Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Software and Systems Modeling
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling 3/2014

01.07.2014 | Theme Section Paper

An enterprise architecture framework for multi-attribute information systems analysis

verfasst von: Per Närman, Markus Buschle, Mathias Ekstedt

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 3/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Enterprise architecture is a model-based IT and business management discipline. Enterprise architecture analysis concerns using enterprise architecture models for analysis of selected properties to provide decision support. This paper presents a framework based on the ArchiMate metamodel for the assessment of four properties, viz., application usage, system availability, service response time and data accuracy. The framework integrates four existing metamodels into one and implements these in a tool for enterprise architecture analysis. The paper presents the overall metamodel and four viewpoints, one for each property. The underlying theory and formalization of the four viewpoints is presented. In addition to the tool implementation, a running example as well as guidelines for usage makes the viewpoints easily applicable.
Vorheriger Artikel From enterprise architecture to business models and back
Nächster Artikel Assessing event correlation in non-process-aware information systems

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Pre-print, revision submitted to the Journal of Strategic Information Systems, manuscript available for review upon request.
 
Literatur
1.
2.
Van der Aalst, W., Van Hee, K.: Business process redesign: a Petri-net-based approach. Comput. Ind. 29(1–2), 15–26 (1996)CrossRef
3.
Aier, S., Fischer, C.: Criteria of progress for information systems design theories. Inf. Syst. E Bus. Manag. 9(1), 133–172 (2011)
4.
5.
Barber, K., Graser, T., Holt, J.: Enabling iterative software architecture derivation using early non-functional property evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 172–182 (2002)
6.
Batini, C., Scannapieco, M.: Data Quality: Concepts, Methodologies and Techniques. Springer, New York (2006)
7.
Bengtsson, P., Bosch, J.: Scenario-based software architecture reengineering. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse, 1998, pp. 308–317. IEEE (2002)
8.
Bharadwaj, A., Keil, M., Mähring, M.: Effects of information technology failures on the market value of firms. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 18(2), 66–79 (2009)CrossRef
9.
Bocciarelli, P., D’Ambrogio, A.: A model-driven method for describing and predicting the reliability of composite services. Softw. Syst. Model. 10, 265–280 (2011). doi:10.​1007/​s10270-010-0150-3
10.
Bradley, R.V., Pratt, R.M.E., Byrd, T.A., Simmons, L.: The role of enterprise architecture in the quest for it value. MIS Q. Exec. 10(2), 73–80 (2011)
11.
12.
13.
Buckl, S., Ernst, A., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.: An information model for landscape management-discussing temporality aspects. In: Proceedings of the Service-Oriented Computing-ICSOC 2008 Workshops pp. 363–374 (2009)
14.
Buckl, S., Franke, U., Holschke, O., Matthes, F., Schweda, C., Sommestad, T., Ullberg, J.: A pattern-based approach to quantitative enterprise architecture analysis. In: 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS). Association for, Information Systems (2009)
15.
Burton, B., Allega, P.: Hype Cycle for Enterprise Architecture, 2010. GARTNER, vol. G00201646 (2010)
16.
Buschle, M., Ullberg, J., Franke, U., Lagerström, R., Sommestad, T.: A tool for enterprise architecture analysis using the prm formalism. Information Systems Evolution. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 72, pp. 108–121 (2011)
17.
Buzen, J.: Computational algorithms for closed queueing networks with exponential servers. Commun. ACM 16(9), 527–531 (1973)CrossRefMathSciNetMATH
18.
19.
Chang, H.: Intelligent agent’s technology characteristics applied to online auctions’ task: A combined model of TTF and TAM. Technovation 28(9), 564–577 (2008)CrossRef
20.
21.
Cortellessa, V., Singh, H., Cukic, B.: Early reliability assessment of uml based software models. In: WOSP ’02: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Software and performance, pp. 302–309. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2002). doi:10.​1145/​584369.​584415
