2013 IEEE International Conference on Business Informatics
Non-diagrammatic method and multi-representation tool for integrated
enterprise architecture and business process engineering
Lev Grigoriev
Dmitry Kudryavtsev
Business Engineering Group
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
griglev@gmail.com
Saint-Petersburg State Polytechnic University
Business Engineering Group
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
dmitry.ku@gmail.com
many situations in management [4, 5]. Diagrams work well
for enterprise architecture views, which express the EA
from the perspective of specific concerns and stakeholders
(in terms of [6]). They are also an essential result of any
EAM initiative and are provided to different stakeholders.
Unfortunately diagrams are not so good when there is
a need to develop and maintain a holistic and consistent
enterprise architecture model, which integrates a system of
partial views, especially under the following conditions:
evolving large-scale models, different and overlapping
diagram types, many diagram instances. Chief
architects/modelers, who support a whole system of
diagrams, may benefit from matrix-based representation.
There are two papers [7, 8] that compared the representation
power of matrix and node-link diagrams. Ghoniem et al. [7]
showed that matrices outperform node-link diagrams for
large or dense graphs in several low-level reading tasks,
except path finding. This difference is supported by user
study experiments conducted by Keller et al., as they found
that node-link diagrams offer better visual representation for
small, uncomplicated entities, but they are a complex form
of representation for large systems and propagation across
systems [8]. Besides, two such researchers, Bidgood and
Jelley [9], gave compelling evidence that a matrix editor is
needed to combine processes with information architecture.
In their case study, they used a spreadsheet application as a
makeshift matrix editor, putting business processes on one
axis and business data on the other, and entering in the
relevant cells values indicating whether the process created,
read or updated the data.
The paper presents multi-representation technology,
called ORG-Master, which was initially designed for
business architecture engineering and seamlessly integrates
complex business process models into enterprise
architecture. Since classifications and matrices are the basis
of this technology, the next chapter provides an overview of
matrix-based methods. Chapter III explains the overall
ORM-Master modeling approach. Chapter IV describes
metamodeling language of the suggested tool. Chapter V
describes the tool, its matrix editing functionality and general
architecture (incl. integration with diagrammatic modeling).
The role of matrices for business process integration into EA
is described in chapter VI.
Abstract — Nowadays enterprise architecting and business
process engineering are almost synonymous to diagramming.
Diagrams have many benefits and are sufficient for many
situations. But as the number of diagrams and their types
grows, they overlap and evolve, then it becomes hard to
maintain a collection of interrelated diagrams, even with the
help of a common repository. Besides the very nature of
enterprise architecting requires a lot of matrices (goalsprocesses, capabilities-processes, processes - applications…).
The paper presents the multi-representation approach for
enterprise architecture model development and maintenance.
Classifications and matrices are the basis of this approach and
support knowledge structuring and integration. The ORGMaster tool joins classifications and matrices with traditional
diagram-based technologies. The paper pays special attention
to the role of classifications and matrices in integrating
business processes into enterprise architecture
Keywords- enterprise architecture tool, business process
engineering, enterprise modeling tool, matrices, diagrams,
matrix method, multi-representation technology
I.
INTRODUCTION
Enterprise architecting and business process
engineering are proven approaches for systemic and
sustainable organizational development. They are supported
by corresponding tools [1, 2, 3]. These tools document
business processes, enterprise strategies, business
capabilities,
organizational
structures,
information
technologies and especially their interaction and
dependencies. Enterprise architecture management (EAM)
and business process analysis (BPA) tools not only capture
relevant information, but also process this information, e.g.
using reports, visualizations or applying analytical methods.
The model development interface is the most obvious part
of an EAM/BPA tool. It is the interface used to design,
build, maintain and often manipulate the models that make
up the architecture.
Generally, models are built and maintained graphically
using node-link diagrams (a type of representation scheme,
that depicts elements or parameters of interest as nodes,
with arrows to indicate the connections). The tool’s model
development interface may also use textual interfaces to
allow additional information to be appended to the graphical
models. Diagrams have many benefits and are sufficient for
258
2013 IEEE International Conference on Business Informatics
II.
RELATED WORK
B. Matrix and table representations in modern EAM tools
and metamodeling platforms
Matrices are also actively used in business process
engineering and enterprise architecture management. For
example see the CRUD-matrix (Create, Read, Update, and
Delete), which links behavioral elements with information,
or TOGAF-recommended matrices: Actor/Role Matrix,
Application/Data Matrix, Application/Function Matrix etc.
Matrix representation is supported in the majority of
EAM tools:
•
Matrix Editor in ARIS Design Platform [15],
•
Matrix Editor in IBM System Architect [16],
•
Matrix Manager in Casewise Modeler [17].
Metamodeling platforms also support matrix and tabular
methods:
•
Matrix View and Tabular View in the ADOxx®
Metamodelling Platform [18],
•
Matrix and Table Editors in MetaEdit+ Modeler
[19].
The main disadvantage of these matrix tools is that they
do not support grouping on the axis / hierarchical axis. These
tools display only names of the objects – instances of two
user-selected types in the repository. This is a crucial
limitation, since it doesn’t allow working with large amount
of data; long lists cannot be processes by human brain. It is
especially harmful because matrices and spreadsheets are
often used to deal with long lists and Excel is one of the
main tools in many offices.
A. History of matrix methods
Kelly [10] provided a good overview of matrix methods.
The following chapter exposes Kelly’s main results:
Within the field of information systems development,
the use of the term 'matrix' is somewhat different from that
used in mathematics. Both share the concept of a grid of
values, whose location can be specified by their coordinates, an enumeration along the horizontal and vertical
axes. In ISD, this is then extended by using objects, rather
than whole numbers, as each item on an axis. These objects
possess properties, and there may be some hierarchical
structure above the objects. Each element of the matrix can
be any (result of a function on some) item(s) present in the
model, and is determined by a function involving the items
that exist on the axes for its row and column.
Many early software design methods had or have
evolved matrix representations. These largely fell into
disuse, the graphical approach being preferred and
fashionable at that time. The development of graphical user
interfaces further favored the use of the diagrams in CASE
tools, and hence they mainly supported the graphical side of
these methods. The matrix side is still, however, as useful as
it was originally. Technology has now advanced, especially
in the area of databases, and can support a single conceptual
graph represented as both a diagram and a matrix, so the
user can benefit from the matrix representation in just those
areas where it is an easier paradigm than graphical
diagrams.
Further, in different fields various methods have been
developed that rely heavily on matrices: IBM's Business
Systems Planning (BSP) [11] for strategic information
system planning; Quality Function Deployment (QFD) [12]
for product design and total quality management; Design
structure matrix (DSM) [13] for system decomposition and
integration problems in systems engineering of products,
processes, and organizations.
Support for these methods is typically limited to
proprietary, fixed-method tools, often produced by the
organisation that developed the method. This approach
reduces the flexibility of the program and the ability of the
user to do things his way to best suit the current
contingency.
The uses of matrices in methodologies can be divided
into three classes: those methods that use matrices as an
integral part, such as IBM's Business Systems Planning
[11], those that mainly use diagrams but where the use of
matrices as an alternate representation is recognized, such as
Two-Entity Data Flow Diagrams [14], and methods for
which there is no explicit use of matrices, but for which
applications of matrices can profitably be found.
Kelly [10] looks at these methods in more detail.
III.
ORG-MASTER MULTI-REPRESENTATION MODELING
APPROACH
The ORG-Master modeling approach has originally been
conceived in the course of the development of the business
engineering toolkit in 1998 [20]. Fig. 1 represents the
suggested modeling technology.
Non-diagrammatic method and tool are at the center of
this technology. The modeling process starts from
knowledge acquisition. Enterprise modelers collect
Fig. 1: ORG-Master modeling approach
259
2013 IEEE International Conference on Business Informatics
information about an enterprise from various sources
(people's memory, documents etc.), then organize it using
diagrams, classifications and matrices. Diagrams can be
created in ORG-Master graphical editors, which are based on
Microsoft Visio. These artifacts can be discussed and agreed
upon with managers (managers can also make models by
themselves). This step is standard. Then ORG-Master
integrates all the acquired knowledge using classifications
(hierarchical lists) and matrices – so called “internal”
representation. These integration and complex structuring is
typically done by highly qualified modelers; however the
resultant integrated model is inappropriate for final users and
enterprise stakeholders, so ORG-Master provides capabilities
to specify and generate partial views from this model
(diagrams, text and table reports), which will suit various
concerns of various stakeholders.
IV.
Fig. 2. Metamodeling language description
are “perform”, “help achieve”, etc. The major part of
matrices links 2 classifiers, but n-ary matrices are also
supported. Inference matrix, allows to infer implicit
knowledge via the transitive property of relationships in
several matrices,
Types descriptions - specify the object types (classes),
relationships and reusable attributes of metamodel, together
with their taxonomies.
