Talk:Enterprise modelling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Enterprise modelling VS Enterprise Architecture[edit]

What are the differences? If they are the same thing should we merge the two articles?--GrWikiMan 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise architecture generally refers to a framework or methodology involving a number of different models or representations, whereas enterprise modelling refers to the representation itself. However I agree this is not clear from the articles at present. --RichardVeryard 19:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of methodologies[edit]

I have removed the unsubstantiated claim that "the most effective and least time-consuming approach to Enterprise Modelling has proven to be Soft Systems Methodology". There have been some comparative reviews of methodologies, but they rarely produce such one-sided results. --RichardVeryard 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Enterprise modelling is the process of improving the enterprise performance through the creation of enterprise models" is a terrible definition. Someone who knows what enterprise modeling is needs to write a better definition. Defining a term using the terms being defined is a bad idea. It doesn't help out people who don't know what "enterprise modelling" is —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


In my opinion, this field is notable but somewhat incoherent, and this page reflects the lack of coherence.

  • It cites a ragbag of techniques, with varying relevance to enterprise modelling. (For example, this page has a link to the Object-Oriented Modeling page, but this page is largely about OO programming and doesn't mention enterprise modelling at all. Of course some form of OO modelling could be used in an enterprise modelling purposes, but where is the source verifying this usage?)
  • There are links to various obscure research projects.
  • There is a vague mention of Mario Bunge. Now I am aware of a possible connection here, I have heard people talking about Bunge in this context, but I don't know of any verifiable source for this connection.

The main problem here is that I can't see how to make the page more coherent without doing the original research needed to make the field itself more coherent. --RichardVeryard (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I agree on the enterprise modelling being incoherent. I think this is also true with close related fields as enterprise architecture, enterprise engineering, business process modelling, enterprise ontology, etc. But this is a general phenomenon in contemporary applied science. Now I have a few ideas about improving these articles and I hope to get to it in the weeks to come.
-- Mdd (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise modelling[edit]

This first comment is copied here from the User talk:Mdd

Hi Marcel. I appreciate the efforts you are making to improve this page. But there are still some problems with it, and I can't see how to get around these problems without doing a bit of original research. For example, I think it was you who added a link to Object-Oriented Modeling. Now I am aware of people who claim the relevance of OO modelling to enterprise modelling, but those claims are disputable and possibly even unverifiable. And if we included all the techniques for which people have made similar claims, we'd produce an extremely long list indeed. Meanwhile, the language that is possibly closest to being adopted as a standard for enterprise modelling isn't in there yet. (I guess I'd better add it myself.) --RichardVeryard (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I gave a general respons on my talkpage. I will respond here on the specific issues:
  • So far I just wikified the article. I haven't started improving this article which I will.
  • I didn't add the link to Object-Oriented Modeling in the apst days, see my changes here. The link was added in 2006, see here by User:GrWikiMan.
  • I am not sure about the link between enterprise modelling and object-oriented modelling. I do think the term enterprise modelling itself should be better explained.
  • I understand that with "the language that is possibly closest to being adopted as a standard for enterprise modelling", you mean ArchiMate. Maybe we can improve that article some more. I can translate parts of the Dutch article here.
I will separately respond on your "coherence" remarks.
-- Mdd (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Soft Systems Methodology section removed[edit]

I removed the following section:

Enterprise modeling has been developed as a variant of Soft Systems Methodology by Brian Wilson. He also developed an Enterprise Model entitled Vision Realisation in support of the Office of Government Commerce's (OGC) methodology for programme management, i.e. Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) and applied his approach in a large number of public and private organisations, e.g. MoD, NHS, DWP, British Telecom, BAE Systems, Hachette Livre UK, etc.

Because I couldn't find a reliable source confirming these statements. -- Mdd (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic model section replaced[edit]

I replaced the following text with an introduction about economic modeling

The modeling of the enterprise network could facilitate the creation of enhanced understanding of the business processes of the extended enterprise and relations that extend across the boundaries of the enterprise. A particularly effective form of enterprise modelling is concerned with the definition of statements of purpose and the derivation of human activity systems. In an organisational context these Human Activity Systems become conceptual Enterprise Models, whereas in a programme and project management context they are known as Programme Blueprints, each representing what needs to be done to achieve the stated purpose. Enterprise models derived in this way are useful tools for conducting organisational reviews, information analysis and business systems alignment.

The main problem is that, this text has no references, and no links to other articles. -- Mdd (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Motivation and Governance in Enterprise Modeling[edit]

The current article does not make enough emphasis on the modeling of "motivation" in enterprise modeling. In Zachman Framework, this is the entire top row, called "Scope", addressing the goals of the enterprise (the "What"), the means and strategies (the "How"), the organizational structure ("Where"), the roadmap ("When") and the motivation ("Why"). This is important, because this is what constitutes the policy of the enterprise, which then provides input into the system requirements and system design.

Another important aspect of an enterprise is governance. This includes the regulations to which the enterprise has to comply; business rules of the organization and how they support the scope; certification and accreditation issues, assurance, etc.

Enterprise Architecture Framework do cover the "scope" issues.

There are several international standards that are relevant to this area, such as the ITU-T User Requirement Notation (URN), OMG Business Motivation Metamodel (BMM), the upcoming ISO 15026 related to the assurance case, etc.

-- Equilibrioception (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think the Business Motivation Model or Business motivation modeling as a subject is notable enough, you could try write an article about it first. -- Mdd (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's already been deleted (in my view wrongly) so be careful. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Motivation Model --RichardVeryard (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The subject seems notable enough to justify an own wikipedia article. From the initial deletion proposal I understand it was not the subject, but the article construction that failed wikipedia requirements. -- Mdd (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Focussing and expanding the article[edit]

I like to get this article more focussed, and differences with inter-related pages clearified, sucha as business process modeling, enterprise engineering, enterprise architecture and enterprise architecture framework. The article could use improvement in every section:

  1. The history section should be expanded.
  2. In the "Enterprise modeling basics" is more focussed on the building blocks of enterprise modeling techniques. If the Enterprise modelling techniques (see next step) are descriped here, maybe this section could be expended as well some more.
  3. In the Enterprise modelling techniques schould be expended. As a start I added the Design and Engineering Methodology for Organisations, and removed.
    1. ArchiMate --> is a enterprise architecture framework
    2. Event-driven process chain (EPC) --> is a business process modeling
    3. and
  4. An introduction of Enterprise engineering is added
  5. Related items have been grouped in a related field section. I think eventually this section should be reduced.

I also think this article needs an other first (introduction) image.

-- Mdd (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration[edit]

-- Mdd (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise Models & Methodologies listings[edit]

Fraser and Tate (1995): Enterprise Ontology[edit]

Source: John Fraser and Austin Tate (1995). The Enterprise Tool Set: An Open Enterprise Architecture. AIAI, University of Edinburgh.

Enterprise Ontology
We have explored five areas pertinent to enterprise modelling (activity, organisation, strategy, marketing and time) and, after discussion, we have `bought in' to the definition of over 100 terms. We acknowledge the time, expertise and material of various other people and bodies who have contributed, directly or indirectly, to the development of the ontology. These contributors include:
KSE: ARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort
ARPI: ARPA/Rome Laboratory Planning and Scheduling Initiative
O-Plan: O-Plan Project, University of Edinburgh
PIF: Process Interchange Format and the Process Handbook work at MIT and the University of Hawaii
TOVE: Toronto Virtual Enterprise Project, University of Toronto
ORDIT: Esprit project No. 2301
CYC: Common Sense Knowledge Base Project at MCC and Cycorp
WfMC: Work Flow Management Coalition
The first version of the ontology is paper based and we are now working on encoding it in KIF, the Knowledge Interchange Format developed under the Knowledge Sharing Effort. We know that the ontology will evolve as the pro ject proceeds. We envisage the Enterprise tool set providing facilities to maintain and expand the ontology

-- Mdd (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Terje Totland (1997) : Approaches to Enterprise Modeling[edit]

Source: Terje Totland Enterprise Modeling as a Means to Support Human Sense-making and Communication in Organizations. Dr. ing. dissertation Norwegian University of Science and Technology at, August 29, 1997 (content online)

In Ch 5. Contemporary Approaches to Enterprise Modeling (online) Totland gave a similar listing of contemporary approaches to Enterprise Modeling. He mentioned:

  • From Fuzzy to Formal (F3) : F3 is a comprehensive framework for improving requirements acquisition and transformation into valid information systems specifications by Bubenko (1993).
  • The Enterprise framework : Enterprise project is a UK initiative incorporating both academic and industrial partners. The main aim of the project is to "provide a method and computer toolset which will help capture aspects of a business and analyse these to identify and compare options for meeting the business requirements." (Fraser, 1994:3)
  • Toronto Virtual Enterprise (TOVE) : The TOVE project at Enterprise Integration Lab, University of Toronto, develop a framework for enterprise integration (EI) based on enterprise modeling.
  • The Caesar Framework : The CAESAR framework (Christiansen and Thomsen, 1994) was developed as a part of the CAESAR Offshore project, focusing on more cost effective development of small petroleum fields located at the Norwegian continental shelf.
  • The METIS approach : METIS Solutions, a subsidiary of the NCR corporation, have a product series aimed at enterprise modeling and related activities
  • Soft System Methodology (SSM) : Soft Systems Methodology is an approach to inquiry into problem situations perceived to exist in the real world (Checkland and Scholes, 1990:18).
  • Object Modeling Technique (OMT) : OMT (Rumbaugh et al., 1991) was developed as an approach to software development.
  • Object-Oriented role analysis and modeling (OOram) : OOram (Reenskaug, 1996) is intended to be a generic methodology for software engineering.
  • Speech-Act based office Modeling aPprOach (SAMPO) : SAMPO is an approach to development of office information systems based on a language/action view of the office (Hirschheim et al., 1995:199). An office is seen as a system of communicative action (Auramäki et al., 1988:126), and an information system is considered a technical implementation of a social system.

As in the above listing not all of those approaches classify as enterprise modeling approaches. -- Mdd (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

More about METIS (enterprise modeling tool) can be found on on Mdd (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ted Williams (2000) : Enterprise Models and Methodologies[edit]

Ted Williams (2000) on (Last updated August 18, 2000) gave an interesting listing Enterprise Models and Methodologies. He claimed it is "difficult to distinguish between Models that have associated Methodologies, and Methodologies which are based on a conceptual model".

  • ARIS - ARchitecture of Integrated Information Systems : ARIS (Architecture of Integrated Information Systems) is an approach to enterprise modeling started as the academic research of Prof August-Wilhelm Scheer in the 1990s.
  • CARNOT - Part of Enterprise Integration Program at MCC : The Carnot Project in the Enterprise Integration Program of the Information Systems Division at MCC is addressing the problem of logically unifying physically-distributed, enterprise-wide, heterogeneous information. Source: Charles J. Petrie (1992). Enterprise integration modeling. p.300
  • C4 - General Motors : ln 1989, General Motors embarked on a corporation-wide, five-year effort to transform the way it designs and produces. The GM/EDS C4 program addresses systems technology as it applies to preproduction, and provides a standard technology platform
  • CPDEP - Chevron Project Development and Execution Process : This methodology was developed by Chevron to manage their internal projects. This is a project management process or a process for capital project management. The key outcomes of the project are to select the right projects by improving decision making throughout Chevron and to improve project outcomes through excellence in executing decisions.
  • CIM-Alive - ESPRIT project to Indentify Reuseable CIM Concepts
  • CIM-BIOSYS - CIM Building Integrated Open SYStems from MSI
  • CIMSIM - ESPRIT Project for Economic and Technical Evaluation of CIM Solutions
  • CIMOSA - CIMOpen System Architecture developed by AMICE (European Standard)
  • COPICS - Communications Oriented Production Information and Control System (IBM)
  • EIP - Enterprise Integration Program - also called ManTech (USAF)
  • EIS - Honeywell Engineering Information System
  • ESPRIT :
    • CNMA Communications Network for Manufacturing Application
    • CIMSIM (see CIMSIM above)
    • CIMOSA (see CIMOSA above)
    • DCC
    • DINAS
    • VOICE
  • ESTELLE - Language used to establish Integrating Infrastructure Design
  • EXPRESS - Information Modelling Language Used with STEP [ISO 10303]
  • FCIM
  • FOF - Factory Of the Future
  • GRAI-GIM - GRAI Integrated Methodology
  • IDEM - Integrated DEsign and Modelling (Loughborough University)
  • IDEF Structured Systems Analysis Diagrams.
    • IDEF0 - Function Modelling
    • IDEF1 - Information Modelling
    • IDEF1X - Data Modelling
    • IDEF3 - Process Modelling
    • IDEF4 - Object Oriented Design
    • IDEF5 - Ontology Description
  • IEM - Integrated Enterprise Modelling
  • MICIM - Methodology for Introduction of CIM
  • MMCS - Manufacturing Mangement Control System (Shop & Cell Planning)
  • MOSES - Model Oriented Simultaneous Engineering System : Research project being carried out by the University of Leeds and Loughborough University of Technology
  • OOMIS - Object-Oriented modelling methology for Manufacturing Information Systems
  • PAC - Production Activity Control Model
  • PERA Master Planning Methodology
  • Petri Nets
  • PSL/PSA - Problem Statement Language / Problem Statement Analyzer
  • PWAF - Plant With A Future (Caterpillar)
  • SEW-OSA - System Engineering Workbench centered on CIM Open System Architecture
  • SSADM - Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method
  • TOVE - TOronto Virtual Enterprise (University of Toronto Enterprise Integration Lab)

Now this is a rather contrast with the current listing of Enterprise modelling techniques:

And this seems worth examing. At first site several initiatives mentioned by Williams don't classify here as enterprise modelling, such as:

-- Mdd (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to find some more information about all these initiatives, but it seems about 8 of the 40 initiatives mentioned have gained notability. -- Mdd (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Frank Lillehagen, John Krogstie (2008). Active Knowledge Modeling of Enterprises. Springer, 2008. ISBN 3540794158

Henk Jonkers et al. (2002) : State of the Art in Architecture Concepts and Description[edit]

Source: Henk Jonkers (eds) State of the Art in Architecture Concepts and Description; ArchiMate Deliverable D2.1. Telematica Instituut (TI) & Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science (LIACS)

Jonkers et al (2002) has focussed on "Architectural frameworks and standards", "Organisation and process modelling languages" and 'Application and technology modelling languages", and described:

-- Mdd (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


sorry ,awkward English.

Enterprise modelling#Enterprise model in line 2

'Thomas Naylor (1970)' and Reference#13 'Naylor, T. (1970)' equal Thomas Naylor ok?--翼のない堕天使 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I got the message. It is indeed the same Thomas Naylor, and I added a link to that article. -- Mdd (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much.
I want to ask another
What happens if you fix it in plain English (easy to translate) the following statements?
<Enterprise modelling#Enterprise model Paragraph 3>
In a two-volume set entitled The Managerial Cybernetics of Organization Stafford Beer introduced a model of the enterprise, the Viable System Model (VSM). Volume 2, The Heart of Enterprise,[15] analyzed the VSM as a recursive organization of five systems: System One (S1) through System Five (S5). Beer's model differs from others in that the VSM is recursive, not hierarchical: "In a recursive organizational structure, any viable system contains, and is contained in, a viable system."
I need your help--翼のない堕天使 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

need a better diagram[edit]

The diagram accompanying the article is very generic and somewhat specific to information technology. It would be good to use a diagram that illustrates an actual enterprise. Please consider this a suggestion to improve the article (which is pretty good). Nickmalik (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

One problem here is, that there are not that much images available (on Wikicommons they are collected at the Category:Enterprise modelling.) Another problem is that probably no single diagram could give a generic view of enterprise modelling. This subject is to abstract, and most available diagrams originate from specific modelling languages. It might be possible to construct a collage (see for example the collage at the systems engineering), or if you have an idea for a collage, you can ask the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab for help. -- Mdd (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

B-class assessment[edit]

  1. Suitably referenced with in-line citations? ClockC A few references needed in parts
  2. Reasonably covers the topic with no obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Green tickY
  3. Defined structure? Green tickY
  4. Reasonably well-written? Green tickY
  5. Contains supporting materials where appropriate? Green tickY - several diagrammatic images present
  6. Presents its content in an appropriately understandable way? Green tickY

There are a few things that need addressing, mainly to do with citing and some tidy-ups of particular paragraphs. I'll be looking to address these during this week. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)