22.
23.
24.
De Boer, F., Bonsangue, M., Jacob, J., Stam, A., Van der Torre, L.: Enterprise architecture analysis with xml. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2005, HICSS’05, p. 222b. IEEE (2005)
25.
DeLone, W., McLean, E.: Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 60–95 (1992)
26.
DeLone, W., McLean, E.: The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19(4), 9–30 (2003)
27.
Demathieu, S., Thomas, F., André, C., Gérard, S., Terrier, F.: First experiments using the uml profile for marte. In: 11th IEEE International Symposium on Object Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC), 2008, pp. 50–57. IEEE (2008)
28.
Dishaw, M., Strong, D.: Supporting software maintenance with software engineering tools: A computed task-technology fit analysis. J. Syst. Softw. 44(2), 107–120 (1998)CrossRef
29.
Dishaw, M., Strong, D.: Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Inf. Manag. 36(1), 9–21 (1999)CrossRef
30.
DoD: Dod architecture framework version 2.0. United States Department of Defense (2009)
31.
Dunsire, K., O’Neill, T., Denford, M., Leaney, J.: The ABACUS architectural approach to computer-based system and enterprise evolution. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, p. 69. IEEE Computer Society (2005)
32.
Ernst, A.: Enterprise architecture management patterns. In: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, p. 7. ACM (2008)
33.
34.
Frank, U., Heise, D., Kattenstroth, H., Schauer, H.: Designing and utilising business indicator systems within enterprise models-outline of a method. Modellierung betrieblicher Informationssysteme (MobIS, 2008) : November, Saarbrücken. Germany, pp. 89–105 (2008)
35.
Franke, U., Flores, W.R., Johnson, P.: Enterprise architecture dependency analysis using fault trees and bayesian networks. 42nd Annual Simulation Symposium (ANSS) (2009)
36.
Franke, U., Johnson, P., Ericsson, E., Flores, W.R., Zhu, K.: Enterprise architecture analysis using fault trees and MODAF. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE Forum 2009, vol. 453, pp. 61–66 (2009). ISSN: 1613–0073
37.
Friedman, N., Getoor, L., Koller, D., Pfeffer, A.: Learning probabilistic relational models. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 16, pp. 1300–1309. Citeseer (1999)
38.
Gammelgård, M., Ekstedt, M., Närman, P.: A method for assessing the business value of information system scenarios with an estimated credibility of the result. Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manag. 13(1), 105–133 (2010)CrossRef
39.
Gilmore, S., Gönczy, L., Koch, N., Mayer, P., Tribastone, M., Varró, D.: Non-functional properties in the model-driven development of service-oriented systems. Softw. Syst. Model. 10, 287–311 (2011). doi:10.​1007/​s10270-010-0155-y
40.
Glazner, C.: Understanding enterprise behavior using hybrid simulation of enterprise architecture. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2009)
41.
Goodhue, D., Thompson, R.: Task-technology fit and individual performance. Mis Q. 19(2), 213–236 (1995)CrossRef
42.
Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8(5), 312–335 (2007)
43.
Harrison, P., Patel, N.: Performance Modelling of Communication Networks and Computer Architectures. International Computer Science. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1992)
44.
Henderson, J., Cooprider, J.: Dimensions of I/S planning and design aids: a functional model of CASE technology. Inf. Syst. Res. 1(3), 227 (1990)CrossRef
45.
Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. Mis Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)
46.
Hillier, F., Lieberman, G.: Introduction to Operations Research Eighth. McGraw-Hill, Singapore (2005)
47.
Holschke, O., Närman, P., Flores, W., Eriksson, E., Schönherr, M.: Using enterprise architecture models and bayesian belief networks for failure impact analysis. In: Service-Oriented Computing-ICSOC 2008 Workshops, pp. 339–350. Springer (2009)
48.
Høyland, A., Rausand, M.: System Reliability Theory: Models and Statistical Methods. Wiley, New York (1994)
49.
Iacob, M., Jonkers, H.: Quantitative analysis of enterprise architectures. Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications pp. 239–252 (2006)
50.
Iacob, M., Jonkers, H.: Quantitative analysis of service-oriented architectures. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 3(1), 42–60 (2007)CrossRef
51.
Iacob, M.E., Jonkers, H.: Analysis of enterprise architectures. Tech. Rep, Telematica Instituut (TI) (2004)
52.
IBM Global Services: Improving systems availability. Tech. Rep, IBM Global Services (1998)
53.
IEC technical committee 57: Iec 61968-1—application integration at electric utilities—system interfaces for distribution management—part 1: Interface architecture and general requirements (2003)
54.
ISO: Iso/iec 9126–2:2003 software engineering—product quality—part 2: External metrics (2003)
55.
56.
Jaeger, M.C., Rojec-Goldmann, G., Muhl, G.: Qos aggregation in web service compositions. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service, 2005. EEE’05, pp.181–185 (2005)
57.
Jain, R.: The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis : Techniques for Experimental Design, Measurement, Simulation, and Modeling. Wiley, New York (1991)MATH
58.
Johansson, E., Ekstedt, M., Johnson, P.: Assessment of enterprise information security: the importance of information search cost. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006. HICSS’06, pp. 219a–219a (2006)
59.
Johansson, K.: Driftsäkerhet och underhåll. Studentlitteratur, Lund (1997)
60.
Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M.: Enterprise Architecture: Models and Analyses for Information Systems Decision Making. Studentlitteratur, Lund (2007)
61.
Johnson, P., Lagerström, R., Närman, P., Simonsson, M.: Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams. Inf. Syst. Front. 9(2), 163–180 (2007)CrossRef
62.
Kans, M., Ingwald, A.: Analysing it functionality gaps for maintenance management. In: Engineering Asset Lifecycle Management. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress of Engineering Asset Management (WCEAM) 2009. The original pulication is available at http://​www.​springerlink.​com
63.
Kasunic, M.: Measuring systems interoperability: challenges and opportunities. Tech. Rep, DTIC Document (2001)
64.
Kazman, R., Bass, L., Webb, M., Abowd, G.: SAAM: A method for analyzing the properties of software architectures. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 81–90 (1994)
65.
Kazman, R., Klein, M., Barbacci, M., Longstaff, T., Lipson, H., Carriere, J.: The architecture tradeoff analysis method. In: Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, 1998. ICECCS’98, pp. 68–78 (2002)
66.
Klein, M., Kazman, R., Bass, L., Carriere, J., Barbacci, M., Lipson, H.: Attribute-based architecture styles. In: Software Architecture: TC2 First Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA1): 22–24 February 1999, San Antonio, Texas, USA, p. 225. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht (1999)
67.
Klopping, I., McKinney, E.: Extending the technology acceptance model and the task and the task-technology fit model to technology fit model to consumer E Consumer E-Commerce. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. J. 22(1), 35 (2004)
68.
Kurpjuweit, S., Winter, R.: Viewpoint-based meta model engineering. EMISA 2007, 143 (2007)
69.
Lagerström, R., Johnson, P., Höök, D.: Architecture analysis of enterprise systems modifiability-models, analysis, and validation. J. Syst. Softw. 83(8), 1387–1403 (2010)CrossRef
70.
Lam, S., Lien, Y.: A tree convolution algorithm for the solution of queueing networks. Commun. ACM 26(3), 215 (1983)CrossRef
71.
Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2009)CrossRef
72.
Lankhorst, M., Proper, H., Jonkers, H.: The Architecture of the ArchiMate Language. In: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling: 10th International Workshop, Bpmds 2009, and 14th International Conference, Emmsad 2009, Held at Caise 2009, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 8–9, 2009, Proceedings, p. 367. Springer (2009)
73.
Laprie, J., Kanoun, K.: X-ware reliability and availability modeling. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 18(2), 130–147 (2002)CrossRef
74.
Leangsuksun, C., Shen, L., Liu, T., Song, H., Scott, S.: Availability prediction and modeling of high mobility OSCAR cluster. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing, 2003, pp. 380–386. IEEE (2005)
75.
Ledoux, J.: Availability modeling of modular software. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 48(2), 159–168 (2002)CrossRef
76.
Lee, Y.W., Pipino, L.L., Funk, J.D., Wang, R.Y.: Journey to Data Quality. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)
77.
78.
79.
80.
de Miguel, M., Lambolais, T., Hannouz, M., Betgé-Brezetz, S., Piekarec, S.: UML extensions for the specification and evaluation of latency constraints in architectural models. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance, pp. 83–88. ACM (2000)
81.
Ministry of Defence: MODAF Handbook, technical specification for MODAF. Ministry of Defence (2005)
82.
Montgomery, D.: Design and Analysis of Experiments. Wiley, New York (1991)MATH
83.
84.
Närman, P., Buschle, M., König, J., Johnson, P.: Hybrid probabilistic relational models for system quality analysis. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference 2010, EDOC ’10: Vitoria, ES, Brazil. 14th International IEEE. IEEE (2010) (inpress)
85.
Närman, P., Holm, H., Ekstedt, M., Honeth, N.: An interview-based enterprise architecture analysis method for service response time predictions. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. (2011) (submitted)
86.
Närman, P., Holm, H., Höök, D., Honeth, N., Johnson, P.: Using enterprise architecture and technology adoption models to predict application usage. J. Syst. Softw. 85(8), 1953–1967 (2012)
87.
Närman, P., Holm, H., Johnson, P., König, J., Chenine, M., Ekstedt, M.: Data accuracy assessment using enterprise architecture. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 5(1), 37–58 (2011)CrossRef
88.
Närman, P., Johnson, P., Lagerström, R., Franke, U., Ekstedt, M.: Data collection prioritization for system quality analysis. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 233, 29–42 (2009)CrossRef
89.
NATO Consultation, Command and Control Board: Command and control board (nc3b):“Snato c3 system architecture framework. Tech. Rep., AC/322-WP/0125, Brussels (2007)
90.
Närman, P., Franke, U., König, J., Buschle, M., Ekstedt, M.: Enterprise architecture availability analysis using fault trees and stakeholder interviews. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 0(0), 1–25 (2012). doi:10.​1080/​17517575.​2011.​647092. Available online 31 Jan 2012
91.
Nunamaker, J., Chen, M., Purdin, T.: Systems development in information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 7(3), 89–106 (1990)
92.
Pagani, M.: Determinants of adoption of high speed data services in the business market: Evidence for a combined technology acceptance model with task technology fit model. Inf. Manag. 43(7), 847–860 (2006). doi:10.​1016/​j.​im.​2006.​08.​003
93.
Palmer, J.: Web site usability, design, and performance metrics. Inf. Syst. Res. 13(2), 151–167 (2003)CrossRef
94.
Patton, J.D.: Preventive maintenance. Instrument Society of America, New York (1983)
95.
96.
Petriu, D., Wang, X.: From UML descriptions of high-level software architectures to LQN performance models. In: Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1779/2000, pp. 217–221 (2000). doi:10.​1007/​3-540-45104-8_​4
97.
Raderius, J., Närman, P., Ekstedt, M.: Assessing system availability using an enterprise architecture analysis approach. In: Proceedings of 3rd Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2008), Sydney, Australia. Springer (2009)
98.
Redman, T.C.: Data Quality for the Information Age. Artech House, Boston (1996)
99.
100.
101.
Reussner, R., Schmidt, H., Poernomo, I.: Reliability prediction for component-based software architectures. J. Syst. Softw. 66(3), 241–252 (2003)CrossRef
102.
Riempp, G., Gieffers-Ankel, S.: Application portfolio management: a decision-oriented view of enterprise architecture. Inf. Syst. E Bus. Manag. 5(4), 359–378 (2007)CrossRef
103.
Rodrigues, G., Rosenblum, D., Uchitel, S.: Using scenarios to predict the reliability of concurrent component-based software systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3442, pp. 111–126 (2005). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-540-31984-9_​9
104.
Ross, J., Beath, C.: Sustainable it outsourcing success: Let enterprise architecture be your guide. MIS Q. Exec. 5(4), 8–92 (2006)
105.
