Advertisement

Enterprise Meta Modeling Methods – Combining a Stakeholder-Oriented and a Causality-Based Approach

  • Robert Lagerström
  • Jan Saat
  • Ulrik Franke
  • Stephan Aier
  • Mathias Ekstedt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 29)

Abstract

Meta models are the core of enterprise architecture, but still few methods are available for the creation of meta models tailored for specific purposes. This paper presents two approaches, one focusing on the stakeholders’ information demand of enterprise architecture and the other driven by causal analysis of enterprise system properties. The two approaches are compared and a combined best-of-breed method is proposed. The combined method has merged the strengths of both approaches, thus combining the stakeholder concerns with causality-driven analysis. Practitioners will, when employing the proposed method, achieve a relevant meta model with strong, and goal-adapted, analytic capabilities.

Keywords

Meta modeling Enterprise Architecture stakeholder concerns causal modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aier, S., Kurpjuweit, S., Schmitz, O., Schulz, J., Thomas, A., Winter, R.: An Engineering Approach to Enterprise Architecture Design and its Application at a Financial Service Provider. In: Proceedings of Modellierung betrieblicher Informationssysteme (MobIS 2008), Saarbrücken, GI/Köllen, pp. 115–130 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aier, S., Winter, R.: Virtual Decoupling for IT/Business Alignment - Conceptual Foundations, Architecture Design and Implementation Example. Business & Information Systems Engineering 51(2) (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen, R.: A Formal Approach to Software Architecture Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method Engineering: Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools. Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method-Engineering with Web-Enabled Methods. In: Brinkkemper, S., Lindencrona, E., Solvberg, A. (eds.) Informations Systems Engineering - State of the Art and Research Themes, pp. 123–133. Springer, London (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corcho, O., Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M.: Ontological Engineering. Springer, London (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer, R., Aier, S., Winter, R.: A Federated Approach to Enterprise Architecture Model Maintenance. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures 2(2), 14–22 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frank, U.: Perspective Enterprise Modeling (MEMO) – Conceptual Framework and Modeling Languages. In: Proceedings of 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franke, U., Johnson, P., Robert, L., Ullberg, J., David, H., Ekstedt, M., Johan, K.: A Method for Choosing Software Assessment Masures using Bayesian Networks and Diagnosis. In: Proceedings of 13th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaines, B., Shaw, M.: Using Knowledge Acquisition and Representation Tools to Support Scientific Communities. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1994, pp. 707–7141 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gustafsson, P., Franke, U., Höök, D., Johnson, P.: Quantifying IT impacts on organizational structure and business value with Extended Influence Diagrams. In: Proceedings of First IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference: The Practice of Enterprise Modeling (PoEM 2008), Stockholm, Sweden. LNBIP, vol. 15, pp. 138–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huschens, J., Rumpold-Preining, M.: IBM Insurance Application Architecture (IAA) - An overview of the Insurance Business Architecture. In: Mertins Bernus, K., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, vol. 2, pp. 669–692. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    i*wiki: I-Star-Wiki (2009), http://istar.rwth-aachen.de (last access: 17.02.2009)
  14. 14.
    Ifip–Ifac: GERAM: Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology, Version 1.6.2, IFIP–IFAC Task Force (1998) (last access: 12.01.2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jensen, F.: Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M.: Enterprise Architecture - Models and Analyses for Information Systems Decision Making. Studentlitteratur, Pozkal (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson, P., Lagerström, R., Närman, P., Simonsson, M.: Enterprise Architecture Analysis with Extended Influence Diagrams. Information Systems Frontiers 9(2) (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jürjens, J.: Secure Systems Development with UML. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kadane, J., Wolfson, L.: Experiences in Elicitation. The Statistician 47(1) (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keeney, R., von Winterfeldt, D.: Eliciting Probabilities from Experts in Complex Technical Problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 38(3) (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kilov, H.: Business Models - A Guide for Business and IT. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kühn, H., Bayer, F., Jungringer, S., Karagiannis, D.: Enterprise Model Integration. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) EC-Web 2003. LNCS, vol. 2738, pp. 379–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kurpjuweit, S., Winter, R.: Viewpoint-based Meta Model Engineering. In: Proceedings of Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2007), Bonn, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Köllen, pp. 143–161 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kurpjuweit, S., Winter, R.: Concern-oriented Business Architecture Engineering. In: Proceedings of 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), Honolulu, Hawaii (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lagerström, R.: Analyzing System Maintainability using Enterprise Architecture Models. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 3(4), 33–42 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lagerström, R., Johnson, P.: Using Architectural Models to Predict the Maintainability of Enterprise Systems. In: Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2008), Athens, Greece, pp. 248–252 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liou, Y.: Knowledge acquisition: issues, techniques, and methodology. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGBDP Conference on Trends and Directions in Expert Systems (SIGBDP 1990), pp. 212–236. ACM Press, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lodderstedt, T., Basin, D., Doser, J.: SecureUML: A UML-Based Modeling Language for Model-Driven Security. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 426–441. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Närman, P., Johnson, P., Robert, L., Franke, U., Ekstedt, M.: Data Collection Prioritization for Software Quality Analysis. In: Proceedings of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Niemann, K.D.: From Enterprise Architecture to IT Governance. Elements of Effective IT Management. Vieweg, Wiesbaden (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: Expressing the relationship between multiple view in requirements specification. In: 15th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (1993)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Rourke, C., Fishman, N., Selkow, W.: Enterprise Architecture – Using the Zachman Framework. Thomson Learning, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Raderius, J., Per, N., Ekstedt, M.: Assessing System Availability Using an Enterprise Architecture Analysis Approach. In: Proceedings of 3rd Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2008), Sydney, Australia (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    SAE: Society of Automotive Engineers: Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) standard, Carnegie Mellon University (2009) Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sindre, G., Opdahl, A.L.: Eliciting Security Requirements by Misuse Cases. In: Proceedings of TOOLS Pacific 2000, pp. 120–131. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Song, X.: A framework for understanding the integration of design methodologies. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering 20(1), 46–54 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Spewak, S.H., Hill, S.C.: Enterprise Architecture Planning - Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications and Technology. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    The Open Group: The Open Group Architecture Framework TOGAF - 2007 Edition (Incorporating 8.1.1). Van Haren, Zaltbommel (2007)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Versteeg, G., Bouwman, H.: Business architecture: A new paradigm to relate business strategy to ICT. Information Systems Frontiers 8(2), 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Winter, R., Bucher, T., Fischer, R., Kurpjuweit, S.: Analysis and Application Scenarios of Enterprise Architecture - An Exploratory Study. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 3(3), 33–43 (2007)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Winter, R., Fischer, R.: Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 3(2), 7–18 (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yu, E.: Modelling Strategic Relationships for Process Engineering, Dissertation, University of Toronto. Dept. of Computer Science (1995)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yu, E., Strohmaier, M., Deng, X.: Exploring Intentional Modeling and Analysis for Enterprise Architecture. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2006), Hong Kong (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zachman, J.A.: A Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26(3), 276–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Lagerström
    • 1
  • Jan Saat
    • 2
  • Ulrik Franke
    • 1
  • Stephan Aier
    • 2
  • Mathias Ekstedt
    • 1
  1. 1.Industrial Information and Control Systemsthe Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Institute of Information ManagementUniversity of St GallenSt GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations