Causal Modelling in Enterprise Architecture Frameworks

Gudas, Saulius

doi:10.15388/21-INFOR446

Informatica

Causal Modelling in Enterprise Architecture Frameworks

Volume 32, Issue 2 (2021), pp. 247–281

Saulius Gudas

https://doi.org/10.15388/21-INFOR446

Pub. online: 2 April 2021 Type: Research Article

Open Access

Received
1 May 2020

Accepted
1 March 2021

Published
2 April 2021

Abstract

The paper deals with the causality perspective of the Enterprise Architecture (EA) frameworks. The analysis showed that there is a gap between the capabilities of EA frameworks and the behavioural characteristics of the real world domain (enterprise management activities). The contribution of research is bridging the gap between enterprise domain knowledge and EA framework content by the integration of meta-models as part of EA structures. Meta-models that cover not only simple process flows, but also business behaviour, i.e. causality of the domain, have been developed. Meta-models enable to create a layer of knowledge in the EA framework, which ensures smart EA development, allows validation of developer decisions. Two levels of the enterprise causal modelling were obtained. The first level uses the Management Transaction (MT) framework. At the second level, deep knowledge was revealed using a framework called the Elementary Management Cycle (EMC). These two causal frameworks were applied here to justify the causal meta-models of the EA. The new concepts Collapsed Capability, Capability Type and Capability Role which meaningfully complement MODAF with causal knowledge are introduced. Strategic Viewpoint (StV) modelling using causal meta-models is described in detail and illustrated in the case study. The example provided shows a principled way that causal knowledge supports the verification and validation of EA solutions. The presented method provides an opportunity to move the EA development to smart platforms.

References

Anton, A. (1996). Goal-based requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE’96), 15–16 April 1996, Colorado Springs, CO, USA, pp. 136–144.

ArchiMate (2017). Open Group Standard. ArchiMate 3.0.1.Specification, 2012–2017. https://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate3-doc/.

Bernus, P., Noran, O. (2010). A metamodel for enterprise architecture. In: Bernus, P., Doumeingts, G., Fox, M. (Eds.), Enterprise Architecture, Integration and Interoperability. EAI2N 2010, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 326. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15509-3_6.

Bunge, M. (2011). Causality and Modern Science, third revised ed. Courier Corporation, DOVER Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY

Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S. (1993). Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming, 20(1/2), 3–50.

Deming, W.E. (1993). The New Economics for Industry, Government and Education. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge.

DoD (2007). DoD Architecture Framework Version 1.5. Volume II: Product Descriptions. 23 April 2007.

Dietz, J.L.G. (2006). The deep structure of business processes. Communications of the ACM, 49(5), 58–64.

Emery, D., Hilliard, R. (2009). Every architecture description needs a framework: expressing architecture frameworks using ISO/IEC 42010. In: Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, 2009 & European Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/WICSA.2009.5290789.

Gelžinienė, J., Gudas, S. (2015). Compatibility study of enterprise information systems modeling tools. In: Information Technologies 2015. XX Interuniversity Conference of Master’s and Doctoral Students. Vilnius University 2015. Conference Proceedings, pp. 93–97. ISSN 2029-249X.

Glymour, C. (2004). Critical notice. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 779–790.

Grefen, P.W.P.J. (2002). Transactional workflows or workflow transactions? In: DEXA 2002, LNCS, Vol. 2453. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 60–69.

Grundspenkis, J. (1998). Causal domain model driven knowledge acquisition for expert diagnosis system development. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 9(6), 547–558.

Gudas, S. (2012). Foundations of the Information Systems’ Engineering Theory. Vilnius University, Vilnius (monograph, in Lithuanian).

Gudas, S. (2016). Information systems engineering and knowledge-based enterprise modelling: towards foundations of theory. In: Kavoura, A., Sakas, D.P., Tomaras, P. (Eds.), Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, Strategic Innovative Marketing. Springer, pp. 481–497.

Gudas, S., Lopata, A. (2016). Towards internal modeling of the information systems application domain. Informatica, 27(1), 1–29.

Gudas, S., Valatavičius, A. (2017). Normalization of domain modeling in enterprise software development. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 5(4), 329–350.

Gudas, S., Valatavičius, A. (2020). Extending model-driven development process with causal modeling approach. In: Dzemyda, G., Bernatavičienė, J., Kacprzyk, J. (Eds.), Data Science: New Issues, Challenges and Applications, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 869. Springer, Cham, pp. 111–143.

Halpern, J.Y. (2015). A modification of the Halpern-Pearl definition of causality. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), pp. 3022–3033.

Hause, M., Bleakley, G., Morkevicius, A. (2016). Technology update on the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF). INCOSE International Symposium, 26(1), 1145–1160.

Injun, C., Chulsoon, P., Changwoo, L. (2002). A transactional workflow model for engineering/manufacturing processes. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 15(2), 178–192.

Kephart, J.O., Chess, D.M. (2003). The vision of autonomic computing. Computer, 36(1), 41–50.

Kosanke, K. (1997). Comparison of Enterprise Modelling Methodologies. In: Goossenaerts, J., Kimura, F., Wortmann, H. (Eds.). Information Infrastructure Systems for Manufacturing. DIISM 1996. IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35063-9_11. Retrieved 21 October 2020.

Lagerström, R., Saat, J., Franke, U., Aier, S., Ekstedt, M. (2009). Enterprise meta modeling methods – combining a stakeholder-oriented and a causality-based approach. In: Halpin, T. et al. (Eds.), Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS 2009, EMMSAD 2009, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 29. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_31.

Medina-Mora, R., Wong, H., Flores, P. (1992). The action workflow approach to workflow management. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 281–288.

Matthew, H., Graham, B., Van Zandt Lonie (2013). Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP) Draft Table. OMG, UPDMGroup 2013.

Matthew, H., Bleakley, G., Morkevicius, A. (2016). Technology update on the Unified Architecture Framework (UAF). INCOSE International Symposium, 26, 1145–1160.

MODAF Strategic Viewpoint (2019). UPDM 2 Plugin 19.0 LTR documentation. https://docs.nomagic.com/display/UPDM2P190/MODAF+Strategic+Viewpoint. Retrieved 21 October 2020.

MODAF (2013). MODAF M3 version 1.2.004 2013-01-15. 152 pp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MODAF. Retrieved 21 October 2020.

Morkevičius, A., Gudas, S. (2011). Enterprise knowledge-based software requirements elicitation. Information Technology and Control, 40(3), 181–190.

Morkevicius A., Bisikirskiene, L., Bleakley, G. (2017). Using a system of a systems modeling approach for developing Industrial Internet of Things applications. In: 2017 12th System of Systems Engineering Conference (SoSE), pp. 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2017.7994942.

Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Nixon, B.A. (1992). Representing and using non-functional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18(6), 483–497.

Pearl, J. (2000). Causality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pearl, J. (2009). Causal inference in statistics: an overview. Statistics Surveys, 3, 96–146. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-SS057.

Persse, J. (2012). The ITIL Process Manual – Key Processes and Their Application. Van Haren Publishing.

Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. The Free Press, New York.

Risk management – principles and guidelines (2009). ISO:31000:2009.

OCEG (2009). GRC Capability model, “Red Book” 2.0. http://www.oceg.org.

Rummler, G.A., Ramias, A., Rummler, R.A. (2010). White Space Revisited: Creating Value Through Process. Wiley, San Francisco.

Rusinkiewicz, M., Sheth, A. (1994). Specification and execution of transactional workflows. In: Beyond, Kim, W. (Eds.), Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability. ACM Press.

Schurz, G., Gebharter, A. (2016). Causality as a theoretical concept: explanatory warrant and empirical content of the theory of causal nets. Synthese, 193(4), 1073–1103.

Schekkerman, J. (2004). Enterprise Architecture Validation-Achieving Business-Aligned and Validated Enterprise Architectures. Institute for Enterprise Architecture Developments. http://www.enterprisearchitecture.info_27.

Sienou, A., Lamine, E., Karduck, A.P., Pingaud, H. (2008). Towards a semi-formal modeling language supporting collaboration between risk and Process Manager. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies, Phitsanulok, Thailand, pp. 119–125.

Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, Prediction, and Search. The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-19440-6. 543 pp.

TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 (2018). https://publications.opengroup.org/standards/togaf/specifications/c182. Retrieved 16 August 2020.

Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) Domain Metamodel (2020). OMG Document Number: formal/19-11-05. Release Date: April 2020 Standard document URL: https://www.omg.org/spec/UAF/1.1. https://www.omg.org/spec/UAF/1.1/DMM/PDF.

UPDM (2017). Information technology – Object Management Group Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM), 2.1.1. ISO/IEC 19513:2017(E). https://www.omg.org/updm/index.htm. Retrieved 21 October 2020.

Von Foerster, H., Mead, M., Teuber, H.L. (1953). Cybernetics: Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanisms in Biological and Social Systems. Josiah Macy Jr Foundation, New York, NY.

Zack, M.H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3), 125–145.

Biographies

Gudas Saulius

saulius.gudas@mif.vu.lt

S. Gudas is a professor at Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics of Vilnius University, and the head of Cyber-social Systems Engineering Group at the Institute of Data Science and Digital Technologies, Vilnius University. From 2005 to 2012 he was a professor at the Department of Information Systems of Kaunas University of Technology. From 2008 to 2013 he was the dean of Kaunas Faculty of Humanities of Vilnius University. His current research focuses on the causal knowledge-based software engineering. His contribution is the monograph “Foundations of the Information Systems Engineering Theory” (2012). The causal model of the enterprise domain defines the hierarchy of management transactions in the abstract space (aggregation, generalization, time), includes a systematic classification of hierarchical interactions of processes (a taxonomy of coordination). Based on causal knowledge a normalized software development life cycle is defined. In addition to the monograph, his scientific and methodological publications include 4 chapters in online books, over 180 scientific publications, 2 textbooks and 10 methodological guides for students.

Full article Related articles Cited by

Open access article under the CC BY license.

Keywords

Enterprise Architecture framework causality causal modelling Management Transaction capability MODAF causal meta-model

Metrics

since January 2020

1518

Article info
views

873

Full article
views

651

PDF
downloads

237

XML
downloads

RSS

Authors

Abstract

References

Biographies

Export citation

Copy and paste formatted citation

Download citation in file