See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228732484

Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering

Article  in  International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering · January 2009

DOI: 10.1504/IJISE.2009.024155

CITATIONS READS

8 2,459

4 authors, including:

Oscar A. Saenz Martha Centeno

Universidad del Turabo Florida International University
8 PUBLICATIONS   202 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   349 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ronald E. Giachetti
Naval Postgraduate School
83 PUBLICATIONS   1,935 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Turabo's Mathematics and Science Partnership View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martha Centeno on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol.

Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering

Oscar A. Saenz*
Department of Industrial and Management Engineering,
Universidad del Turabo,
P.O. Box 3030 Gurabo, PR 00778-3030, USA
Fax: (787) 744-5476
E-mail: saenzo@suagm.edu
*Corresponding author

Chin-Sheng Chen
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
College of Engineering and Computing,
Florida International University,
10555 West Flagler Street,
EC 3110 Miami, Florida 33174-1630, USA
Fax: (305) 348-3721
E-mail: chenc@fiu.edu

Martha Centeno and Ronald E. Giachetti

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
College of Engineering and Computing,
Florida International University,
10555 West Flagler Street,
EC 3145 Miami, Florida 33174-1630, USA
Fax: (305) 348-3721
E-mail: martha.centeno@fiu.edu
E-mail: giachetr@fiu.edu

Abstract: This paper proposes a precise definition of Enterprise Systems

Engineering (ESE), recognising it as an independent discipline and putting
forth a new theoretical foundation to create or change enterprise systems.
This paper proposes and demonstrates an approach to formulate and validate
definitions grounded in the philosophy of science and product development
theory, which starts with a set of specifications and uses the synthesis technique
for defining. Using the proposed approach a comparative analysis of different
definitions of the same subject was performed and the results shed light on
how attempts to define a field of study contribute to differentiate it from
or confound it with other fields.

Keywords: defining; definition approach; field definition; ESE; enterprise

systems engineering; EE; enterprise engineering; industrial engineering.

Copyright © 2009 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

484 O.A. Saenz et al.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Saenz, O.A., Chen, C-S.,
Centeno, M. and Giachetti, R.E. (2009) ‘Defining Enterprise Systems
Engineering’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol.

Biographical notes: Oscar A. Saenz is an Assistant Professor in the Industrial

and Management Engineering Department at Universidad del Turabo in
Puerto Rico. His areas of interest are: Enterprise Systems Engineering (ESE),
systems engineering, business process modelling and design, integration
of management/strategy and engineering for operations design and
improvement, and project management. He received his PhD Degree in
Industrial and Systems Engineering from Florida International University in
2005. Prior to his doctoral studies he worked for ten years as a Project
Manager.

Chin-Shen Chen received his PhD degree in Industrial and Systems

Engineering from Virginia Tech in 1985. He is a Professor and the Director of
Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Programs at Florida International
University (FIU). He is the Director of the Enterprise Systems Engineering
Laboratory at FIU. His research interests lie in the areas of Enterprise Systems
Engineering, manufacturing operations, product/system design methodology,
information technology, engineering management, and systems modelling,
analysis, optimisation, and integration.

Martha Centeno has been with the Industrial and Systems Engineering
Department at Florida International University since 1993, and in 1997
she became an Associate Professor. She has been principal investigator in
several NASA projects and visiting researcher at NASA’s Kennedy Space
Center in Florida. Her areas of interest are: discrete simulation, operations
research, and the integration of artificial intelligence technologies for the
development of software for simulation modelling. She received her PhD from
Texas A&M University in 1990.

Ronald E. Giachetti is an Associate Professor at Florida International

University in the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering.
He received his PhD in Industrial Engineering in 1996 from North Carolina
State University. He received his Master’s Degree in Manufacturing
Engineering from Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, New York. He has
served at FIU since Fall 1998. He is the Director of Enterprise Information
Systems Research Laboratory. His research interests are enterprise information
systems, integration, coordination, and systems modelling, particularly in the
healthcare and hospitality industries.

1 Introduction

Attempts to properly define Enterprise Systems Engineering (ESE) frequently fall back
on refining previous concepts of systems integration and interoperability rather than
on ESE as a whole; indeed, refining all of these concepts is useful, yet the focus is still on
modelling and integrating already-existing systems or components. Working on
integration, one of the most discussed aspects of ESE, Venkatachalam (2006) stated that
effective enterprise integration involves not only hardware, equipment, and data but also
 Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering 485

people, technology and business processes. However, as Saenz (2005) explained, most
of the work on integration has been focused on hardware, equipment and data integration,
or, in terms of Giachetti’s (2004) framework for information integration, on lower levels
of integration as connectivity, data sharing, and application interoperability. This focus
on interoperability, while important, is incomplete.
What is needed is a comprehensive definition of ESE that goes beyond previous
piecemeal efforts. In fact Giachetti’s framework has already noted this problem and
stated that definitions play an important role in integration. Definition is needed
to identify the types of enterprise systems and how they are integrated. In the information
systems realm, definitions have played a pivotal role in advancing both theory and
practice. For example, the development of workflow expends considerable effort
on defining all the workflow elements in a formal and precise manner (van der Aalst and
Kumar, 2003). Abundant work on defining semantics and defining modelling approaches
is evident, as demonstrated by the widely used Unified Modelling Language (UML),
useful for “visualising, constructing, and documenting the artifacts of software systems”
(Reinhartz-Berger and Sturm, 2008). UML helps support the above-mentioned lower
levels of integration. The Unified Enterprise Modelling Language (UEML), a proposed
unified language for enterprise modelling, is an effort that aims at higher-levels of
integration, i.e., business process integration, and heavily emphasises the need
for achieving consensus regarding semantics and concepts definition (Vernadat, 2002).
One factor that constrains the use of enterprise architectures to guide decision making
regarding enterprise systems is that these architectures’ concepts are vaguely defined
(Weerakkody et al., 2007) and definitions are key for common understanding of
enterprise integration (Li and Williams, 2002). Grüninger et al. (2000) goes beyond and
contends that enterprise design requires precise and formal definitions of the semantics of
enterprise models, through ontologies or formal descriptions of entities, their properties,
relationships, constraints, and behaviours.
Defining is also a basic philosophical activity and, as Xia (1999) asserted, a clear
definition of the objects under investigation is of prime importance in science. Without
a clear understanding of the subject of inquiry from the beginning, scientific research
cannot take place (Chakrabarti, 1995). Moreover, definitions are abstractions that
separate an object from the rest of the world in a way that gives new knowledge of the
object (Robinson, 1968). Definitions are needed to standardise terms to facilitate business
process integration. Integration is subset of engineering (Bernus et al., 2003; Giachetti,
2004; Li and Williams, 1994; Lim et al., 1997), thus, any integration effort is preceded
by engineering. Therefore, any effort towards achieving greater integration,
a contemporary challenge, transits through appropriate definitions. Our object of interest
is the enterprise; how to engineer an enterprise has become a field of study in its own
right, distinct from industrial engineering, manufacturing engineering, product
engineering, software or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems engineering.
In order to contribute towards the development of this field, the objective of this paper is
to formulate a definition of ESE. In parallel, this research demonstrates an approach
grounded in the philosophy of science and product development theory to formulate and
validate definitions.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents the research background, which
reviews types of definition, techniques for defining, and, following product development
theory, proposes a set of specifications for definitions. Section 3 presents an analysis and
486 O.A. Saenz et al.

evaluation of Enterprise Engineering (EE) definitions in order to gain insight about their
strengths and limitations, and facilitate and avoid pitfalls in formulating our own
definition of ESE. Section 4 proposes and validates a definition of ESE. Section 5
concludes the paper and identifies areas for future research.

2 Research background

2.1 Types of definition

There are several types of definitions (Copi, 1982; Copi and Burgess-Jackson, 1995;
Robinson, 1968; Xia, 1999). Four types of definitions are considered in this research:
• stipulative or nominal
• lexical
• precising
• theoretical.
Stipulative, or nominal definition, assigns meaning to a term, symbol or name. It sets up
the meaning and relationship between a word and an object represented by the word.
It is a request to use the definiendum (i.e., the term being defined) to signify what is
meant by the definiens (i.e., the terms explaining the definiendum). Stipulative definition
is useful for parsimony in written reports to remove ambiguity, and to improve or create
new concepts. Lexical definition documents the existing meaning of a term, increases
vocabulary, or eliminates ambiguity. Lexical definition is used for terms that have
an established usage. Precising definition is used to further explain a term when it is
vague, or to propose a scientifically useful description of the objects to which the term
applies. Theoretical definition is a statement of the essential nature of an object
or concept.

2.2 General purposes of a definition

Copi (1982) and later Copi and Burgess-Jackson (1995) presented four purposes
of a definition:
• Increase vocabulary
• Eliminate ambiguity
• Reduce vagueness
• Formulate scientifically.
With the exception of increasing vocabulary, the other three purposes are relevant for this
research. Eliminating ambiguity is necessary when a word can have any one of two
or more distinct meanings in the same context. The purpose of eliminating ambiguity
is particularly relevant here because the ordered set of words ‘ESE’ have a different
meaning than the aggregation of its component words, as it will be seen later. Reducing
vagueness is necessary when a word refers to range of variation in quantity, number,
 Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering 487

or intensity. Vagueness is reduced by clarifying the applicability of a term in a given

context. This purpose becomes relevant in this research because the term ‘Enterprise
Engineering’ has been given several different meanings varying in scope and focus;
therefore, it serves as an example, to avoid vagueness and produce a clear definition
of ESE. A scientific formulation is necessary when assigning meaning to the term being
defined based on the most useful or relevant characteristic. The discussion of relevant
characteristics, even from other perspectives, provides grounds for enrichment of a term
(Basen and Wood-Harper, 2006).

2.3 Techniques for defining

Copi (1982) and later reinforced by Copi and Burgess-Jackson (1995) mentioned five
techniques for defining:
• Denotative
• Synonymous
• Operational
• Genus and difference
• Synthesis.
Denotative defines by extension. It gives examples as in a complete or partial
enumeration of objects defined by the term. A special case of this technique is the
ostensive, which uses gestures to show the objects referred by the term being defined.
Synonymous uses another word which has the same meaning. Operational defines based
on a set criteria (Copi, 1982; Hempel, 1965). Genus and difference defines by division,
by analysis, or by connotation. It is broadly used in biology to group organisms into
categories. A term is defined by naming a genus (i.e., a class); the term being defined is a
subclass of the genus, so the characteristics that differentiate the term from other terms
within the genus are specified. Synthesis assigns meaning using the relationships of an
object to other objects as a whole or by how the meaning arises. Robinson (1968) states
that the definition of a concept often takes the form of synthesis, specifying its place in a
larger system of concepts, or expressing it in terms of other primitive concepts
(Chakrabarti, 1995).
Stipulative definitions formulated by synthesis are widely used for defining
in engineering fields. Stipulative definitions are commonly found in Operations Research,
e.g., Buchanan et al. (2001), Giachetti (2004), Grant (2005) and Venkatachalam (2006)
defined enterprise integration in terms of other concepts; Vicente (2006) used synthesis to
define cognitive engineering; Chen (2006) defined concurrent engineer-to-order
in a larger set of operation modes; Dereli et al. (2008) presented a reverse engineering
framework for innovative rapid product development; Muralidharan et al. (2008) used
symbolic or mathematical representation for their “efficient mechanism development for
multi-robot coordination”, as did Liu and Kapur (2006). Chantarat et al. (2006),
Guangming et al. (2006) and Sarin and West-Hansen (2005) all use synthesis to
define for the definition of reliability, for definitions in its mixture experiment, for
the definition of Extended High Level Timed Petri Nets, and for definitions in a
scheduling problem respectively; Ning et al. (2006) defined five modules for Semantic
488 O.A. Saenz et al.

Innovation Management using synthesis; Sharma et al. (2007) defined fuzzy sets, to
mention a few.

2.4 Specifications for definitions

Similar to any product development process, definitions must comply with specifications.
There are well-known specifications for defining objects (Beardsley, 1966; Chakrabarti,
1995; Copi, 1982; Copi and Burgess-Jackson, 1995). These specifications pertain to
stating essential attributes, non-circularity, scope, affirmativeness, clarity, and simplicity.
The proposed definition of ESE presented later is validated against these specifications:
• A definition must state essential attributes
• A definition must be non-circular
• A definition must have a scope
• A definition should have clarity
• A definition should be affirmative
• A definition should be simple.
Essential attributes are those related to the conventional connotation of the term,
its intrinsic characteristics, its origin, its relationships to other objects or terms, or its
uses. Non-essential attributes, or collateral attributes, are linked to the essential attributes
(Beardsley, 1966).
For a definition to be non-circular, the definiendum cannot appear as part of the
definiens. This specification rules out the use of synonyms and antonyms as part of the
definiens. It also rules out the concatenation of definitions that, at the end, refer to
themselves. Robinson (1968) further explained circularity as a flaw in analysis consisting
of representing an object as a synthesis of elements, one of which is itself.
The scope of a definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow. A broad definien
encompasses more objects than the definiendum intends to. Too broad a definition
incorporates in the definien attributes that belong to other definienda (e.g., ‘an apple is a
fruit’). A narrow or too exclusive definition denotes fewer objects than the definiendum
is intended for by stating in the definien an attribute that exists only in a subset of
instances of the definiendum (e.g., ‘an apple is a red fruit’; in this definition of ‘apple’
yellow apples are excluded).
A definition has clarity if it is literal and unambiguous, and it does not have
obscure or metaphorical language (Beardsley, 1966). Ambiguity relates to a word
having two or more distinct meanings in the same context (Copi, 1982; Copi and
Burgess-Jackson, 1995).
Developing an affirmative definition is considered a preference more than a rule.
Sometimes the complexity of a concept compels that it be defined in terms of what it is
not. When possible, a definition explains what the definiendum means instead of what it
does not mean.
 Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering 489

Simplicity calls for a definition to be concise, yet complete. Analogous to

Copi’s (1982) statement that simpler hypotheses tend to be more accepted, Chakrabarti
(1995) suggested that simplicity of a definition can be checked by a test of economy.
That is:
• Economy of presentation. Epistemically prior is preferred to epistemically
posterior; which means that a term in the definien providing more knowledge
is preferred, and an observable definien is preferred to unobservable one.
• Economy of relationship. Using a term directly related to the definiendum is
preferred over using a term indirectly related to the definiendum.
• Economy of constitution. A definition must not contain anything after the
definiendum is correctly distinguished. A definition with fewer constituents is
preferred, but it must have enough information for the purpose at hand
(Beardsley, 1966).

3 Analysis and evaluation of Enterprise Engineering definitions

This section presents existing definitions of EE and evaluates them against the set of
specifications to formulate definitions proposed in the preceding section, in order to gain
insight into formulating a definition for ESE. Note that this research does not redefine
EE; instead, it offers its own definition of ESE.

3.1 Overview of definitions of Enterprise Engineering

In an effort to properly define ESE, this section describes problems arising from several
attempts to define EE.
All proponents of EE visualise it as a separate discipline, even at the same level
of product and manufacturing engineering (ISEE, 2002; ISO, 1999b; Martin, 1995;
Presley and Liles, 1996; Presley et al., 2001; Vernadat, 1996). Definitions of EE started
to appear in the 1990s, establishing it as a discipline separate from other engineering
fields (Kosanke and Nell, 1999; Vernadat, 1996, 2002). Some definitions of EE are broad
in scope and include all aspects of the enterprise throughout its life-cycle (ISEE, 2002;
ISO, 1999b; Martin, 1995; Presley and Liles, 1996; Presley et al., 2001). Broad
definitions counter the view of EE as a discipline at the same level of product design and
manufacturing engineering (Kosanke, 1995). Other definitions of EE view virtual
enterprises and other new forms of enterprise organisation as subsets of EE
(Kosanke, 1995), while others focus on business processes (Vernadat, 1996), life-cycle
and communication networks of business processes (Kosanke et al., 1999), or an
integrated set of change methods (Martin, 1995).
To complicate matters, there are not only several definitions of EE, but, also, several
proposals on the output of an EE process: a business process (Vernadat, 1996), a new
or a modified enterprise (ISO, 1999b), an operational change (ISEE, 2002; ISO, 1999b;
Presley and Liles, 1996; Presley et al., 2001), the communication networks of business
processes (Kosanke et al., 1999), a changed task, business process, business unit,
or the entire enterprise (Martin, 1995). Several enterprise modelling languages
490 O.A. Saenz et al.

and almost 50 modelling tools appeared in the late 1980s targeting different enterprise
elements (e.g., information and activities). The emergence of new enterprise engineering
architectures and methodologies in the 1990s, each presenting a different scope
and process for EE, combined with divergent definitions, created confusion among
potential users of EE and resulted in the limited success of enterprise modelling
methodologies, a small user community, and little common understanding and
terminology (Kosanke, 1995; Kosanke et al., 1998; Zelm and Kosanke, 1999).
The background and the overview presented above help to elucidate the fact that the
proposal of a definition is more than a description exercise and needs to adhere to its own
theory and accepted criteria, which is one of the objectives of this paper.

3.2 Comparing EE definitions

Several definitions have been found for the term ‘enterprise engineering’ (Saenz, 2005;
Saenz and Chen, 2004). Existing definitions of enterprise engineering differ in scope,
means, and/or focus. They have commonalities, all propose some kind of life cycle, and
most of them stress the importance of business processes. Seven definitions of EE have
been analysed.
According to Vernadat, Enterprise Engineering (EE) is the
“art of understanding, defining, specifying, analysing, and implementing
business processes for the entire life cycle, so that the enterprise can achieve its
objectives, be cost-effective, and be more competitive in its market
environment.” (Vernadat, 1996)
Kosanke et al. (1999) considered enterprise engineering as a life-cycle oriented discipline
and emphasised the communication among the main elements of an enterprise and
stated that EE defines, structures, designs, and implements enterprise operations as
communication networks of business processes that comprise all their related business
knowledge, operational information, resources, and organisation relations.
The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) assigned a broad scope
to EE and defined it as the discipline applied in carrying out any efforts to establish,
modify, or reorganise any enterprise (ISO, 1999b). Similarly, the International Society of
Enterprise Engineering (ISEE) defined EE as the body of knowledge, principles,
and disciplines related to the analysis, design, implementation and operation of all
elements associated with an enterprise. For the ISEE, EE includes modelling,
cost analysis, simulation, workflow analysis, bottleneck analysis, Total Quality
Management (TQM), Just-In-Time (JIT), change management, and value added analysis
(ISEE, 2002).
In contrast with other authors, Martin (1995) viewed EE as an integrated set of
change methods. Martin (1995) classified five change methods corresponding to different
enterprise levels of change:
1 continually improving individual tasks (i.e., TQM)
2 reinvention of existing processes (i.e., procedure redesign)
3 reinvention of end-to-end business processes looking for significant gains in
effectiveness through structural changes (i.e., value-stream reinvention)
 Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering 491

4 reinvention of the fundamental and integral structure of the entire enterprise, or

cultural aspects, including increment or reduction of business units
5 strategic visioning, where the entire context is validated or changed.
Complementing these change methods this author proposed two infrastructure change
processes: the organisation and culture development, and IT development. This view of
EE emphasises changing and improving an existing enterprise and mentions the need for
a new type of professional – the Enterprise Engineer – with knowledge of change
methods, technology, and strategy, together with personal and cultural skills.
Presenting a similar perspective to Martin (1995), the IFIP-IFAC Task Force on
Architectures for Enterprise Integration (Bernus et al., 2003) defined EE as the discipline
that organises the knowledge, tools and methods needed to identify the need for change
in enterprises, make the necessary design or redesign, carry out that change
in a professional manner, and continually maintain an integrated state of the enterprise.
For Presley and Liles (1996) and Presley et al. (2001), EE involves the analysis, design,
implementation, operation and improvement of all elements associated with the total
enterprise through the use of engineering and analysis methods and tools.
Table 1 shows the seven definitions of EE in terms of their scope, the means
suggested for addressing the field, and their focus. This comparative analysis shows that
definitions of EE differ substantially among themselves in scope and focus, and address
the scope by different means; e.g., some definitions are broad (ISEE, 2002; ISO, 1999b;
Presley and Liles, 1996; Presley et al., 2001) while others have a precise scope
(Kosanke et al., 1999; Vernadat, 1996).

Table 1 Comparison of Enterprise Engineering Definitions

Scope Means Focus

1 Understand, define, specify,
analyse, and implement business
processes for the entire life cycle
(Vernadat, 1996)
2 Define, structure, design, and
implement operations
(Kosanke et al., 1999)
3 Establish, modify or reorganise
enterprises (ISO, 1999a, 1999b)
4 Analysis, design,
implementation and operation
(ISEE, 2002)
5 Engineer system for maximum
benefit. Adapt to fast-changing
demand (Martin, 1995)
Not specified, suggests Business processes.
enterprise modelling Achieve objectives, be
cost-effective and
competitive
Business knowledge, Communication networks
operational information, of business processes.
resources, and organisation Life cycle oriented
relations discipline
Any efforts Whole enterprise
Modelling, cost analysis, All enterprise elements
simulation, WF analysis,
bottleneck analysis, TQM,
JIT, change management and
value added analysis
TQM, redesign, reinvention An integrated set of
(procedure, value-stream, change methods
whole enterprise) and
infrastructure
(organisation + culture + IT)
492 O.A. Saenz et al.

Table 1 Comparison of Enterprise Engineering Definitions

Scope Means Focus

6 Organise knowledge, tools and
methods needed to identify the
need for change in enterprises
(Bernus et al., 2003)
7 Analysis, design,
implementation and operation
of an enterprise (Presley and
Liles, 1996; Presley et al.,
2001)
Continually maintain an
integrated state of the
enterprise
Knowledge, principles,
and practices
Make the necessary
design or redesign, and
carry out change in a
professional manner
Whole enterprise

3.3 Evaluating EE definitions with the specifications for defining

The specifications for developing definitions (Section 2.4) were used as criteria to
evaluate existing definitions of EE. For that purpose, values were assigned to each
criterion as shown in Table 2. An evaluation of the seven enterprise engineering
definitions reveals that:
• Vernadat (1996) and the IFIC-IFAC Task Force on Enterprise Integration
(Bernus et al., 2003) definitions are the ones that best conform to the specifications
for developing definitions.
• The one aspect where most definitions fail short is in ‘scope’. Five of the seven
definitions are too broad; they include aspects related to operations management and
other fields of study.
• The ISO (1999b) definition fails to state essential attributes that helps in the
understanding of what EE is.
• Kosanke et al. (1999) provided some essential attributes (e.g., life cycle, define,
design, implement) and some collateral attributes (e.g., communication networks are
derived from the design of other elements).
• Martin’s (1995) provided only collateral attributes, focusing on change methods and
on more managerial than engineering means.
• All definitions satisfy the non-circular specification. All definitions satisfy the
specification of clarity and affirmative, and to some degree, that of simplicity.
• Kosanke’s et al. (1999), ISEE (2002) and Presley and Liles (1996) failed the
economy of relationship, because the former focuses on one aspect of engineering,
and the latter two do not focus.
• ISO’s (1999b) failed economy of constitution because it provides too little
information to explain the suggested scope.
A summary of the evaluation of existing definitions of EE against specifications for
formulating definitions is presented in Table 3. Additionally, as lessons learned from the
review and evaluation of Enterprise Engineering definitions, it can be mentioned that:
 Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering 493

• Engineering and management are confounded in some definitions, e.g.,

Martin (1995), ISO (1999b) and ISEE (2002).
• Broad and divergent foci of definitions do not portray the uniqueness of a separate
research field. According to Rowe et al. (2004), a field of study must have a
central character and distinctiveness, current definitions of EE have a central
character, namely, the enterprise, but they do not have distinctiveness. Divergent
foci do not support the concentration of efforts toward the development of EE;
instead, they may confuse potential users (Kosanke et al., 1998; Zelm and
Kosanke, 1999).
• In general, the papers analysed do not clearly specify what kind of definition they are
presenting and what kind of criteria were considered in their formulation.

Table 2 Values assigned to criteria for formulating definitions

Criteria Possible values Assigned meaning

State essential Yes: States essential attributes of the definiendum
attributes
No: State collateral attributes of the definiendum
Non-Circularity Yes: It is non-circular
No: No: it is circular
Scope Precise: Precise: denotes what it is intended

Broad: Broad: includes more than intended, attributes belong to other

definienda
Narrow: Narrow: includes a subset of the intended whole

Clarity Yes: It is clear, literal, unambiguous, and non obscure language

No: No: unclear, ambiguous, or obscure
Affirmative Yes: Written in positive, state what it is
No: States what it is not
Economy of Ok: Enough information to convey and understand the concept
presentation
No: Not ok: not enough information to understand the concept
Economy of Ok: Definien is directly related to definiendum
Relationship
Indirect: Definien is indirectly related to definiendum
No: Not clear, not enough information to judge the intended
relationship
Economy of Ok: Enough information is given to understand definiendum
Constitution
Indefinite: Too little info is given to understand definiendum
494 O.A. Saenz et al.

Table 3 Evaluation of existing definitions of enterprise engineering

4 Proposed ESE definition and validation

Most definitions in the engineering literature, particularly those not classified as

operational definitions or those formally formulated using math, tend to be descriptions.
Moreover, from the sample of papers analysed, researchers do not mention what type of
definition they are proposing, what technique has been used for defining, or if there is
some kind of validation involved, which is the reason this research had to seek beyond
engineering a found grounds in the philosophy of science. This section proposes
a definition of ESE, demonstrates the use of the synthesis technique for defining, and
validates the proposed definition.
 Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering 495

4.1 Using the synthesis technique for defining

Using the synthesis technique for defining implies the assigning of meaning, or creating
the definien, using the relationships of an object to other objects in a whole or by how the
meaning of the definiendum arises. As this paper defines ‘ESE’, an analysis of its
components’ terms and the paired combination of these terms is in order for enhancing
the understanding of how the meaning of the target definition of ESE arises.
ISO (1999b) defines an enterprise as “one or more organisations sharing a definite
mission, goals, and objectives to offer an output such as a product or service”. A related
view is offered by Presley et al. (2001), who stated that an enterprise is a collection
of activities organised into a set of business processes that cooperate to produce desired
results.
Hanson (1995) defines a system as any two or more related parts, such that a change
in any one part changes all parts. Wilson (1984) envisioned a system as a set of
components linked together to achieve some purpose. The interdependencies among the
parts define the structure of the system and cause the properties of the whole to be
different from the concatenation of properties of the constituent elements. A system has
a hierarchy, it has subsystems within it and at the same time the system is a subsystem of
a wider system. The description of lower levels in the hierarchy provides details on how
the system performs and achieves its purpose, whereas the description of higher levels
shows the role of the system in its environment (ISO, 1999a). Checkland (1981) said that
a system is characterised by
• its hierarchical structure, where smaller entities are themselves wholes
• its emergent properties, attributed to the whole not to the parts
• its control, which provides a mechanism by means of which the system adjusts itself
to continue pursuing its purpose based on some performance measurement.
Enterprises are dynamic, purposive, and densely connected systems (Checkland, 1981).
An enterprise is composed of various systems, which are expected to interact
cohesively to achieve common goals. Thus, an enterprise is a system in its own right and
engineering principles should be applicable to its design. Williams et al. (1996) stated
that an enterprise system may consist of a part of a business unit, several business units,
or the whole enterprise. Following this trend of thought, an enterprise system may be
a part of a business process, a whole business process, a set of business processes,
companies working independently or as part of a partnership (as in a supply chain),
or a virtual or extended enterprise. Moreover, an enterprise system is made up of
a coordinated network of enterprise elements, such as work, resources, information, and
decision (Saenz, 2005). This coordinated network of enterprise elements must be
engineered throughout a life cycle, it must determine how efficiently and effectively the
organisation transforms its inputs into outputs, delivers value to customers, and give rise
to the enterprise’s capacities and capabilities (Coulter, 2002). This resulting whole, the
enterprise made up of a network of enterprise elements, must be aligned with strategy and
satisfy customer and stakeholder requirements, and thus contribute to achieve the desired
performance (Malone and Crowston, 1994). The interdependencies among the network of
enterprise elements define the enterprise system behaviour.
The engineering of an enterprise system is analogous to the engineering of a product.
Engineering is the systematic design and building of a process or an artefact, from
496 O.A. Saenz et al.

concept to a set of specifications that can be implemented, by using science and

mathematics (Jayachandra, 1994). Based on the meanings of the terms enterprise, system,
and engineering, relationships among them can be identified (see Figure 1). These
relationships show that an enterprise has, both, a mission and a vision to guide the setting
of strategies, goals, and objectives, which, in turn, guide and constrain the setting of
business processes. Business processes deliver the performance required by stakeholders
and value to customers via the required products and services. An enterprise is a system
and, as such, has an owner, actors, structure, emergent properties as a whole, a control
mechanism that measures performance and adjusts the system behaviour. It pursues some
objectives, performs some transformations, it is guided by a world view (i.e., vision), and
it is subject to environmental constraints (Checkland and Scholes, 1990).

Figure 1 Conceptual relationships among the terms enterprise, systems, and engineering

Within this effort to synthesise the meaning of the term ESE it is clear at this point that
the understanding of the three individual terms ‘enterprise’, ‘systems’, and ‘engineering’
is different from any combination of the component terms; that is, ‘enterprise system’,
‘enterprise engineering’ (both presented before), and ‘systems engineering’. Systems
engineering attempts to define system behaviour and to design system structure so that
emergent behaviour can be predicted and controlled within desirable bounds (ISO, 1999a;
Thomé, 1993).
A tenet of this research is that an enterprise system is viewed as a product, for it has
to be specified, designed, built, and put into operation (Bernus and Nemes, 1996;
Bernus et al., 2003); thus, the proposed definition has a product development orientation.
Viewing an enterprise as a product is valid for new and existing enterprises; the latter
may be considered as an existing product suitable for redesign. Analogous to product
engineering, the last authors stressed that the theories, tools, methodologies, and activities
used to engineer an enterprise should be applicable without regard to the nature of the
business.
 Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering 497

Considering the stated meaning of engineering, viewing enterprises as open systems

with a life cycle and made up of a network of interrelated enterprise elements, having
lessons learned from the comparative analysis of the definition of enterprise engineering,
it seems straight forward to extend the definition of engineering to the engineering of
enterprise systems. So, this study defines ESE as an engineering discipline that
“develops and applies systems theory and engineering techniques to
specification, analysis, design, and implementation of an enterprise for its life
cycle.”
Similar to other engineering disciplines, ESE designs artefacts (i.e., enterprise systems)
that meet stakeholders’ needs. Moreover, ESE aims at building a scientific foundation for
study of the integrative and collaborative nature of enterprise behaviour in the global
economy.

4.2 Validation of the ESE definition

In general, this research has focused on the fundamental descriptive and qualitative side
of theory building, not on hypothesis testing (Beardsley, 1966). A deductive approach to
science has been used, the analysis of the available theory backed the outcomes of this
research (Dubin, 1969). Validation of the proposed ESE definition was done in two
fronts:
1 adherence to a specific technique for defining – synthesis
2 compliance with scientific specifications for formulating definitions.
Using the synthesis technique, a concept can be defined by specifying its place in a larger
system of concepts or expressing it in terms of other primitive concepts (Robinson,
1968). The ESE definition was synthesised by relating it to its three primitives
(enterprise, systems, and engineering) and by relating it to a well established and
accepted theory for developing products which base the product development on product
specifications. The proposed ESE definition complies with the six criteria for formulating
scientific definitions. As opposed to the analysed definitions of enterprise engineering,
the proposed definition of ESE focuses on two essential attributes:
1 it focuses on developing and applying systems theory and engineering techniques
2 it states an engineering process (specification, analysis, design, and implementation)
that focuses on the enterprise, the resulting whole that creates value.
The evaluated definitions of enterprise engineering contributed by highlighting a
particular side of the problem, but they tended to focus on techniques (ISEE, 2002),
remain generally broad (ISO, 1999b; Presley and Liles, 1996; Presley et al., 2001), stress
applications integration (Kosanke et al., 1999) or the achieving of change (Martin, 1995).
The proposed definition has its origin in product development theory and all the
mentioned collateral characteristics are related to it.
The definiendum does not appear as part of the definiens. Synonyms are not used
either. There is no concatenation of meanings that refer to themselves, and the synthesis
of the proposed definition excluded elements that belong to the definiens. Thus, the
proposed definition is non-circular.
498 O.A. Saenz et al.

The main criticism for existing enterprise engineering definitions is rooted in their
scope. Two out of seven are considered narrow and five out of seven are considered
broad (Table 3). This does not mean that they are incorrect, but it is argued that broad
definitions do not give uniqueness to the field because they connote more than their
definiendum intends to. Contrasting with this, the narrow definitions leave the feeling of
excluding crucial aspects while at the same time specialising in certain aspects that
invade the realm of other engineering fields. The proposed definition has a precise scope:
“specification, analysis, design, and implementation of an enterprise for its life cycle”.
The proposed definition has clarity. All the terms in the definition are expressed in
clear, literal, unambiguous, and non-obscure language. To further guarantee adherence to
this criterion, other key terms as engineering, system, enterprise, and enterprise elements
have been assigned a distinct and accepted meaning in this research to avoid ambiguity.
The proposed ESE definition as expressed is affirmative and direct; it is not expressed
in negative terms. To test that the proposed definition is simple enough without being
indefinite, three tests were checked: economy of presentation, economy of relationship,
and economy of constitution (Chakrabarti, 1995). Regarding presentation, the definien
provides enough information to convey and understand the concept of ESE. No attributes
of the enterprise, the system it represents, the engineering process, or the possible
methodologies to use are given because this is not a denotative definition, e.g., in some
definitions of enterprise engineering it is not clear when the definition ends or if the
enumeration of attributes is part of it, as in Martin (1995) and ISEE (2002). Regarding
economy of relationships, all the terms used are directly related to the definiendum, that
is, to the constituent terms enterprise, systems, and engineering, at the same time giving a
new and clear meaning to the ordered set of terms. Regarding economy of constitution,
the definien contains nothing beyond what is necessary to explain the meaning of the
definiendum.
In short, the proposed definition of ESE states essential attributes, is non-circular,
has a definite scope, and is clear, affirmative, and simple. Therefore, it is a valid
definition.

5 Conclusions

This research recognises ESE as an independent discipline, distinct from industrial

engineering, manufacturing engineering, product engineering, software or ERP systems
engineering. This paper defines ESE based on philosophical principles to formulate
definitions, product development theory, and from the analysis of existing definitions of
another engineering field, Enterprise Engineering. Other disciplines that have been
established longer, e.g., Operations Research, reliability, information systems, have, as a
common thread, a well defined terminology. A challenge faced by new disciplines is,
first, the formulation of its own set of definitions, and second, the sharing of those
definitions among researchers.
This paper has made the following contributions. First a precise definition of ESE
was proposed and validated. Second, it proposed an approach to formulate definitions
grounded in product development and the philosophy of science. This approach starts
with a set of specifications, uses the synthesis technique for defining, and validates
a definition assigning values according to its compliance with the set of specifications.
This research used the definition approach to conduct a comparative analysis of different
 Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering 499

definitions of the same subject, and shed light on how attempts to define a new field of
study contribute to differentiate it from or confound it with other fields. Third, this
research highlights the importance of stating what kind of definition is being formulated
and what criteria are being used in its formulation. The proposed definition of ESE
addresses one goal of science, understanding, by putting forth a new theoretical
foundation to create or change enterprise systems. Future research could investigate in
greater depth the use of the philosophy of science to develop a potentially more
cross-disciplinary conceptualisation of ESE.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the reviewers and the Editor for their constructive and
valuable comments and suggestions. This research was partially funded by Universidad
del Turabo.

References
Basen, A. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (2006) ‘A philosophical discussion of the root definition in soft
systems thinking: an enrichment of CATWOE’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science,
Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.61–87.
Beardsley, M.C. (1966). Thinking Straight, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Bernus, P. and Nemes, L. (1996) ‘A framework to define a generic enterprise reference architecture
and methodology’, Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.179–191.
Bernus, P., Nemes, L. and Schmidt, G. (Eds.) (2003) Handbook on Enterprise Architecture,
Springer, Berlin.
Buchanan, C.S., McKinnon, K.I.M. and Skondras, G.K. (2001) ‘The recursive definition
of stochastic linear programming problems within an algebraic modeling language’,
Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 104, pp.15–32.
Chakrabarti, K.K. (1995) Definition and Induction. A Historical and Comparative Study,
University of Hawaii’s Press, Honolulu. Society for Asian and Comparative Philosophy.
Chantarat, N., Allen, T.T. and Ferhatosmanoglu, N. (2006) ‘A combined array approach to
minimise expected prediction errors in experimentation involving mixture and process
variables’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, pp.129–147.
Checkland, P. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Willey & Sons, Chichester [Eng.],
New York.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, West Sussex, England, New York.
Chen, C-S. (2006) ‘Concurrent engineering-to-order operation in the manufacturing engineering
contracting industries’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2,
pp.37–58.
Copi, I.M. (1982) Introduction to Logic, 6th ed., Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York.
Copi, I.M. and Burgess-Jackson, K. (1995) Informal Logic, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Coulter, M. (2002) Strategic Management in Action, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Dereli, T., Baykasoglu, A. and Büyüközkan, G. (2008). ‘An affordable reverse engineering
framework for innovative rapid product development’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.31–37.
Dubin, R. (1969) Theory Building, The Free Press, New York.
500 O.A. Saenz et al.

Giachetti, R.E. (2004) ‘A framework to review the information integration of the enterprise’,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp.1147–1166.
Grant, D. (2005) ‘Levels of enterprise integration: study using case analysis’, International journal
of Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.1–22.
Grüninger, M., Atefi, K. and Fox, M.S. (2000) ‘Ontologies to support process integration in
enterprise engineering’, Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Vol. 6, No. 4,
pp.381–394.
Guangming, C., Minghong, L. and Xianhu, W. (2006) ‘The definition of extended high-level timed
petri nets’, Journal of Computer Science, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.127–143.
Hanson, B.G. (1995) General Systems Theory. Beginning with Wholes, Taylor & Francis,
Washington.
Hempel, C.G. (1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of
Science, The Free Press, New York.
ISEE (2002) Glossary of Terms [online] [05 February, 2008], Available from World Wide
Web:<http://www.hissight.com/iseenet/glossary.htm>
ISO (1999a) Concepts and Rules for Enterprise Models. International Standard 14258 [online]
[07-2003], Available from World Wide Web:<www.mel.nist.gov/sc5wg1/std-dft.htm>
ISO (1999b) Requirements for Enterprise Reference Architectures and Methodologies.
International Standard 15704 [online] [07-2003], Available from World Wide
Web:<http://www.mel.nist.gov/sc5wg1/gera-std/15704fds.htm>
Jayachandra, Y. (1994) Re-Engineering the Networked Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Kosanke, K. (1995) ‘CIMOSA-overview and status’, Computers in Industry, Vol. 27, No. 2,
pp.101–109.
Kosanke, K. and Nell, J.G. (1999) ‘Standardisation in ISO for enterprise engineering and
integration’, Computers in Industry, Vol. 40, Nos. 2–3, pp.311–319.
Kosanke, K., Nell, J.G., Vernadat, F. and Zelm, M. (1998) ‘Enterprise integration – international
consensus (EI – IC) EP21859’, Changing the Ways We Work: Shaping the ICT Solutions for
the Next Century: Proceedings of the Conference on Integration in Manufacturing, Vol. 8
of Advances in Design and Manufacturing, IOS Press, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp.233–243.
Kosanke, K., Vernadat, F. and Zelm, M. (1999) ‘CIMOSA: Enterprise engineering and integration’,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 40, Nos. 2–3, pp.83–97.
Li, H. and Williams, T.J. (1994) A Formalization and Extension of the Purdue Enterprise
Reference Architecture and the Purdue Methodology, Report Number 158, Purdue Laboratory
for Applied Industrial Control, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Li, H. and Williams, T.J. (2002) ‘Management of complexity in enterprise integration projects by
the PERA methodology’, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.417–427.
Lim, S.H., Juster, N. and Pennington, A.d. (1997) ‘Enterprise modelling and integration:
a taxonomy of seven key aspects’, Computers in Industry, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.339–359.
Liu, Y-W. and Kapur, K.C. (2006) ‘Reliability measures for dynamic multistate nonrepairable
systems and their applications to system performance evaluation’, IIE Transactions, Vol. 38,
pp.511–520.
Malone, T.W. and Crowston, K. (1994) ‘The interdisciplinary study of coordination’,
ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.87–119.
Martin, J. (1995) The Great Transition. Using the Seven Disciplines of Enterprise Engineering to
Align People, Technology, and Strategy, Amacon, New York.
Muralidharan, J., Gunasekaran, A., Nachiappan, S.P. and Kumar, A.N. (2008) ‘Efficient
mechanism development for multirobot coordination’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.149–161.
Ning, K., O’Sollivan, D., Zhu, Q. and Decker, S. (2006) ‘Semantic Innovation management across
the extended enterprise’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2,
pp.109–128.
 Defining Enterprise Systems Engineering 501

Presley, A. and Liles, D. (1996) ‘Enterprise modeling within an enterprise engineering framework’,
Winter Simulation Conference, San Diego, pp.993–999.
Presley, A., Sarkis, J., Barnett, W. and Liles, D. (2001) ‘Engineering the virtual enterprise: an
architecture-driven modeling approach’, International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.145–162.
Reinhartz-Berger, I. and Sturm, A. (2008) ‘Enhancing UML models: a domain analysis approach’,
Journal of Database Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.74–94.
Robinson, R. (1968) Definition, Oxford University Press, London.
Rowe, F., Truex, D. and Kvasny, L. (2004) ‘Cores and definitions: building the cognitive
legitimacy of the information systems discipline across the Atlantic’, in Kaplan, B., Truex, D.,
Wastell, D. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (Eds.): Relevant Theory and Informed Practice: Looking
Forward from a 20 year Perspective on IS Research, Kluwer, Boston.
Saenz, O.A. (2005) Framework for Enterprise Systems Engineering, PhD Dissertation,
Florida International University, Miami, Fl, USA.
Saenz, O.A. and Chen, C-S. (2004) ‘Towards a framework for enterprise systems engineering’,
Proceeding of the Second Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and
Technology (LACCEI 2004), Challenges and Opportunities for Engineering Education,
Research and Development, Paper No. 033. Miami, Florida, USA, pp.1–6.
Sarin, S.C. and West-Hansen, J. (2005) ‘The long-term mine production scheduling problem’,
IIE Transactions, Vol. 37, pp.109–121.
Sharma, R.K., Kumar, D. and Kumar, P. (2007) ‘Behaviour analysis and resource optimisation for
an industrial system’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.413–443.
Thomé, B. (Ed.) (1993) Systems Engineering. Principles and Practice of Computer-Based Systems
Engineering, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England.
van der Aalst, W.M.P. and Kumar, A. (2003) ‘XML-based schema definition for support of
interorganizational workflow’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.23–46.
Venkatachalam, A.R. (2006) ‘A holistic perspective of enterprise integration’, Journal of
Information Technology Case and Application Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.1–6.
Vernadat, F.B. (1996) Enterprise Modeling and Integration: Principles and Applications, 1st ed.,
Chapman & Hall, London.
Vernadat, F.B. (2002) ‘UEML: towards a unified enterprise modelling language’, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40, No. 17, pp.4309–4321.
Vicente, K.J. (2006) ‘Cognitive engineering: a theoretical framework and three case studies’,
Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, pp.168–181.
Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M. and Hjort-Mandsen, K. (2007) ‘Integration and enterprise
architecture challenges in e-government: a European perspective’, International Journal of
Cases on Electronic Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.13–35.
Williams, T.J., Rathwell, G.A. and Li, H. (1996) A Handbook on Master Planning and
Implementation for Enterprise Integration Programs. Based on the Purdue Enterprise
Reference Architecture and the Purdue Methodology, Report Number 160, Institute for
Interdisciplinary Engineering Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Wilson, B. (1984) Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications, John Willey & Sons,
Chichister.
Xia, F. (1999) ‘Look before you leap: on some fundamental issues in software engineering
research’, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 41, No. 10, pp.661–672.
Zelm, M. and Kosanke, K. (1999) ‘Enterprise modeling – towards a user oriented methodology’,
Intelligent Industrial Automation Symposia (IIA’99), 02–04 June, Genoa, Italy.

View publication stats