324
E-Business Planning and Analysis Framework
Online Service: The provision of an intan-
gible value-adding activity using Internet-based
technology.
Quality Function Deployment (QFD): A tool
for converting user requirements into functional
requirements that facilitates trade-off analysis,
benchmarking, and deployment of requirements
IURPDKLJKOHYHOGRZQWRDGHWDLOHGVSHFL¿FDWLRQ
It attempts to build-in quality from the initial
stages of any systems development project.
Systems Development Lifecycle: A logical
and iterative sequence of activities that highlight
the phases of any development project. These
phases typically include analysis, logical design,
physical design, test, measurement and implemen-
tation, and maintenance, and are often performed
as concurrently as possible.
Value Chain Analysis (VCA): A tool for map-
ping business processes that are either primary
to the business operations or serve as support
processes. Variants of the model are produced
for service and manufacturing sectors.
This work was previously published in Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, E-Government, and Mobile Commerce, edited by M.
Khosrow-Pour, pp. 264-271, copyright 2006 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
325
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 2.2
E-Business Reference Models
9RMLVODY%0LãLü

University of Manitoba, Canada
J. Leon Zhao
University of Arizona, USA
ABSTRACT
A number of reference models have been pro-
posed to facilitate the development of e-busi-
ness systems and applications. A comparative
analysis of existing models and their pertinent
FKDUDFWHULVWLFVVKRXOGEHWKH¿UVWVWHSLQVHOHFWLQJ
the right one to be used as the foundation for the
system being developed. This chapter addresses
that goal through an exposition of different refer-
ence models to be used for the development of
e-business systems and applications, as well as
of suitable quality evaluation frameworks to be
used for their assessment.
INTRODUCTION
Electronic business (or e-business, for short) may
EH VXFFLQFWO\ GH¿QHGDVWKHDELOLW\ WR SHUIRUP
exchanges of goods, services, content, assets
and money, using electronic tools and techniques
(Zwass, 1994). E-business transactions may be
conducted by individual customers, businesses
LQFOXGLQJQRQSUR¿WRUJDQL]DWLRQVDQGYDULRXV
governmental agencies and departments. The
main promises of e-business include cost reduc-
tion, new ways of accessing customers and the
ability to overcome geographical distance and
other physical obstacles. In order for all these
EHQH¿WVWREHUHDOL]HGDQGIRUWKHGHYHORSPHQW

of e-business systems to be ultimately successful,
proper foundation is needed—part of which is the
use of suitable models.
The concept of a model has at least two mean-
ings in the study of e-business. Those meanings
are distinct yet not altogether mutually exclusive,
as will be seen from the following. From the
business perspective, an e-EXVLQHVVPRGHOLV³D
description of the roles and relationships among
D¿UP¶VFRQVXPHUVFXVWRPHUVDOOLHVDQGVXS-
SOLHUVWKDWLGHQWL¿HVWKHPDMRUÀRZVRISURGXFW
326
E-Business Reference Models
LQIRUPDWLRQDQGPRQH\DQGWKHPDMRUEHQH¿WV
to participants,” according to Weill and Vitale
(2001). This concept does not differ in essence
from the more traditional view of a business
PRGHODV³WKHRUJDQL]DWLRQRUµDUFKLWHFWXUH¶RI
SURGXFWVHUYLFHDQGLQIRUPDWLRQÀRZVDQGWKH
VRXUFHV RI UHYHQXHV DQG EHQH¿WV IRU VXSSOLHUV
DQGFXVWRPHUV´7LPPHUV7KXVGH¿QHG
the business model provides the vision and the
foundation upon which strategies to pursue their
respective business goals are developed and
implemented in practice.
)URPWKHGH¿QLWLRQVJLYHQDERYHLWPD\VHHP
that e-business is just another form of business,
having the same goals as any other business and
requiring the convergence of business capabili-
ties in order to achieve those goals. However,

WKHSUH¿[³H´LVPRUHWKDQDVLPSOHGHVLJQDWLRQ
for a convenient vehicle to be used in the pursuit
of those goals—it is the indication that another
NLQGRIFRQYHUJHQFHLVQHHGHGWKH³FRQYHUJHQFH
of multiple technologies into an integrated elec-
tronic infrastructure” which is a sine qua non for
conducting e-business (Weill & Vitale, 2001). The
synergy of business and technology is the single
most important characteristic of e-business.
From the technology perspective of the IS and
computer science, on the other hand, an e-busi-
ness model can be understood and employed as a
reference model for the development of e-business
systems and applications. A reference model, as
GH¿QHGE\WKH,62VWDQGDUG,62
describes a standard decomposition of a known
problem domain into a collection of interrelated
parts, or components, that cooperatively solve
the problem; furthermore, it describes the man-
ner in which the components interact in order to
provide the required functions. In this manner, a
reference model provides a shared mental model
that facilitates learning, improves understanding
and leads to better communication among all
the stakeholders (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2004).
A reference model can also be used to develop
PRUH VSHFLDOL]HG PRGHOV WKDW VXSSRUW VSHFL¿F
requirements and scenarios, such as specialized
markets or business applications. It also provides
the foundation for the development of e-business

systems and applications. Finally, a reference
model provides the contextual framework to
identify the need for, develop and coordinate
related technology standards, without which
ÀH[LEOH DQG LQWHURSHUDEOH HEXVLQHVV V\VWHPV
ZRXOG EH LPSRVVLEOH WR EXLOG 0LãLü  =KDR
2000). It is this latter meaning of the concept of
an e-business reference model that we will focus
on in this chapter.
We stress that the need for reference models
exists regardless of the particular strategy and
implementation path (or paths) chosen for the
development of e-business applications. Ideally,
such systems and applications should be developed
in a structured, top-down and architecture-cen-
tric fashion (Bass, Clements, & Kazman, 2002).
In practice, however, few businesses have the
luxury of being able to develop their respective
systems and applications in this manner, start-
ing from zero (although some projects may be
developed in that manner). Most of the others
already utilize a multitude of existing systems
and applications—often referred to using the
TXDOL¿HU ³OHJDF\´²WKDW ZHUH GHYHORSHG RYHU
the years on heterogeneous hardware, software
and application platforms. While sometimes
inadequate and most often incompatible with
one another, legacy systems cannot simply be
discarded since they encapsulate crucial business
logic and manage vast quantities of operational

data; instead, they should be integrated with one
another and with newly developed e-business
systems. (Such development is often referred to
as evolutionary.) In both cases, the availability of
a suitable model to govern the development is a
necessary precondition for success.
A number of reference models for the develop-
ment of e-business applications have been pro-
posed over the years. Developed by both individual
companies and organizations and industrial con-
sortia, they offer markedly different perspectives
327
E-Business Reference Models
and different sets of features. Selecting the most
appropriate one under a given set of requirements
and constraints that hold in a given environment
is a non-trivial undertaking. Therefore, the study
of e-business reference models should help both
researchers and practitioners to develop better and
more advanced e-business application systems,
and thus help implement the business vision and
VWUDWHJLHVGH¿QHGE\HEXVLQHVVPRGHOV7RDLGLQ
that process, this chapter provides a compendium
of e-business reference models, primarily from the
technology perspective, with a twofold objective:
¿UVWW RRXWOL QHW KHDYD LODEOHDUFKLW HFW X U DORSWLRQV
and choices in the design of e-business applica-
tions and systems, and second, to highlight the
tradeoffs incurred in the selection process. Of
course, an exhaustive enumeration of all models,

architectures and frameworks relevant to e-busi-
ness is not possible. Yet we have tried to include
all the developments with theoretical and practi-
cal relevance, as well as some of the others that
highlight certain important aspects of e-business
reference models.
The remainder of the chapter is organized
as follows. First, the chapter outlines the basic
concepts relevant to the e-business reference
models, using some of the models proposed in the
literature to illustrate and clarify them. A brief
historical overview of the development of e-busi-
ness reference models is then given, followed by
the discussion of a number of important models.
Particular attention will be paid to the models that
use Web services, which are quickly becoming the
GRPLQDQWSDUDGLJPIRUWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIÀH[-
ible, interoperable e-business systems, not least on
account of their ability to integrate heterogeneous
systems and applications, including legacy ones
(Booth et al., 2004; Fletcher & Waterhouse, 2002;
Gottschalk, Graham, Kreger, & Snell, 2002). The
next section addresses the ever important issue
of quality of reference modeling and presents a
brief overview of a quality framework suitable for
evaluating that quality. Finally, the chapter sum-
marizes the chapter’s content and outlines some
promising avenues for further research.
CHARACTERISTICS OF
E-BUSINESS REFERENCE MODELS

In this section, a number of pertinent characteris-
tics of HEXVLQHVVUHIHUHQFHPRGHOVDVLGHQWL¿HG
E\ 0 L ãLüD Q G = K D R    Z L O O E H O L V W H G  G L V FX V V H G 
and illustrated using actual e-business models
that feature them.
Orientation
E-business, as its very name implies, is built on
the dual foundations of business and technology
(Zwass, 1996). Successful development of e-busi-
ness systems thus requires that both business- and
technology-related issues are addressed in an
interdependent way. This interdependence has
been recognized since the beginnings of e-busi-
ness in the early nineties, yet most of the research
ZRUNUHSRUWHGVRIDUFDQUHDGLO\EHFODVVL¿HGDV
primarily business- or technology-oriented. While
this dichotomy is not quite unexpected—after
all, e-business systems are quite complex in
terms of both the number of features and the
diversity thereof, and researchers themselves
are not always ready to step outside their narrow
area of expertise—it does play a crucial role in
determining the scope and focus of much of the
research work reported. In doing so, the issues
related to the other side (i.e., business issues, in
case of technology-oriented models, and vice
versa) may be implicitly assumed to be easy or
already solved. While the latter may well be the
case, the former is almost never true, and may
incur serious risks in later development.

$VDQH[DPSOHRIDGH¿QLWHRULHQWDWLRQFRQ-
VLGHUWKHFODVVL¿FDWLRQRI,QWHUQHWEXVLQHVVPRGHOV
originally proposed by Timmers (1998), which is
shown in Figure 1. Although, strictly speaking, it
328
E-Business Reference Models
is not a reference model, it is nonetheless interest-
ing on account of its clear business orientation
and because it provides a useful, albeit somewhat
limited, taxonomy of different e-business models.
Similar taxonomies have been described by other
DXWKRUV XVLQJ GLIIHUHQW FULWHULD IRU FODVVL¿FD-
tion; among the better known ones are the eight
atomic models described and analyzed in detail
by Weill and Vitale (2001), and an exhaustive
ontology of e-business models by Osterwalder
and Pigneur (2004). A more detailed discussion
of those taxonomies is beyond the scope of this
chapter, as our primary focus is the discussion of
e-business reference models as vehicles to aid and
facilitate the development of e-business systems
and applications.
Perspective and Viewpoint Support
The existence of distinct, mostly independent
and (sometimes) mutually orthogonal views
was recognized in several areas, in particular
in relationship with architectural modeling of
software-intensive systems (Bass et al., 2002;
Kruchten, 1995; Shaw & Garlan, 1996). A view
(often referred to as a viewpoint or perspective)

attempts to describe the system from the per-
spective of a related set of concerns, most often
corresponding to the requirements put up by a
VSHFL¿FJURXSRIVWDNHKROGHUV,(((,Q
fact, even the dichotomy between business and
technology orientation mentioned above can be
c o n s i d e r e d a s a n i n s t a n c e o f m u l t i p l e p e r s p e c t i ve s .
This approach is adopted by the ISO Open EDI
6WDQGDUGZKLFKGHVFULEHV³WZRSHUVSHFWLYHVRI
business transactions” through business aspects
and information technology aspects (ISO/IEC,
1998). The modeling methodology of the recent
ebXML standard also distinguishes between
business and information technology aspects of
business transactions, described through business
operational view and functional service view,
respectively (Eisenberg & Nickull, 2001).
However, many proposed models include more
than two perspectives. According to Bussler and
Jablonski (1994), descriptions of business systems
commonly include functional, informational,
behavioral and organizational perspectives. Tech-
nology-oriented models sometimes include even
more: Witness the ISO/IEC reference model for
RSHQ GLVWULEXWHG SURFHVVLQJ ZKLFK GH¿QHV QR
OHVV WKDW ¿YH YLHZSRLQWV HQWHUSULVH LQIRUPD-
tion, computational, engineering and technology
(ISO/IEC, 1992); the same number of views has
EHHQLGHQWL¿HGLQWKHDUHDRIVRIWZDUHDUFKLWHFWXUH
(Kruchten, 1995). Regarding e-business itself,

+ROVDSSOHDQG6LQJKKDYHGH¿QHGDWRWDO
RI¿YHVXFKYLHZVWKHWUDGLQJYLHZWKHLQIRUPD-
tion exchange view, the activity view, the effects
view and the value chain view.
Therefore, a reference model of e-business
should (a) account for as many different perspec-
Figure 1. &ODVVL¿FDWLRQRI,QWHUQHWEXVLQHVVPRGHOV$FFRUGLQJWR7LPPHUV
functional
integration
degree of
innovation
value chain integrator
e-shop
e-procurement
e-mall
e-auction
trust services
value chain service provider
info

brokerage
virtual community
third-party marketplace
collaboration platform
lower higher
single
function
multiple
functions/
integrated