Fig. 3 represents an example of classification: objects
(positions) are listed in the window on the left, and
pictograms define their types. The window on the right
exhibits the taxonomy of types, which can be assigned to
the objects in the current classification (see lower right
property window).
Fig. 4 represents an example of matrix, which is
visualized in the form of two lists. This matrix shows
relationships between classification (hierarchical list) of
CLASSIFICATIONS AND MATRICES: THE ORGMASTER METAMODELING LANGUAGE
Enterprise models are created using modeling languages,
which are reflected in a metamodel. The creation of a
metamodel is also done by using a modeling language. This
modeling language is called the metamodeling language and
it indirectly defines the way of modeling [21]. The basic
building blocks of ORG-Master metamodeling language
(Fig. 2) are:
Classification/hierarchical list - the representation
format for entities, hierarchical relationships between them
and values for the properties of entities. Hierarchy is the
main feature of classifications, and the main relationship
types are “part-of”, “subclass of”, “be subordinated to” etc.
Matrix - the representation format for relationships
between entities from classifiers. Example relationship types
Fig. 3. Classification for storing and structuring objects (e.g. Functional systems)
260
2013 IEEE International Conference on Business Informatics
Fig. 4. Matrix allows to distribute Functional Processes between Functional systems
“Functional systems” and “Functional processes”, e.g. the
selected position -“Administration and improvement of
marketing system” consists of “Process architecture
engineering...”, “Functional processes engineering” and
other functional processes.
V.
reports), which is a hybrid multi-representation technology.
The main module - enterprise model editor applies
classifications and matrices to knowledge acquisition (e.g.
via collaboration with managers), structuring and
integration. It produces large-scale enterprise models (e.g.
some example classifications in real-life models include
10000-20000 elements; corresponding matrices have even
more relationships). Reporting and query modules enable
specification of structure and format of “external” text and
table documents, then generate these documents. This
module also includes capabilities for diagram generation
based on model transformation (similar to [22]). These
capabilities support predefined notations and depend heavily
on the metamodel – whether it is for commercial
organization, or for public administration, etc. Graphical
reporting includes automatic layout, but some complex
diagrams require additional manual improvements. The
recent project with Moscow city administration [23]
includes 7 types of diagrams (mostly node-link); several
types of diagrams have about 1000 instances. Besides,
ORG-Master includes a MS Visio-based diagram editor,
which helps to acquire knowledge using diagrams,
transform it into classification/matrix form and back (works
with the common base) and enables to create complex
diagrams for final users based on the information from the
integrated model.
THE ORG-MASTER MULTI-REPRESENTATION TOOL
The ORG-Master tool for business architecture engineering
provides strong matrix-editing capabilities. ORG-Master
includes the following modules: enterprise model editor,
reporting and query module, diagram editor and meta-editor
(Fig. 5).
Classifications/matrices editing capabilities in the system
work together with diagramming (graphical editor, graphical
Fig. 5. The ORG-Master tool architecture
261
2013 IEEE International Conference on Business Informatics
Metamodel development and customization can be done
using meta-editor – you can define object types (classes),
relationship types and reusable attributes, then assign them
to classifications and matrices. This module is being
improved now in order to integrate principles of ontology
engineering [24, 25] and Domain-Specific Modeling [26,
27]. The current version of meta-editor partially supports
import from and export to Web Ontology Language (OWL).
Although metamodel is fully customizable, ORG-Master
methodology implies standard metamodels for certain types
of
organizations
(commercial
company,
public
administration, city). The next chapter exposes a fragment
of commercial company metamodel for illustrative purpose,
but a holistic description of metamodels is out of the scope
of the current paper.
In order to distribute enterprise modeling artifacts portal
can be used, which provides integrated hypertext and
stakeholder-oriented representation of the enterprise model.
The portal is an addition to modeling tool.
The enterprise model editor, which supports
classifications and matrices, provides the following
functionalities in editing mode: group together related
entities in classifications; show/collapse subelements; sort
elements in classifications; 2 modes for matrix visual
representation (“matrix as two lists”, “matrix as a grid”),
show relationships for the selected element in a matrix
(“matrix as two lists” mode), support for directions of
relationships, assign attributes to objects in classifications
and to relationships in matrices, highlights, work with
groups of elements, etc. This functionality provides
analytical capabilities at the modeler's fingertips, for
example, to see objects without any relationship. Horizontal
layout of classifications in a matrix (“matrix as two lists”)
enables showing the hierarchical axis and long “real life”
names of elements. The original, “matrix as a grid”, can
provide an adhoc overview of existing relationships. The
main differentiating feature of the suggested technology
from the other EAM matrix tools consists of the
combination of hierarchical lists with matrixes.
