Modeling the Transformation of Application Landscapes

  • Stefan Hofer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 165)


Many of today’s IT projects transform application landscapes. Transformation is a challenging task that has significant effect on an organization’s business processes and the organization itself. Although models are necessary to accomplish this task, there are no specialized modeling approaches for transformation. We describe what such a specialized modeling approach should be capable of. This will allow the adaption of existing approaches and thus support the transformation of application landscapes.


application landscape enterprise architecture transformation migration co-evolution 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A., Lankes, J., Matthes, F.: Enterprise Architecture Management Pattern Catalog. Technical report, Technical University Munich (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A., Lankes, J., Schweda, C., Wittenburg, A.: Generating Visualizations of Enterprise Architectures using Model Transformations. In: Reichert, M., Strecker, S., Turowski, K. (eds.) EMISA 2007. LNI, vol. P-119, pp. 33–46. GI, Bonn (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.: An Information Model for Managed Application Landscape Evolution. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 5, 12–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carroll, J.: Making Use. Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interaction. MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engels, G., Hess, A., Humm, B., Jung, O., Lohmann, P., Richter, J., Voß, M., Willkomm, J.: Quasar Enterprise. dpunkt.Verlag, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling (2012) (online first article)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heberling, M., Maier, C., Tens, T.: Visual Modelling and Managing the Software Architecture Landscape in a large Enterprise by an Extension of the UML. In: Position Papers of the 2nd Workshop on Domain-Specific Visual Languages at OOPSLA (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jonkers H., Band, I., Quartel, D., Franken, H., Adams, M., Haviland, P., Proper, E.: Using the TOGAF 9.1 Architecture Content Framework with the ArchiMate 2.0 Modeling Language. Technical report, The Open Group (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karagiannis, D., Kühn, H.: Metamodelling platforms. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) EC-Web 2002. LNCS, vol. 2455, pp. 182–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirchner, L.: Entwurf einer Modellierungssprache zur Unterstützung der Aufgaben des IT-Managements. Technical report, University Duisburg-Essen (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindland, O., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11, 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matthes, F., Wittenburg, A.: Softwarekarten zur Visualisierung von Anwendungslandschaften und ihren Aspekten. Technical report, Technical University Munich (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitleton-Kelly, E., Papaefthimiou, M.: Co-Evolution Of Diverse Elements Interacting Within A Social Ecosystem. In: International Workshop on Feedback and Evolution in Software and Business Processes (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V., Neple, T.: Towards a Tool-Supported Quality Model for Model-Driven Engineering. In: Chaudron, M. (ed.) Models in Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5421, pp. 74–88. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group: Introduction to OMG’s Unified Modeling Language,
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Infrastructure 2.4.1,
  18. 18.
    The Open Group: N116 ArchiMate 2.0 Viewpoints Reference Card,
  19. 19.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language reference manual. Addison-Wesley, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thalheim, B.: The Science and Art of Conceptual Modelling. Transactions on Large-Scale Data- and Knowledge-Centered Systems 6, 76–105 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Intra- and Inter-Organizational Process Mining: Discovering Processes within and between Organizations. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) PoEM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winter, R.: Business Engineering Navigator. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Züllighoven, H.: Object-Oriented Construction Handbook. dpunkt.verlag, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Hofer
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering Group, Department of InformaticsUniversity of HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations