Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 15

Proceedings of the 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Towards a Language to Support Value Cocreation: An Extension to the ArchiMate Modeling Framework

, ,

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2018F27

Citation: Proceedings of the 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 15, pages 751760 ()

Full text

Abstract. Value cocreation is gaining momentum as organizations' underlying business logic and encompasses tools and techniques for discovering new valuable and necessary artefacts to support inter-organizational and network-centric business activities. To cocreate value, organizations must talk to each other using a clear and easy to use language. In the course of the ValCoLa (Value Cocreation Language) project, we aim at elaborating such language. To that end, in previous work, we developed a value cocreation metamodel based on three dimensions: the nature of the value, the object concerned by the value and the method to cocreate value. In this paper, we first extend ArchiMate to the domain of value cocreation to provide our metamodel with a dedicated modeling language. Second, we illustrate the language with a case study from the financial sector.


  1. S. L. Vargo, R. F. Lusch, “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution,” Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1-10, Mar. 2008.
  2. S .L. Vargo, R. F. Lusch, “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing,” Journal of marketing, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1-17, Jan. 2004.
  3. Westergren, U. H.: Opening up innovation: the impact of contextual factors on the co-creation of IT-enabled value adding services within the manufacturing industry. Information Systems and e-business Management, 9(2), 223–245 (2011)
  4. B. Leavy, "Collaborative innovation as the new imperative–design thinking, value co-creation and the power of “pull”." Strategy & Leadership 40, no. 2 (2012): 25-34.
  5. C. Calero, J. Ruiz, and M. Piattini, “Classifying web metrics using the web quality model,” Online Inf. Review, vol. 29 (3), pp. 227-248, 2005.
  6. C. Feltus, E. Grandry, T. Kupper, and J. N. Colin, Model-Driven Approach for Privacy Management in Business Ecosystem, in 5 th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, 2017.
  7. R. M. Foorthuis, F. Hofman, S. Brinkkemper, and R. Bos, “Assessing business and IT projects on compliance with enterprise architecture,” in Procs. of GRCIS, 2009.
  8. A. Dix, “Human-computer interaction: A stable discipline, a nascent science, and the growth of the long tail,“ Interacting with Computer, vol. 22, no. 1, Jan. 2010. 13-27.
  9. A. Josey, M. Lankhorst, I. Band, H. Jonkers, and D. Quartel, “An Introduction to the ArchiMate® 3.0 Specification,” White Paper from The Open Group, Jun. 2016.
  10. G. Berio and F. Vernadat, “Enterprise modelling with CIMOSA: functional and organizational aspects,” Production planning & control, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 128-136, Jan 2001.
  11. A. W. Scheer, and M. Nüttgens, “ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management,” Business Process Management, 2000, pp. 376-389.
  12. M. Langheinrich, “Privacy by design—principles of privacy-aware ubiquitous systems,” in International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 2001, pp. 273-291.
  13. A. Cavoukian, "Privacy by design: The 7 foundational principles. implementation and mapping of fair information practices." Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, 2009.
  14. J. Ralyté, “Towards situational methods for information systems development: engineering reusable method chunks, “ in Procs. of 13th International Conference on Information System Development. Advances in Theory, Practice and Education. 2004.
  15. F. Bénaben, J. Touzi, V. Rajsiri, S. Truptil, J. P. Lorré, and H. Pingaud, “Mediation information system design in a collaborative SOA context through a MDD approach,” in Procs. of MDISIS, 2008, pp. 89-103.
  16. C. Feltus, and E. H. A Proper, Conceptualization of an Abstract Language to Support Value Co-Creation, 12th Conference on Information Systems Management (ISM'17), Federated Conferences on Computer Science and Information Systems, Prague, Czech Republic
  17. H. Becker, “Social impact assessment: method and experience in Europe, North America and the developing world,” Routledge, 2014
  18. L. Lessard, C.P. Okakwu, Enablers and Mechanisms of Value Cocreation in Knowledge-Intensive Business Service Engagements: A Research Synthesis. In: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, USA. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 1624–1633 (2016)
  19. R. Hevner, S. T. March, and J. Park, “Design science in information systems research,” MIS quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, 2004. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8_2
  20. K. Peffers, T. Tuunanen, M. A. Rothenberger, and S. Chatterjee, “A design science research methodology for information systems research,” Journal of management information systems, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 45-77, Dec. 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
  21. C. Feltus, L. Lessard, F. Vernadat, D. Amyot, Erik H.A. Proper, Conceptualization of a Value Cocreation Language for Knowledge-Intensive Business Services, In: E. Ziemba (ed.), LNBiP 311, 2018
  22. C. Feltus, E. HA Proper, A. Metzger, J. F. García López, R. C. González, Value CoCreation (VCC) Language Design in the Frame of a Smart Airport Network Case Study, 32nd IEEE Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA-2018), Poland.
  23. F. Li, A. Etienne, A. Siadat, F. Vernadat, A Performance Evaluation Methodology for Decision Support in Industrial Projects. In: Proc. 7th IESM conference, htw saar, Germany (2017)
  24. R. Matulevicius, N. Mayer, P. Heymans, Alignment of misuse cases with security risk management. In: 3rd Int. Conf. ARES. IEEE, pp. 1397–1404. (2008)
  25. C. Feltus, M. Petit, E. Dubois, Strengthening employee's responsibility to enhance governance of IT: COBIT RACI chart case study. In: 1stACM Workshop on Information Security Governance. ACM, pp. 23–32 (2009)
  26. C. Calero, J. Ruiz, M. Piattini, Classifying web metrics using the web quality model. Online Inf. Review, 29(3), 227–248 (2005)
  27. R. M. Foorthuis, F. Hofman, S. Brinkkemper, R. Bos, Assessing business and IT projects on compliance with enterprise architecture. In: GRCIS’09. CEUR-WS Vol-459, paper 6 (2009)
  28. S. L. Vargo, P. P. Maglio, and M. A. Akaka, 2008. On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European management journal, 26(3), pp.145-152.
  29. M. Langheinrich, Privacy by design—principles of privacy-aware ubiquitous systems. In: Ubicomp 2001: Ubiquitous Computing, LNCS, vol. 2201. Springer, pp. 273–291 (2001)
  30. OMG: Value Delivery Metamodel, Version 1.0. OMG Document formal/2015-10-05 (2015)
  31. A. Dix, Human-computer interaction: A stable discipline, a nascent science, and the growth of the long tail. Interacting with Computer, 22(1), 13–27 (2001)
  32. H. Alves, C. Fernandes, M. Raposo, Value co-creation: Concept and contexts of application and study. J. of Business Research, 69(5), 1626–1633 (2016)
  33. A. Cox, Business relationship alignment: on the commensurability of value capture and mutuality in buyer and supplier exchange. Supply Chain Management, 9(5), 410–420 (2004)
  34. J. Nyman, What is the value of security? Contextualising the negative/positive debate. Review of Int. Studies, 42(5), 821–839 (2016)
  35. F. Li, Performance Evaluation and Decision Support for Industrial System Management: A Benefit-Cost-Value-Risk based Methodology. PhD thesis, Arts & Mét. Paritech, France (2017)
  36. V. A. Zeithaml, “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence,” The journal of marketing, pp. 2-22, Jul. 1988. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251446
  37. I. Manuj, J. T. Mentzer, Global supply chain risk management. J. of Business Logistics, 29(1), pp. 133–155 (2008)
  38. M. Daneva, “Applying real options thinking to information security in networked organizations,” No. TR-CTI. Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, 2006.
  39. E. Ziemba, M. Eisenbardt, R. Mullins, Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge Sharing by Polish and UK-Based Prosumers. In: E. Ziemba (ed.) Information technology for management: New ideas and real solutions, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing LNBIP, vol. 277, pp. 49–73 (2017)
  40. M. K. Sein, O. Henfridsson, S. Purao, M. Rossi, and R. Lindgren (2011) Action design research. MIS Q., 35(1), pp. 37-56, ISSN 0276-7783.
  41. G. Berio, F. Vernadat, Enterprise modelling with CIMOSA: functional and organizational aspects. Production planning & control, 12(2), 2001.
  42. M. M. Lankhorst, H. A. Proper, H. Jonkers, The Architecture of the ArchiMate Language. In: Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, LNBIP, vol 29, Springer (2009)
  43. U.S. DoD: DoDAF framework, version 2.02 (2010).
  44. C. Parent, and S. Spaccapietra, Database integration: The key to data interoperability. Advances in Object-Oriented Data Modeling, 2000.
  45. S. Zivkovic, H. Kühn, and D. Karagiannis, Facilitate modelling using method integration: An approach using mappings and integration rules. ECIS 2007, pages 2038-2049. University of St. Gallen.
  46. The Open Group. ArchiMate® 2.1 Specification. Van Haren Publishing, The Netherlands. 2012-2013
  47. C. Grönroos, Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates? European business review, 20(4), 298–314 (2008).
  48. J. D. Chandler and S. L. Vargo, Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–49, (2011)
  49. E. K. Chew, iSIM: An integrated design method for commercializing service innovation. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(3), 457–478 (2016)
  50. M. Blaschke, M. K. Haki, U. Riss, S. Aier, Design Principles for Business-Model-based Management Methods – A Service-dominant Logic Perspective. In: Designing the Digital Transformation (DESRIST 2017), LNCS, vol. 10243. Springer, pp. 179–198 (2017)
  51. J. Gordijn, H. Akkermans, H. Van Vliet, Business modelling is not process modelling. In: ER 2000, LNCS, vol. 1921. Springer, pp. 40–51.
  52. H. Weigand, Value encounters–modeling and analyzing co-creation of value. In: I3E 2009. IFIP Advances in ICT, vol. 305, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 51–64 (2009)
  53. I. S. Razo-Zapata, E. K. Chew, E. Proper, Visual Modeling for Value (Co-)Creation. In: 10th Int. W. on Value Modeling and Business Ontologies, Trento, Italy, paper 6 (2016)
  54. S. de Kinderen, K. Gaaloul, and E. Proper, 2012, February. Integrating value modelling into archimate. In International Conference on Exploring Services Science (pp. 125-139). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  55. E. Grandry, C. Feltus, E. Dubois, 2013, Conceptual integration of enterprise architecture management and security risk management. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW), 2013 17th IEEE International (pp. 114-123). IEEE.
  56. C. Feltus, E. Dubois, E. Proper, I. Band, M. Petit, Enhancing the ArchiMate® Standard with a Responsibility Modeling Language for Access Rights Management, 5th ACM International Conference on Security of Information and Networks (ACM SIN 2012), Jaipur, Rajastan, India. ISBN: 978-1-4503-1668-2