A Case Study
  • Jörg Becker
  • Christian Janiesch
  • Patrick Delfmann
  • Wolfgang Fuhr


The documentation of IT projects is of paramount importance for the lasting benefit of a project’s outcome. However, different forms of documentation are needed to comply with the diverse needs of users. In order to avoid the maintenance of numerous versions of the same documentation, an integrated method from the field of reference modeling creating perspectives on configurable models is presented and evaluated against a case in the field of health care. The proposal of a holistic to-be model for process documentation provides useful hints towards the need of presenting a model that relates to a specific user’s perspective. Moreover, it helps to evaluate the applicability of configurable, company-specific models concerning the relative operating efficiency.


Model Transformation Graph Transformation Business Process Model Process Documentation External Customer 
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. Agrawal, A., Levendovszky, T., Sprinkle, J., Shi, F. and Karsai, G., 2002. Generative Programming via Graph Transformations in the Model-Driven Architecture. In Workshop on Generative Techniques in the Context of Model Driven Architecture (OOPSLA). Seattle, pp. 1-11.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Dreiling, A., Knackstedt, R. and Kuropka, D., 2004. Configurative Process Modeling - Outlining an Approach to Increased Business Process Model Usability. In Information Resources Management Association Conference (IRMA). New Orleans, pp. 615-619.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Knackstedt, R. and Kuropka, D., 2002. Konfigurative Referenzmodellierung. In Wissensmanagement mit Referenzmodellen, (Eds, Becker, J. and Knackstedt, R.) Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 25-144.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, P. P.-S., 1976. The Entity-Relationship Model. Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM Transactions on Database-Systems, 1, pp. 9-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darke, P. and Shanks, G., 1996. Stakeholder Viewpoints in Requirements Definition. Requirements Engineering, 1, pp. 88-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engels, G., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G. and Ehrig, H., 1997. A View-Oriented Approach to System Modelling Based on Graph Transformation. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 22, pp. 327-343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ESPRIT Consortium AMICE, 1989. CIM-OSA. Open System Architecture for CIM, Springer-Verlag, Berlin et. al.Google Scholar
  8. Ferstl, O. K. and Sinz, E. J., 1998. SOM Modeling of Information Systems. In Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, Vol. I (Eds, Bernus, P., Mertins, K. and Schmidt, G.) Springer-Verlag, pp. 339-358.Google Scholar
  9. Findeisen, P., 1994. The Metaview System, Alberta.Google Scholar
  10. Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B., Finkelstein, L. and Goedicke, M., 1992. Viewpoints: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2, pp. 31-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank, U., 1994. Multiperspektivische Unternehmensmodellierung. Theoretischer Hintergrund und Entwurf einer objektorientierten Entwicklungsumgebung, Oldenbourg, München, Wien.Google Scholar
  12. Hammer, M. and Champy, J., 1993. Reengineering the Corporation. A Manifesto for Business Revolution, HarperBusiness, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Ishikawa, K., 1985. What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  14. Ledeczi, A., Maroti, M., Bakay, A., Karsai, G., Garrett, J., Thomason, C., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J. and Volgyesi, P., 2001. The Generic Modeling Environment. In Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing. Budapest, pp. 19-25.Google Scholar
  15. Nissen, H. W., Jeusfeld, M., Jarke, M., Zemanek, G. V. and Huber, H., 1996. Managing Multiple Requirements Perspectives with Metamodels. IEEE Software, 13, pp. 37-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordstrom, G., Sztipanovits, J., Karsai, G. and Ledeczi, A., 1999. Metamodeling - Rapid Design and Evolution of Domain-Specific Modeling Environments. In IEEE ECBS Conference. Nashville, pp. 68-74.Google Scholar
  17. Rosemann, M., 1998. Managing the Complexity of Multiperspective Information Models using the Guidelines of Modeling. In 3rd Australian Conference on Requirements Engineering. Geelong, pp. 101-118.Google Scholar
  18. Rosemann, M. and Green, P., 2000. Integrating multiperspective views into ontological analysis. In 21st International Conference on Information Systems. Brisbane, pp. 618-627.Google Scholar
  19. Rosemann, M., Schwegmann, A. and Delfmann, P., 2005. Preparation of Process Modeling. Appears in Process Management. A Guide for the Design of Business Processes, (Eds, Becker, J., Kugeler, M. and Rosemann, M.) Springer-Verlag, Berlin et al., 2nd Edition.Google Scholar
  20. Scheer, A.-W., 2000. ARIS - Business Process Modeling, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 3rd Edition.Google Scholar
  21. Soley, R. and OMG Staff Strategy Group, 2000. Model Driven Architecture (White Paper), Object Management Group, Needham.Google Scholar
  22. Zachman, J. A., 1987. A Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26, pp. 277-293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Becker
    • 1
  • Christian Janiesch
    • 1
  • Patrick Delfmann
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Fuhr
    • 2
  1. 1.European Research Center for Information SystemsUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Bayer Business Services GmbHLeverkusenGermany

Personalised recommendations