DOCSLIB.ORG

Metamodeling for Business Model Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metamodeling for Business Model Design Metamodeling for Business Model Design Facilitating development and communication of Business Model Canvas (BMC) models with an OMG standards-based metamodel. Hilmar Hauksson Department of Computer and Systems Sciences Degree project 30 HE credits Degree subject: Computer and Systems Sciences Degree project at the master level Autumn term 2013 Supervisor: Paul Johannesson Reviewer: Harko Verhagen This page intentionally left blank. Metamodeling for Business Model Design Facilitating development and communication of Business Model Canvas (BMC) models with an OMG standards-based metamodel. Hilmar Hauksson Abstract Interest for business models and business modeling has increased rapidly since the mid-1990‘s and there are numerous approaches used to create business models. The business model concept has many definitions which can lead to confusion and slower progress in the research and development of business models. A business model ontology (BMO) was created in 2004 where the business model concept was conceptualized based on an analysis of existing literature. A few years later the Business Model Canvas (BMC) was published; a popular business modeling approach providing a high-level, semi-formal approach to create and communicate business models. While this approach is easy to use, the informality and high-level approach can cause ambiguity and it has limited computer-aided support available. In order to propose a solution to address this problem and facilitate the development and communication of Business Model Canvas models, two artifacts are created, demonstrated and evaluated; a structured metamodel for the Business Model Canvas and its implementation in an OMG standards-based modeling tool to provide tool support for BMC modeling. This research is carried out following the design science approach where the artifacts are created to better understand and improve the identified problem. The problem and its background are explicated and the planned artifacts and requirements are outlined. The design and development of the artifacts are detailed and the resulting BMC metamodel is presented as a class diagram in Unified Modeling Language (UML) and implemented to provide tool support for BMC modeling. A demonstration with a business model and an evaluation is performed with expert interviews and informed arguments. The creation of a BMC metamodel exposed some ambiguity in the definition and use of the Business Model Canvas and the importance of graphical presentation and flexibility in the tools used. The evaluation of the resulting artifacts suggests that the artifacts do facilitate the development and communication of the Business Model Canvas models by improving the encapsulation and communication of information in a standardized way and thereby the goals of the research are met. Keywords Business Models, Business Model Canvas, BMC, Business Model Ontology, BMO, Metamodels, Meta models, Meta-models, UML, OMG, Model-driven Architecture, MDA, MetaModelAgent, MMA, Design Science, Modeling Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 Problem ............................................................................................................ 2 Research goal .................................................................................................... 2 Target audience ................................................................................................. 2 Limitations ........................................................................................................ 2 Disposition......................................................................................................... 3 Extended background .............................................................................. 4 Models and Business Models ................................................................................ 4 Business Model Canvas (BMC) .............................................................................. 9 BMC tools .........................................................................................................12 Metamodels ......................................................................................................13 Model-Driven Architecture ..................................................................................15 UML and UML Profiles .........................................................................................16 Modeling environment and tools ..........................................................................17 Method .................................................................................................. 18 Field of Science .................................................................................................18 Design Science ...............................................................................................18 Design Science Canvas ....................................................................................19 Research approach ............................................................................................21 Design Science Method (DSM) ..........................................................................21 Ethical considerations ........................................................................................23 Research Strategies and Methods ........................................................................24 DSM activity 1: Explicate Problem ....................................................................24 DSM activity 2: Outline Artifact & Define Requirements .......................................25 DSM activity 3: Design & Develop Artifact .........................................................26 DSM activity 4: Demonstrate Artifact ................................................................27 DSM activity 5: Evaluate Artifact ......................................................................27 Communication ..............................................................................................29 Results & Analysis ................................................................................. 30 Problem identification & Motivation ......................................................................30 Define the objectives for a solution ......................................................................30 Design & Development .......................................................................................32 BMC Metamodel creation .................................................................................32 UML Profile creation for the BMC Metamodel ......................................................48 Implementing the BMC UML Profile in RSA .........................................................49 Implementing the BMC metamodel with MetaModelAgent in RSA ..........................52 Demonstration ..................................................................................................58 Evaluation ........................................................................................................75 Informed arguments .......................................................................................75 Expert evaluation ...........................................................................................78 Communication .................................................................................................83 Discussion ............................................................................................. 84 References ............................................................................................ 86 Appendix A – DS Canvas ........................................................................ 88 Appendix B – Interviews ....................................................................... 89 Appendix C – Interview transcripts. ...................................................... 91 Appendix D – BMC Metamodel class diagram......................................... 96 ii List of Figures Figure 1: Business Model Concept Hierarchies. (Osterwalder, et al., 2005) ......................................... 6 Figure 2: The Business Model Ontology (BMO). (Osterwalder, et al., 2004) ....................................... 8 Figure 3: The Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) .............................................. 11 Figure 4: OMG's 4 basic meta-levels and structure ............................................................................... 14 Figure 5: The taxonomy of UML2 structure and behavior diagrams (OMG, 2011b) ........................... 16 Figure 6: Basic version of the Design Science Canvas for this thesis. ................................................. 20 Figure 7: Research approach with DSM process overview. ................................................................. 22 Figure 8 Basic concepts for relationships in the BMC class diagram. .................................................. 35 Figure 9: Initial draft of the BMC metamodel after step 1. .................................................................. 36 Figure 10: BMO input to the VALUE PROPOSITION element attributes in BMC. .......................... 38 Figure 11: The BMC metamodel draft after step 2. ............................................................................. 42
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Filling the Gap Between Business Process Modeling and Behavior Driven Development
    Filling the Gap between Business Process Modeling and Behavior Driven Development Rogerio Atem de Carvalho Rodrigo Soares Manhães Fernando Luis de Carvalho e Silva Nucleo de Pesquisa em Sistemas de Informação (NSI), Instituto Federal Fluminense (IFF), Brazil {ratem, rmanhaes, [email protected]} 1. Introduction Behavior Driven Development (NORTH, 2006) is a specification technique that is growing in acceptance in the Agile methods communities. BDD allows to securely verify that all functional requirements were treated properly by source code, by connecting the textual description of these requirements to tests. On the other side, the Enterprise Information Systems (EIS) researchers and practitioners defends the use of Business Process Modeling (BPM) to, before defining any part of the system, perform the modeling of the system's underlying business process. Therefore, it can be stated that, in the case of EIS, functional requirements are obtained by identifying Use Cases from the business process models. The aim of this paper is, in a narrower perspective, to propose the use of Finite State Machines (FSM) to model business process and then connect them to the BDD machinery, thus driving better quality for EIS. In a broader perspective, this article aims to provoke a discussion on the mapping of the various BPM notations, since there isn't a real standard for business process modeling (Moller et al., 2007), to BDD. Firstly a historical perspective of the evolution of previous proposals from which this one emerged will be presented, and then the reasons to change from Model Driven Development (MDD) to BDD will be presented also in a historical perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Data-Driven Grasp Synthesis - a Survey Jeannette Bohg, Member, IEEE, Antonio Morales, Member, IEEE, Tamim Asfour, Member, IEEE, Danica Kragic Member, IEEE
    TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS 1 Data-Driven Grasp Synthesis - A Survey Jeannette Bohg, Member, IEEE, Antonio Morales, Member, IEEE, Tamim Asfour, Member, IEEE, Danica Kragic Member, IEEE specific metric. This process is usually based on some existing Abstract—We review the work on data-driven grasp synthesis grasp experience that can be a heuristic or is generated in and the methodologies for sampling and ranking candidate simulation or on a real robot. Kamon et al. [5] refer to this grasps. We divide the approaches into three groups based on whether they synthesize grasps for known, familiar or unknown as the comparative and Shimoga [2] as the knowledge-based objects. This structure allows us to identify common object rep- approach. Here, a grasp is commonly parameterized by [6, 7]: resentations and perceptual processes that facilitate the employed • the grasping point on the object with which the tool center data-driven grasp synthesis technique. In the case of known point (TCP) should be aligned, objects, we concentrate on the approaches that are based on • the approach vector which describes the 3D angle that object recognition and pose estimation. In the case of familiar objects, the techniques use some form of a similarity matching the robot hand approaches the grasping point with, to a set of previously encountered objects. Finally, for the • the wrist orientation of the robotic hand and approaches dealing with unknown objects, the core part is the • an initial finger configuration extraction of specific features that are indicative of good grasps. Data-driven approaches differ in how the set of grasp candi- Our survey provides an overview of the different methodologies dates is sampled, how the grasp quality is estimated and how and discusses open problems in the area of robot grasping.
    [Show full text]
  • The Model Transformation Language of the VIATRA2 Framework
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Science of Computer Programming 68 (2007) 214–234 www.elsevier.com/locate/scico The model transformation language of the VIATRA2 framework Daniel´ Varro´ ∗, Andras´ Balogh Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Department of Measurement and Information Systems, H-1117, Magyar tudosok krt. 2., Budapest, Hungary OptXware Research and Development LLC, Budapest, Hungary Received 15 August 2006; received in revised form 17 April 2007; accepted 14 May 2007 Available online 5 July 2007 Abstract We present the model transformation language of the VIATRA2 framework, which provides a rule- and pattern-based transformation language for manipulating graph models by combining graph transformation and abstract state machines into a single specification paradigm. This language offers advanced constructs for querying (e.g. recursive graph patterns) and manipulating models (e.g. generic transformation and meta-transformation rules) in unidirectional model transformations frequently used in formal model analysis to carry out powerful abstractions. c 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Model transformation; Graph transformation; Abstract state machines 1. Introduction The crucial role of model transformation (MT) languages and tools for the overall success of model-driven system development has been revealed in many surveys and papers during the recent years. To provide a standardized support for capturing queries, views and transformations between modeling languages defined by their standard MOF metamodels, the Object Management Group (OMG) has recently issued the QVT standard. QVT provides an intuitive, pattern-based, bidirectional model transformation language, which is especially useful for synchronization kind of transformations between semantically equivalent modeling languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Sysml Distilled: a Brief Guide to the Systems Modeling Language
    ptg11539604 Praise for SysML Distilled “In keeping with the outstanding tradition of Addison-Wesley’s techni- cal publications, Lenny Delligatti’s SysML Distilled does not disappoint. Lenny has done a masterful job of capturing the spirit of OMG SysML as a practical, standards-based modeling language to help systems engi- neers address growing system complexity. This book is loaded with matter-of-fact insights, starting with basic MBSE concepts to distin- guishing the subtle differences between use cases and scenarios to illu- mination on namespaces and SysML packages, and even speaks to some of the more esoteric SysML semantics such as token flows.” — Jeff Estefan, Principal Engineer, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory “The power of a modeling language, such as SysML, is that it facilitates communication not only within systems engineering but across disci- plines and across the development life cycle. Many languages have the ptg11539604 potential to increase communication, but without an effective guide, they can fall short of that objective. In SysML Distilled, Lenny Delligatti combines just the right amount of technology with a common-sense approach to utilizing SysML toward achieving that communication. Having worked in systems and software engineering across many do- mains for the last 30 years, and having taught computer languages, UML, and SysML to many organizations and within the college setting, I find Lenny’s book an invaluable resource. He presents the concepts clearly and provides useful and pragmatic examples to get you off the ground quickly and enables you to be an effective modeler.” — Thomas W. Fargnoli, Lead Member of the Engineering Staff, Lockheed Martin “This book provides an excellent introduction to SysML.
    [Show full text]
  • Metamodeling and Method Engineering with Conceptbase”
    This is a pre-print of the book chapter M. Jeusfeld: “Metamodeling and method engineering with ConceptBase” . In Jeusfeld, M.A., Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J. (eds): Metamodeling for Method Engineering, pp. 89-168. The MIT Press., 2009; the original book is available from MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/node/192290 This pre-print may only be used for scholar, non-commercial purposes. Most of the sources for the examples in this chapter are available via http://merkur.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/pub/bscw.cgi/3782591 for download. They require ConceptBase 7.0 or later available from http://conceptbase.cc. Metamodeling and Method Engineering with ConceptBase Manfred Jeusfeld Abstract. This chapter provides a practical guide on how to use the meta data repository ConceptBase to design information modeling methods by using meta- modeling. After motivating the abstraction principles behind meta-modeling, the language Telos as realized in ConceptBase is presented. First, a standard factual representation of statements at any IRDS abstraction level is defined. Then, the foundation of Telos as a logical theory is elaborated yielding simple fixpoint semantics. The principles for object naming, instantiation, attribution, and specialization are reflected by roughly 30 logical axioms. After the language axiomatization, user-defined rules, constraints and queries are introduced. The first part is concluded by a description of active rules that allows the specification of reactions of ConceptBase to external events. The second part applies the language features of the first part to a full-fledged information modeling method: The Yourdan method for Modern Structured Analysis. The notations of the Yourdan method are designed along the IRDS framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying and Defining Relationships: Techniques for Improving Student Systemic Thinking
    AC 2011-897: IDENTIFYING AND DEFINING RELATIONSHIPS: TECH- NIQUES FOR IMPROVING STUDENT SYSTEMIC THINKING Cecelia M. Wigal, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga Cecelia M. Wigal received her Ph.D. in 1998 from Northwestern University and is presently a Professor of Engineering and Assistant Dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC). Her primary areas of interest and expertise include complex process and system analysis, process improvement analysis, and information system analysis with respect to usability and effectiveness. Dr. Wigal is also interested in engineering education reform to address present and future student and national and international needs. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Identifying and Defining Relationships: Techniques for Improving Student Systemic Thinking Abstract ABET, Inc. is looking for graduating undergraduate engineering students who are systems thinkers. However, genuine systems thinking is contrary to the traditional practice of using linear thinking to help solve design problems often used by students and many practitioners. Linear thinking has a tendency to compartmentalize solution options and minimize recognition of relationships between solutions and their elements. Systems thinking, however, has the ability to define the whole system, including its environment, objectives, and parts (subsystems), both static and dynamic, by their relationships. The work discussed here describes two means of introducing freshman engineering students to thinking systemically or holistically when understanding and defining problems. Specifically, the modeling techniques of Rich Pictures and an instructor generated modified IDEF0 model are discussed. These techniques have roles in many applications. In this case they are discussed in regards to their application to the design process.
    [Show full text]
  • Matters of (Meta-) Modeling
    Appeared in the Journal on Software and Systems Modeling, Volume 5, Number 4, pp. 369-385, December 2006 Matters of (Meta-) Modeling Thomas Kuh¨ ne Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Abstract With the recent trend to model driven engineering ontologies for the basic terms of their discipline, any com- a common understanding of basic notions such as “model” munication may create the illusion of agreement where there and “metamodel” becomes a pivotal issue. Even though these is none, i.e., unnoticed misunderstandings, and raise barriers notions have been in widespread use for quite a while, there of communication where they are just accidental. is still little consensus about when exactly it is appropriate In the following we will focus on the term “model” in the to use them. The aim of this article is to start establishing a context of model driven engineering. Our models are thus all consensus about generally acceptable terminology. Its main language-based in nature, unlike, e.g., physical scale models contributions are the distinction between two fundamental- and they describe something as opposed to models in mathe- ly different kinds of model roles, i.e. “token model” versus matics which are understood as interpretations of a theory [3]. “type model”1, a formal notion of “metaness”, and the consi- In an attempt to define the scope of the notion “model” we deration of “generalization” as yet another basic relationship should consider how it has been traditionally used in softwa- between models. In particular, the recognition of the funda- re engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Systems Modeling Languages
    Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Prof. Olivier L. de Weck, Mark Chodas, Narek Shougarian Session 3 System Modeling Languages 1 Reminder: A1 is due today ! 2 3 Overview Why Systems Modeling Languages? Ontology, Semantics and Syntax OPM – Object Process Methodology SySML – Systems Modeling Language Modelica What does it mean for Systems Engineering of today and tomorrow (MBSE)? 4 Exercise: Describe the “Mr. Sticky” System Work with a partner (5 min) Use your webex notepad/white board I will call on you randomly We will compare across student teams © source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/. 5 Why Systems Modeling Languages? Means for describing artifacts are traditionally as follows: Natural Language (English, French etc….) Graphical (Sketches and Drawings) These then typically get aggregated in “documents” Examples: Requirements Document, Drawing Package Technical Data Package (TDP) should contain all info needed to build and operate system Advantages of allowing an arbitrary description: Familiarity to creator of description Not-confining, promotes creativity Disadvantages of allowing an arbitrary description: Room for ambiguous interpretations and errors Difficult to update if there are changes Handoffs between SE lifecycle phases are discontinuous Uneven level of abstraction Large volume of information that exceeds human cognitive bandwidth Etc…. 6 System Modeling Languages Past efforts
    [Show full text]
  • OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification
    Date : October 2019 OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification Version 2.5.1 OMG Document Number: formal/2019-10-01 Standard document URL: https://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.5.1 Normative Machine-Readable Files: https://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/20131001/MOF.xmi Informative Machine-Readable Files: https://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/20131001/CMOFConstraints.ocl https://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/20131001/EMOFConstraints.ocl Copyright © 2003, Adaptive Copyright © 2003, Ceira Technologies, Inc. Copyright © 2003, Compuware Corporation Copyright © 2003, Data Access Technologies, Inc. Copyright © 2003, DSTC Copyright © 2003, Gentleware Copyright © 2003, Hewlett-Packard Copyright © 2003, International Business Machines Copyright © 2003, IONA Copyright © 2003, MetaMatrix Copyright © 2015, Object Management Group Copyright © 2003, Softeam Copyright © 2003, SUN Copyright © 2003, Telelogic AB Copyright © 2003, Unisys USE OF SPECIFICATION - TERMS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES The material in this document details an Object Management Group specification in accordance with the terms, conditions and notices set forth below. This document does not represent a commitment to implement any portion of this specification in any company's products. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. LICENSES The companies listed above have granted to the Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG) a nonexclusive, royalty-free, paid up, worldwide license to copy and distribute this document and to modify this document and distribute copies of the modified version. Each of the copyright holders listed above has agreed that no person shall be deemed to have infringed the copyright in the included material of any such copyright holder by reason of having used the specification set forth herein or having conformed any computer software to the specification.
    [Show full text]
  • Metamodeling the Enhanced Entity-Relationship Model
    Metamodeling the Enhanced Entity-Relationship Model Robson N. Fidalgo1, Edson Alves1, Sergio España2, Jaelson Castro1, Oscar Pastor2 1 Center for Informatics, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife(PE), Brazil {rdnf, eas4, jbc}@cin.ufpe.br 2 Centro de Investigación ProS, Universitat Politècnica de València, València, España {sergio.espana,opastor}@pros.upv.es Abstract. A metamodel provides an abstract syntax to distinguish between valid and invalid models. That is, a metamodel is as useful for a modeling language as a grammar is for a programming language. In this context, although the Enhanced Entity-Relationship (EER) Model is the ”de facto” standard modeling language for database conceptual design, to the best of our knowledge, there are only two proposals of EER metamodels, which do not provide a full support to Chen’s notation. Furthermore, neither a discussion about the engineering used for specifying these metamodels is presented nor a comparative analysis among them is made. With the aim at overcoming these drawbacks, we show a detailed and practical view of how to formalize the EER Model by means of a metamodel that (i) covers all elements of the Chen’s notation, (ii) defines well-formedness rules needed for creating syntactically correct EER schemas, and (iii) can be used as a starting point to create Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tools for EER modeling, interchange metadata among these tools, perform automatic SQL/DDL code generation, and/or extend (or reuse part of) the EER Model. In order to show the feasibility, expressiveness, and usefulness of our metamodel (named EERMM), we have developed a CASE tool (named EERCASE), which has been tested with a practical example that covers all EER constructors, confirming that our metamodel is feasible, useful, more expressive than related ones and correctly defined.
