is not featuring essential business things; other analysts are unaware of the importance of communicative acts; many analysts overlook regulations and values; and so on. We address 4 EM perspectives, namely language acts, regulations, public values, and energy – each of them is a theory/paradigm on its own and studying them in isolation is important. It is also important considering them in combination, identifying possibilities for bringing them together, in order to achieve a more exhaustive EM foundation with regard to corresponding SS. We argue that the 4 perspectives make our EM vision usefully broad but we do not claim exhaustiveness. We have studied each of them, providing accordingly theoretical justification and partially demonstrating their practical applicability (by means of an example). Thus, the contribution of our paper is two-fold: (i) We make a small contribution to the development of the SDBC approach; (ii) We analyze different EM perspectives.

Keywords

Enterprise modeling Language acts Norms Public values Energy 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by: (i) Bulgarian National Science Fund, Project: KP-06-N 32/4/2019; (ii) Ministry of Education and Science, Project of the National Scientific Program “Information and Communication Technologies for a Single Digital Market in Science, Education and Security (ICTinSES)”.

References

  1. 1.
    Shishkov, B.: Designing Enterprise Information Systems, Merging Enterprise Modeling and Software Specification. Springer, Cham (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shishkov, B., Quartel, D.: Combining SDBC and ISDL in the modeling and refinement of business processes. In: Manolopoulos, Y., Filipe, J., Constantopoulos, P., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) Enterprise Information Systems. ICEIS 2006. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 3. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shishkov, B.: Software Specification Based on Re-usable Business Components. Delft University Press - Sieca Repro, Delft (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology, Theory and Methodology. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu, K.: Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shishkov, B., Larsen, J.B., Warnier, M., Janssen, M.: Three Categories of Context-Aware Systems. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) BMSD 2018. LNBIP, vol. 319, pp. 185–202. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shishkov, B., Mendling, J.: Business process variability and public values. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) Business Modeling and Software Design. BMSD 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 319. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van den Hoven, J.: Value Sensitive Design and Responsible Innovation. In: Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M. (eds.) Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Wiley, Hoboken (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwartz, S.H.: An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2(1), 11 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garvanova, M., Shishkov, B., Janssen, M.: Composite public values and software specifications. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) Business Modeling and Software Design. BMSD 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 319. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Satyasangananda, S.: Tattwa Shuddhi. Yoga Publications Trust, Munger (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MDA: The OMG model driven architecture (2020). http://www.omg.org/mda
  13. 13.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software, Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shishkov, B., Janssen, M., Yin, Y.: Towards context-aware and privacy-sensitive systems. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) Business Modeling and Software Design. BMSD 2017. SCITEPRESS (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process, An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    UML: The unified modeling language (2020). http://www.uml.org
  17. 17.
    Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Searle, J.B.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartz, S.H.: The refined theory of basic values. In: Roccas, S., Sagiv, L. (eds.) Values and Behavior. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedman, B., Hendry, D.G., Borning, A.: A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods, vol. 1, p. 76. Hanover, Now Foundations and Trends (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yin, R.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Shishkov
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Aglika Bogomilova
    • 3
  • Magdalena Garvanova
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Information SciencesUniversity of Library Studies and Information TechnologiesSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  3. 3.Institute IICRESTSofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations