=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1859/emmsad-04-paper
|storemode=property
|title=Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Enterprise Modelling
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1859/emmsad-04-paper.pdf
|volume=Vol-1859
|authors=John Krogstie,Snorre Fosland
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/emisa/KrogstieF17
}}
==Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Enterprise Modelling==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1859/emmsad-04-paper.pdf
Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Enterprise
Modelling
Snorre Fossland1, John Krogstie2*
1eFaros Ltd, Oslo, Norway snorre@efaros.com
2NTNU, Trondheim, Norway John.krogstie@idi.ntnu.no
Abstract. Modeling approaches started to be used in a large scale around 40 years ago,
using simple diagrams. Still the main focus in modelling is for intermediaries to
document the knowledge as held by different stakeholders for further use, rather than
for people that has the core knowledge themselves to use modeling for their own needs.
Although top-down modeling by experts is useful e.g. for enterprise architecture and
systems development, for modeling to have a larger effect in the representation and
reuse of knowledge in organizations, we propose to enable all knowledge workers to be
active modelers. This paper provides an overview of interactive models for knowledge
articulation combined with supporting knowledge maturing as an approach to support
bottom-up modeling, and gives an overview of the how this can be supported in an
existing enterprise modeling environment. We also discuss necessary future
development to make this a reality on a large scale.
Keywords: Enterprise process modelling, bottom-up modeling
1 Introduction
According to [18] enterprise modelling is typically done by only a few people in the
organization who are specially trained to use modelling methods for knowledge
representation. What is captured in models, often in a top-down fashion, by this small
group and made available for organizational purposes is only a fragment of the
enterprise knowledge that potentially could be captured, discussed and communicated.
Many people actually develop some kind of models without thinking upon it as such
[6]. Examples are spreadsheets1 used to capture essential features of products and their
dependencies, presentation slides with architecture and process descriptions, or sketches
in drawing tools defining the information flow in a business service. The content of
such files can be highly valuable, but difficult or even impossible to retrieve.
(Enterprise) models are used for many different purposes [10] such as model
mapping, human sense-making [20], communication among stakeholders, model
simulation and analysis [16], quality assurance, model deployment and activation,
systems development, model implementation and standardization. Many traditional
1Much data relevant for engineers and other business professionals is developed and
resides in office automation tools like Excel [5].
123 Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Enterprise Modelling
applications of modelling are limited to one usage area, and thus provide limited value.
A larger effect of modelling in and across organizations can be observed when one uses
models over a longer time, but also across domains [4]. For this to work, though, one
has to have the long-term use in mind from the start. When trying to build upon models
meant originally for sense-making in a limited group and turning them into
organizational memory, one will often experience limitations in the original modelling
approaches and modelling tools used [11]. Thus one needs to be able to mature informal
models in a sensible way. Few people retain ownership over these models over a long
time span so models gradually decay, unless appropriate mechanisms are put into place
to keep them alive and up-to-date as organizational practice. Architectural Thinking
(AT) [21] offers an interesting perspective on how to widen stakeholder involvement in
modeling of organizations. AT is understood as a way of thinking and acting throughout
an organization, i.e. not restricted to architects and system developers, that considers
holistic, long-term system aspects as well as fundamental system design and evolution
principles in day-to-day decision making enabling modeling of, by and for the people
[8].
For modelling to have a larger effect for knowledge representation and reuse than
when only doing planned top-down modeling, we propose a move of technologies and
approaches to also enable ‘normal’ knowledge workers to be active modelers, both by
perform model-based adaption of the applications they are using to support their daily
work tasks and by providing support for specific non-routine situations. A model-based
working environment [17] empowers information carriers and enterprise architects to
collaboratively and incrementally develop and manage a model in a bottom-up fashion.
As stated above, modeling is done for a large number of different purposes. In
particular we focus on the role of interactive and active models. Interactive modeling
and model knowledge maturing are further described in Section 2. An approach to
support combined top-down and bottom-up modeling based on integrating top-down
modeling with interactive models and knowledge maturing from practice is briefly
described in Section 3. Section 4 summarizes the paper pointing for the need of further
empirical evaluation of the approach.
2 Background on Approaches to Bottom-up Modeling
One approach towards bottom-up modeling is the application of what we term
interactive models supporting the evolution of interaction machines [19]. The use of
interactive models is about discovering, externalizing, capturing, expressing,
representing, sharing and managing enterprise knowledge. A model is active if it
directly influences the reality it reflects, i.e. changes to the model also change the way
some actors perceive reality [12]. Model activation is the process by which a model
affects reality. Model activation involves actors interpreting the model and to some
extent adjusting their behavior accordingly. This process can be
Automated, where a software component interprets the model and acts accordingly
Manual, where the model only guides the actions of human actors, or
Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Enterprise Modelling 124
Interactive, where prescribed aspects of the model are automatically interpreted and
ambiguous parts are left to the human users to resolve (through modeling in a
restricted environment).
That a model is interactive entails a co-evolution of the model and its domain,
although the effects are first typically local on an instance-level. Several approaches to
interactive models exist, including Hybrid Wikis [17] and AKM – Active Knowledge
Modeling [15]. AKM’s enable workers to express situated work-sensitive knowledge,
building rich-context workspaces and multi-dimensional knowledge spaces.
Interactive models allows us to capture and benefit from situated, work-generative
knowledge that otherwise will only be captured as tacit knowledge in the minds of those
involved if at all. A long-term goal is that everyone (not only ’modelers’) are involved
in developing and activating models made in adapted modelling language presented in
generated workplaces that fits the individual user or group of users collaborating.
The choice of modeling practice includes deciding what methods, languages and
tools are to be used for the development and evolution of the models. The need of
formality may differ based on the context and on the expected value identified. The
development of a model to be included in an enterprise architecture requires greater
formality in terms of methods, tools and languages compared to modeling for informal
communication in a small group, where the model might serve as a short-living artifact
only.
Whereas new knowledge often arises in collaborative sense-making tasks on the
individual and (small)-group levels, it is in many cases also relevant to spread and
mature the knowledge established at this level to a higher organizational level,
migrating knowledge across workspaces [15]. To examine this in greater detail, we base
the discussion on the work on knowledge maturing from the MATURE project. The
following is based on [13, 14].
Fig. 1 Framework for knowledge maturing (from [13])
The Knowledge Maturing Model outlines the following phases (see Fig. 1):
Ia. Exploration: New ideas and insight are developed by individuals.
125 Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Enterprise Modelling
Ib. Appropriating ideas (individuation): New ideas that have been enriched, refined,
or otherwise contextualized with respect to their use are now appropriated by the
individual. On both these levels we are in the personal workspace
II. Distributing in communities (community interaction): This phase is driven by
social or work-pragmatic motives such as belonging to a preferred social group or
the expectation of reciprocal knowledge exchange within the community or project.
A common terminology for individual contributions is developed and shared among
community members, and simple (process) models of the situation might be
articulated for supporting communication within the community. (Innovation
workspace).
III. Transformation: More structured documents and models are created in which
knowledge is made more transferable, and context is made explicit with the purpose
of easing the transfer of knowledge to people other than those in the originating
community or project. This connects to the business networking workspace.
From Phase IV on, there are two alternative paths of knowledge maturing:
IV1. Ad-hoc training followed by formal training (instruction)).
IV2. Piloting (implementation): Experiences are deliberately collected with a test
case stressing pragmatic action and trying a solution before a larger roll-out of a
product or service to an external community or new rules, procedures, or processes
to an internal target community such as project teams or other organizational units.
V2a. Institutionalizing (introduction): Within an organization, formalized models
and documents that have been learned by knowledge workers are implemented into
the organizational infrastructure in the form of common business rules, business
processes or standard operating procedures.
Vb. Standardizing (incorporation):
In the knowledge maturing process, models originally developed for other purposes
can act as guidance, being more or less fully reused and adapted to the case at hand. The
breath of learning and experiences to bring forward will often need to be more restricted
the more widely one wants to share the knowledge. It is important to clarify the level of
knowledge maturity that you have achieved and the ambitions for increasing the level of
maturity. Aiming too high (too far to the tight in Fig. 1) will result in waste due to extra
processing, and aiming too low might result in waste through under-communication,
with possible results being waste due to unnecessary searching, interpretation work and
misunderstandings.
3 An Approach to Support Top-down and Bottom-up Modeling
supported by Knowledge Maturing across Workspaces
By using the AKM (Active Knowledge Model) approach we can integrate the more
traditional top-down modeling using e.g. IDEF0 notation as an example of a POPS-
notation (Product, Organization, Process, System), with the bottom-up practical
modelling of Workplaces in IRTV (Information, Role, Task and View) notation [15].
POPS and IRTV are used within different interrelated enterprise knowledge spaces
supported by AKM [15], combining models of different perspectives [9].
Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Enterprise Modelling 126
To enable modeling in the large [7], organizational models exist on 4 levels of
generalization/abstraction and details/instantiation as seen in Fig. 2:
1. Strategic “Ought-to-be” level: A generic “Best Practice” model laying out the
strategic plans for how the enterprise should operate in the future (long-term).
Having this level gives the business management and business architects more
influence and control and a more effective way to specify how the IT functions
should support the business processes [2].
2. Tactical “Agreed-to-be” level: A generic normalized process model. The Business
Strategy Managers/Architects and the Operational Managers/Architects have to
agree upon a common normalized process definition (stereotype). This definition
will act as the requirement specification for the operational implementation.
3. Operational “As-is/To-be” level: A generic typical activity model. The operational
managers/architects and the IT Systems-architects will model the processes in detail.
This is the procedural level detailing the actual performance of the processes in a
typical way, and is presented to the users as process guides or procedures.
Fig. 2 Model repository support across model levels
4. Operational “As-Performed” level: A guide/procedure generated from the level
above is used when executing the individual tasks. This means that the typical task
is here instantiated for this specific task for a specific item, place and time. Each
time this activity is performed it creates a new process instance, and additional
learnings on this level can be articulated if the provided models are interactive.
Fig. 2 shows the implementation of this modelling approach using Active
Knowledge Models (AKM) in different enterprise knowledge spaces using Troux by
Planview modelling tool. The upper 2 levels use Troux BPM modelling template
127 Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Enterprise Modelling
representing AKM POPS with IDEF0 notation. The 3rd detailed workflow level is
modelled using the BPMN notation [1]. The 4th bottom “Workspace/Workplace” level
is modelled using the AKM IRTV notation. Here all instances of the executed tasks are
represented and traced, so we can follow the execution of each instance in the model.
Model based Workspaces and practical Workplaces are generated based on reflective
models and all roles involved or affected by the designed item (design, engineering,
construction operation, demolition), will have their specialized workplace.
All the different level of models can be stored/synchronized with TrouxSource
repository, making the content available for all modelers with access rights. The
different levels can be linked, which can be used to align the models.
This way we can integrate the more traditional top-down modelling of POPS with
the more practical modelling of Workplaces in IRTV.
Fig. 3. Combining top-down and bottom-up modeling through knowledge maturing
Fig. 3 shows the process going from POPS to IRTV and back to POPS and then back
through a new design circle to IRTV supporting knowledge maturing and reuse.
On the left side the top-down CS3P3 process for introduction of AKM in an
organization is depicted [15]. Following the knowledge maturing depicted on the right
side of Fig. 3 there is a potential for that during the usage of the IRTV based workplaces
a best practice task pattern with product structures etc. will emerge.
The organization can learn from this by exploring the different scenarios and
generalize, distributing the result for discussion to be implemented as enterprise best
practice. Then it can be transformed to the enterprise process notation (e.g. IDEF0) and
introduced for implementation in the new Ought-to-be model.
Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Enterprise Modelling 128
In discussion and adaption with the current operating processes, a new
normalized/standard process might be defined. New To-be workflow may then be
prepared and implemented as new operational procedures.
Going downwards a new design is prepared by defining the concept and building a
scaffolding model, from scratch if totally new, or by extracting parts of the POPS model
as a starting point. Scenarios may be explored from this and solutions defined from
selected scenario. Then the selected solution will be integrated with the selected
implementation platform to be delivered to the performing production organization.
4 Conclusion and Further Work
Most organizations do modelling by using professional model builders, whereas
engineering and industrial users are rarely involved apart from being participants in
time-limited workshops if one uses participatory modeling techniques [3]. This is partly
due to the user experience of the EM tools, but also relates to the value contributed by
the modelling process. If EM is meant to be externalizing and sharing knowledge, then
it should be rooted in the people possessing the core enterprise knowledge as this is
developed through work in practice.
Involvement of stakeholders in sharing knowledge and data is a key issue. Think of
inter-relating all stakeholder perspectives and life-cycles views from requirements,
expectations and constraints on design to maintenance and decommissioning or re-
engineering. Being able to interrelate and analyze, build this “big picture” and make it
active and drive execution depends mainly on three conditions:
1. The designers and engineers must work with real customer product deliveries, and
2. The product and process are designed/modelled and worked out (executing tasks)
in concert by the real users.
3. Newly discovered knowledge can not only be represented directly as part of work,
but can also be matured if useful to be part of the overall enterprise model guiding
future work.
This implies closing the gap between modeling and execution. Many might argue that
modeling is inherently difficult, and thus cannot be expected to be done by all
knowledge workers. We agree that modeling on the type level, where you try to
perceive a large number of cases in the future, is difficult, and this has to be done in
specific facilitated sessions e.g. including facilitated modeling and reflection activities.
Modeling in the interactive modeling approach is mainly on the instance level, which
should be manageable by most knowledge workers, given that they have an appropriate
working environment (e.g. a model-generated workplace [15]) .There are still large
challenges for such an approach, especially on the interoperability of modeling
infrastructures that need to be tackled. This paper has reported on one approach based
on the use of the tools from Planview Troux to support such a process. Some early
experience from parts of this process is reported in [2]. The full approach is currently
investigated in practice in industrial case studies, which we hope to be able to report
from in the future.
129 Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Enterprise Modelling
References
1. Aagesen, G. and Krogstie, J.: BPMN 2.0 for Modeling Business Processes Handbook on
Business Process Management 1 (pp. 219-250): Springer (2015)
2. Fossland, S, Krogstie, J. (2016). Enterprise process modeling in practice- Experiences from a
case study in the healthcare sector. Paper presented at the EMMSAD 2016, Ljubljana. (2016)
3. Gjersvik, R., Krogstie, J. and Følstad, A.: Participatory Development of Enterprise Process
Models. In John Krogstie, Keng Siau, & Terry Halpin (Eds.), Information Modeling Methods
and Methodologies: Idea Group Publisher (2004)
4. Heggset, M. J. Krogstie and H. Wesenberg: Understanding Model Quality Concerns when
Using Process Models in an Industrial Company” In EMMSAD 2015. Springer (2015)
5. Hermans FFJ. Analyzing and Visualizing Spreadsheets. PhD thesis, Software Engineering
Research Group, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands (2012)
6. Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A, B. Schotten, and P.J.F. Lucas: Towards Games for Knowledge
Acquisition and Modeling. In: International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated
Simulations, Oct—Dec.2010, Vol. 2, No. 4. Special issue on AI & Games. IGI Global. (2010)
7. Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P., van der Aalst, Wil M.P. and Krogstie, J. : BPM-in-the-Large –
Towards a higher level of abstraction in Business Process Management. Paper presented at the
GISP under IFIP WCC, Brisbane, Australia (2010)
8. Krogstie, J.: Modelling of the People, by the People, for the People. In J. Krogstie, A. Opdahl,
& S. Brinkkemper (Eds.), Conceptual Modelling in IS Engineering: Springer (2007)
9. Krogstie, J.: Integrated Goal, Data and Process modeling: From TEMPORA to Model-
Generated Work-Places. In Paul Johannesson & Eva Søderstrøm (Eds.), Information Systems
Engineering From Data Analysis to Process Networks (pp. 43-65): IGI. (2008)
10. Krogstie, J. Quality in Business Process modeling, Springer (2016)
11. Krogstie, J, Dalberg, V., Jensen, S. M.: Process modeling value framework. In Yannis
Manolopoulos, Joaquim Filipe, Panos Constantopoulos & Jose Cordeiro (Eds.), Selected
papers from ICEIS 2006 (Vol. LNBIP 3, pp. 309-321). Paphos, Cyprus: Springer. (2008)
12. Krogstie, J & Jørgensen, H. D. Quality of Interactive Models. International Workshop on
Conceptual Modelling Quality (IWCMQ'02), Tampere, Finland (2002)
13. Krogstie, B.R, et al.: Linking Reflective Learning and Knowledge Maturing in Organizations
Proceedings ARTEL 2013 (2013)
14. Kump, B., et al.: The Role of Reflection in Maturing Organizational Know-how, in 1st
European Workshop ARNets11, in conjunction with EC-TEL 2011: Palermo, Italy (2011)
15. Lillehagen, F,, Krogstie, J.: Active Knowledge Models and Enterprise Knowledge
Management. Paper presented at the International Conference on Enterprise Integration and
Modelling Technology (ICEIMT'02), Valencia, Spain. (2002)
16. Lindland, O.I. and Krogstie, J.: Validating Conceptual Models by Transformational
Prototyping. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Advanced Information
Systems Engineering (CAiSE'93), Paris, France. (1993)
17. Matthes, F.; Neubert, C. and Schneider, A. W.: Fostering Collaborative and Integrated
Enterprise Architecture Modeling. In Journal of Enterprise Modelling and Information
Systems Architectures, Vol. 8, No. 1, March (2013).
18. Sandkuhl, K. et al.: Enterprise modeling for the masses – From elitist discipline to common
practice. Presented at PoEM 2016, Skøvde, Sweden (2016)
19. Wegner, P. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms, Communications of the ACM,
40(5), 80-91 (1997).
20. Weick, K. Sensemaking in Organisations. London: Sage (1995)
21. Winter, R.: Architectural Thinking, in: Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6, 6,
(2014) pp. 361-364