Advertisement

Systems

  • Boris Shishkov
Chapter
Part of the The Enterprise Engineering Series book series (TEES)

Abstract

There are numerous scientific disciplines: some are purely scientific, such as mathematics, physics, and biology, while others are applied, such as computer science and engineering [1]. In considering any discipline nevertheless, the notion of system is an important one [2]; in physics, they study physical systems; in biology, they study biosystems; in sociology, they study social systems; and so on. Hence, the development of the General Systems Theory has been inspired [3, 4], referred to as systemics. Systemics focuses on the characteristics of systems across the barriers between scientific disciplines. Such a perspective is considered important with regard to EIS since in approaching EIS, one would have to deal with social systems (because there are human entities, human behavior, and so on, in any enterprise) and also with technical systems (because there are technical devices, software applications, and so on, in any information system). Hence, both social systems and technical systems would not only need to be studies in isolation but it is also necessary to understand their interrelationship.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org
  2. 2.
    Dietz JLG (2006) Enterprise ontology, theory and methodology. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    von Bertalanffy L (1968) General systems theory. Braziller, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weinberg GM (1975) An introduction to general systems thinking. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bunge MA (1979) Treatise on basic philosophy, vol 4, A world of systems. D. Reidel Publishing, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shishkov B (2005) Software specification based on re-usable business components. Delft University Press, DelftGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shishkov B, Dietz JLG (2005) Applying component-based UML-driven conceptual modeling in SDBC. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on enterprise information systems (ICEIS), 24–28 May 2005. SCITEPRESS, Miami, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dietz JLG (2003) The atoms, molecules and fibers of organizations. Data Knowl Eng 47:301–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dietz JLG (2004) Basic notions regarding business processes and supporting information systems. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE’04 workshops in connection with the 16th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, Riga, Latvia, 7–11 June 2004Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shishkov B, Dietz JLG (2004) Design of software applications using generic business components. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), IEEE, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 5–8 Jan 2004Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dietz JLG (2003) Generic recurrent patterns in business processes.In: Proceedings of the international conference on business process management (BPM), Springer—LNCS, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 26–27 June 2003Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abolhassani M (2003) Business objects: from definition to application. Delft University Press, DelftGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Atkinson C, Bayer J, Bunse C, Kamsties E, Laitenberger O, Laqua R, Muthig D, Paech B, Wust Z, Zettel J (2001) Component-based product line engineering with UML. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu K (2000) Semiotics in information systems engineering. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lang J, Pigozzi G, Slavkovik M, van der Torre L (2011) Judgment aggregation rules based on minimization. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge, ACMGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Apostel L (1960) Towards the formal study of models in the non-formal sciences. Synthese 12(2–3):125–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    CLOSER. The international conference on cloud computing and service science. http://closer.scitevents.org
  18. 18.
    Atkinson C, (1960) Towards the formal study of models in the non-formal sciences. Synthese 12(2–3):125–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Panel Discussion of BMSD’14. In: The international symposium on business modeling and software design. http://www.is-bmsd.org/Panel_2014.htm
  20. 20.
    de Farias CRG (2002) Architectural design of groupware systems: a component-based approach. University of Twente, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    MDA. The OMG model driven architecture. http://www.omg.org/mda
  22. 22.
    Shishkov B (2002) Business engineering building blocks. In: Proceedings of the 9th doctoral consortium of CAiSE—international conference on advanced information systems engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada, 27–28 May 2002Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szyperski C (1998) Component software, beyond object-oriented programming. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    CCM. The OMG CORBA component model. http://www.omg.org/spec/CCM/
  25. 25.
    EJB. The ORACLE enterprise JavaBeans technology. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/ejb/index.html
  26. 26.
    Huysmans P (2011) On the feasibility of normalized enterprises: applying normalized systems theory to the high-level design of enterprises, PhD thesis. University of AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eick SG, Graves TL, Karr AF, Marron J, Mockus A (2001) Does code decay? Assessing the evidence from change management data. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 27(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lehman MM, Ramil JF (2001) Rules and tools for software evolution planning and management. Ann Softw Eng 11(1):15–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mannaert H, Verelst J, Ven K (2011) The transformation of requirements into software primitives: studying evolvabilitybased on systems theoretic stability. Sci Comput Program 76(12):1210–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mannaert H, Verelst J, Ven K (2011) Towards evolvable software architectures based on systems theoretic stability. Softw Pract Exp 42(1):89–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mannaert H, Verelst J (2009) Normalized systems—re-creating information technology based on laws for software evolvability. Koppa, KermtGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Shishkov
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Information SciencesUniversity of Library Studies and Information TechnologiesSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.Institute of Mathematics and InformaticsBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  3. 3.Interdisciplinary Institute for Collaboration and Research on Enterprise Systems and TechnologySofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations