Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Fayoumi, Amjad; Loucopoulos, Pericles (2016)
Publisher: Pergamon Press
Types: Article
A key requirement to today’s fast changing economic environment is the ability of organizations to adapt dynamically in an effective and efficient manner. Information and Communication Technologies play a crucially important role in addressing such adaptation requirements. The notion of ‘intelligent software’ has emerged as a means by which enterprises can respond to changes in a reactive manner but also to explore, in a pro-active manner, possibilities for new business models. The development of such software systems demands analysis, design and implementation paradigms that recognize the need for ‘co-development’ of these systems with enterprise goals, processes and capabilities. The work pre- sented in this paper is motivated by this need and to this end it proposes a paradigm that recognizes co-development as a knowledge-based activity. The proposed solution is based on a multi-perspective modeling approach that involves (i) modeling key aspects of the enterprise, (ii) reasoning about design choices and (iii) supporting strategic decision-making through simulations. The utility of the approach is demonstrated though a case study in the field of marketing for a start-up company.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • ArchiMate. (2012). ArchiMate 2.1 specification. The Open Group. Reading. ISBN-13, 857067441.
    • Azevedo, C. L. B., Iacob, M.-E., Almeida, J. P. A., Sinderen, M. v., Pires, L. F., & Guizzardi, G. (2015). Modeling Resources and Capabilities in Enterprise Architecture: A Well-founded Ontologybased Proposal for ArchiMate. Information Systems, 54, 235-262.
    • Basili, V. R. (1992). Software modeling and measurement: the Goal/Question/Metric paradigm.
    • Baudoin, C., Covnot, B., Kumar, A., LaCrosse, K., & Shields, R. (2010). Business Architecture: The Missing Link between Business Strategy and Enterprise Architecture. Michelson, B.. SOA Consortium.
    • Bērziša, S., Bravos, G., Gonzalez, T. C., Czubayko, U., España, S., Grabis, J., Henkel, M., Jokste, L., Kampars, J., & Koç, H. (2015). Capability driven development: an approach to designing digital enterprises. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57, 15-25.
    • Black, S. A., & Porter, L. J. (1996). Identification of the Critical Factors of TQM*. Decision sciences, 27, 1-21.
    • Danesh, M. H., Loucopoulos, P., & Yu, E. (2015). Dynamic capabilities for sustainable enterprise IT-a modeling framework. In Conceptual Modeling (pp. 358-366): Springer.
    • Kang, D., Lee, J., Choi, S., & Kim, K. (2010). An ontology-based enterprise architecture. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 1456-1464.
    • Kang, D., Lee, J., & Kim, K. (2010). Alignment of Business Enterprise Architectures using fact-based ontologies. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 3274-3283.
    • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes: Harvard Business Press.
    • Karagiannis, D., Fill, H.-G., Höfferer, P., & Nemetz, M. (2008). Metamodeling: Some application areas in information systems: Springer.
    • Karagiannis, D., & Kühn, H. (2002). Metamodelling platforms. In EC-Web (pp. 182).
    • Kawalek, J. P. (2004). Systems thinking and knowledge management: positional assertions and preliminary observations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21, 17-36.
    • Lamsweerde, A. (2003). Kaos tutorial. Cediti, September, 5.
    • Lamsweerde, A. (2009). Reasoning About Alternative Requirements Options. In A. T. Borgida, V. K. Chaudhri, P. Giorgini & E. S. Yu (Eds.), Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications: Essays in Honor of John Mylopoulos (pp. 380-397). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
    • Louridas, P., & Loucopoulos, P. (2000). A generic model for reflective design. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 9, 199-237.
    • Rolland, C., & Prakash, N. (2000). From conceptual modelling to requirements engineering. Annals of Software Engineering, 10, 151-176.
    • Samavi, R., Yu, E., & Topaloglou, T. (2009). Strategic reasoning about business models: a conceptual modeling approach. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 7, 171-198.
    • Singh, S. N., & Woo, C. (2009). Investigating business-IT alignment through multi-disciplinary goal concepts. Requirements Engineering, 14, 177-207.
    • Sommerville, I., Cliff, D., Calinescu, R., Keen, J., Kelly, T., Kwiatkowska, M. Z., McDermid, J. A., & Paige, R. F. (2012). Large-scale complex IT systems. Comm. Of ACM, 55, 71-77.
    • Steinberg, R. A., Rudd, C., Lacy, S., & Hanna, A. (2011). ITIL service operation: TSO.
    • Sterman, J. (2000). Business Dynamics : Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
    • Stirna, J., & Zdravkovic, J. (2015). Interview with Sladjan Maras on “Challenges and Needs in Enterprise Modeling”. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57, 79-81.
    • Versteeg, G., & Bouwman, H. (2006). Business architecture: A new paradigm to relate business strategy to ICT. Information Systems Frontiers, 8, 91-102.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.