Co-designing Models for Enterprises and Information Systems – A Case for Language Integration

  • Peter Rittgen

To achieve a close alignment of information systems and enterprises their designs have to be interwoven to a mutually supportive pattern. This requires compatible languages for expressing the designs. We suggest a framework for integrating two hitherto distinct languages specialized for the respective domain, UML and SIMM. With the help of a case study we demonstrate that this integration does indeed support the co-design of an enterprise model and an information systems model.


Action Object Activity Diagram Interaction Graph Soft System Methodology Enterprise Model 
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. Ackoff RL (1981) Creating the corporate future. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Axelsson K, Goldkuhl G, Melin U (2000) Using Business Action Theory for dy-adic analysis. Paper presented at the 10th Nordic Workshop on Interorganisa-tional Research.Google Scholar
  3. Axelsson K, Segerkvist P-A (2001) Interaction between actors and information systems in web-based imaginary organisations - Experiences from two case studies. Paper presented at the 1st Nordic Workshop on Electronic Commerce.Google Scholar
  4. Bunge M (1977) Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. Reidel, Dordrecht.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunge M (1979) Ontology II: A World of Systems. Reidel, Dordrecht.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Checkland PB (1988) Soft systems methodology: An overview. Journal of Ap-plied Systems Analysis 15:27-30.Google Scholar
  7. Churchman CW (1968) The Systems Approach. Dell Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Evermann J, Wand Y (2001) Towards Ontologically Based Semantics for UML Constructs. In: Kunii HS, Jajodia S, Sølvberg A (eds) ER 2001, 20th International Conference on Conceptual Modelling, Yokohama, Japan, November 27-30, 2001. Springer, Berlin, pp 354-367.Google Scholar
  9. Forsgren O (2005) Churchmanian Co-design - Basic Ideas and Application Ex-amples. Paper presented at the ISD 2005 - Information Systems Development, Karlstad, August 14-17, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Goldkuhl G (1996) Generic business frameworks and action modelling. In: Dig-num F, Dietz J, Verharen E, Weigand H (eds) Communication Modeling -The Language/Action Perspective, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Communication Modeling. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  11. Goldkuhl G (1998) The six phases of business processes - business communica-tion and the exchange of value. Paper presented at the 12th biennial ITS con-ference “Beyond convergence” (ITS´98), Stockholm.Google Scholar
  12. Goldkuhl G (2002) Anchoring scientific abstractions - ontological and linguistic determination following socio-instrumental pragmatism. Paper presented at the European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management (ECRM 2002), April 29-30, 2002, Reading.Google Scholar
  13. Goldkuhl G (2005) Socio-Instrumental Pragmatism: A Theoretical Synthesis for Pragmatic Conceptualisation in Information Systems. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Action in Language, Organisations and In-formation Systems (ALOIS), University of Limerick.Google Scholar
  14. Goldkuhl G, Lind M (2004) Developing e-interactions - A framework for busi-ness capabilities and exchanges. Paper presented at the 12th European Con-ference on Information Systems, June 14-16, 2004, Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  15. Goldkuhl G, Melin U (2001) Relationship Management vs Business Transactions: Business Interaction as Design of Business Interaction. Paper presented at the 10th International Annual IPSERA Conference, Jönköping International Business School.Google Scholar
  16. Haraldson S, Lind M (2005) Broken patterns. Paper presented at the In Proceed-ings of the 10th International Conference on the Language Action Perspective, Kiruna, Sweden.Google Scholar
  17. Johansson B-M, Axelsson K (2004) Communication media in distance selling -Business Interactions in a B2C Setting. Paper presented at the 12th European Conference in Information Systems (ECIS), Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  18. Johansson B-M, Axelsson K (2005) Analysing Communication Media and Ac-tions - Extending and Evaluating the Business Action Matrix. Paper presented at the In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Sys-tems, Regensburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  19. Lind M, Goldkuhl G (1997) Reconstruction of different business processes - a theory and method driven analysis. Paper presented at the In Proccedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Language/Action Perspective (LAP97), Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Lind M, Hjalmarsson A, Olausson J (2003) Modelling interaction and co- ordination as business communication in a mail order setting. Paper presented at the 8th International Working Conference on the Language Action Perspective (LAP2003), Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Melin U, Axelsson K (2004) Emphasising Symmetry Issues in Business Interac-tion Analysis and IOS. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Electronic Commerce, ICEC’04, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. Melin U, Goldkuhl G (1999) Information Systems and Process Orientation -evaluation and change using Business Action Theory. In: Wojtkowski W (ed), Systems Development Methods for Databases, Enterprise Modeling, and Workflow Management. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Mitroff II, Mason RO (1981) Creating a dialectical social science. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  24. OMG (2004) UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from (2006) Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from
  25. Opdahl AL, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model. Software and Systems Modelling 1 (1):43-67.Google Scholar
  26. Röstlinger A, Goldkuhl G (2005) Grafnotation för SIMM metodkomponenter. VITS/IDA, Linköpings universitet, Linköping.Google Scholar
  27. Wand Y, Weber R (1989) An Ontological Evaluation of Systems Analysis and Design Methods. In: Falkenberg ED, Lindgreen P (eds) Information Systems Concepts: An In-Depth Analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 79-107.Google Scholar
  28. Wand Y, Weber R (1995) On the deep structure of information systems. Informa-tion Systems Journal 5:203-223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weber R (1997) Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers & Lybrand and the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Rittgen
    • 1
  1. 1.University College of BoråsSweden

Personalised recommendations