Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Representation and analysis of enterprise models with semantic techniques: an application to ArchiMate, e3value and business model canvas

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Enterprise models assist the governance and transformation of organizations through the specification, communication and analysis of strategy, goals, processes, information, along with the underlying application and technological infrastructure. Such models cross-cut different concerns and are often conceptualized using domain-specific modelling languages. This paper explores the application of graph-based semantic techniques to specify, integrate and analyse multiple, heterogeneous enterprise models. In particular, the proposal described in this paper (1) specifies enterprise models as ontological schemas, (2) uses transformation mapping functions to integrate the ontological schemas and (3) analyses the integrated schemas with graph querying and logical inference. The proposal is evaluated through a scenario that integrates three distinct enterprise modelling languages: the business model canvas, e3value, and the business layer of the ArchiMate language. The results show, on the one hand, that the graph-based approach is able to handle the specification, integration and analysis of enterprise models represented with different modelling languages and, on the other, that the integration challenge resides in defining appropriate mapping functions between the schemas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lankhorst M (2004) Enterprise architecture modelling—the issue of integration. Adv Eng Inform 18(4):205–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lankhorst M (2013) Enterprise architecture at work: modeling, communication, and analysis, 3rd edn. Springer, NewYork

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Aleatrati Khosroshahi P, Aier S, Hauder M, Roth S, Matthes F, Winter R (2015) Success factors for federated enterprise architecture model management. In: Persson A, Stirna J (eds), CAiSE 2015 Workshops, LNBIP 215, Springer, Berlin, pp 413–425

  4. Zdravkovic J, Stirna J, Kirikova M, Karagiannis D, Winter R (2015) Advanced enterprise modeling. Bus Inform Syst Eng 57(1):1–2. doi:10.1007/s12599-014-0367-8 ISSN 2363-7005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bucher T, Fisher R, Kurpjuweit S, Winter R (2006) Enterprise architecture analysis and application. An exploratory study. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on trends in enterprise architecture research (TEAR)

  6. Johnson P, Ekstedt M (2007) Enterprise architecture: models and analyses for information systems decision making. Lightning source incorporated

  7. Antunes G, Barateiro J, Caetano A, Borbinha J (2015) Analysis of federated enterprise architecture models. In: 23rd European conference on information systems (ECIS)

  8. Narman P, Johnson P, Nordstrom L (2007) Enterprise architecture: a framework supporting system quality analysis. In: 11th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC)

  9. Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y (2010) Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gordijn J (2004) Value creation from E-business models, chapter e-business value modelling using the e3-value ontology. Elsevies, Butterworth-Heinemann

    Google Scholar 

  11. The Open Group (2013) ArchiMate 2.1 specification. The open group

  12. Gordijn J, Akkermans JM (2003) Value-based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requir Eng 8(2):114–134

  13. Gordijn J, Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y (2005) Comparing two business model ontologies for designing e-business models and value constellations. In: Proceedings of the 18th BLED eConference, pp 6–8. http://aisel.aisnet.org/bled2005/15

  14. de Kinderen S, Gaaloul K, Proper HE (2012a) Integrating value modelling into archimate. In: Exploring services science, Lecture Notes in business information processing, Springer, Berlin, pp 125–139

  15. Pombinho J (2015) Value-oriented enterprise transformation—design and engineering of value networks. Ph.D. thesis, Universidade de Lisboa---Instituto Superior Técnico

  16. Sousa P, Caetano A, Vasconcelos A, Pereira C, Tribolet J (2006) Enterprise architecture modeling with the uml 2.0. In: Rittgen P (ed), Enterprise modelling and computing with UML, Idea Group Inc, pp 67–94

  17. Caetano A, Silva A, Tribolet J (2009) A role-based enterprise architecture framework. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied computing, pp 253–258. ACM

  18. Frank U (2014) Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Softw Syst Model 13(3):941–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bork D (2015) Using conceptual modeling for designing multi-view modeling tools. In: Americas Conference on information systems (AMCIS) 2015, 21st Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS). http://eprints.cs.univie.ac.at/4315/

  20. Zivkovic S, Kuhn H, Karagiannis D (2007) Facilitate modelling using method integration: an approach using mappings and integration rules. In: European conference on information systems (ECIS), pp 2038–2049

  21. Iacob ME, Meertens LO, Jonkers H, Quartel DAC, Nieuwenhuis LJM, Van Sinderen MJ (2013) From enterprise architecture to business models and back. Softw Syst Model 13(3):1059–1083

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fischer R, Aier S, Winter R (2007) A federated approach to enterprise architecture model maintenance. Enterp Model Inform Syst Archit 2:14–22

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bjeković M, Proper HA, Sottet J-S (2012) Towards a coherent enterprise modelling landscape. In: Emerging topics in the practice of enterprise modeling : 5th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on the practice of enterprise modeling, pp 1–12

  24. Bjeković M, Proper HA (2013) Challenges of modelling landscapes: pragmatics swept under the carpet? In: Proceedings of third international symposium business modeling and software design, Lecture Notes in business information processing (Book 173), Springer, pp 11–22

  25. Proper HA, Lankhorst MM (2014) Enterprise architecture—towards essential sensemaking. Enterp Model Inform Syst Archit J 01(01):5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Uschold M, Gruninger M (1996) Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowl Eng Rev 11(02):93–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Guizzardi G, Wagner G (2010) Using the unified foundational ontology (ufo) as a foundation for general conceptual modeling languages. In: Theory and applications of ontology: Computer applications, Springer, pp 175–196

  28. Prackwieser C, Buchmann RA, Grossmann W, Karagiannis D (2014) Overcoming heterogeneity in business process modeling with rule-based semantic mappings. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 24(8):1131–1159. http://eprints.cs.univie.ac.at/4243/

  29. Gordijn J, Akkermans H (2001) Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE Intell Syst 16(4):11–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Offermann P, Blom S, Schönherr M, Bub U (2010) Artifact types in information systems design science—a literature review. In: Winter R, Zhao JL, Aier S (eds), Global perspectives on design science research, volume 6105 of Lecture Notes in computer science, pages, Springer, Berlin, pp 77–92. ISBN 978-3-642-13334-3. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_6

  31. von Alan RH, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  32. de Simoni G (2015) Innovation insight: leveraging ontology to exploit business value hidden in information. Gartner innovation. https://www.gartner.com/doc/2990119/innovation-insight-leveraging-ontology-exploit

  33. Chesbrough H (2007) Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy Leadersh 35(6):12–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Osterwalder A (2004) The business model ontology: a proposition in a design science approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Lausanne, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales HEC, Lausanne, Switzerland

  35. Pombinho J, Aveiro D, Tribolet J (2014) Linking value chains—combining e3value and demo for specifying value networks. In: Fourth enterprise engineering working conference (EEWC), Funchal, Madeira

  36. Iacob ME, Quartel D, Jonkers H (2012) Capturing business strategy and value in enterprise architecture to support portfolio valuation. In: 16th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC)

  37. Meertens LO, Iacob ME, Jonkers H, Quartel D, Nieuwenhuis LJM, van Sinderen MJ (2012) Mapping the business model canvas to archimate. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on applied computing, pp 1694–1701. ACM. http://doc.utwente.nl/82858/

  38. Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 5(2):199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Guarino N, Oberle D, Staab S (2009) Handbook on Ontologies, chapter what is an Ontology?, Springer, Berlin, pp 1–17

  40. Studer R, Benjamins R, Fensel D (1998) Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. Data Knowl Eng 25:161–198

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Pinto HS, Gómez-Pérez A, Martins JP (1999) Some issues on ontology integration. In: Proceedings of IJCAI99’s workshop on ontologies and problem solving methods: lessons learned and future trends, vol 18, pp 1–12

  42. Davies J, Studer R, Warren P (2006) Semantic web technologies: trends and research in ontology-based systems. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Lenzerini D, Milano M, Poggi A (2004) Ontology representation and reasoning. Technical report, University di Roma La Sapienza

  44. Vaculin R (2009) Process mediation framework for semantic web services. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Theoretical Computer Science and Mathematical Logic, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University

  45. Olivé A (2007) Conceptual modeling of information systems. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Breitman K, Casanova MA, Truszkowski W (2007) Semantic web: concepts, technologies and applications. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. ISO/IEC/IEEE (2011) ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 Systems and software engineering—architecture description. ISO/IEC/IEEE

  48. Saat J, Franke U, Lagerstrom R, Ekstedt M (2010) Enterprise architecture meta models for it/business alignment situations. In: 14th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC)

  49. Buckl S, Buschle M, Johnson P, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2011) A meta-language for enterprise architecture analysis. In: 16th international conference on exploring modeling methods for systems analysis and design (EMMSAD)

  50. Niemann KD (2005) From enterprise architecture to IT governance. Vieweg / & Sohn Verlag, Friedr

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kurpjuweit S, Winter R (2007) Viewpoint-based meta model engineering. In: 2nd international workshop on enterprise modelling and information systems architectures (EMISA)

  52. Buckl S, Schweda CM, Matthes F (2010) A design theory nexus for situational enterprise architecture management. In: 14th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference workshops (EDOCW)

  53. Caetano A, Pereira C, Sousa P (2011) Generating multiple consistent views from business process models. In Lecture Notes in business information processing, research and practical issues of enterprise information systems. Springer, Berlin

  54. Antunes G, Bakhshandeh M, Mayer R, Borbinha J, Caetano A (2014) Using ontologies for enterprise architecture integration and analysis. Complex Syst Inform Model Q 1:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mayer R, Antunes G, Caetano A, Bakhshandeh M, Rauber A, Borbinha J (2015) Using ontologies to capture the semantics of a business process for digital preservation. Int J Digit Libr 15(2–4):129–152. doi:10.1007/s00799-015-0141-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Granitzer M, Sabol V, Onn KW, Lukose D, Tochtermann K (2010) Ontology alignment—a survey with focus on visually supported semi-automatic techniques. Future Internet 2:238–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Miles A, Bechhofer S (2009) Skos: simple knowledge organization system reference, w3c recommendation. Technical report, W3C

