=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2218/paper14
|storemode=property
|title=Product-IT and Enterprise-IT integration in Enterprise Architecture Management – Methodological Perspective
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2218/paper14.pdf
|volume=Vol-2218
|authors=Julia Kaidalova,Ulf Seigerroth,Kurt Sandkuhl
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/bir/KaidalovaSS18
}}
==Product-IT and Enterprise-IT integration in Enterprise Architecture Management – Methodological Perspective==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2218/paper14.pdf
Product-IT and Enterprise-IT integration in Enterprise
Architecture Management – Methodological Perspective
Julia Kaidalova1, Ulf Seigerroth1, Kurt Sandkuhl1,2
1Jönköping University, School of Engineering, Box 1026, 55111 Jönköping, Sweden
{julia.kaidalova, ulf.seigerroth, kurt.sandkuhl}@ju.se
2University of Rostock, Albert-Einstein-Str. 22, 18059 Rostock, Germany
kurt.sandkuhl@uni-rostock.de
Abstract. Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) is a practice for plan-
ning and governance of IT assets in an organization. Today, in the era of digital
transformation, new digital opportunities and technological advancements are
changing how companies create products and deliver services. Enormous poten-
tial for business value generation lies in product-IT – built-in software and digi-
tal services enhancing physical products. In this paper we discuss the need to
approach product-IT and enterprise-IT in an integrated manner based on the
findings from an exploratory case study. Particularly, we outline how to inte-
grate these two in the context of EAM, considering the challenges that tradi-
tional EAM is facing in relation to the digital transformation. The main results
of the paper are a set of high-level requirements for EAM that would enable
product-IT and enterprise-IT integration. These requirements can serve as a ba-
sis for future development of methodological support in the outlined context.
Keywords: Product-IT, Enterprise-IT, Enterprise Architecture Management,
Internet of Things.
1 Introduction
Information Technology (IT) is changing products. Products have evolved from being
solely composed of mechanical and electrical parts to complex systems of hardware,
sensors, data storage, microprocessors, software, and connectivity. In [1] these prod-
ucts are addressed as smart, connected products. The integration of sensors and com-
munication technologies serves as the foundation of such technological innovations as
Internet of Things (IoT) and Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) [2, 3]. Smart, connected
products are the key actors in these areas – they act as intelligent communicating
entities. Smart, connected product have opened a new era of competition and business
value creation and capable of generating enormous value. The McKinsey Global In-
stitute estimates that the IoT may have a total economic impact of US $3.9 trillion to
US $11.1 trillion a year by 2025 [4].
Three core elements of smart, connected products are (1) physical components, (2)
“smart” components, and (3) connectivity components [1]. Physical components in-
2
clude mechanical and electrical parts. Smart components contain the sensors, micro-
processors, data storage, controls, software, an embedded operating system and en-
hanced user interface. In many products, software replaces some hardware compo-
nents or enables a single physical device to perform at a variety of levels. Connectivi-
ty components include the ports, antennae, and protocols enabling wired or wireless
connections with the product. Smart components increase the capabilities and value of
the physical components, whereas connectivity increases the capabilities and value of
the smart components and enables some of the smart components to exist outside the
physical product itself. Particularly, product becomes accessible by various compo-
nents of Product Cloud: smart product applications for monitoring and control. The
data regarding the product operation can be stored and analyzed in Product Data Da-
tabase to reveal new insights; the application platform enables the rapid creation of
smart, connected business applications using data access, visualization, and run-time
tools [1]. Together, smart components, connectivity components and product cloud
form a product-IT. They give a new, digital character to a physical product, which
increase the value of the physical product significantly.
Smart, connected products are developing in all manufacturing sectors, an example
describing automotive industry is described in [5]. These products change industry
structure and the nature of competition, exposing companies to new competitive op-
portunities and threats. The shift from traditional (physical) creation and delivery of
customer value, including the operational procedures related to this, into the massive
use of digital technologies which enhance or replace the traditional product with
smart, connected product is usually addressed as IT-driven transformation [1] or digi-
tal transformation (DT) [6].
The various aspects of an enterprise possibly affected by DT include organizational
structure, business processes, information systems, and infrastructure, which together
form an Enterprise Architecture (EA). Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) is
a discipline that seeks to address mutual alignment between these aspects by taking
the embracing perspective on the overall EA [7]. Organizations have traditionally
deployed EAM to help understand, plan, develop, and control their IT assets, i.e. en-
terprise-IT [8, 9].
Exploitation and integration of digital technologies, which is pointed out by [6] as
the first dimension of DT strategy development, can include digitalizing products
(enhancing the physical product with product-IT), or digitalizing business processes,
sales channels, supply chains, etc. (enhancing company functioning with a suitable
and up-to-date enterprise-IT). Enterprise-IT can include various systems (such as
ERP, CRM, PLM) that support organization’s functioning. IT strategies are usually
providing a general overview of enterprise-IT - the current and the future operational
activities, the necessary application systems and infrastructures, together with a suita-
ble organizational and financial framework for providing IT to carry out business
operations within a company, however, having a limited impact on driving innova-
tions in business development [10]. To some extent, this restricts the essential prod-
uct-centric and customer-centric opportunities that arise from new digital technolo-
gies, which often cross firms’ borders [11]. In addition, IT strategies present system-
centric road maps to the future use of technology in a firm, but they do not necessarily
141
3
account for the transformation of products, processes, and structural aspects that go
along with the integration of technologies. Therefore, in the context of DT and strate-
gical directions in this context, product IT should be considered together with enter-
prise IT, to enable the company capture and develop product-centric and customer-
centric opportunities.
By providing a holistic view of business capability elements and their relation-
ships, EAM facilitates translating strategic objectives into business capabilities and
concrete changes in business processes, governance structure, and IT systems that
enable those capabilities and, thus, organizational objectives [8, 12-14]. EAM has a
broad arsenal of tools and practices to bridge strategy with implementation, which are
traditionally applied to realize IT strategy. Example of such tools are EA roadmap and
EA principles, which are used for conformity checks and ensures compliance of
changed business capabilities [8]. These tools can be also applicable for implementing
strategies in the context of DT. However, it is important to keep in mind broader
scope of IT strategy that DT calls for – combination of enterprise IT and product IT.
Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to investigate what could be a suitable
way for integration of product-IT and enterprise-IT in the context of EAM, which
currently lacks suitable methodological support for solving the challenges outlined in
[15]. To develop such methodological support in EAM area it is first important to
define: What is important to be considered in the integration of product-IT and enter-
prise-IT in EAM?
This research question is the focus of the given paper. To answer this question de-
sign science approach is applied (Section 2). A number of issues that EAM will need
to address in the outlined context is discussed in Section 3, which is presented as a set
of method requirements. The discussion of the generated method requirements in
Section 4 includes examples of important aspects and stakeholders that will play a
central role in the refined EAM.
2 Research Approach
This section describes how the formulated research question was addressed. This
paper describes a part of a design science research [16] aimed at a method generation
in the EAM field, which started from outlining the challenges in the described context
in [15, 17]. The central artifact of the study is a method that would allow to address
enterprise-IT and product-IT in an integrated manner within EAM practice, at the
organization that are going through digital transformation. In this paper we present
high-level requirements for such a method and discuss how those method require-
ments can be addressed in terms of specific method components [18]. The method
development would need further research and will be investigated in our future work.
Knowledge base for this study is composed by foundations - existing studies in the
field, and methodologies - guidelines for justifying and evaluating the method. Foun-
dations are existing studies in the domains of EAM, BITA, existing EA frameworks
and other related areas such as IoT and CPS. During the analysis of existing literature,
we observed that there is not much work on the integration of product-IT into EA,
142
4
however we could clearly see that the interest in this integration is growing. There are
several relevant studies available, published mostly between 2014 and 2017, such as
[19-21].
The enterprise investigated in the case study is Husqvarna Group AB. Husqvarna is
a world-leading producer of outdoor power products including chainsaws, trimmers,
robotic lawn mowers, garden tractors, watering systems, cutting equipment, and dia-
mond tools for the construction and stone industries. Husqvarna is right now in a
transformation process where they need to embrace the digitalization trends to stay
competitive and to deliver improved value to their customers and other stakeholders.
Many of the Husqvarna products for professional customers do not only have smart
components but also connectivity components.
Empirical material was collected during an exploratory case study, i.e. the phe-
nomenon of product-IT and enterprise-IT is explored in its natural organizational
context. Data was collected via interviews, meetings and investigation of the internal
company documents. The first round of semi-structured interviews has been per-
formed in summer 2016, where nine respondents have been interviewed. The re-
spondents were chosen from various positions, such as architecture and digital solu-
tions manager, project managers, product owners, EAM practitioners, squad leaders.
The second round of in-depth interviews took place in the fall 2017, where four re-
spondents have been interviewed. This round of interviews focused on potential re-
quirements for the existing EAM practice originating from the product-IT develop-
ment and maintenance projects. The respondents were chosen based on their experi-
ence in ad-hoc inclusion of product-IT concerns into the existing EAM practice: EAM
practitioner dealing with EA representation and EA documentation, EAM practitioner
dealing with IT governance, digital expectation manager, project manager for digital
customer support.
3 Method Requirements
The main goal of this paper is to present what is important for product-IT and enter-
prise-IT integration in EAM, i.e. what kind of issues refined EAM should be able to
address. In this section we introduce several high-level requirements for EAM, each
of them is discussed and supported both empirically and theoretically.
1. Product-IT should be included into consideration during strategy, operational
and technology development.
The market-changing potential of digital technologies is currently wider than trans-
forming products, business processes, sales channels or supply chains—entire busi-
ness models are being reshaped and overturned [6, 22]. Aiming at competitive ad-
vantage companies need to address operational effectiveness (OE) [1]. OE requires
embracing best practices across the value chain, including up to date product technol-
ogies, the latest production equipment, and state-of-the-art sales force methods, IT
solutions, and supply chain management approaches. The boundaries between IT
supporting business functioning, digital services that increase the value of the prod-
ucts and automation of manufacturing become blur, as they all act as parts of the digi-
143
5
tal assets of an enterprise and need to be considered in a structured and coherent man-
ner both in terms of strategical and operational choices. This motivates the importance
of formulating a digital strategy that would allow to not only achievement of OE (do-
ing things well), but to create positioning that would allow strategic differentiation
(doing things differently) [1]. The practice of EAM has a broad range of frameworks
and tools for translating strategy into implementation and therefore can be used for
developing and implementing digital strategy, where product-IT will be considered as
a crucial part.
2. The co-existence of different working modes, ranging from traditional waterfall-
like to agile, should be considered and orchestrated.
A challenge that is apparent today in the digital transformation is the to handle the
bimodal dimensions of the IT lifecycle [23]. The enterprise-IT dimension (Mode1),
designed for stability, efficiency, and low cost, which is closely related to traditional
EAM. Product-IT on the other hand (Mode 2) is constituted by development projects
that help to innovate or differentiate the business. This requires a high degree of busi-
ness involvement, fast turnaround, and frequent update, the so-called rapid path to
transform business ideas into applications.
[21] stated that there is a need to handle “A two speed architecture for the digital
enterprise”. For digitally native enterprises and startups such as for example Netflix
this is not a problem, since they have had the benefit of starting with a “clean slate”
and think “digital” and take the advantage of this from the beginning without consid-
ering any legacy. This does however not work for more established enterprises. They
have many years of delivered technology, architectures, governance, decisions struc-
tures and financing mechanisms. The central objective of the two-speed method is to
differentiate the systems, architectures, and structures that must be flexible and agile
(often on product-IT side) from those that have to be more reliable and deliver the
highest quality (often on enterprise-IT side) [21].
3. Enabling analysis and representation of several architectural domains, paying
substantial attention to strategy.
The new EAM method will have to cut through the different layers: not only the
technology architecture (technology stack proposed by [1]), but organizational archi-
tecture, process architecture, strategy and others. A new EAM method’s need to ena-
ble collaborative support for knowledge representation across different layers and
domains and navigating through them easily. This need has been confirmed in the
interview with a digital expectations manager, who pointed out the lack of representa-
tional capabilities in the existing EA documentation approaches and their strong tech-
nical focus, which often made it useless in a dialog with customers and marketing
stakeholders focusing on a value of digital services.
This need to cut through several layers and navigate through them is related to the
concept of multi-level dynamic is also discussed by [21]. They argue that the enter-
prise architect would need to understand the differentiating attributes of different
levels and place enterprise activities within each level. The constituent activities of
any process could be moved across level boundaries however the resulting implica-
tions of this would need to be traced.
144
6
The traditional EAM division into business, application and technology architec-
tural domains, can remain valid, however should include both product-IT and enter-
prise-IT. Several interviewees emphasized the need to pay significant attention to
strategy formulation and implementation that would necessarily involve product-IT
concerns. Within the architectural domains of TOGAF [24], strategy can be posi-
tioned as a part of business architectural domain.
4. Common architecture and capturing, structuring, analysis and access to the da-
ta needs to be introduced.
The importance to develop products and services in a data-intensive way became
obvious for today companies. Business models being reshaped via data exploitation.
Data-driven sensing and acting described in [21] suggests that enterprise change is
being influenced by both the internal adoption of technologies and the general perva-
siveness of digital technologies in the environment that they operate in. This kind of
data-driven sense-and-respond loops for ongoing enterprise transformation already
exist in multiple industries and often are realized by the mechanisms of Big Data
analysis. Interviews with digital expectation manager and the product owner show
that analysis of the usage data of the apps features help to optimize product features
and facilitate further product improvement, which in the long run increase a value of
the product for a customer. The products for which usage data is analyzed continuous-
ly throughout the development are leading to better customer satisfaction than for
products that do not use data analysis.
According to [21], one specific need that originates from this for enterprise archi-
tects is a need for methods for sketching out linear paths or cyclic loops as they exist
in any enterprise, the various levels and timescales that they transition through, the
interactions that the paths may have with other paths or enterprise objects, the sensory
inputs to the sensing part and the corresponding balance that the responding part
should bring.
5. The method should enable and support stakeholders’ collaboration and interac-
tion.
There is a need to facilitate the collaboration between various groups of stakehold-
ers with varied organizational belonging. The need for representational, collaboration
and interaction mechanisms that can be used to support a dialog between stakeholders
with various backgrounds (squad leaders, product owners, marketing specialists,
graphical designers and others) becomes apparent and crucial to address. For exam-
ple, [1] point out the need for close collaboration between IT and Research & Devel-
opment and continuous customer success management.
According to [21] the particular issue for an enterprise architects need to be able to
depict actor autonomy, actor objectives and goals, boundaries of actor influence, mul-
tiple levels at which these objectives and influences span and interactions between
actors. Also, it will be important to show any alignment (or misalignment) of actor
objectives with the enterprise-level objectives.
145
7
4 Discussion and Conclusions
Described method requirements are representing high-level needs for a new meth-
odological support to address the identified challenges of EAM in digitalization age.
These requirements are related to different aspects: what is a suitable way to represent
EA, what are the working procedures that EAM needs to follow, what are the con-
cepts that are important to be addressed in product-inclusive EAM, who are the im-
portant stakeholders that need to interact in this context, what is the suitable interac-
tion procedure and others. All these aspects can be connected to a method theory de-
scribed by [18]. [18] state that the core of a method is an implicit or explicit perspec-
tive (philosophy). A perspective includes values, principles and categories. Together
with perspective, a method can include other parts: (1) perspective – what is im-
portant? (2) cooperation and collection principles – Who puts questions? Who an-
swers questions? How to put questions? How to collect answers? (3) framework –
How are questions related? (4) procedure – what question to ask? (5) concepts – what
to talk about? (6) notation – how to express answers?
Each method requirement presented in section 3 can be addressed by in connection
to method theory presented by [18].
1. Product-IT should be included into consideration during strategy, operational
and technology development. This requirement entails the perspective of the method –
the core philosophy of the new EAM method. It indicates two important parts - Enter-
prise-IT and Product-IT, that the new method should define and connect as two sides
of one coin.
2. The co-existence of different working modes, ranging from traditional waterfall-
like to agile, should be considered and orchestrated. This requirement can be ad-
dressed with a procedure method component, where a set of working procedures
would be defined to ensure the bimodal way of working required for orchestrated
management of P-IT and E-IT. It would also call for defining the key concepts in the
given domain and might require introducing new elements to the existing notations
for representing EA.
3. Enabling analysis and representation of several architectural domains, paying
substantial attention to strategy. Addressing this requirement would require defining
the key concepts in the given area – not only in terms of architectural domains, but
also in terms of specific elements that each of the defined architectural domains will
need to include. For example, in [25] Strategy, Organisation and Information System
are defined as key architectural domains. The architectural domains defined by
TOGAF are business, data, application, technical architecture[26]. Defining strategy
into a separate architectural domain is reasonable, taking into account the importance
of product-IT for value generation, shaping company’s business model and differenti-
ating the company from the competitors.
An example of an important aspect that needs to be represented and analyzed in
this respect is customer journey. The journey model (map) describes the journey of a
customer (user) by representing the different touchpoints that characterize his interac-
tion with the service. It can include the following: who – Persona; what – to be exam-
ined; phases of the journey; actions to take; thoughts; emotional experiences; oppor-
146
8
tunities to focus on going forward; who owns it internally. Another example of specif-
ic aspect that needs to be analyzed is business moment scenario. A business moment
exploits the connection of people, business and things and allow companies to inno-
vate for entirely new scenarios. This method of representation can play a very im-
portant role in outlining new strategical directions, which are based on new techno-
logical solutions and digital services.
4. Common architecture and capturing, structuring, analysis and access to the da-
ta needs to be introduced. Common mechanisms for data analysis and ownership can
be defined by developing a suitable procedure. In addition, new mechanisms for data
ownership and analysis call for defining roles and responsibilities that are important
in this context, and therefore can be manifested in cooperation and collection princi-
ples.
5. The method should enable and support stakeholders’ collaboration and interac-
tion. This requirement can be addressed by introducing principles and approaches that
would define who are the key stakeholders that need to collaborate in the context of
product inclusive EAM, what are their responsibilities and what are the suitable ways
of the collaboration.
A set of roles that is representing product-IT and enterprise-IT cooperation is rep-
resented below in Figure 1. The interaction was observed during the case study in one
of the development projects for smart, connected products. The figure shows the key
actors and interaction objects in this development.
Test (whole Planing,
Technical Product
product as Finance, R&D
product owner
owner system) Customer req.
backlog System
System EAM team
req.
architect
User System &
stories solution
Sprint Big Data
Patterns architecture Data
planning Budget team
& anti-
limits patterns
Backlog Require- Service Common
grooming Product backlog Services
ments,
libraries &
Use cases
frameworks
Unified Core team
Test team Implementa-
platform
Support tion alignment
(agile Squad issues
coaching)
Fig. 1 Interaction model for an app development project
When it comes to a suitable way for stakeholders to interact, participative enter-
prise modelling (EM) can be applicable in the described context. EM is a practice for
developing, obtaining, and communicating enterprise knowledge, like strategies,
goals, information systems requirements to internal and external stakeholders [27,
28]. Particularly, participative or collaborative EM, where modeling sessions in
groups are led by an EM practitioner and which been established as a practical ap-
proach to deal with organizational design problems, can facilitate collaboration be-
tween the stakeholders in the described context. Collaboration, participation, and
interaction among a large group of stakeholders is highly beneficial in the practice of
modeling, as it enables more effective and efficient model derivation and it increases
the validity of created models [29], enables more efficient data acquisition and better
understanding of enterprise processes [30].
147
9
Formulated requirements originate from an explorative case study with a manufac-
turing company, which is going through digital transformation process. The identified
requirements can serve as a basis for future development of methodological support in
EAM domain. Linked to method development theory presented by [18] the new
methodological support can include one or several parts, such as cooperation and
collection principles, concepts, notation, procedures, framework and perspective. The
investigated issue requires further research, particularly, broader empirical base from
other case companies facing similar challenges would be beneficial.
References
1. Porter, M.E. and J.E. Heppelmann, How smart, connected products are transforming
competition. Harvard Business Review, 2014(November 2014).
2. Xu, L.D., W. He, and S. Li, Internet of Things in Industries: A Survey. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2014. 10(4): p. 2233-2243.
3. Stankovic, J.A., Research Directions for the Internet of Things. IEEE Internet of
Things Journal, 2014. 1(1): p. 3-9.
4. Create Value from Smart, Connected Products 2015 [cited 2015 September 3];
Available from: https://www.vmware.com/ciovantage/article/create-value-from-
smart-connected-products.
5. Wedeniwski, S., The Mobility Revolution in the Automotive Industry. 2016: Springer.
6. Hess, T., et al., Options for Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy. 2016,
Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics
and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL). p. 123-139.
7. Winter, K., et al., Investigating the State-of-the-Art in Enterprise Architecture
Management Methods in literature and Practice. MCIS, 2010. 90.
8. Simon, D., K. Fischbach, and D. Schoder, Enterprise architecture management and
its role in corporate strategic management. Information Systems and e-Business
Management, 2014. 12(1): p. 5-42.
9. Wißotzki, M., et al. Development of an enterprise architecture management
capability catalog. in International Conference on Business Informatics Research.
2013. Springer.
10. Teubner, R.A., Information systems strategy. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 2013. 5(4): p. 243-257.
11. Matt, C., T. Hess, and A. Benlian, Digital transformation strategies. Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 2015. 57(5): p. 339-343.
12. Rahimi, F., J. Gøtze, and C. Møller, Enterprise architecture management: Toward a
taxonomy of applications. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 2017. 40(1): p. 7.
13. Tamm, T., et al., How does enterprise architecture add value to organisations?
CAIS, 2011. 28: p. 10.
14. Lankhorst, M., Enterprise architecture at work: Modelling, communication and
analysis. 2009: Springer.
148
10
15. Kaidalova, J., K. Sandkuhl, and U. Seigerroth, Challenges in Integrating Product-IT
into Enterprise Architecture – A Case Study, in International Conference on
ENTERprise Information Systems, CENTERIS 2017, International Conference on
Project MANagement, ProjMAN 2017 and International Conference on Health and
Social Care Information Systems and Technologies, HCist 2017; Barcelona; Spain; 8
- 10 November 2017. 2017, Elsevier. p. 525-533.
16. Hevner, A.R., et al., Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly,
2004. 28(1): p. 75-105.
17. Sandkuhl, K., U. Seigerroth, and J. Kaidalova. Towards Integration Methods of
Product-IT into Enterprise Architectures. in Enterprise Distributed Object
Computing Workshop (EDOCW), 2017 IEEE 21st International. 2017. IEEE.
18. Goldkuhl, G., M. Lind, and U. Seigerroth, Method integration: the need for a
learning perspective. IEE Proceedings-Software, 1998. 145(4): p. 113-118.
19. Zimmermann, A., et al., Evolving enterprise architectures for digital transformations.
Lecture Notes in Informatics, 2015. 244: p. 183-194.
20. Nandico, O.F., A Framework to Support Digital Transformation, in Emerging Trends
in the Evolution of Service-Oriented and Enterprise Architectures, E. El-Sheikh, A.
Zimmermann, and L.C. Jain, Editors. 2016, Springer International Publishing: Cham.
p. 113-138.
21. Babar, Z. and E. Yu. Enterprise Architecture in the Age of Digital Transformation. in
Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops. 2015. Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
22. Downes, L. and P. Nunes, Big bang disruption. 2013.
23. Gartner IT Glossary. Bimodal. Available from: https://www.gartner.com/it-
glossary/bimodal/.
24. Haren, V., TOGAF Version 9.1. 2011: Van Haren Publishing.
25. Frank, U., Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects
and future research challenges. Software & Systems Modeling, 2014. 13(3): p. 941-
962.
26. Haren, V., TOGAF Version 9.1. 2011: Van Haren Publishing. 654.
27. Persson, A., Enterprise modelling in practice: situational factors and their influence
on adopting a participative approach. 2001, Department of Computer and Systems
Sciences, Stockholm University.
28. Sandkuhl, K., et al., Enterprise modeling. Tackling Business Challenges with the
4EM Method. Springer, 2014. 309.
29. Barjis, J. CPI modeling: Collaborative, participative, interactive modeling. in
Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference. 2011. Winter Simulation
Conference.
30. Rieu, D. and M. Santorum, A participative end-user modeling approach for business
process requirements, in Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems
Modeling. 2014, Springer. p. 33-47.
149