Advertisement

Aligning the Constructs of Enterprise Ontology and Normalized Systems

  • Philip Huysmans
  • David Bellens
  • Dieter Van Nuffel
  • Kris Ven
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 49)

Abstract

Literature suggests that, due to their complexity, organizations need to be designed in order to be effective and evolvable. Recently, two promising approaches have been introduced that are relevant in this regard. Enterprise Ontology creates essential models that are implementation-independent. Normalized Systems is concerned with the development of information systems with proven evolvability. In this paper, we combine both approaches. To this end, we express the transaction pattern—a central construct of Enterprise Ontology—using the constructs of Normalized Systems. By aligning these constructs, we attempt to introduce traceability between the Enterprise Ontology level and the Normalized Systems level. The resulting artefact exhibits the benefits of both Enterprise Ontology and Normalized Systems. We illustrate the application of the artefact in the context of enterprise architectures.

Keywords

Enterprise Ontology Normalized Systems Enterprise Architecture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Auramäki, E., Hirschheim, R., Lyytinen, K.: Modelling offices through discourse analysis: the sampo approach. Computer Journal 35(4), 342–352 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dietz, J.L.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dijkstra, E.: Go to statement considered harmful. Communications of the ACM 11(3), 147–148 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eick, S.G., Graves, T.L., Karr, A.F., Marron, J., Mockus, A.: Does code decay? assessing the evidence from change management data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(1), 1–12 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Generic business frameworks and action modeling. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Communication Modeling—Language/Action Perspective 1996, Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hammer, M.: Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review 68(4), 104 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoogervorst, J.A.P.: Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering (The Enterprise Engineering Series), 1st edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lehman, M.: Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proceedings of the IEEE 68, 1060–1076 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lehman, M.M., Ramil, J.F.: Rules and tools for software evolution planning and management. Annals of Software Engineering 11(1), 15–44 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leist, S., Zellner, G.: Evaluation of current architecture frameworks. In: SAC 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing, pp. 1546–1553. ACM, New York (2006), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1141277.1141635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mannaert, H., Verelst, J.: Normalized Systems—Re-creating Information Technology Based on Laws for Software Evolvability, Koppa, Kermt, Belgium (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mannaert, H., Verelst, J., Ven, K.: Exploring the concept of systems theoretic stability as a starting point for a unified theory on software engineering. In: Mannaert, H., Ohta, T., Dini, C., Pellerin, R. (eds.) Proceedings of Third International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA 2008), pp. 360–366. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mulder, H.: Rapid enterprise design. Ph.D. thesis, TU Delft (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Reijswoud, V.: The structure of business communication: Theory, model and application. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Nuffel, D., Mannaert, H., De Backer, C., Verelst, J.: Deriving normalized systems elements from business process models. In: International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, pp. 27–32 (2009), http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ICSEA.2009.13
  17. 17.
    Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Addison Wesley, Reading (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Huysmans
    • 1
  • David Bellens
    • 1
  • Dieter Van Nuffel
    • 1
  • Kris Ven
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management Information SystemsUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations