Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods: E3 value and SEAM

Blagovesta Kostova, Jaap Gordijn, Gil Regev, Alain Wegmann

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In the last few decades, several value-modeling methods have emerged in requirements engineering for IS research. We compare two value-modeling methods, e3 value and SEAM. We illustrate their use with an example of the exchange of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on music. In the process, we propose a comparison framework. The results of our study show that e3 value and SEAM are similar value-modeling techniques: both model services in networked systems and focus on value exchanges. They differ, however, in the way value is conceptualized: The market viability of the service system in e3 value versus the subjective value and lack of market profitability analysis in SEAM. e3 value shows how value flows from one actor to another, whereas SEAM shows the relative importance of different value propositions and how they are constructed by the service network. These results can be used by modelers to select a value-modeling method for their purposes by proposing explicit selection criteria. The comparison framework, which is in its early stages of development, can be used to compare other modeling methods.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationRCIS 2019 - IEEE 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science
Subtitle of host publicationTowards a Design Science for Information Systems
EditorsManuel Kolp, Jean Vanderdonckt, Monique Snoeck, Yves Wautelet
PublisherIEEE Computer Society
ISBN (Electronic)9781728148441
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 21 Oct 2019
Event13th IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2019 - Brussels, Belgium
Duration: 29 May 201931 May 2019

Publication series

NameProceedings - International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science
Volume2019-May
ISSN (Print)2151-1349
ISSN (Electronic)2151-1357

Conference

Conference13th IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2019
CountryBelgium
CityBrussels
Period29/05/1931/05/19

Fingerprint

Requirements engineering
Intellectual property
Profitability

Keywords

  • Comparison framework
  • Conceptual modeling
  • Services
  • Value modeling

Cite this

Kostova, B., Gordijn, J., Regev, G., & Wegmann, A. (2019). Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods: E3 value and SEAM. In M. Kolp, J. Vanderdonckt, M. Snoeck, & Y. Wautelet (Eds.), RCIS 2019 - IEEE 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science: Towards a Design Science for Information Systems [8876991] (Proceedings - International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science; Vol. 2019-May). IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2019.8876991
Kostova, Blagovesta ; Gordijn, Jaap ; Regev, Gil ; Wegmann, Alain. / Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods : E3 value and SEAM. RCIS 2019 - IEEE 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science: Towards a Design Science for Information Systems. editor / Manuel Kolp ; Jean Vanderdonckt ; Monique Snoeck ; Yves Wautelet. IEEE Computer Society, 2019. (Proceedings - International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science).
@inproceedings{38d2bed6bf5641d4a935dc6c4eb23f81,
title = "Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods: E3 value and SEAM",
abstract = "In the last few decades, several value-modeling methods have emerged in requirements engineering for IS research. We compare two value-modeling methods, e3 value and SEAM. We illustrate their use with an example of the exchange of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on music. In the process, we propose a comparison framework. The results of our study show that e3 value and SEAM are similar value-modeling techniques: both model services in networked systems and focus on value exchanges. They differ, however, in the way value is conceptualized: The market viability of the service system in e3 value versus the subjective value and lack of market profitability analysis in SEAM. e3 value shows how value flows from one actor to another, whereas SEAM shows the relative importance of different value propositions and how they are constructed by the service network. These results can be used by modelers to select a value-modeling method for their purposes by proposing explicit selection criteria. The comparison framework, which is in its early stages of development, can be used to compare other modeling methods.",
keywords = "Comparison framework, Conceptual modeling, Services, Value modeling",
author = "Blagovesta Kostova and Jaap Gordijn and Gil Regev and Alain Wegmann",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1109/RCIS.2019.8876991",
language = "English",
series = "Proceedings - International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science",
publisher = "IEEE Computer Society",
editor = "Manuel Kolp and Jean Vanderdonckt and Monique Snoeck and Yves Wautelet",
booktitle = "RCIS 2019 - IEEE 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science",
address = "United States",

}

Kostova, B, Gordijn, J, Regev, G & Wegmann, A 2019, Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods: E3 value and SEAM. in M Kolp, J Vanderdonckt, M Snoeck & Y Wautelet (eds), RCIS 2019 - IEEE 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science: Towards a Design Science for Information Systems., 8876991, Proceedings - International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, vol. 2019-May, IEEE Computer Society, 13th IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2019, Brussels, Belgium, 29/05/19. https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2019.8876991

Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods : E3 value and SEAM. / Kostova, Blagovesta; Gordijn, Jaap; Regev, Gil; Wegmann, Alain.

RCIS 2019 - IEEE 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science: Towards a Design Science for Information Systems. ed. / Manuel Kolp; Jean Vanderdonckt; Monique Snoeck; Yves Wautelet. IEEE Computer Society, 2019. 8876991 (Proceedings - International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science; Vol. 2019-May).

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods

T2 - E3 value and SEAM

AU - Kostova, Blagovesta

AU - Gordijn, Jaap

AU - Regev, Gil

AU - Wegmann, Alain

PY - 2019/10/21

Y1 - 2019/10/21

N2 - In the last few decades, several value-modeling methods have emerged in requirements engineering for IS research. We compare two value-modeling methods, e3 value and SEAM. We illustrate their use with an example of the exchange of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on music. In the process, we propose a comparison framework. The results of our study show that e3 value and SEAM are similar value-modeling techniques: both model services in networked systems and focus on value exchanges. They differ, however, in the way value is conceptualized: The market viability of the service system in e3 value versus the subjective value and lack of market profitability analysis in SEAM. e3 value shows how value flows from one actor to another, whereas SEAM shows the relative importance of different value propositions and how they are constructed by the service network. These results can be used by modelers to select a value-modeling method for their purposes by proposing explicit selection criteria. The comparison framework, which is in its early stages of development, can be used to compare other modeling methods.

AB - In the last few decades, several value-modeling methods have emerged in requirements engineering for IS research. We compare two value-modeling methods, e3 value and SEAM. We illustrate their use with an example of the exchange of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on music. In the process, we propose a comparison framework. The results of our study show that e3 value and SEAM are similar value-modeling techniques: both model services in networked systems and focus on value exchanges. They differ, however, in the way value is conceptualized: The market viability of the service system in e3 value versus the subjective value and lack of market profitability analysis in SEAM. e3 value shows how value flows from one actor to another, whereas SEAM shows the relative importance of different value propositions and how they are constructed by the service network. These results can be used by modelers to select a value-modeling method for their purposes by proposing explicit selection criteria. The comparison framework, which is in its early stages of development, can be used to compare other modeling methods.

KW - Comparison framework

KW - Conceptual modeling

KW - Services

KW - Value modeling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074543016&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074543016&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1109/RCIS.2019.8876991

DO - 10.1109/RCIS.2019.8876991

M3 - Conference contribution

T3 - Proceedings - International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science

BT - RCIS 2019 - IEEE 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science

A2 - Kolp, Manuel

A2 - Vanderdonckt, Jean

A2 - Snoeck, Monique

A2 - Wautelet, Yves

PB - IEEE Computer Society

ER -

Kostova B, Gordijn J, Regev G, Wegmann A. Comparison of Two Value-Modeling Methods: E3 value and SEAM. In Kolp M, Vanderdonckt J, Snoeck M, Wautelet Y, editors, RCIS 2019 - IEEE 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science: Towards a Design Science for Information Systems. IEEE Computer Society. 2019. 8876991. (Proceedings - International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science). https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2019.8876991