A Learning Architecture for Complex Organization

Francesco Basciani and Gianni Rosa

Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienze dell’Informazione e Matematica,

Universit

a degli Studi dell’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

Keywords:

Model Driven Engineering, Enterprise Architecture, Zachman framework, Learning, Organizations.

Abstract:

Modern organizations are challenged to understand and put in action latest procedures and rules in order

to constantly improve their service quality while coping with quickly changing contexts and decreasing re-

sources. Such are deﬁned by means of several kind of models that are in general quite interrelated. In this

paper, we propose a Learning Architecture using Zachman Framework that allows us to deﬁne relations among

these models and permits us to handle with huge amount of informations and resources in an organized way.

Furthermore, the architecture enables process-driven learning and improvement through enriched models with

contextual knowledge in terms of documentation and resources.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the public service domain it is increasingly

demanded greater effort in terms of quality and

efﬁciency in the services provided by civil servants

to citizens. To ensure this efﬁciency and this quality

is necessary that employees with expertise in a

given task (process) can to share their experience.

To facilitate both the knowledge elicitation and the

learning process, a wide variety of models, tools

and techniques have to be provided and integrated.

All these artifacts at the same time may confuse

organisations, because it is not very obvious which

one to choose or which purpose is served. Moreover,

all the process and its sub-processes have to be

developed and managed independently from other

domains processes. Integrated models are needed,

which put the various approaches into perspective.

Such integration is meant to improve the speed of

working, improve quality of documentation, products

and processes, reduce costs, enhance responsiveness

to customer needs and handle the overall system

inherent complexity.

In this paper we propose an architecture con-

ceived to provide a learning experience in which

learner acquires knowledge while serving real re-

quests, supporting “learn while doing” approach.

For being effective, the architecture must provide

the requirements for a modelling notation which

describe the learners level, the acquired competencies

and knowledge to perform a procedure described by

means of a business process. With this approach the

learner can access and study these enriched models

and operate within a simulated environment repro-

ducing real requests through the promulgation of a

process and monitoring activities in order to provide

feedbacks for the evaluation of learners, business

processes, and associated learning contents. To fulﬁll

the need of share knowledge, manage and improve

the processes in enterprise, the Learning Architecture

LA provide a machine-processable model that exploit

the correlation among the activities and/or concerns

in order to provide enriched informations to the orga-

nization. The Zachman Framework (Zachman, 2012)

is used to describe all the interrelations, that provides

a logic structure for classifying and organizing the

knowledge about business activity of an organization

in different dimensions, and each dimension can be

perceived in different perspectives with respect to the

Enterprise Architecture.

Structure of the Paper. The paper is organized as

follows. Next section illustrates a motivating exam-

ple related to a Public Administration. In Section 3

we present an analysis of the required informations

in order to design a LA; in Section 4, we outline

how are integrate all the artifacts involved in learning

in complex organizations using the Zachman Frame-

work. Related work is discussed in Section 5 and ﬁ-

nally, in Section 6 we draw some conclusions and fu-

ture work.

734

Basciani, F. and Rosa, G.

A Learning Architecture for Complex Organization.

DOI: 10.5220/0005845707340742

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD 2016), pages 734-742

ISBN: 978-989-758-168-7

2 MOTIVATING EXAMPLE

In this section, we present an example where an or-

ganization submits a project to the European Union

(EU). To do that, the organization have to be aware

of the environment complexity in which it is work-

ing because the ability to deal with this complexity is

critical for the success of the project proposal. They

must be able to handle in different ways a process as

well as use different tools, models, reporting docu-

mentation etc. Moreover, to successfully participate

in a project proposal and to support administrative re-

porting activities, for a complex organization, like the

Public Administration, is required to involve a unit

of administrative personal. For this reason, and also

due to the typical public employees high mobility, the

availability of an electronic learning platform is there-

fore highly desired.

In order to better understand how complex is man-

aging public administrative procedures, a real world

scenario is presented. Such scenario reference the

administrative ofﬁces of an Italian public research

body and is related to his participation to an European

Project Budget Reporting (EPBR) (Barbara Re, ). We

will start from the University organization structure

description to the detail of the Business Process under

analysis. Figure 1 denotes a fragment of the Univer-

sity organization in which there is an administration

and different schools (e.g. the Computer Science Di-

vision). In turn, an administration may have several

employees, each one with its own role.

Figure 1: Organization Model: University organization

(partial).

This scenario engages different partners in the def-

inition of models and documentation for a Business

Process and will permit to assess applicability of the

proposed solution within real working contexts.

For the sake of clarity, we are going to explain

only a portion of the entire process and, after a ﬁrst

analysis of the domain, the Grant Management BP

has been selected as reference point. It includes some

sub-process, such as: Periodic Report, Final Report,

Manage Payment and eventually Manage Amend-

ment.

Figure 2: Grant Management Different Level of Detail.

Without going into the details of each of the sub-

processes involved in the scenario (this is not the pur-

pose of our work) we consider the Periodic Report as

motivating example. It is the data object representing

the periodic report written by each partner participat-

ing to the project. In this process are involved dif-

ferent participants such as the ofﬁcer, the coordinator

(one pool), the grant beneﬁciary (multiple in parallel)

and optionally the third part. Figure 3 describes how

the coordinator organizes the process of periodic re-

ports with respect to all the involved stakeholders.

Figure 3: Periodic Report - Choreography Diagram.

Moreover, each Public Ofﬁcer (PO) according to

her experience, might have her own view of the pro-

cess for the production of her private periodic report

(Figure 4 shows an example of a private process done

by an EU public ofﬁcer). In this way, different ver-

sions of the same process could be created, so we may

have different diagrams for the same process and all

of these should also have documentation so we need

other models for this purpose.

In its turn, a documentation have to describe, tex-

tually and graphically, the state of the data-object. In

particular, Figure 5 shows as the Periodic Report is

composed by a set of data-objects.

Focusing on the role of Coordinator, they can be

determined speciﬁc data-object: Amendment Tem-

A Learning Architecture for Complex Organization

735

Figure 4: Periodic Report - Private Process of EU Ofﬁcer.

Figure 5: Document Model: Periodic Report.

plate, Summary of Activities and Periodic Reports.

Finally, Figure 6 shows the private process of the

Coordinator in relation to these documents.

Figure 6: Periodic Report - Private Process of Coordinator

Relationship with documents.

This scenario shows the use of a wide variety of

models and diagrams (i.e. organization model, chore-

ography diagram, collaboration diagram, Document

Model, etc.) at different levels of detail both in term of

modelling and learning (i.e. according to the learner

skill you should focus on different abstraction level

regarding how to deal with reporting).

The disadvantage in using all these models is rep-

resented by the increase of the complexity of the en-

tire process and the problem of integration of all these

artifacts together in a proper way. In the next section,

we will show how the complexity emerged in this sce-

nario is handled and the integration is done.

3 LEARNING ARCHITECTURE

As illustrated in (Hinkelmann et al., 2010), in com-

plex organisations there are many information re-

sources that represents the complete set of activi-

ties consumed to perform missions, goals, and objec-

tives. The knowledge must be systematically formal-

ized, organized and consistently categorized in order

to support effectiveness in learning. The architecture

proposed in this paper supports:

- informative learning by which the learner can ac-

cess and study the enriched BP model and related

material with additional descriptive contents and,

- procedural learning, by which the learner operate

within a simulated environment reproducing real

requests through the enactment of a process and

monitoring activities. Such environment allows us

to capture useful feedback for the evaluation of: i)

learners, ii) business processes, and iii) associated

learning contents.

The above strategies, are off-line because the learner

acquire such knowledge before serving real requests.

However the typical complexity of processes defeats

the human capacity to acquire a full knowledge on

any aspect just through informative and procedural

approaches. It is necessary that learner can retrieve

and process useful and context-dependent informa-

tion while she is working on real cases. The architec-

ture therefore, must provide learning experience with

on-line strategies in which learner acquires knowl-

edge while serving real requests, supporting “training

on the job” or “learn while doing” approach. To this

end, it is of crucial relevance to be able to provide the

user with contextually selected task and user-speciﬁc

background knowledge (Alfonso Pierantonio, b). In

particular, the learner should be able to access the re-

quired knowledge in an optimal manner. This can be

achieved by coupling the process (formal or informal)

description with the descriptive units about the kind of

data and document type being considered by the pro-

cess. Ideally, the notion of context provided by the

process permits users to know:

- what to do,

- who does what, and

- what to do after the task.

In such a way the users engaged in their daily work

have not to spend much time and effort in knowledge,

information retrieval and management activities fur-

ther than their operative ones.

Within complex enterprises, knowledge includes

factual, conceptual, procedural and meta-cognitive

artifacts represented by means of metamodels and

LMCO 2016 - Special Session on Learning Modeling in Complex Organizations

736

model. Starting from metamodeling architecture in

(Pierantonio et al., 2015), this section brieﬂy illustrate

the main models involved in organizations able to rep-

resent knowledge needed for learning.

These models, as shown in Figure 7, are obtained with

an in-depth analysis of a) three business processes in

the domain of the Italian Public Administration (the

family reunion, the grant citizenship, and the bouncer

registration); and b) a number of relevant modeling

notations (Alfonso Pierantonio, b). The business

modelling language, deﬁned to provide a process no-

tation that could be easily understood by all business

stakeholders is BPMN 2.0 (BPM, 2011) as repre-

sented in Figure 7(a). BPMN is a standard for model-

ing processes described as a predeﬁned sequences of

activities with decisions (gateways) to direct the se-

quence along alternative paths or for iterations, ﬂow

of activities. Unfortunately, its semantic, as discussed

in (Alfonso Pierantonio, b), is limited, and it is not

useful for some organizational aspects as for instance

when the activities in a process

- can occur in any order and/or in any frequency,

- are not predeﬁned, repeatable and knowledge in-

tensive,

- depend on evolving circumstances and ad-hoc de-

cisions by knowledge workers regarding a partic-

ular situation.

The standard notation CMMN (CMM, 2013) as de-

picted in Figure 7(b), allows us to deal with the afore-

mentioned limits. As discussed in (Yu et al., 2006),

the importance to introduce intentional modeling in

enterprise architecture entails potential beneﬁts and

pitfalls. In learning context, it is of crucial relevance

to model intentionality providing a scheme for devel-

oping, communicating and managing business plans

in an organized manner. The BMM (BMM, 2014) fo-

cuses on that. It has been proposed as a standard un-

der the Object Management Group (OMG) and pro-

vides elements and relationships of intentional mod-

eling as depicted in Figure 7(c). Central elements

include Means, Ends, Inﬂuencer, Potential Impact

and Assessments that are specialized into more de-

tailed elements as discussed in (Pierantonio et al.,

2015). The learning architecture must provide a mod-

elling notation able to describe the learners level, ac-

quired competency and learning progress respect to

a business process or procedure in organizations. In

Figure 7(d), the Competency model unlike the other

models is not deﬁned in speciﬁc standard leaving to

the modeller the responsibility to deﬁne such aspects.

The implementation we take into account is deﬁned

in (Alfonso Pierantonio, a) and it is partly based

on the framework the European Committee for stan-

dardisation, CEN WS-LT LTSO (Learning Technol-

ogy Standards Observatory)

. To achieve their means

and ends, organizations are structured (often hierar-

chically) in units where each one has a set of job

functions or tasks assigned to a group of people be-

longing to the organization. Therefore, an organiza-

tion structure is composed of units, each encompass-

ing the relevant people who work to achieve the mis-

sion of the organization (Oh and Sandhu, 2002). The

need to keep track of ”who does what, how and when”

is demanded to in Organizational model as depicted

in Figure 7(e) whose implementations is provided in

(Alfonso Pierantonio, a). About the management of

knowledge and documentation, instead of using the

BPMN 2.0 data object element for modeling informa-

tion/documents used in a process, e.g. as input or out-

put for an activity, we use a separate model, as shown

in Figure 7(f). This allows to deﬁne a data object (and

its meta data), and adding more details, e.g. provid-

ing references to operative templates or guidelines,

knowledge products or resources, which are utilized

in the processes (input, output to activities etc.).

4 LEARNING USING THE

ZACHMAN FRAMEWORK

The huge amount of informations and resources gath-

ered from models in Section 3 is not independent. To

fulﬁll the need of learning in enterprise, the Learning

Architecture provides a machine-processable model

that exploits the correlation among the activities

and/or concerns in order to provide enriched informa-

tions to the organization. In the following we use the

Zachman (Zachman, 2012) framework to describe:

- the interrelations of above mentioned models,

- the logic structure for classifying and organizing

the knowledge about business activity of an orga-

nization in different dimensions and perspectives

with respect to the Enterprise Architecture.

Figure 8 outlines how the models can be struc-

tured by Zachman’s matrix (Zachman, 2012). Rows

in Figure 8, take into consideration all the participants

involved in the organization’s Information Systems

(Inmon et al., 1997) in different perspective, starting

from an high level abstraction layer to the ﬁnal prod-

uct, ie:

- Scope (Planner’s Perspective), the planner deﬁnes

the catalogue of services which describe concrete

information about a speciﬁc organisation, the con-

text of learning, and business scope. The speciﬁ-

2EN WS-LT Learning Technology Standards Observa-

tory. URL: http://www.cen-ltso.net/Main.aspx. Main con-

tact: University of Vigo 36213 SPAIN

A Learning Architecture for Complex Organization

737

Figure 7: Models involved in learning.

Figure 8: The learning architecture structured by Zach-

man’s matrix.

cation is written in natural languages and struc-

tured by means of a table that gather the afore-

mentioned information;

- Business Model (Owner’s Perspective), the owner

is interested in modelling, at conceptual level, the

services deﬁned in the Scope. The relevant data

involved in a learning architecture consists of a

number of component metamodels illustrated in

Figure 9. Among them, the following have been

deﬁned by adapting current industrial standards:

– business motivation (BMM) (BMM, 2014);

– business process management and notation

(BPMN) (BPM, 2011); and

– case management and notation (CMMN)

(CMM, 2013).

The remaining metamodels have been deﬁned

from scratch and are described in (Pierantonio

et al., 2015)

– competency metamodel (CM);

– document and knowledge metamodel (DKM);

– key performance indicator metamodel (KPI),

and

– organization metamodel (OM).

The relations, are implicit and hence, a process

deﬁned in a service catalogue (Scope Concepts

level), may occur in the process description on

the Business Concepts level but that relation is not

formalized and therefore hard to trace;

LMCO 2016 - Special Session on Learning Modeling in Complex Organizations

738

- System Model (Designer’s Perspective) the de-

signer works with the speciﬁcations deﬁned

above, instantiating all elements involved in busi-

ness organization to ensure that it will, in fact, ful-

ﬁll the owner’s expectations. The problem about

tracing the relation between a process model on

the System Logic Layer and the process descrip-

tion (at conceptual level), holds true;

- Technology Model (Builder’s Perspective) the

builder manages the process of deﬁne the lan-

guage and functionalities able to satisﬁes the re-

quirement of the learning platform. To this re-

spect, the model set deﬁned in System Model must

be transformed in a standard exchange format, eg.

XMI, in order to be machine readable;

- Component (Learning platform’s Perspective) the

learning architecture takes the instance models

provided by the Technology Model and enables

process-driven learning, fostering the cooperation

and knowledge sharing among the learners.

Figure 9: The conceptual model.

While the horizontal dimension in the Zachman

Framework describe the participants involved in the

learning architecture, the columns provide a focus on

each dimension (Hay, 1997): What, How, Where,

Who, When, Why. The architecture exploit a subset

of them as following:

- Data (What?), in this column, ”Document and

Knowledge” concepts are deﬁned. In particu-

lar, about the perspectives Business Model, Sys-

tem Model, and Component, the enterprise’s in-

formations about knowledge and resources used

for business activity;

- Function (How?), the process of the organization

are deﬁned in several abstraction level. Starting

from a service catalogue, the models are reﬁned

and enriched with structured information. In such

way, learner can retrieve and process useful and

context-dependent information while she is work-

ing on real cases;

- People (Who?) The latest column describes who

is involved in activities, assigning them to busi-

ness or IT perspective and classifying them w.r.t.

to several aspects.

The matrix structure of the LA, allow us to perform

an in depth analysis on some intrinsic characteristics:

- horizontal relations: bridging the various mod-

eling notations (and their representation formats)

between considered Business Objects;

- vertical relations: factorizing part of the trans-

formation chaining in order to produce artifact

needed for learning;

- enhance relevant quality factors, eg maintenance,

extendibility, etc.

4.1 Horizontal Relations

As already discussed in Section 3 there are many in-

formation resources in an enterprise that serve several

purposes and that usually reside in different informa-

tion systems. The separation of concerns in software

system modeling avoids the construction of large and

monolithic models which could be difﬁcult to handle,

maintain and reuse. At the same time, having differ-

ent models (each one describing a certain concern) re-

quires their integration into a ﬁnal model representing

the entire domain (Reiter et al., 2005). The integra-

tion in the LA is made through horizontal relations

in Zachman Framework and, for the sake of clarity,

only relations between models on the System Model

layer will be discussed in this paper (see the related

row in Figure 8). To make these relations explicit

and machine processable we provided the speciﬁca-

tion in terms of weaving models for deﬁning corre-

spondences between modeling elements belonging to

different metamodels

. Although there is no accepted

deﬁnition, in (B

ezivin, 2005) it is considered as:

- the operation for setting ﬁne-grained relationships

between models or metamodels, and

- executing operations on them based on the seman-

tics of the weaving associations speciﬁcally de-

ﬁned for the considered application domain.

In the following, each weaving is given by means of a

weaving metaclass denoting the correspondences be-

tween two or more metaclasses in different metamod-

els. Each weaving deﬁnition can encompass one or

Implemented metamodel resources can be

found in the repository: https://github.com/Learn

PAd/learnpad/tree/master/lp-collaborative-workspace/ lp-

cw-bridge/lp-cw-bridge-transformer/resources/metamodels

A Learning Architecture for Complex Organization

739

more associations. The weaving models are given

according to the component metamodels deﬁned in

(Pierantonio et al., 2015):

- Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN

2.0)

: several kinds of weaving are deﬁned; the

link with Document Knowledge Model permit

to have the resources used as input (Figure 10)

and/or output (Figure 11) in a process or activity.

The lack of a speciﬁc semantic in the BPMN spec-

Figure 10: The DataInput weaving.

Figure 11: The DataOutput weaving.

iﬁcation for the Lane concept required the def-

inition of the Lane-weaving (Figure 12). Such

interconnection links a Lane in BPMN, with re-

spectively i) OrganizationalUnit, ii) the Perfomer,

and iii) the Role in Organisational Model. Fi-

Figure 12: The Swimlane-lane weaving.

Figure 13: The Activity weaving.

nally, the Activity-weaving interconnects infor-

mation linked to a given activity in accordance

with the Figure 13. In particular, given an activity,

it denotes: i) the competencies needed for realiz-

ing it; ii) the criteria used for evaluating its perfor-

http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/

mance; iii) the organizational unit, which has been

assigned the responsibility and who is performing

that.

- Case Management and Notation (CMMN)

: the

ProcessTask-weaving denotes the reference to an

activity (regular task) to be invoked by the process

task (Figure 14).

Figure 14: The Process Task weaving.

- Organization Model: the Position-weaving links

the position described or reported in a resource

in a Document and Knowledge Model, e.g., a job

description (Figure 15).

Figure 15: The Process Task weaving.

The above relations are just only a subset of all pos-

sible ones, according to motivating scenario in Sec-

tion 2. A more in depth analysis, and other kind of

relationship tailored for learning in Public Adminis-

trations are discussed in (Alfonso Pierantonio, a).

4.2 Vertical Relations

The LA exploits models in order to have informative

speciﬁcations i) for the learners and ii) at the same

time informations able to simulate e monitor the pro-

cesses in organisations. As said, models in the Zach-

man matrix are organized using different abstraction

levels therefore, the learning contents that describe

multiple aspects of processes in organizations, should

rely on adequate means that automatically relate and

trace over the multiple views. The generation of e-

learning artifacts out of speciﬁed business processes

will be performed by means of vertical model trans-

formations chain as depicted in Figure 16

. In or-

der to enhance the automation in ﬁnding model trans-

formation chains, we use the proposed process of

deriving model transformation chaining depicted in

(Basciani et al., 2014). Moreover, there is the need

of techniques introducing automation in the manage-

ment of artifacts that have to be kept consistent to

http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/

Implemented transformation resources can be

found in the repository: https://github.com/LearnPAd/

learnpad/tree/master/lp-collaborative-workspace/ lp-cw-

bridge/lp-cw-bridge-transformer/resources/transformation

LMCO 2016 - Special Session on Learning Modeling in Complex Organizations

740

each other. Therefore, model transformations play a

central role since they represent the glue between the

several levels of abstraction and enable the generation

of: i) different artifacts for learning purposes using

ATL

in Model2Model (see Figure 16(a)) transfor-

mation languages and ii) the generation of implemen-

tation code (B

ezivin, 2005) by means of Acceleo

Model2Code transformation (see Figure 16(b)).

Figure 16: The vertical Zachman transformation chain.

5 RELATED WORK

Many efforts have been done in order to support the

integration of models, tools and techniques used to

describe various aspects of a complex organization.

(Lankhorst, 2004) tackle the issue of integration

of all the concepts and modelling techniques used by

architects to describe their architectural domains, pre-

senting an enterprise modelling approach. In this ap-

proach several abstract layers are integrated combin-

ing several existing languages. Unlike the work pre-

sented in this paper, they propose a workbench for

enterprise architecture that supports the integration of

models in existing modelling languages and the inte-

gration of existing modelling tools. We choose to per-

form a similar integration using the Zachman Frame-

work mainly because we are aware that the commu-

nication is important.

Indeed, thanks to the Framework’s perspective,

which allows us to answer the what, how, where,

who, when, and why questions, we are able to cre-

ate different descriptive representations (i.e., mod-

els), which translate from higher to lower perspec-

tive. This guidance is both clear and complete and

as result these perspectives, in relation with these

questions, determine a communication matrix. Fur-

thermore, the Zachman Framework permits us to un-

derstand where completeness lies, and how to asses

when we’ve achieved it. Indeed, ”Zachman’s frame-

work suggests that an architecture can be considered

a complete architecture only when every cell in that

https://eclipse.org/atl/

https://eclipse.org/acceleo/

architecture is complete. A cell is complete when it

contains sufﬁcient artifacts to fully deﬁne the system

for one speciﬁc player looking at one speciﬁc descrip-

tive focus” (Tupper, 2011).

Although we do not use the tools which they

have deﬁned, we still followed the method deﬁned in

(Pereira and Sousa, 2004). In the article, in fact, they

propose a method to achieve an Enterprise Architec-

ture Framework based on the Zachman Framework

Business. Furthermore, the authors identify a new

concept related to this framework deﬁned as ”anchor

cell” that deﬁnes the semantic relationships existing

between cells on any of the framework’s perspectives.

In our work, we developed this ”anchor cells” that

represents vertical relationships with model transfor-

mations that transform a model in a perspectives in

another model in another perspective. Moreover we

have horizontal relationships through the rows (di-

mensions) using the weaving model (Didonet Del

Fabro et al., 2005).

6 CONCLUSION

In this paper, we presented a learning architecture

able to supports both an informative learning ap-

proach based on enriched Business Process Models

and a procedural learning approach based on simu-

lation and monitoring learning-by-doing. In order to

manage such information, it is important to organize

knowledge archives exploiting the usage of BPs in a

context-giving structure. In particular, learner should

be able to access the required knowledge in an op-

timal manner. This can be achieved by coupling the

process model with the descriptive units about various

aspects including the kind of data and document type

being considered by the process, the organizational

structure, the indicators for measuring both the per-

formance and how far the learning goals are achieved.

The learning architecture is implemented as described

in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2. A discussion about its

advantages and disadvantages will be part of future

plans together with its evaluation.

Furthermore, we intend to tackle the problem by

conceiving advanced model-driven techniques able to

keep aligned different views (i.e., models speciﬁed at

the same level of abstraction) and to manage multi-

scale models (i.e., models in which parts of the system

are speciﬁed at different level of detail) by means of

bidirectional transformations (Czarnecki et al., 2009)

and uncertainty management (Eramo et al., 2015).

However, these approaches testify the beneﬁts and ad-

vantages of applying theory and results from MDE on

learning (Laforcade and Choquet, 2006).

A Learning Architecture for Complex Organization

741

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank our colleague Barbara Re from University

of Camerino who provided us model fragments in the

scenario discussed in Sec.2. We also thank professor

Alfonso Pierantonio for the precious comments that

greatly improved the manuscript.

This research was supported by the EU

through the Model-Based Social Learning for

Public Administrations (Learn Pad) FP7 project

(619583) For further informations visit the website:

http://www.learnpad.eu. It is possible to ﬁnd the

repository hosting the platform implementation,

concerning the part described in this article, here:

https://github.com/LearnPAd/learnpad/tree/master/lp-

collaborative-workspace/lp-cw-bridge/lp-cw-bridge-

transformer

REFERENCES

(2011). Business Process Model OMG. Notation (BPMN)

2.0. Object Management Group: Needham, MA,

2494:34.

(2013). OMG. Case Management Model and Notation

(CMMN), V 1.0. Technical report, Object Manage-

ment Group OMG.

(2014). OMG. Business Motivation Model (BMM). Tech-

nical report, Object Management Group OMG.

Alfonso Pierantonio, Gianni Rosa, e. a. Design and Initial

Implementation of Metamodels for Describing Busi-

ness Processes in Public Administrations. Deliverable

D3.2 - EU FP7 Project Learn PAd.

Alfonso Pierantonio, Gianni Rosa, e. a. Domain Analysis

of Business Processes in Public Administrations. De-

liverable D3.1 - EU FP7 Project Learn PAd.

Barbara Re, Andrea Sergiacomi, e. a. Demonstrators BP

and Knowledge models. Deliverable D8.1 - EU FP7

Project Learn PAd.

Basciani, F., Di Ruscio, D., Iovino, L., and Pierantonio, A.

(2014). Automated chaining of model transformations

with incompatible metamodels. In Model-Driven En-

gineering Languages and Systems, pages 602–618.

Springer.

ezivin, J. (2005). On the uniﬁcation power of models.

Software & Systems Modeling, 4(2):171–188.

Czarnecki, K., Foster, J. N., Hu, Z., L

ammel, R., Sch

urr,

A., and Terwilliger, J. F. (2009). Bidirectional trans-

formations: A cross-discipline perspective. In Theory

and Practice of Model Transformations, pages 260–

283. Springer.

Didonet Del Fabro, M., B

ezivin, J., Jouault, F., and Val-

duriez, P. (2005). Applying Generic Model Manage-

ment to Data Mapping. In Procs of the Journ

ees Bases

de Donn

ees Avanc

ees (BDA05).

Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A., and Rosa, G. (2015). Managing

uncertainty in bidirectional model transformations. In

Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN International

Conference on Software Language Engineering, SLE

2015, pages 49–58, New York, NY, USA. ACM.

Hay, D. C. (1997). The zachman framework: an introduc-

tion. essential strategies. Inc. The data Administration

Newsletter, (1).

Hinkelmann, K., Merelli, E., and Th

onssen, B. (2010). The

role of content and context in enterprise repositories.

In Procs. 2nd International Workshop on Advanced

Enterprise Architecture and Repositories - AER 2010.

Inmon, W. H., Zachman, J. A., and Geiger, J. G.

(1997). Data Stores, Data Warehousing and the Zach-

man Framework: Managing Enterprise Knowledge.

McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Laforcade, P. and Choquet, C. (2006). Next step for ed-

ucational modeling languages: The model driven en-

gineering and reengineering approach. In null, pages

745–747. IEEE.

Lankhorst, M. M. (2004). Enterprise architecture mod-

elling—the issue of integration. Advanced Engineer-

ing Informatics, 18(4):205–216.

Oh, S. and Sandhu, R. (2002). A model for role adminis-

tration using organization structure. In Proceedings of

the seventh ACM symposium on Access control mod-

els and technologies, pages 155–162. ACM.

Pereira, C. M. and Sousa, P. (2004). A method to deﬁne an

enterprise architecture using the zachman framework.

In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Ap-

plied computing, pages 1366–1371. ACM.

Pierantonio, A., Rosa, G., Silingas, D., Th

onssen, B., and

Woitsch, R. (2015). Metamodeling architectures for

business processess in organizations. Projects Show-

case@ STAF’15, page 27.

Reiter, T., Kapsammer, E., Retschitzegger, W., and

Schwinger, W. (2005). Model Integration Through

Mega Operations. accepted for publication at

the Workshop on Model-driven Web Engineering

(MDWE2005).

Tupper, C. (2011). Data architecture: from zen to reality.

Elsevier.

Yu, E., Strohmaier, M., and Deng, X. (2006). Exploring

intentional modeling and analysis for enterprise archi-

tecture. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing

Conference Workshops, 2006. EDOCW’06. 10th IEEE

International, pages 32–32. IEEE.

Zachman, J. A. (2012). The Zachman Framework For En-

terprise Architecture. A Primer For Enterprise Engi-

neering And Manufacturing.

LMCO 2016 - Special Session on Learning Modeling in Complex Organizations

742