Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negotiating language barriers – a methodology for cross-organisational conceptual modelling

  • Research Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

In common scenarios conceptual modelling is a methodology that – using semi-formal languages – has a high degree of freedom and is used to visualise certain aspects of a problem domain. However, especially in cross-organisational or international scenarios this freedom leads to many inconsistencies and conflicts. Therefore the restriction of the freedom of modelling is often discussed in the literature to counter the missing standardisation and to enhance the comparability of models. However, to be able to express certain concepts embedded within some distinguished environment (purpose, culture, infrastructure, language, terminology) models have to be domain-specific on the one hand, but comparable to models in other domains on the other hand. In this article a new approach is presented that offers a framework for restricted modelling without destroying the adaptability to certain different domains. The methodology includes an algorithm for comparing models in different domains and is therefore capable to not only dissolve certain standard comparability conflicts but also the domain conflict.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • van der Aalst WMP and Kumar A (2003) Xml-based schema definition for support of interorganizational workflow. Information Systems Research 14 (1), 23–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson C and Kühne T (2000a) Meta-level independent modelling. In International Workshop on ‘Model Engineering’ (in conjunction with ECOOP'2000) (Bézivin J and Ernst J, Eds), Cannes, France, 13 June 2000, pp 1–4, Nice, Sophia Antipolis, France.

  • Atkinson C and Kühne T (2000b) Strict profiles: why and how. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language – Advancing the Standard (UML 2000) (Evans A, Kent S and Selic B, Eds), 2–6 October, York, UK, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1939, pp 309–322, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson C and Kühne T (2001) The essence of multilevel metamodeling. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools (UML 2001) (Goos G, Hartmanis J and van Leeuwen J, Eds), 1–5 October, Toronto, Canada, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2185, pp 19–33, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bass L, Clements P and Kazman R (2003) Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn. SEI series in software engineering, Addison-Wesley, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Algermissen L, Falk T and Pfeiffer D (2006) Reorganization potential in public administrations: identification and measurement with the PICTURE-approach. In Proceedings of the 5th International EGOV Conference (Wimmer M, Scholl HJ, Grönlund Å and Andersen KV, Eds), 4–8 September, pp 111–119, Krakow, Poland.

  • Becker J, Algermissen L, Pfeiffer D and Räckers M (2007a) Building block-based modeling of process landscapes with the PICTURE-approach. Wirtschaftsinformatik 49 (4), 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Pfeiffer D and Räckers M (2007b) Domain specific process modelling in public administrations: the PICTURE-approach. In Electronic Government (Wimmer M, Scholl J and Grönlund Å, Eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4656, pp 68–79, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein PA, Halevy AY and Pottinger RA (2000) A vision for management of complex models. SIGMOD Record (ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data) 29 (4), 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs RO (2006) On theory-driven design and deployment of collaboration systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 573–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S (1996) Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 38 (4), 275–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S, Saeki M and Harmsen F (1998) Assembly techniques for method engineering. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE) (Pernici B and Thanos C, Eds), June, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1413, pp 381–400, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Buckl C, Knoll A, Schieferdecker I and Zander J (2011) Model-based analysis and development of dependable systems. In Model-based Engineering of Embedded Real-time Systems (Giese H, Karsai G, Lee E, Rumpe B and Schätz B, Eds), Volume 6100 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 271–293, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso F and Umar A (2004) Architectures to survive technological and business turbulences. Information Systems Frontiers 6 (1), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darke P and Shanks GG (1996) Stakeholder viewpoints in requirements definition. Requirements Engineering 1 (1), 88–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (2009) Experimental philosophy and the theory of reference. Mind and Language 24 (4), 445–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz G and Juhrisch M (2010) Model-based management – design and experimental evaluation. In Proceedings of the 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, pp 452–462, Paper 44, Taipei, Taiwan. Association for Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexiko. [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2010/44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz G, Juhrisch M and Esswein W (2009) On the restriction of conceptual modeling – outlining an approach to enable business driven SOA. In Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), pp 1–14, Paper 580, San Francisco. [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/580.

  • Frank U (1999) Conceptual modelling as the core of the information systems discipline – perspectives and epistemological challenges. In Proceedings of the Fifth America's Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 99) (Haseman D, Nazareth S, and Goodhue D, Eds), pp 695–697, Association for Information Systems, Milwaukee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehlert A (2007) Migration fachkonzeptueller Modelle. Logos Berlin, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehlert A, Schermann M, Pohl K and Krcmar H (2009) Towards a research method for theory-driven design research. In Business Services: Konzepte, Technologien, Anwendungen, 9. Internationale-Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (Hansen HR, Karagiannis D and Fill H-G, Eds), Vol. 1, pp 441–450, Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft, Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly 30, 611–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadar I and Soffer P (2006) Variations in conceptual modeling: classification and ontological analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7 (8), 568–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmsen F, Brinkkemper S and Oei JLH (1994) Situational method engineering for information system project approaches. In Methods and associated tools for the information systems life cycle, Proceedings of the IFIP Working Conference (Verrijn-Stuart AA and Olle TW, Eds), pp 169–194, IFIP, Elsevier Science BV, North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J and Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28 (1), 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvath P and Gleich R (1998) Proze?-Benchmarking in der Maschinenbaubranche. Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb 93 (7–8), 325–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovsepyan A, Baelen S, Berbers Y and Joosen W (2009) Specifying and composing concerns expressed in domain-specific modeling languages. In Objects, Components, Models and Patterns Volume 33 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (Aalst W, Mylopoulos J, Sadeh NM, Shaw MJ, Szyperski C, Oriol M and Meyer B, Eds), pp 116–135, Springer, Berlin.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Juhrisch M (2010) Richtlinien für die modellgetriebene Integration serviceorientierte Architekturen in Analysemodellen. PhD Thesis, Technische Universität Dresden.

  • Juhrisch M and Dietz G (2010a) Constraints in conceptual modelling – outlining an approach to business driven web service composition. International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management 6 (3), 248–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juhrisch M and Dietz G (2010b) Context-based modeling: introducing a novel modeling approach. In Modellierung betrieblicher Informationssysteme (MobIS 2010) (Esswein W, Turowski K and Juhrisch M, Eds), Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), P-171, pp 111–130, Bonner Köllen Verlag, Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juhrisch M, Dietz G, Weller J and Esswein W (2009) Towards business driven web service authorization – project experiences in German university administrations. In Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2009), pp 1–11, Paper 348, Association for Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexiko. [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juhrisch M and Esswein W (2007) Closing the gap between enterprise models and service-oriented architectures. In IEEE Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Systems, Computing Science and Software Engineering (SCSS 2007) (Sobh T, Ed.), Springer, Bridgeport, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juhrisch M and Weller J (2008) Connecting business and IT: a model-driven webservice based approach. In Proceedings of the 12th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), pp 1469–1479, Paper 215, Suzhou, China. Association for Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexiko. [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2008/215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juhrisch M, Weller J and Dietz G (2007) Towards a model-driven approach to control identity management systems. In Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, pp 1–13, Paper 149, Auckland, New Zealand. Association for Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexiko. [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2007/149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juhrisch M, Weller J and Dietz G (2008) Application access control using enterprise models. In Proceedings of the 12th Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2008) Suzhou, China. Association for Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexiko.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karow M, Gehlert A, Becker J and Esswein W (2006) On the transition from computation independent to platform independent models. In AMCIS Conference Proceedings, Paper 469, pp 3913–3921, Association for Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexiko. [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2006/469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly S, Rossi M and Tolvanen J-P (2005) What is needed in a metacase environment. Journal of Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures 1 (1), 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly S and Tolvanen J-P (2000) Visual domain-specific modeling: benefits and experiences of using metacase tools. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Model Engineering (in conjunction with ECOOP' 2000) (Bezivin J and Ernst J, Eds), Cannes, France.