Fig. 6. Enterprise model as a system of classifications and matrixes
Enterprise functional decomposition [28] is modeled
using a chain of classifications and matrices. Functional
processes are structured in the corresponding classification
and compose functional systems through the matrix
(see Fig. 4). Functional systems, in turn, are building blocks
for corporate and business systems. For example, some of
the functional systems compose end-to-end value-creating
processes, which are the main components of business
system. Matrixes foster reuse in functional decomposition,
e. g. one functional process can be reused in several
functional systems (see Fig. 4); one functional system can
be reused in several end-to-end processes, etc. Besides
various classification principles can be used for various
activity elements, when we use several classifications.
Process goals and requirements can be linked to higherlevel goals and prioritized using QFD-like techniques
(Quality Function Deployment) [29; 30]. See “Strategy
deployment” area in Fig. 6. Classifications include goal
decomposition through aggregation relationship, while
matrices represent means-end relationships. Activity
elements are linked to goals through matrices.
Matrices are also used to set responsibilities for the
activity elements (see matrices with “Roles structure”
in Fig. 6). The RACI approach can be used here.
Information- and control-flow relationships can also be
stored and analysed (e.g. [31], which is not currently
supported by the ORG-Master) using non-diagrammatic
representation - see matrices with “Results” and
“Documents” in Fig. 6 (but such information is acquired and
distributed using standard node-link diagrams – IDEF0,
EPC, etc.).
The suggested method and tool have many large-scale
industrial implementations within business engineering
projects and public administration, which are described in
[20, 23].
VI. ROLE OF CLASSIFICATIONS AND MATRICES IN
INTEGRATING BUSINESS PROCESSES INTO ENTERPRISE
ARCHITECTURE
The ORG-Master methodology uses classifications and
matrices to integrate processes into overall architecture. Fig.
6 represents a fragment of enterprise model, which exposes
process integration into business architecture (links with IT
architecture are omitted in the example).
262
2013 IEEE International Conference on Business Informatics
VII. CONCLUSION
[9]
Diagramming is a predominant approach in business
process engineering and enterprise architecting today.
Although diagrams are very effective for knowledge
acquisition and communication, matrix-based methods
outperform them in some situations. Integration of largescale enterprise models and support for matrix methods
(QFD, design structure matrix, etc.) are the examples. The
paper described method and tool (ORG-Master technology
in total), which unite matrix-based representations with
diagramming. ORG-Master uses classifications and matrices
for “internal” knowledge representation (for professional
modelers) and diagrams for “external” representation (for
communication with various stakeholders).
Advantages of the suggested matrix editing
technology: provides big picture (context) and details
simultaneously; combine model development with model
exploration and analysis (e.g. gap analysis: highlighted
elements without links in a matrix); compactness; large
amount of information can be clearly arranged and
manipulated at once. This allows the user to make a better
decomposition of the problem area into subsystems.
Application of the matrix-based technology was
demonstrated for business processes integration into
business architecture.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank their colleagues –
Valentina Kislova, Tatiana Ouerdani, Alexey Zablotskiy,
Evgenya Markelova and others – for an enormous
contribution to the development of the ORG-Master
technology. Special thanks to Dmitry Koznov from SPbSU
for the useful feedback about the method and tool.
[21]
[22]
[23]
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
R. Scott Bittler, “Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture Tools”,
ID G00234030, Gartner Inc., 31 Oct. 2012, 28 p.
S. Buckl, Ch. M. Schweda, “On the State-of-the-Art in Enterprise
Architecture Management Literature,” June 1, 2011, 136 p.
D. Norton, “Magic Quadrant for Business Process AnalysisTools,” ID
G00219247,Gartner,Inc.,12 December 2011,22 p.
R., Lengler, M. Eppler “Towards a Periodic Table of Visualization
Methods for Management,” Proc. of the Conference on Graphics and
Visualization in Engineering, 2007, pp. 1-6.
T. Gavrilova, D. Kudryavtsev, “Diagrammatic knowledge modeling
for managers – ontology-based approach,” // Proc. International
Conference on Knowledge engineering and Ontology Development,
26-29 October, 2011, Paris, France. pp. 386-389.
