An Interoperability Classification Framework for Method Chunk Repositories

  • Per Backlund
  • Jolita Ralyté
  • Manfred A. Jeusfeld
  • Harald Kühn
  • Nicolas Arni-Bloch
  • Jan B. M. Goossenaerts
  • Frank Lillehagen

The competitiveness and efficiency of an enterprise is dependent on its ability to interact with other enterprises and organisations. In this context interoperability is defined as the ability of business processes as well as enterprise software and applications to interact. Interoperability remains a problem and there are numerous issues to be resolved in different situations. We propose method engineering as an approach to organise interoperability knowledge in a method chunk repository. In order to organise the knowledge repository we need an interoperability classification framework associated to it. In this paper we propose a generic architecture for a method chunk repository, elaborate on a classification framework and associate it to some existing bodies of knowledge. We also show how the proposed framework can be applied in a working example.


Business Process Sewage Water Case Problem Management Business Process Classification Framework 
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. ATHENA (2005) European Integrated Project No. 507849. Available at Accessed 2005-12-09.
  2. Backlund, P (2004) An Analysis of ISD as Knowledge Work - an Analysis of How a Development Method is Used in Practice. In Information Systems De-velopment (ISD 2004): Advances in Theory, Practice and Education, pp. 125-136Google Scholar
  3. Botta-Genoulaz, V., Millet P.-A. and Grabot B. (2005) A survey on the recent research literature on ERP systems. Computers in Industry (56) pp. 510-522Google Scholar
  4. Bunge, M. (1983). Epistemology & Methodology I: Exploring the World, Treatise on Basic Philosophy Vol. 5, Reidel, Boston.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, D. and Doumeingts G. (2003) European initiatives to develop interoperabil-ity of enterprise applications — basic concepts, framework and roadmap. An-nual Reviews in Control (27) pp. 153-162.Google Scholar
  6. Domínguez, E. and Zapata M.A. (2000) Mappings and Interoperability: A Meta-modelling Approach. ADVIS 2000, Ed. T. Yakhno. LNCS 1909, Springer-Verlag, pp. 352-362.Google Scholar
  7. Enterprise Ontology (2003) Enterprise Ontology Project, Accessed 2005-12-14
  8. Fitzgerald, B. and O’Kane, T (1999) A Longitudinal Study of Software Process Improvement. IEEE Software 16, pp. 37-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. and O’Kane, T (2992) Software Development Method Tailoring in Motorola. Communications of the ACM 46, pp. 64-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. INTEROP (2005) Interop Network of Excellence IST - 508011 Presentation of the Project. . Accessed 2005-12-07
  11. Iivari, J. (2000) Information Systems Development as Knowledge Work: The body of systems development process knowledge. Information Modellinga and Knowledge Bases XI, IOS Press, pp. 41-56.Google Scholar
  12. Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K (2004) Towards a distinctive body of knowledge for Information Systems experts: coding ISD process knowledge in two IS journals. Information Systems Journal (14) pp. 313-342.Google Scholar
  13. Mirbel, I. and Ralyté, J. (2005) Situational Method Engineering: Combining As-sembly-based and Roadmap-driven Approaches. To appear in the Require-ments Engineering Journal, electronic publication is available at:
  14. Rahm, E. and Bernstein P. A. (2001) A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal, 10, pp. 334-350.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ralyté, J. and Rolland C. (2001). An Approach for Method Reengineering. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Conceptual ModelingGoogle Scholar
  16. (ER2001), LNCS 2224, Springer-Verlag, pp. 471-484.Google Scholar
  17. Schulz, K., et al. (2003) A Gap Analysis; Required Activities in Research, Tech-nology and Standardisation to close the RTS Gap; Roadmaps and Recommen-dations on RTS activities. Deliverables D 3.4, D 3.5, D 3.6. IDEAS Thematic Network - Contract no.: IST-2001-37368.Google Scholar
  18. SWEBOK (2004) Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge 2004 Version. Available at Accessed 2005-12-08 Troux Technologies (2005) Metis by Troux: Providing the Capabilities for EA Success. Accessed 2005-12-14
  19. Wainwright, D. and Waring T. (2004) Three domains for implementing integrated information systems: redressing the balance between technology, strategic and organisational analysis. International Journal of Information Management 24 (2004) pp. 329-346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Xu, X.W. and Newman S.T. (2006) Making CNC machine tools more open, inter-operable and intelligent—a review of the technologies. Computers in Industry 57, pp. 141-152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Per Backlund
    • 1
  • Jolita Ralyté
    • 2
  • Manfred A. Jeusfeld
    • 3
  • Harald Kühn
    • 4
  • Nicolas Arni-Bloch
    • 2
  • Jan B. M. Goossenaerts
    • 5
  • Frank Lillehagen
    • 6
  1. 1.University of SkövdeSweden
  2. 2.CUIUniversity of GenevaSwitzerland
  3. 3.CRISM/InfolabTilburg UniversityNetherlands
  4. 4.BOC Information Systems GmbHAustria
  5. 5.Eindhoven University of TechnologyNetherlands
  6. 6.TROUX Technologies ASNorwaz

Personalised recommendations