Advertisement

From Enterprise Concepts to Formal Concepts: A University Case Study

  • Jamie Caine
  • Simon Polovina
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10775)

Abstract

A business enterprise is more than its buildings, equipment or financial statements. Enterprise Architecture frameworks thus include a metamodel that attempts to bring together all the enterprise concepts including the visible entities into a unified conceptual structure. Using a case study based upon the institution of the authors, the effectiveness of this conceptual structure is explored in two fold. Firstly, a simple example using familiar concepts such as the physical location of the authors’ institution. Secondly, a more detailed example that includes the key enterprise concepts that currently exist within that institution. The metamodel is stated in Conceptual Graphs then mapped from these graphs’ triples into transitive Formal Concept binaries using the CGFCA software. Misalignments within the enterprise concepts discovered from the derived formal concepts are highlighted in both case examples, hence pointing towards the wider applicability of this approach.

References

  1. 1.
    Global University Alliance: Industry standards research: the value of applying standards to increase the level of reusability, replication and standardization (2018). http://www.globaluniversityalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Global-University-Alliance-Research-Industry-Standard.pdf
  2. 2.
    Andrews, S., Polovina, S.: A mapping from conceptual graphs to formal concept analysis. In: Andrews, S., Polovina, S., Hill, R., Akhgar, B. (eds.) ICCS 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6828, pp. 63–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22688-5_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandler Jr., A.D.: Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge (1962)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Open Group: 34. Content metamodel (2011). http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap34.html
  5. 5.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquis. 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hitzler, P., Scharfe, H.: Conceptual Structures in Practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Polovina, S.: An introduction to conceptual graphs. In: Priss, U., Polovina, S., Hill, R. (eds.) ICCS-ConceptStruct 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4604, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73681-3_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polovina, S., Andrews, S.: CGs to FCA including Peirce’s Cuts. Int. J. Concept. Struct. Smart Appl. (IJCSSA) 1(1), 90–103 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Polovina, S., Scheruhn, H.-J., von Rosing, M.: Modularising the complex meta-models in enterprise systems using conceptual structures. In: Sugumaran, V. (ed.) Developments and Trends in Intelligent Technologies and Smart Systems, pp. 261–283. IGI Global, Hershey (2018). ID: 189437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Porter, M.E.: How competitive forces shape strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 57(2), 137–145 (1979). Article on the Positioning School of StrategyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    LEADing Practice: Meta model reference content #LEAD-ES20021ALL (2018). http://www.leadingpractice.com
  12. 12.
    Roger Sessions: A comparison of the top four enterprise-architecture methodologies (2007). http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx
  13. 13.
    Sowa, J.F.: Conceptual graphs. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, pp. 213–237. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sowa, J.F., Zachman, J.A.: Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 31(3), 590–616 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sowa, J.F.: Conceptual Structures - Information Processing in Mind and Machine. The Systems Programming series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheffield Hallam University: Transforming lives (2017). http://www.shu.ac.uk/strategy
  17. 17.
    von Rosing, M., Fullington, N., Walker, J.: Using the business ontology and enterprise standards to transform three leading organizations. Int. J. Concept. Struct. Smart Appl. (IJCSSA) 4(1), 71–99 (2016). ID: 171392Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    von Rosing, M., Kirchmer, M.: Focusing business processes on superior value creation: value-oriented process modeling. In: von Rosing, M., Scheer, A.-W., von Scheel, H. (eds.) The Complete Business Process Handbook, pp. 479–496. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zachman, J.A.: John Zachman’s concise definition of the Zachman framework. https://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework
  20. 20.
    Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Conceptual Structures Research Group, Department of Computing, Communication and Computing Research CentreSheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations