Before introducing the selected approaches, some reflections are made on
the criteria used for selecting and evaluating them.
5.1.1 Criteria for selection and evaluation
The criteria used for selection and evaluation of approaches to enterprise
modeling are first and foremost related to the research questions posed
in section 1.2.2. In addition, a certain variety in background (e.g., commercial
versus academic) is sought.
First criterion: Understanding is the primary purpose
The first criterion used for selection is purpose of enterprise modeling.
As stated in the main research question, the focus in this thesis is enterprise
modeling for human sense-making and communication. Hence, the selected
modeling approaches must have as a primary purpose to make people understand
more of the domain.
However, few existing approaches have this purpose as their primary
one and consequently, approaches are discussed even if they list other
purposes as well. A problem with these may be that the more diverse purposes
each framework have, the more diverse requirements they will have to fulfill.
Requirements may be contradictory in the sense that fulfilling one of them
inhibits the fulfillment of others, i.e., they are interdependent. The
first criterion concerns RQ1.
|Requiring executability of models require that some aspects of the
modeling language are formally defined. Formality may reduce the ease of
initial model formulation through demanding strict adherence to consistency
Second criterion: Focus on both models and modeling
A framework may focus on properties of the final model and/or properties
of the modeling process. From the research questions of section
1.2.2 (particularly RQ2 and RQ3), focus on
both the modeling process and on models is required. Seeing modeling as
social construction of reality is not compatible with neglecting the modeling
Third criterion: Type of work that is modeled
The taxonomy of different types of work can be used to discuss the appropriateness
of various frameworks. A modeling approach developed particularly for one
type of work might be less suited for modeling of other types of work.
Type of work is related to the areas discussed in chapter 4, and is concerned
|An enterprise modeling approach suitable for the UoD manufacturing
of cars may have an ontology that describe automobile parts in detail,
e.g., auto body, paint qualities and motor parts. Trying to apply the approach
to modeling of office work might at best leave a large part of the ontology
superfluous, and at worst not provide necessary expressiveness for phenomena
frequently observed in an office, e. g., business letters and insurance
5.1.2 Frameworks included
The following nine frameworks are presented and discussed:
The frameworks comprise a mix of academic research (F3, TOVE,
SSM and SAMPO), industrial projects (Enterprise and Caesar) and commercially
available approaches (Metis, OMT and OOram). The last four in the list
are not dedicated enterprise modeling approaches, but exhibit particular
qualities defending their inclusion. To anticipate the discussion, F3,
SSM and OOram are found to be the most inspiring approaches and consequently,
they are discussed in some more detail than the others.
From Fuzzy to Formal (F3)
The Enterprise approach
Toronto Virtual Enterprise (TOVE)
The Caesar enterprise modeling framework
The Metis approach
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
Object Modeling Technique (OMT)
Object-Oriented role analysis and modeling (OOram)
Speech-Act based office Modeling aPprOach (SAMPO)
5.1.3 Presentation of the frameworks
The frameworks are discussed in terms of the following list of features:
A brief evaluation and summary of all modeling approaches are provided
in the closing of the chapter.
Background and primary focus of the framework: What is the overall
purpose of the framework? Can the framework be associated with any particular
area from chapter 4, providing a context for the framework?
Purposes of enterprise modeling: Why are enterprise models developed
Types of work: Is the framework dedicated to modeling a particular
type of work?
Enterprise models: Characteristics of the artifacts that are created.
Enterprise modeling: Do they provide either a method or guidelines
for how to model? And if methodical issues are discussed, do they concern
sense-making, representation, manifestation or distribution?
Worldview: Do they explicitly discuss their underlying worldview?
Alternatively, do statements in the literature on the approach indicate
|A note on the assessment: Most of the properties can be readily assessed
as the authors of the frameworks explicitly state their position on purposes,
methods, models, etc. Other features, like type of work and in particular
worldview, are seldom explicitly discussed in the surveyed literature.
This raises the question of how the lack of something is to be
interpreted and assessed. The stance taken here is that lack of an explicit
position on an issue is an indication that the issue is considered insignificant.
The presentation below provides whatever evidence found and at the same
time admits that the conclusions drawn at times are uncertain. The intention
of making the assessments is not to categorize approaches, but rather
to discuss the approach in light of the category. The explicit assessment
is made to summarize the discussion.