A Demonstration Case on Steps and Rules for the Transition from Process-Level to Software Logical Architectures in Enterprise Models

  • Nuno Ferreira
  • Nuno Santos
  • Pedro Soares
  • Ricardo J. Machado
  • Dragan Gašević
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 165)


At the analysis phase of an enterprise information system development, the alignment between the process level requirements (information systems) with the product level requirements (software system) may not be properly achieved. Modeling the processes for the enterprise’s business is often insufficient for implementation teams, and implementation requirements are often misaligned with business and stakeholder needs. In this paper, we demonstrate, though a real industrial case, how transition steps and rules are used to assure that process- and product-level requirements are aligned, within an approach that supports the creation of the intended requirements. The input for the transition steps is an information system logical architecture, and the output is a product-level (software) use case model.


Enterprise Information Systems Enterprise Modeling Requirement Elicitation Model Transformation Transition to Software Requirements 


  1. 1.
    Maibaum, T.: On specifying systems that connect to the physical world. New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yue, T., Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y.: A Systematic Review of Transformation Approaches between User Requirements and Analysis Models. Requirements Engineering (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferreira, N., Santos, N., Soares, P., Machado, R.J., Gašević, D.: Transition from Process- to Product-level Perspective for Business Software. In: Poels, G., et al. (eds.) CONFENIS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 139, pp. 268–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haskins, C., Forsberg, K.: Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities; INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2. 1, INCOSE (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferreira, N., Santos, N., Machado, R.J., Gašević, D.: Aligning Domain-Related Models for Creating Context for Software Product Design. In: Winkler, D., Biffl, S., Bergsmann, J. (eds.) SWQD 2013. LNBIP, vol. 133, pp. 168–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferreira, N., Santos, N., Machado, R.J., Gašević, D.: Derivation of Process-Oriented Logical Architectures: An Elicitation Approach for Cloud Design. In: Dieste, O., Jedlitschka, A., Juristo, N. (eds.) PROFES 2012. LNCS, vol. 7343, pp. 44–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Machado, R.J., et al.: Transformation of UML Models for Service-Oriented Software Architectures. In: ECBS 2005, pp. 173–182. IEEE Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conradi, R., Jaccheri, M.: Process Modelling Languages. In: Software Process: Principles, Methodology, and Technology, pp. 27–52. Springer US (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Browning, T.R., Eppinger, S.D.: Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Trans. on Engineering Management (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Machado, R.J., Fernandes, J.M., Monteiro, P., Daskalakis, C.: Refinement of Software Architectures by Recursive Model Transformations. In: Münch, J., Vierimaa, M. (eds.) PROFES 2006. LNCS, vol. 4034, pp. 422–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Azevedo, S., Machado, R.J., Muthig, D., Ribeiro, H.: Refinement of Software Product Line Architectures through Recursive Modeling Techniques. In: Meersman, R., Herrero, P., Dillon, T. (eds.) OTM 2009 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 5872, pp. 411–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISOFIN Consortium. ISOFIN Research Project; ISOFIN Research Project (2010),
  13. 13.
    Jani, D., Vanderveken, D., Perry, D.: Experience Report: Deriving architecture specifications from KAOS specifications (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The Open Group. TOGAF - The Open Group Architecture Framework,
  15. 15.
    Engelsman, W., et al.: Extending enterprise architecture modelling with business goals and requirements. Enterprise Information Systems 5(1), 9–36 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strnadl, C.F.: Aligning Business and It: The Process-Driven Architecture Model. Information Systems Management 23(4), 67–77 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dijkman, R.M., Joosten, S.M.M.: An algorithm to derive use cases from business processes. In: SEA 2002. Acta Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winter, R., Fischer, R.: Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Architecture. In: EDOCW 2006, p. 30 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iribarne, L., et al.: A Model Transformation Approach for Automatic Composition of COTS User Interfaces in Web-Based Information Systems. Information Systems Management 27(3), 207–216 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    OMG, MDA Guide Version 1.0.1, OMG Std Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaindl, H., Falb, J.: Can We Transform Requirements into Architecture? In: ICSEA 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bauer, B., Müller, J.P., Roser, S.: A Model-driven Approach to Designing Cross-Enterprise Business Processes. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Corsaro, A. (eds.) OTM-WS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3292, pp. 544–555. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nuno Ferreira
    • 1
  • Nuno Santos
    • 2
  • Pedro Soares
    • 2
  • Ricardo J. Machado
    • 3
  • Dragan Gašević
    • 4
  1. 1.I2S – Informática Sistemas e Serviços, S.A.PortoPortugal
  2. 2.CCG – Centro de Computação GráficaGuimarãesPortugal
  3. 3.Centro ALGORITMI, Escola de EngenhariaUniversidade do MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  4. 4.School of Computing and Information SystemsAthabasca UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations