Program
NOTE1: the final camera-ready versions of the case report and poster papers are available here.
Monday is dedicated to our Doctoral Consortium. On Tuesday we have the conference’s main program starting, continued on Wednesday and Thursday. Friday is mostly dedicated for presentations and detailed technical discussions of the current state of some of the EE-theories and research of our CIAO! Enterprise Engineering Network (CEEN) and also other working groups centered around particular projects/areas of interest. The complete list of accepted papers (full and short), case reports and posters to be presented in each session is available below the following table containing the program overview. The titles and abstracts of the presentations in our Doctoral Consortium will be available soon.
Program overview
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | ||
| 08:30 | Coffee & registration | Coffee & registration | Coffee | Coffee | Coffee | |
| 08:45 | Opening session | |||||
| 09:00 | Talk on “How to write a PhD thesis” Ulrich Frank | Opening session | Keynote: Jan Hoogervorst | Full Paper Session 5 (Formalisms) Chair: Robert Pergl | Working group on PSI-theory and transaction pattern | |
| 09:15 | ||||||
| 09:30 | DC Session 1 Duarte Gouveia | Keynote: Davor Meersman | ||||
| 09:45 | ||||||
| 10:00 | Full Paper Session 2 (Ontologies) Chair: Hans Mulder | Working Session on Formalisms Chair: Robert Pergl | ||||
| 10:15 | ||||||
| 10:30 | Coffee | Coffee | Coffee | Coffee | ||
| 10:45 | ||||||
| 11:00 | Coffee | EEWC Forum: Case Report Session 1 Chair: David Aveiro | Full Paper Session 3 (Ontologies) Chair: Giancarlo Guizzardi | EEWC Forum: Case Report Session 3 | Working group on OntoUML and DEMO | |
| 11:15 | ||||||
| 11:30 | DC Session 2 Ricardo Vieira | Short Paper Session 1 (Business Processes) Chair: David Aveiro | Full Paper Session 6 (Business Processes) | |||
| 11:45 | ||||||
| 12:00 | Full Paper Session 1 (Laws & Standards) Chair: David Aveiro | Full Paper Session 4 (Organisational Design) | Full Paper Session 7 (NS & Evolvability) | |||
| 12:15 | ||||||
| 12:30 | ||||||
| 12:45 | ||||||
| 13:00 | Lunch | Lunch | Lunch | Lunch | Lunch | |
| 14:00 | DC Session 3 Ondrej Dvorak | PSI-theory working session | Value co-creation working session Chair: Hans Mulder | Short Paper Session 2 (NS & Standards) Chair: Jose Tribolet | Working Group on theme to be defined | |
| 14:15 | ||||||
| 14:30 | Modularity working session Chair: Jose Tribolet | |||||
| 14:45 | ||||||
| 15:00 | ||||||
| 15:15 | ||||||
| 15:30 | Coffee | Coffee & EEWC Forum: Poster Session 1 (Methods and Standards) | Coffee & EEWC Forum: Poster Session 2 (Enterprise Architecture) | Coffee & EEWC Forum: Poster Session 3 (Normalized Systems) | Coffee | |
| 15:45 | ||||||
| 16:00 | DC Session 4 Joost Bekel | Short Paper Session 2 (NS & Standards) Chair: Edward van Dipten | EEWC Forum: Case Report Session 2 Chair: Hans Mulder | EEWC Forum: Case Report Session 4 Chair: Jose Tribolet | Working Group on theme to be defined
| |
| 16:15 | ||||||
| 16:30 | DC Session 5 Marek Skotnica | General reflection & discussion working session Chair: Edward van Dipten | General reflection & discussion working session Chair: Hans Mulder | General reflection & discussion working session Chair: Jose Tribolet | ||
| 16:45 | ||||||
| 17:00 | DC Session 6 Gabriel Leal | |||||
| 17:15 | Closing | |||||
| 17:30 | Break | Break | Break | |||
| 17:45 | ||||||
| 18:00 | ||||||
| 18:15 | ||||||
| 18:30 | ||||||
| 18:45 | ||||||
| 19:00 – … | DC dinner | Conference dinner | Conference dinner | |||
Full Paper Sessions
Session 1 – Laws and Standards
- Adding Quality of Information to the ontological model of an enterprise
Ron Deen, Johan Mijs and Martin Op ‘T Land
- DEMO/PSI theory and the Law of the Land
Duarte Gouveia and David Aveiro
Session 2 – Ontologies
- Grounding the DEMO Transaction Pattern in the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO)
Tanja Poletaeva, Giancarlo Guizzardi, Joao Paulo Almeida and Habib Abdulrab
Session 3 – Ontologies
- The REA model expressed in a generic DEMO model for co-creation and co-production
Frantisek Hunka and Steven J.H. van Kervel
- SysPRE – Systematized Process for Requirements Engineering in knowledge discovery projects
Ana Neto, Duarte Pinto and David Aveiro
Session 4 – Organisation Design
- A Literature Review of Coordination Mechanisms: Contrasting Organization Science and Information Systems Perspectives
Maximilian Brosius, Kazem Haki, Stephan Aier and Robert Winter - An OD-pearl for the EE-oyster
L.J. Lekkerkerk
Session 5 – Formalisms
- Formal Specification of DEMO Process Model and its Submodel: Towards Algebra of DEMO Models
Tetsuya Suga and Junichi Iijima
- A DEMO Machine – A Formal Foundation for Execution of DEMO Models
Marek Skotnica, Steven van Kervel and Robert Pergl
Session 6 – Business Processes
- Converting DEMO PSI Transaction Pattern into BPMN: A Complete Method
Ondřej Mráz, Robert Pergl, Marek Skotnica, Steven van Kervel and Pavel Náplava
Session 7 – Normalized Systems and Evolvability
- Investigating the Evolvability of Financial Domain Models
Marjolein Deryck, Ondrej Dvorak and Peter De Bruyn
- Exploring Design Aspects of Modular and Evolvable Document Management
Gilles Oorts, Herwig Mannaert and Peter De Bruyn
Short Paper Sessions
Session 1 – Business Processes
- VISI revisited
Niek Pluijmert
- DEMO Business Processes Design to Improve the Enterprise Business Continuity Plans an insurance company case study
José Brás and Sérgio Guerreiro
Session 2 – Law and Standards / Normalized Systems
Tuesday May 9
- The perspectives of DEMO application to COSO Internal Audit framework risks mitigation
Pavel Malyzhenkov, Eduard Babkin and Fabrizio Rossi
Thursday May 11
- Application of Enterprise Engineering to Lean Process Management: An explorative Case Study
Marjolein Deryck and Philip Huysmans
EEWC Forum
Case Report Sessions
Session 1
- Combinatorial Effects in a Supply Chain Process
Bassam Istanbouli, Peter De Bruyn and Jan Verelst
Session 2
- Optimization of Logistics Processes by Mining Business Transactions and Determining the Optimal Inventory Level
Linda Terlouw
Session 3
- DEMO and Lean Six Sigma at Merck
Roland Ettema
Session 4
- STARR CASE REPORT – Transformation of a small business enterprise towards the agile enterprise using DEMO methodology
Eduard Babkin
EEWC Forum
Poster Sessions
Session 1 – Methods and Standards
- Defining a research method for engineering a Business Information Security artefact
Yuri Bobbert
- Thoughts on Application of Evolutionary Software Development for Complex, Large-scale, Integrated, Open Systems
J. Manganelli and J.B.F. Mulder
Session 2 – Enterprise Architecture
- Business-IT Misalignment Symptom Detection based on Enterprise Architecture Analysis
Dora Ori
Session 3 – Normalized Systems
- Applying the Normalized Systems Theory to IT infrastructure systems
Geert Haerens - Evaluating Enterprise Resource Planning Analysis Patterns using Normalized Systems Theory
Ornchanok Chongsombut, Jan Verelst, Peter De Bruyn, Herwig Mannaert and Philip Huysmans
List of Doctoral Consortium accepted papers
The number corresponds to the session and after the names of the students and promoters, one can find the current title of the thesis and the abstract.
Towards implementation of DEMO models as Software Artefact
Abstract: This work aims at reporting progress in the authors PhD program and planning the remaining steps. It starts by summarizing the contributions from previous work. Then aims at the desired goal – create an executable artefact for organizations – and presents the proposed architecture to achieve it. We analyse how this architecture maps the DEMO Theories and the options that move away from it. We report on the current development stage of two prototypes that implement the presented global architecture: a web-based application and a bot, called Democritus, that interacts with users through Skype and Facebook messenger. Finally, we present a plan of the work to be done until the end of this PhD program, namely implementation and validation stages.
Multi-Viewpoints Ontology of Risk Management
Abstract: Risk management is the process of managing uncertainty through the identification, analysis, evaluation and treatment of risks. In a real scenario, the process must be closely aligned with the business, meaning the concepts, techniques and practices suitable for risk management application have a strong dependency from the context of the problem. In a first moment that lead to a proliferation of specialized frameworks defining how risk management should be established and implemented in specific domains, and therefore privileging specific viewpoints. However, if on one side that can prove to be effective, the specialization can also be a limitation to the practice of risk management in scenarios of multiple heterogeneous domains, which is increasingly a common need in the enterprise world. Consequently, there is a need to solve the problem of integrating or simply reconciling several domains in common contexts, a challenge recognized in the literature. This work intends to address that problem, proposing to contribute for its solution by suggesting that an adequate conceptualization using a multi-viewpoints ontology alignment at a meta-model level can support the definition, integration and reconciliation of risk management multiple viewpoints.
Semantic Descriptions of Component-Based Systems
Abstract: As stated in the beginnings of software engineering discipline, software should be built from rather independent, reusable components with well-defined interfaces. The application should be just a composition of the given components. So-called TAO-theory and BETA-theory are Enterprise Engineering theories providing concepts that might support a component-based style of development. The goal of this paper is to introduce how component-based systems can be built on a top of these theories. It outlines how so-called semantic descriptions follow them, and it presents a future work in this research.
Quantifying enterprise coherence in terms of entropy
Abstract: Enterprise Architecture (EA) literature recognizes the complex nature of both organizations and organization development. Some studies, e.g. General Enterprise Architecturing (GEA), take this complex nature as a starting point. Studies stress the importance of coherence in organizations. GEA offers a well established framework to enforce coherence in complex organizations. It is strongly grounded in practice. However, a quantitative way to measure coherence is lacking. In general, existing Enterprise Architecture (EA) frameworks rely mainly on qualitative models to assess and analyse EA and organizations. Measuring EA and its effects quantitatively is relatively immature.
Since its first introduction n thermodynamics by Boltzmann around 1850 and its introduction in Information Theory by Shannon in 1948, the notion and application of the term entropy has accelerated, especially in the most recent decades, also driven by technological advances. The term entropy has strongly been associated with disorder and has been adopted by Chaos Theory. In a great number of domains, e.g. physics, biology, and recently in building construction -a domain with resemblance to enterprise architecture-, entropy has been adopted to enable quantification of the level of disorder. This adoption led to a growing variety in entropy types, each type constructed to suit its application.
This research focuses on the question: can organizational coherence be quantified in terms of entropy. The research will design a construction for entropy in organizations that matches the definition of coherence –as meant by GEA- in the best possible way. Quantification of coherence in terms of entropy will allow practitioners and researchers to borrow insights from other disciplines and domains, enable benchmarking, and learn and apply new methods to further analyse complexity, coherence and coherence governance.
Since its first introduction n thermodynamics by Boltzmann around 1850 and its introduction in Information Theory by Shannon in 1948, the notion and application of the term entropy has accelerated, especially in the most recent decades, also driven by technological advances. The term entropy has strongly been associated with disorder and has been adopted by Chaos Theory. In a great number of domains, e.g. physics, biology, and recently in building construction -a domain with resemblance to enterprise architecture-, entropy has been adopted to enable quantification of the level of disorder. This adoption led to a growing variety in entropy types, each type constructed to suit its application.
This research focuses on the question: can organizational coherence be quantified in terms of entropy. The research will design a construction for entropy in organizations that matches the definition of coherence –as meant by GEA- in the best possible way. Quantification of coherence in terms of entropy will allow practitioners and researchers to borrow insights from other disciplines and domains, enable benchmarking, and learn and apply new methods to further analyse complexity, coherence and coherence governance.
Business Process Management Systems Based on Enterprise Engineering Discipline
Abstract: Enterprise engineering is a discipline that aims to solve problems with designing enterprises. It introduces a DEMO modeling methodology that helps stakeholders and DEMO professionals to create high quality DEMO models of an enterprise. This methodology provides many benefits over the state of the art modeling techniques. However, there is no significant adoption in state of the art enterprise information systems yet. This paper provides and overview of ongoing research at the Czech Technical University in Prague which aims to enable these theories to be used in state of the art enterprise information systems and a daily practice.
An interoperability assessment approach based on criteria dependencies to support decision making in networked enterprises
Abstract: Today, companies are participating in networked enterprises for seizing business opportunities which they couldn’t reach individually. In this context, the interoperability among partners is seen as a requirement, ensuring the proper functioning of the overall system. Therefore, an assessment for identifying the enterprise’s strengths and weakness regarding interoperability, is paramount. It involves determining the needs, or gaps, between where enterprises envision themselves in the future and the enterprises’ current states. This is not a new field of research. Indeed, a variety of assessment approaches were proposed in the literature. However, to our best knowledge, existing methods are assessing specific aspects of interoperability and focusing only on one kind of measurement (i.e. potentiality or compatibility or performance) instead of adopting a general view. The objective of this work is, therefore, to propose an assessment approach to support the interoperability development, covering multiple areas of interoperability and considering different kinds of measurement.
