Advertisement

A Pattern Language for Value Modeling in ArchiMate

  • Tiago Prince SalesEmail author
  • Ben Roelens
  • Geert Poels
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
  • Nicola Guarino
  • John Mylopoulos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11483)

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in modeling value in the context of Enterprise Architecture, which has been driven by a need to align the vision and strategic goals of an enterprise with its business architecture. Nevertheless, the current literature shows that the concept of value is conceptually complex and still causes a lot of confusion. For example, we can find in the literature the concept of value being taken as equivalent to notions as disparate as goals, events, objects and capabilities. As a result, there is still a lack of proper support for modeling all aspects of value as well as its relations to these aforementioned notions. To address this issue, we propose in this paper a pattern language for value modeling in ArchiMate, which is based on the Common Ontology of Value and Risk, a well-founded reference ontology developed following the principles of the Unified Foundation Ontology. This enables us to delineate a clear ontological foundation, which addresses the ambiguous use of the value concept. The design of the Value Pattern Language will be guided by the Design Science Research Methodology. More specifically, a first iteration of the build-and-evaluate loop is presented, which includes the development of the pattern language and its demonstration by means of a case study of a low-cost airline.

Keywords

Value modeling Enterprise architecture ArchiMate 

References

  1. 1.
    Aldea, A., Iacob, M.E., van Hillegersberg, J., Quartel, D., Franken, H.: Modelling value with ArchiMate. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNBIP, vol. 215, pp. 375–388. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19243-7_35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander, C., et al.: A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1977)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersson, B., Johannesson, P., Zdravkovic, J.: Aligning goals and services through goal and business modelling. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag. 7(2), 143–169 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boztepe, S.: User value: competing theories and models. Int. J. Des. 1(2), 55–63 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buschmann, F., Henney, K., Schimdt, D.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: on Patterns and Pattern Languages, vol. 5. Wiley, Hoboken (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark, M., Bryan, A.: Customer effort: help or hype? Henley Business school (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Falbo, R.A., et al.: Ontology pattern languages. In: Ontology Engineering with Ontology Design Patterns: Foundations and Applications. IOS Press (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feltus, C., Proper, E.H., Haki, K.: Towards a language to support value cocreation: an extension to the ArchiMate modeling framework. In: Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, vol. 15, pp. 751–760. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, J.: Value-based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requirements Eng. 8(2), 114–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. Telematics Instituut, Enschede (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.S.S.: Grounding software domain ontologies in the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO). In: 11th Ibero-American Conference on Software Engineering (CIbSE), pp. 127–140 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guizzardi, R.S., et al.: An ontological interpretation of non-functional requirements. In: International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pp. 344–357 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 6 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iacob, M.E., Quartel, D., Jonkers, H.: Capturing business strategy and value in enterprise architecture to support portfolio valuation. In: 16th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 11–20. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalbach, J.: Mapping Experiences: A Complete Guide to Creating Value through Journeys, Blueprints, and Diagrams. O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. TEES. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29651-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meertens, L., et al.: Mapping the business model canvas to ArchiMate. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1694–1701. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nguyen, C.M., Sebastiani, R., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Multi-objective reasoning with constrained goal models. Requirements Eng. 23(2), 189–225 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Value delivery metamodel v1.0 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roelens, B., Steenacker, W., Poels, G.: Realizing strategic fit within the business architecture: the design of a process-goal alignment modeling and analysis technique. Softw. Syst. Model. 18, 1–32 (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sales, T.P., Baião, F., Guizzardi, G., Almeida, J.P.A., Guarino, N., Mylopoulos, J.: The common ontology of value and risk. In: Trujillo, J.C., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 121–135. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmidt, D.C., Stal, M., Rohnert, H., Buschmann, F.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: Patterns for Concurrent and Networked Objects. Wiley, Hoboken (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singh, P.M., et al.: Modeling value creation with enterprise architecture. Int. Conf. Enterp. Inf. Syst. (ICEIS) 3, 343–351 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Svee, E.-O., Zdravkovic, J.: Extending enterprise architectures to capture consumer values: the case of TOGAF. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNBIP, vol. 215, pp. 221–232. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19243-7_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate v3.0.1 Specification. Standard C179 (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Open Group: TOGAF v9.2 (2018)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P., Akaka, M.A.: On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. Eur. Manag. J. 26(3), 145–152 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu, E., Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., Mylopoulos, J.: Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiago Prince Sales
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ben Roelens
    • 3
  • Geert Poels
    • 4
  • Giancarlo Guizzardi
    • 5
  • Nicola Guarino
    • 2
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TrentoTrentoItaly
  2. 2.ISTC-CNR Laboratory for Applied OntologyTrentoItaly
  3. 3.Open UniversityHeerlenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  5. 5.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations