On the Identification of Modeler Communities

The authors discuss the use and challenges of identifying communities with shared semantics in Enterprise Modeling (EM). People tend to understand modeling meta-concepts (i.e., a modeling language's constructs or types) in a certain way and can be grouped by this conceptual understanding. Having an insight into the typical communities and their composition (e.g., what kind of people constitute such a semantic community) can make it easier to predict how a conceptual modeler with a certain background will generally understand the meta-concepts s/he uses, which is useful for e.g., validating model semantics and improving the efficiency of the modeling process itself. The authors have observed that in practice decisions to group people based on certain shared properties are often made, but are rarely backed up by empirical data demonstrating their supposed efficacy. The authors demonstrate the use of psychometric data from two studies involving experienced (enterprise) modeling practitioners and computing science students to find such communities. The authors also discuss the challenge that arises in finding common real-world factors shared between their members to identify them by and conclude that there is no empirical support for commonly used (and often implicit) grouping properties such as similar background, focus and modeling language.

[1]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Enterprise modeling and integration (EMI): Current status and research perspectives , 2002, Annu. Rev. Control..

[2]  Theo P. van der Weide,et al.  Information modeling: The process and the required competencies of its participants , 2004, Data Knowl. Eng..

[3]  Willem F. Bronsvoort,et al.  COLLABORATIVE MODELING WITH FEATURES , 2001 .

[4]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[5]  Peter Rittgen,et al.  Collaborative Modeling - A Design Science Approach , 2009, 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[6]  David R. Kuhn,et al.  Role-Based Access Control (RBAC): Features and Motivations | NIST , 1995 .

[7]  Hans B. F. Mulder,et al.  Enhancing the Formal Foundations of BPMN by Enterprise Ontology , 2009, CIAO! / EOMAS.

[8]  Perakath C. Benjamin,et al.  Integrated modeling: the key to holistic understanding of the enterprise , 2005, CACM.

[9]  Felix B. Tan,et al.  The Repertory Grid Technique: A Method for the Study of Cognition in Information Systems , 2002, MIS Q..

[10]  Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten,et al.  Collaborative Enterprise Modeling , 2009, PRET.

[11]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Consistency in multi-viewpoint design of enterprise information systems , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[12]  Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten,et al.  Challenges in Collaborative Modeling: A Literature Review , 2008, CIAO! / EOMAS.

[13]  Dimitris Karagiannis,et al.  Enterprise Model Integration , 2003, EC-Web.

[14]  J. Recker,et al.  Does It Matter Which Process Modelling Language We Teach or Use? An Experimental Study on Understanding Process Modelling Languages without Formal Education , 2007 .

[15]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Self-Organization and Identification of Web Communities , 2002, Computer.

[16]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Formal Modelling as a Grounded Conversation , 2005 .

[17]  Mauricio Barcellos Almeida A proposal to evaluate ontology content , 2009, Appl. Ontology.

[18]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  UML – the Good, the Bad or the Ugly? Perspectives from a panel of experts , 2005, Software & Systems Modeling.

[19]  Mark von Rosing,et al.  Business Process Model and Notation - BPMN , 2015, The Complete Business Process Handbook, Vol. I.

[20]  M. Grant,et al.  Communities of practice. , 2020, Health progress.

[21]  Marc M. Lankhorst,et al.  Enterprise architecture modelling--the issue of integration , 2004, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[22]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Capturing Modeling Processes - Towards the MoDial Modeling Laboratory , 2006, OTM Workshops.

[23]  Hans Weigand,et al.  Setting Rules of Play for Collaborative Modeling , 2009, Int. J. e Collab..

[24]  J. P. Peter Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices , 1979 .

[25]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .

[26]  Marc Lankhorst,et al.  Agile Service Development , 2012, The Enterprise Engineering Series.

[27]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Do words reveal concepts? , 2011, CogSci.

[28]  Birgit Demuth,et al.  Electronic Communications of the EASST Volume 44 ( 2011 ) Proceedings of the Workshop on OCL and Textual Modelling ( OCL 2011 ) UML is still inconsistent ! How to improve OCL Constraints in the UML 2 . 3 Superstructure , 2011 .

[29]  Stefanie N. Lindstaedt,et al.  Collaborative Enterprise Integrated Modelling , 2008, SWAP.

[30]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Formalizing ontological commitments , 1994, AAAI 1994.

[31]  Werner Kuhn,et al.  Probing the Concept of Information Communities-A First Step Toward Semantic Interoperability , 1999 .

[32]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Freezing language : conceptualisation processes across ICT-supported organisations , 2003 .

[33]  S.J.B.A. Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Collaborative systems modeling and group model building: a useful combination? , 2008 .

[34]  Tibert Verhagen,et al.  A framework for developing semantic differentials in IS research: Assessing the meaning of electronic marketplace quality (EMQ) , 2007 .

[35]  Dirk Geeraerts,et al.  Theories of Lexical Semantics , 2010 .

[36]  Marc M. Lankhorst Agile Service Development: Combining Adaptive Methods and Flexible Solutions , 2012 .

[37]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Interactions, Goals and Rules in a Collaborative Modelling Session , 2009, PoEM.

[38]  Harith Alani,et al.  Identifying Communities of Practice: Analysing Ontologies as Networks to Support Community Recognition , 2002 .

[39]  S. Hannabuss The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature , 2008 .

[40]  Jaap Gordijn,et al.  E-service design using i* and e/sup 3/ value modeling , 2006, IEEE Software.

[41]  Douglas R. Vogel,et al.  Facilitation Methods for Collaborative Modeling Tools , 2000 .

[42]  Walter Dick,et al.  The Test-Retest Reliability of Children's Ratings on the Semantic Differential , 1966 .

[43]  Sue Newell,et al.  The Impact of Organizational Sub-cultures on the Implementation of Component-based Development : A Case Study of an International Investment Bank , 2002, ECIS.

[44]  Carme Quer,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of i*-Based Agent-Oriented Modeling Languages , 2005, SEKE.

[45]  Tomasz Kaczmarek,et al.  Practical Challenges of Enterprise Modeling in the Light of Business and IT Alignment , 2012, PoEM.

[46]  Michael Uschold Making the case for ontology , 2011, Appl. Ontology.

[47]  John F. Sowa,et al.  The Role of Logic and Ontology in Language and Reasoning , 2010 .

[48]  D. Richard Kuhn,et al.  Role-Based Access Control ( RBAC ) : Features and Motivations , 2014 .

[49]  Gerry Stahl,et al.  A Model of Collaborative Knowledge Building , 2006 .

[50]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  Towards a Formalization of the Unified Modeling Language , 1997, ECOOP.

[51]  Dirk van der Linden,et al.  Towards an Investigation of the Conceptual Landscape of Enterprise Architecture , 2011, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[52]  Giuseppe Berio,et al.  Interoperable language and model management using the UEML approach , 2006, GaMMa '06.

[53]  E. Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier , 2000 .

[54]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Abstract Reasoning in Collaborative Modeling , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[55]  J. M. Kittross The measurement of meaning , 1959 .

[56]  Frank Hermann,et al.  Conformance Analysis of Organizational Models: A New Enterprise Modeling Framework using Algebraic Graph Transformation , 2013, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..