329
E-Business Reference Models
tives as possible, and (b) specify the perspective
or (preferably) perspectives it takes into account.
The former property may be considered as yet
another facet of the completeness property.
The reference model for electronic markets
(RM-EM) proposed by Schmid and Lindemann
(1998) is shown in Figure 2. This is a business-
oriented model that supports multiple views,
arranged to support the decomposition of a busi-
ness transaction into information, agreement and
settlement phases. Similar phase decomposition,
but with an additional support or communication
phase after the settlement, was proposed by Selz
and Schubert (1998).
A similar approach has been adopted by the
project on Building Blocks for Electronic Com-
merce (EBES/EWOS, 1997), where the concepts
of sequential and hierarchical decomposition are
u s e d a s t h e m a i n a n a l y t i c a l t o o l s . Bu s i n e s s a c t i v i -
WLHVDUHVHTXHQWLDOO\GHFRPSRVHGLQWR¿YHVWHSV
or high-level commercial processes of marketing,
contracting, logistics, settlement and interface
with administrations. (Notice the similarity with
the RM-EM model.) These processes are, in turn,
decomposed into lower-level activities referred
WRDVEXLOGLQJEORFNVVXFKDV³FRQVXOWSURGXFW
FDWDORJXHV´ ³UHTXHVW SULFH TXRWDWLRQ´ DQG WKH
like. The technology-dependent implementation

RIDEXLOGLQJEORFNLVFDOOHGD³VROXWLRQ´ZKLFK
is to be integrated into appropriate applications
or services; a number of integrated products or
services used to provide support for one or several
VXESURFHVVHV LV FDOOHG D ³VROXWLRQVHW´ 7KLV LV
schematically shown in Figure 3; note the com-
bination of views and layering which indicates
another similarity with the RM-EM model.
Layering
/D\HULQJ RU VWUDWL¿FDWLRQ KDV EHHQ H[WHQVLYHO\
used as one of the main vehicles to reduce the
complexity of models. Probably the best known
example of layering is the ISO OSI reference
model (ISO, 1984), predominantly used to describe
networking systems, which has no less than seven
different layers; although few actual systems use
all the layers (and even the layers which are used
FDQQRWDOZD\VEHXQDPELJXRXVO\GH¿QHGWKLV
PRGHO LV FRQVLGHUHG DV D VLJQL¿FDQW PLOHVWRQH
in the area of networking, and it is widely used
in research, education and practice ever since.
Note that structural properties, such as number
of layers, partitioning of system functionality
between them, the level of abstraction of each
layer, the manner in which components interact
(both within each layer and between different
layers) and the like, can be used to compare and
evaluate different layered models.
Figure 2. Reference model for electronic markets (After Schmid & Lindemann, 1998)
Functional

View
Business
View
subprocess
1
subprocess
2
subprocess
n
Building
Block 1
Building
Block 2
Building
Block n
EC process (phase or step)
Technology
View
solution
set n
solution
n.1
solution
n.2
solution
2
solution
1
330
E-Business Reference Models

In the e-business area, layered models have
b e e n u s e d f r o m t h e ve r y b e g i n n i n g . I n f a c t , o n e of
WKH¿UVWVXUYH\VRIHFRPPHUFHUHVHDUFK=ZDVV
1996) describes a three-layer, seven-sublayer
framework for e-commerce. This framework, not
unlike the original ISO/OSI reference model (ISO,
1984), is shown in Table 1. A similar framework,
but with a different layering structure, has been
proposed by Kalakota and Winston (1996).
Most other e-business models are also layered,
with the number of layers ranging from three to
seven. Moreover, several of those models possess
more than one level of decomposition, resulting
in an even wider range of layers. Of course, the
optimum number of layers in a reference model
cannot be prescribed in advance.
Technology (In)Dependence
An important characteristic of e-business models,
tightly coupled to the business vs. technology
dichotomy explained above, is their technology
independence or lack thereof. E-business sys-
tems are ultimately implemented using available
technology; but the models themselves should
be as little dependent on any particular technol-
ogy as possible. The reasons for this are nearly
self-evident:
Figure 3. EBES/EWOS building blocks architecture
Business
View
Infrastructure

