Enterprise Business Modelling Languages Applied to Farm Enterprise: A Case Study for IDEF0, GRAI Grid, and AMS Languages

Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 25)


New requirements of society and demands imposed by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform have increased the complexity level required from farm management systems. New approaches for assisting farm management are needed to ensure a successful production system that is friendly to our environment and able to provide high-quality information management. Successful management of farm activities requires the collection, storage, and manipulation of a considerable amount of information. Farm enterprises are complex systems that we need to model to facilitate knowledge capitalization, business process reengineering and integration, change-management, and information system (IS) design and integration. Enterprise Modelling Languages allow business requirements models to be defined. Such business models help to align the business strategy, the organization infrastructure, and the IS infrastructure but are rarely used in the agricultural sector. We propose in this chapter to apply three Enterprise Modelling Languages from the industrial sector to farm enterprise. After a brief presentation of modelling language diversity, we will present the three Enterprise Modelling Languages (IDEF0, GRAI Grid, and AMS) and illustrate their application to farm enterprise through case studies. We will then discuss their usability and the interest of Enterprise Modelling Languages compared with other modelling languages (such as Unified Modelling Language) presented in other chapters in this book.


Modelling Language Decision Center Enterprise Modelling Model Drive Architecture Meat Price 
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.



A special acknowledgment to the farm managers, Guy Durand and Jean-Pierre Latron, for their contributions. A special thanks to Jean-Baptiste Bigeon, Cédric Durand, and Cédric Vittoz for their contribution to models elaboration.


  1. 1.
    Abt, V., Pierreval, H., Nakhla, M., 2007. Evolution du contexte et nouvelles perspectives pour l'exploitation agricole en génie industriel, 7e Congrès international de génie industriel (GI 2007), Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada, 12 p.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aguilar-Savén, R.S., 2004. Business process modelling: Review and framework. International Journal of Production Economics 90 (2), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (Eds.), 2002. Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourey, J.-P., Grangel, R., Doumeigts, G., Berre, A.J., 2007. Deliverable DTG2.3 Report on Model Driven Interoperability, INTEROP-NOE Project.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, D., Vallespir, B., Doumeingts, G., 1997. GRAI integrated methodology and its mapping onto generic enterprise reference architecture and methodology. Computers in Industry 33 (2–3), 387–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cunha, G.J., Aguirra Massola, A.M., Saraiva, A.M., Lobão, V.L., 2006. Continental Malacoculture Chain Modeling and Traceability Requirements, 4th World Congress on Computers in Agriculture and Natural Resources (WCCA 2006), Orlando, FL, USA, 494–499.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doumeingts, G., Vallespir, B., Chen, D., 2002. GRAI GridDecisional modelling. In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (Eds.), Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, pp. 322–346.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eriksson, H.-E., Penker, M. (Eds.), 2000. Business Modeling with UML. Business Patterns at Work. John Wiley & Sons – OMG Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grangel, R., Ben Salem, R., Bigand, M., Bourey, J.-P., 2007. Interopérabilité guidée par les modèles: transformation de modèles GRAI en modèles UML, 7e Congrès international de génie industriel (GI 2007), Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada, 10 p.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IGLTechnology (Eds.), 1989. SADT: un langage pour communiquer.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IFIP-IFAC Task Force, 1999. GERAM: Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology, Rapport.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim, C.-H., Weston, R.H., Hodgson, A., Lee, K.-H., 2003. The complementary use of IDEF and UML modelling approaches. Computers in Industry 50 (1), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Letters, F., 2002. Modeling information-systems with UML Unified Modeling Language. In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (Eds.), Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, pp. 411–456.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mayer, R.J.,Painter, M.K., De Witte, P.S. (Eds.), 1992. IDEF Family of Methods for Concurrent Engineering and Business Re-Engineering Applications. Knowledge Based Systems Inc.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mélèse, J. (Eds.), 1984. L'analyse modulaire des systèmes de gestion. Hommes et Techniques, Paris.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    NIST, 1993. Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0). Federal Information Processing Standards – Publication 183, Springfield, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noran, O.S., 2000. Business Modelling: UML vs. IDEF. Electronical report, Griffith University, School of Computing and Information Technology. www.cit.gu.edu.au/˜noran.
  18. 18.
    OMG, 2003. MDA Guide version 1.0.1.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vernadat, F. (Eds.), 1996. Enterprise Modeling and Integration. Principles and Applications. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vernadat, F.B., 2002. Enterprise modeling and integration (EMI): Current status and research perspectives. Annual Reviews in Control 26 (1), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Abt
    • 1
  • Frédéric Vigier
  • Michel Schneider
  1. 1.CemagrefFrance

Personalised recommendations