ISO/IEC 42010: 2011-Systems and software engineering–
Recommended practice for architectural description of softwareintensive systems. Technical report, ISO, 2011.
M.Ghoniem, J. Fekete, P. Castagliola, “On the readability of graphs
using node-link and matrixbased representations: a controlled
experiment and statistical analysis,” Information Visualization, 4, no
2, 2005, pp. 114–135.
R. Keller, C. M. Eckert, P. J. Clarkson, “Matrices or node-link
diagrams: which visual representation is better for visualising
connectivity models?”, Information Visualization, 5, 2006, pp. 62–76.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
263
T. Bidgood, B. Jelley, “Modelling Corporate Information Needs:
fresh approaches to the information architecture,” Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, vol. 1, No 1, Dec. 1991, pp. 38–42.
S.Kelly, “A matrix editor for a metaCASE environment”. Repr.from:
Information and Software Technology,Vol.36, Is. 6, June 1994, pp,
361–371.
IBM Corporation Business Systems Planning — Information Systems
Planning Guide, Publication #GE20-0527-4, 1975.
Y. Akao, “Quality function deployment: integrating customer
requirements into product design,” Productivity Press, 2004.
S. D. Eppinger, T. R. Browning, “Design structure matrix methods
and applications.” MIT Press, 2012.
D. V. Steward, “Software Engineering with Systems Analysis and
Design,” Brooks/Cole, 1987.
R.Davis, “ARIS Design Platform Advanced Process Modelling and
Administration,” London: Springer-Verlag London Limited, 2008,
XVIII, 408 p.
IBM Rational® System Architect v. 11.4, Information center, viewed
15
March
2013, http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/rsysarch/v11/topic/co
m.ibm.sa.help.doc/topics/c_Matrix_Editor.html
Casewise
Modeler,
viewed
15
March
2013, http://www.casewise.com/products/modeler
H. Kühn, "The ADOxx® Metamodelling Platform." In Workshop on
Methods as Plug-Ins for Meta-Modelling, Klagenfurt, Austria. 2010.
MetaCase,
Matrix
Editor,
viewed
15
March,
2013, http://www.metacase.com/mep/matrix_editor.html
L. Grigoriev, D. Kudryavtsev. “The ontology-based business
architecture engineering framework,” Proc. 10th International
Conference on Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools and
Techniques (SOMET), September 28-30, 2011, Saint-Petersburg,
Russia. 2011. pp. 233-252.
D. Karagiannis, H. Kühn, Metamodelling Platforms. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (2002), Springer-Verlag, p. 182.
S. Buckl, A. M.Ernst, J. Lankes, C. M.Schweda, A. Wittenburg,
"Generating visualizations of enterprise architectures using model
transformations." EMISA 2007, 2007, pp. 33-46.
A. Kostyrko, D. Kudryavtsev, L. Grigoriev, V. Kislova, A. Zhulin, L.
Sinyatullina, R. Ermakov “Regional enterprise architecture (EA)
modeling for systemic development of city's ICT,” Proc The 3rd
Russian Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Semantic Web
October 7-9, 2012. Saint-Petersburg, Russia (in Russian).
S. Staab, R. Studer, eds. “Handbook on ontologies,” Springer, 2009.
T. Gavrilova “Ontological engineering for practical knowledge
work,” In Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering
Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4693, 2007, pp
1154-1161.
R. France, B. Rumpe. "Domain specific modeling." Software and
Systems Modeling, vol. 4, no. 1, 2005, pp. 1-3.
D. Koznov, "Process Model of DSM Solution Development and
Evolution for Small and Medium-Sized Software Companies." In
Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops
(EDOCW), 2011 15th IEEE International, pp. 85-92. IEEE, 2011.
D. Kudryavtsev, L. Grigoriev, ”Systemic Approach Towards
Enterprise Functional Decomposition,” Proc. IEEE 13th Conference
on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC), 2011, pp. 310-317.
Y. Akao (ed.) “Hoshin Kanri, Policy Deployment for Successful
TQM,” Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press, Inc., 1991.
M. Clargo, “The designer organisation: Organisations too can benefit
from the application of design and quality tools, and with startling
results!” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
21(9), 2004, pp. 973-983.
T. R. Browning, "Process integration using the design structure
matrix." Systems Engineering, vol. 5, no. 3, 2002, pp. 180-193.