    [Show full text]
  • Integration of Model-Based Systems Engineering and Virtual Engineering Tools for Detailed Design
    Scholars' Mine Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations Spring 2011 Integration of model-based systems engineering and virtual engineering tools for detailed design Akshay Kande Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses Part of the Systems Engineering Commons Department: Recommended Citation Kande, Akshay, "Integration of model-based systems engineering and virtual engineering tools for detailed design" (2011). Masters Theses. 5155. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/5155 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTEGRATION OF MODEL-BASED SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND VIRTUAL ENGINEERING TOOLS FOR DETAILED DESIGN by AKSHA Y KANDE A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 2011 Approved by Steve Corns, Advisor Cihan Dagli Scott Grasman © 2011 Akshay Kande All Rights Reserved 111 ABSTRACT Design and development of a system can be viewed as a process of transferring and transforming data using a set of tools that form the system's development environment. Conversion of the systems engineering data into useful information is one of the prime objectives of the tools used in the process. With complex systems, the objective is further augmented with a need to represent the information in an accessible and comprehensible manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Graphical Debugging of QVT Relations Using Transformation Nets
    Graphical Debugging of QVT Relations using Transformation Nets DIPLOMARBEIT zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Diplom-Ingenieur im Rahmen des Studiums Wirtschaftsinformatik eingereicht von Patrick Zwickl Matrikelnummer 0525849 an der Fakultat¨ fur¨ Informatik der Technischen Universitat¨ Wien Betreuung: Betreuerin: Univ.-Prof. Mag. DI Dr. Gerti Kappel Mitwirkung: DI(FH) Johannes Schonb¨ ock¨ Wien, 07.12.2009 (Unterschrift Verfasser) (Unterschrift Betreuer) Technische Universitat¨ Wien A-1040 Wien Karlsplatz 13 Tel. +43/(0)1/58801-0 http://www.tuwien.ac.at Erkl¨arung zur Verfassung der Arbeit Patrick Zwickl, Gr¨ohrmuhlgasse¨ 36E, 2700 Wiener Neustadt Hiermit erkl¨are ich, dass ich diese Arbeit selbst¨andig verfasst habe, dass ich die verwendeten Quellen und Hilfsmittel vollst¨andig angegeben habe und dass ich die Stellen der Arbeit einschließlich Tabellen, Karten und Abbildungen, die anderen Werken oder dem Internet im Wortlaut oder dem Sinn nach entnommen sind, auf jeden Fall unter Angabe der Quelle als Entlehnung kenntlich gemacht habe. Wien, 7. Dezember 2009 Patrick Zwickl i ii Danksagung Im Zuge meines Studium wurde ich von vielen Menschen, als Kommilitonen, Lehrende, Betreuuer, Freunde, Familie etc., begleitet. Dabei war es mir m¨oglich Unterstutzungen¨ auf verschiedensten Ebenen zu erhalten oder in einer guten Zusammenarbeit respektable Ergebnisse zu erzielen. Aufgrund der gr¨oßeren Zahl an Begleitern, m¨ochte ich mich in der Danksagung im Besonderen auf jene Un- terstutzer¨ beschr¨anken, die in einem uberdurchschnittlichen¨ Zusammenhang mit dieser Diplomarbeit stehen. Ich m¨ochte mich sehr herzlich fur¨ die engagierte Hilfe, Leitung und Supervision bei meinen Betreuuern O.Univ.-Prof. Mag. DI Dr. Gerti Kappel und Univ.- Ass. Mag. Dr.
    [Show full text]