Ross, J., Weill, P., Robertson, D.: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business Press, Boston (2006)
106.
Sasa, A., Krisper, M.: Enterprise architecture patterns for business process support analysis. J. Syst. Softw. 84(9): 1480–1506 (2011)
107.
Scott, D.: How to Assess Your IT Service Availability Levels (2009)
108.
Simon, D., Fischbach, K., Schoder, D.: Application portfolio management-an integrated framework and a software tool evaluation approach. Comm. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 26(1), 3 (2010)
109.
Smit, K., Slaterus, W.: Information Model for Maintenance Management (IMMM). Cap Gemini Publishing, Rijswijk (1922)
110.
Smith, C., Williams, L.: Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002)
111.
Sommestad, T., Ekstedt, M., Johnson, P.: A probabilistic relational model for security risk analysis. Comput. Secur (2010)
112.
113.
International Organization for Standardization.: Iso/iec 42010:2007—systems and software engineering—recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems. JTC 1/SC 7—Softw. Syst. Eng. (2007)
114.
The Open Group: Archimate 1.0 specification. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel (2009)
115.
The Open Group: Togaf version 9 “enterprise edition” (2009)
116.
Ullberg, J., Franke, U., Buschle, M., Johnson, P.: A tool for interoperability analysis of enterprise architecture models using pi-OCL. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Interoperability for Enterprise Software and Applications (I-ESA) (2010)
117.
Ullberg, J., Lagerström, R., Johnson, P.: A framework for service interoperability analysis using enterprise architecture models. In: IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (2008)
118.
Van Bon, J.: Foundations of IT Service Management based on ITIL. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel (2007)
119.
Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., Venkatraman, S., Bates, J.: Enterprise architecture maturity: The story of the veterans health administration. MIS Q. Exec. 6(2), 79–90 (2007)
120.
121.
Venkatraman, N.: The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(3), 423–444 (1989)
122.
123.
Walls, J., Widmeyer, G., El Sawy, O.: Building an information system design theory for vigilant eis. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 36–59 (1992)CrossRef
124.
Wang, R., Ziad, M., Lee, Y.: Data Quality. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht (2001)MATH
125.
Wang, R.Y.: Information Quality. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk (2005)
126.
Wang, W., Wu, Y., Chen, M.: An architecture-based software reliability model. In: Dependable Computing, 1999. Proceedings. 1999 Pacific Rim International Symposium on, pp. 143–150. IEEE (2002)
127.
128.
Weill, P., Vitale, M.: Assessing the health of an information systems applications portfolio: An example from process manufacturing. MIS Q. 23(4), 601–624 (1999)CrossRef
129.
Woodhouse, J.: Putting the total jigsaw puzzle together: PAS 55 standard for the integrated, optimized management of assets. In: International Maintenance Conference (2006)
130.
131.
Zachman, J.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 38(2/3), 454–470 (1999)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
An enterprise architecture framework for multi-attribute information systems analysis
verfasst von
Per Närman
Markus Buschle
Mathias Ekstedt
Publikationsdatum
01.07.2014
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 3/2014
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0288-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2014

Software and Systems Modeling 3/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Theme Section Paper

Strategic business modeling: representation and reasoning

Theme Section Paper

Assessing event correlation in non-process-aware information systems

Regular Paper

Does aspect-oriented modeling help improve the readability of UML state machines?

Regular Paper

Numeric semantics of class diagrams with multiplicity and uniqueness constraints

Theme Section Paper

Extending enterprise architecture modeling languages for domain specificity and collaboration: application to telecommunication service design

Theme Section Paper

Literature review of reuse in business process modeling