  • Khatri V, Vessey I, Ramesh V, Clay P and Park S-J (2006) Understanding conceptual schemas: exploring the role of application and its domain knowledge. Information Systems Research 17 (1), 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieburtz R, McKinney L, Bell JM, Hook J, Kotov A, Lewis J, Oliva DP, Sheard T, Smith I and Walton L (1996) A software engineering experiment in software component generation. In Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Software Engineering 542–552, IEEE Computer Society Press, Berlin, Germany.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer S (1988) Symbolische Maschinen. Die Idee der Formalisierung im geschichtlichem Abri?. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie J, Sindre G and Jørgensen H (2006) Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (1), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kugeler M (2000) Informationsmodellbasierte Organisationsgestaltung, Modellierungskonventionen und Referenzvorgehensmodell zur prozessorientierten Reorganisation. PhD Thesis, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster.

  • Larkin JH and Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11, 65–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levendovszky T, Rumpe B, Schätz B and Sprinkle J (2011) Model evolution and management. In Model-based Engineering of Embedded Real-time Systems (Giese H, Karsai G, Lee E, Rumpe B and Schätz B, Eds), Volume 6100 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 241–270, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindland OI, Sindre G and Sølvberg A (1994) Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11 (2), 42–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke J (1994) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 24th edn. William Baynes and Son, Indianapolis, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long E, Misra A and Sztipanovits J (1998) Increasing productivity at Saturn. IEEE Computer 35, 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzen P (1973) Semantisch normierte Orthosprache. In Zum normativen Fundament der Wissenschaft (Kambartel F, Ed.), pp 231–249, Athenäum-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons J (1995) Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons J (2000) Bedeutungstheorien: Die Referenztheorie, die Ideationstheorie, Verhaltenstheorie der Bedeutung und behaviouristische Semantik, strukturelle Semantik, Bedeutung und Gebrauch, Wahrheitsbedingungen-Theorien der Bedeutung. In Sprachwissenschaft: Ein Reader (Hoffmann L, Ed.), 2nd edn, pp 624–642, Walter de Gruyter Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • March ST and Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15 (4), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor S and Balcer M (2002) Executable UML: A Foundation for Model-driven Architecture. Addision-Wesley, Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellor S and Shlaer S (1991) Object Life Cycles: Modeling the World in States. Computing Series, Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkonen T and Pruuden P (2001) Flexibility as a design driver. IEEE Computer 34 (11), 52–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohagheghi P and Haugen Ø (2010) Evaluating domain-specific modelling solutions. In Advances in Conceptual Modeling – Applications and Challenges Volume 6413 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Trujillo J, Dobbie G, Kangassalo H, Hartmann S, Kirchberg M, Rossi M, Reinhartz-Berger I, ZimÁNYI E, and Frasincar F, Eds), pp 212–221, Springer, Berlin.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • OMG Object Management Group (2002) Meta-object Facility (MOF) specification. Version 1.4. [WWW document] http://www.omg.org/mof/.

  • OMG Object Management Group (2007) UML 2.1.2 superstructure specification. [WWW document] http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/Superstructure/PDF/.

  • Pastor O and Ramos I (1995) OASIS: a class-definition language to model information systems using an object-oriented approach. In SP-UPV 95–788, UPV Publication Service, Valencia, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedro L, Risoldi M, Buchs D, Barroca B and Amaral V (2009) Composing visual syntax for domain specific languages. In Human-Computer Interaction. Novel Interaction Methods and Techniques (Jacko J, Ed.), Volume 5611 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 889–898, Springer, Berlin.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA and Chatterjee S (2008) A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (3), 45–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer D (2007) Constructing comparable conceptual models with domain specific languages. Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2007), pp 876–888, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

  • Pfeiffer D (2008) Semantic business process analysis – building block-based construction of automatically analyzable business process models. PhD Thesis, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.