  58. Herre B, Heller H, Burek P, Hoehndorf R, Loebe F, Michalek H (2007) General formal ontology (gfo): a foundational ontology integrating objects and processes. part i: Basic principles. Technical report, Research Group Ontologies in Medicine (Onto-Med), University of Leipzig

  59. Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Inform Syst J 3(4):217–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Fettke P, Loos P (2003) Ontological evaluation of reference models using the bunge-wand-weber model. In: Proceedings of the AMCIS 2003

  61. Harris S, Seaborne A (2013) SPARQL 1.1 Query language. W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/

  62. Fritscher B, Pigneur Y (2011) Business it alignment from business model to enterprise architecture. In: Advanced information systems engineering workshops, Springer, Berlin, pp 4–15

  63. de Kinderen S, Gaaloul K, Proper HA (2012b) Bridging value modelling to archimate via transaction modelling. Softw Syst Model 13(3):1043–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Pombinho J, Tribolet J (2012) Modelling the value of a system’s production—matching demo and e3value. In: 6th international workshop on value modelling and business ontology, Vienna, Austria

  65. Dietz JLG (2006) Enterprise ontology: theory and methodology. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  66. Dietz JLG, Hoogervorst JAP, Albani A, Aveiro D, Babkin E, Barjis J, Caetano A, Huysmans P, Iijima J, van Kervel S et al (2013) The discipline of enterprise engineering. Int J Organ Des Eng 3(1):86–114

    Google Scholar 

  67. Fox MS, Gruninger M (1998) Enterprise modeling. AI Mag 19(3):109

    Google Scholar 

  68. Grüninger M, Fox MS (1995) Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI-95 workshop on basic ontological issues in knowledge sharing

  69. Bezerra C, Freitas F, Santana F (2013) Evaluating ontologies with competency questions. In: Web intelligence (WI) and intelligent agent technologies (IAT), 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on, vol 3, pp 284–285. doi:10.1109/WI-IAT.2013.199

  70. Lapão LV, Gregorio J, Ferreira T, Cavaco A, Lovis C, Russo G, da Silva MM (2013) ehealth services for enhanced pharmaceutical care provision: From counseling to patient education. In: IEEE 2nd international conference on serious games and applications for health (SeGAH), pp 1–7

  71. Gregorio J, Ferreira TL, Cavaco A, da Silva MM, Lovis C, Lapão LV (2013a) Community pharmacies and ehealth services: barriers and opportunities for real primary healthcare integration. In: IEEE 26th international symposium on computer-based medical systems (CBMS), pp 393–396

  72. Gregorio J, Cavaco A, da Silva MM, Lovis C, Lapão LV (2013b) Challenges of information technologies adoption to enable community pharmacies ehealth services. Int J Clin Pharm 35(3):490–498

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was partially funded by FCT, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, through projects UID/CEC 50021/2013 and DataStorm EXCL/EEI-ESS 0257/2012, and by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development and demonstration activities under Grant Agreement No. 269940 (TIMBUS project, http://timbusproject.net/).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IST, University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal

    Artur Caetano, João Pombinho, José Borbinha & Miguel Mira da Silva

  2. INESC-ID, Rua Alves Redol 9, 1000-029, Lisboa, Portugal

    Artur Caetano, Gonçalo Antunes, João Pombinho, Marzieh Bakhshandeh, José Granjo, José Borbinha & Miguel Mira da Silva

  3. NOS Comunicações, Rua Actor António Silva 9, 1600-404, Lisboa, Portugal

    João Pombinho

  4. Screen Interaction AB, Arne Beurlings Torg 3, 164 40, Kista, Stockholm, Sweden

    José Granjo

Authors
  1. Artur Caetano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gonçalo Antunes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. João Pombinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marzieh Bakhshandeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. José Granjo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. José Borbinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Miguel Mira da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Artur Caetano.

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 14
figure 14

The ArchiMate business layer model of ePharmacare

Full size image
Fig. 15
figure 15

The ArchiMate business layer model of a pharmacy within the ePharmacare network

Full size image
Fig. 16
figure 16

The business model canvas of ePharmacare

Full size image
Fig. 17
figure 17

The business model canvas of a pharmacy within the ePharmacare network

Full size image
Fig. 18
figure 18

Answers to competency questions 1–6

Full size image
Fig. 19
figure 19

Answers to competency questions 7–9

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caetano, A., Antunes, G., Pombinho, J. et al. Representation and analysis of enterprise models with semantic techniques: an application to ArchiMate, e3value and business model canvas. Knowl Inf Syst 50, 315–346 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-016-0933-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-016-0933-0

Keywords