  • Pfeiffer D and Gehlert A (2005) A framework for comparing conceptual models. In Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures: Proceedings of the Workshop in Klagenfurt (Desel J and Frank U, Eds), Lecture Notes in Informatics P-75, pp 108–122, Köllen Druck + Verlag GmbH, Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosemann M (1996) Multiperspektivische Informationsmodellierung auf der Basis der Grundsätze ordnungsmä?iger Modellierung (in German, Multiperspective information modelling using the guidelines of modelling). Management & Computer 4 (4), 219–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosemann M (2000) Vorbereitung der Prozessmodellierung. In Prozessmanagement. Ein Leitfaden zur prozessorientierten Organisationsgestaltung (Becker J, Kugeler M, and Rosemann M, Eds), pp 45–90, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (English translation: see Rosemann, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosemann M (2007) Preparation of process modeling. In Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes (Becker J, Kugeler M and Rosemann M, Eds) 2nd edn, pp 41–78, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeki M (2006) Configuration management in a method engineering context. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 18th International Conference, CAiSE 2006 (Dubois E and Pohl K, Eds), June, Luxembourg, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4001, pp 384–398 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Schmidt DC (2006) Guest editor’s introduction: model-driven engineering. IEEE Computer 39 (2), 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütte R and Rotthowe T (1998) The guidelines of modeling: an approach to enhance the quality in information models. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 1998) (Ling TW, Ram S and Lee ML, Eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1507, pp 240–254, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Soffer P and Hadar I (2007) Applying ontology-based rules to conceptual modeling: a reflection on modeling descision making. European Journal of Information Systems 16 (5), 599–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suhl L and Blumstengel A (2002) System engineering. In Essences of Business Informatics. Foundations, Applications, PC Praxis (Fischer J, Herold W, Dangelmaier W, Nastansky L and Suhl L, Eds), pp 323–404, Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sztipanovits J, Karsai G and Bapty T (1998) Self-adaptive software for signal processing. Communications of the ACM 41 (5), 66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolvanen J-P (1998) Incremental method engineering with modeling tools: theoretical principles and empirical evidence. PhD Thesis, University of Jyväskylä.

  • Vaishnavi V and Kuechler W (2004) Design research in information systems. [WWW document] http://desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems (accessed 16 August 2009).

  • Walls JG, Widmeyer GR and Sawy OAE (1992) Building an information system design theory for vigilantes. Information Systems Research 3 (1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wand Y and Weber R (2002) Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling – a research agenda. Information Systems Research 13 (4), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller J and Esswein W (2006) Consequences of meta-model modifications within model configuration management. In Meta-Modelling and Ontologies, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Meta-Modelling (WoMM) (Brockmans S, Jung J and Sure Y, Eds), Lecture Notes in Informatics P-96, pp 125–139, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Köllen Druck + Verlag GmbH, Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilde T and Hess T (2007) Forschungsmethoden der Wirtschaftsinformatik: Eine empirische Untersuchung. Wirtschaftsinformatik 49 (4), 280–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein L (2000) Philosophische Untersuchungen: Kap. 1, 2, 8–11, 17–18, 21, 23–25, 43, 65–67. In Sprachwissenschaft: Ein Reader (Hoffmann L, Ed.), 2nd edn, pp 72–78, Walter de Gruyter Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. W. Esswein, Head of Chair for Information Systems, esp. Systems Engineering at the Dresden University of Technology, for his assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. Our thanks also go to the the Surrey International Institute and the Global Institute of Management and Economics of the Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian, for their support. We are also indebted to the anonymous reviewers and several colleagues for numerous invaluable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Machine Tool and Control Engineering, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany

    Gunnar Dietz & Martin Juhrisch

Authors
  1. Gunnar Dietz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Juhrisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gunnar Dietz.

Additional information

In memory of Prof. Ge Jingtian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dietz, G., Juhrisch, M. Negotiating language barriers – a methodology for cross-organisational conceptual modelling. Eur J Inf Syst 21, 229–254 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.30

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.30

Keywords

Search

Navigation