View
Service
View
Transaction
View
Business Model
Mediating
Catalog
Contracting
Tool
Logistics
Market Transactions and Business Scenarios
Communication Infrastructure
Phases of a Market Transaction
Information Agreement Settlement
Table 1. Hierarchical framework of e-commerce (Adapted from Zwass, 1996)
meta-level level function
products and structures
7
electronic marketplaces and electronic hierar-
chies
6 products and systems
services
5 enabling services
4 secure messaging
infrastructure
3 hypermedia/multimedia object management
2 public and private communication utilities
1 wide-area telecommunication infrastructure
331

E-Business Reference Models
• As the number of decisions and choices to
be made in actual system implementation
is large, using a model tied to a particular
technology restricts those choices and de-
SULYHVXVRISRVVLEOHEHQH¿WVEURXJKWRQE\
more advanced technology. On the contrary,
the use of a technology-independent model
provides the freedom to choose the imple-
mentation technology on the basis of other
FULWHULDDQGWKXVPLQLPL]HWKHFRVWEHQH¿W
ratio and maximize the return on invest-
ment.
• The use of a model tied to a particular
technology may preclude reuse of tools and
components already available, thus increas-
ing the cost of developing the new system.
• The use of a technology-independent refer
-
ence model ensures its longevity, thus pro-
tecting our initial investment, both monetary
and intellectual, made in the development
of that model.
• Finally, the use of a technology-independent
model facilitates the interoperability with
other e-business systems and thus allows
for easy integration of both existing and
newly developed applications into a coherent
enterprise system.
Typically, models with dominant business

orientation exhibit the least amount of technology
LQGHSHQGHQFH $V IRU WKH PRGHOV ZLWK GH¿QLWH
technology orientation, some of them are tied to
a particular technology while others are not; ex-
amples for both kinds of models will be provided.
On the other hand, technology orientation does
not automatically imply technology dependence:
Some among the reference models with clear
technology orientation are essentially technol-
ogy-independent. This distinction essentially
vindicates our approach to separately consider
the dependence/independence and orientation
properties.
Interoperability and Openness
O n e of t h e m a i n t e n e t s o f e - b u s i n e s s (a n d a n y o t h e r
business, for that matter) is interaction between
two or more business partners. In order to enable
and facilitate the communication between their re-
spective e-business systems, those systems should
adhere to some protocols and standards. This
decision has to be reached by consensus within
the community, as there is no central authority
to mandate the use of a particular protocol or
standard—although such attempts often happen
as vendors attempt to gain market share and force
the use of proprietary standards onto the user
community. Such attempts sometimes succeed,
and indeed proprietary standards may sometimes
offer certain advantages in terms of performance,
reliability or otherwise. Yet the use of open stan-

GDUGVLVFRQVLGHUHGEHQH¿FLDOLQWKHORQJWHUP
if only because it avoids vendor lock-in and thus
results in distinct economic advantages.
Another facet of this property is openness,
GH¿QHGDVWKHDELOLW\RIWKHV\VWHPWRLQWHUIDFH
to other systems and actors in the outside world
0LãLü=KDR2SHQQHVVLVFHUWDLQO\ID-
cilitated through the use of established and widely
accepted standards and protocols.
The Role of Standards
We note that protocols exist almost as long as
h u m an s h a v e c o m mu n i c a t e d ( a ny n a t u r al l a n g u a g e
is, in essence, a general purpose protocol), and
the importance of standards in industrialized
society hardly needs mentioning. Yet the impe-
WXV IRU GHYHORSPHQW IRUPDO VSHFL¿FDWLRQ DQG
YHUL¿FDWLRQRISURWRFROVLVLQH[WULFDEO\OLQNHGWR
the development of data communication through
computer networks (Stallings, 2005). As a result, a
number of standards for communication between
independent business systems and applications
h ave been pr oposed ove r t he yea rs. So me of those
standards have enjoyed rather wide acceptance:
SWIFT, a secure messaging standard developed
332
E-Business Reference Models
DQGXVHGWKURXJKRXWWKH¿QDQFLDOLQGXVWU\,62
2004), and eectronic document interchange, or
EDI, a standard for electronic document inter-
change (FIPS, 1996), to name but two among the

best known ones.
However, the advent of the Internet and e-busi-
ness, together with the characteristics of Internet
communications and the underlying TCP/IP
family of protocols, have introduced the need
for new and improved standards. A number of
standards evolved from the existing ones, or have
been developed from scratch. The list includes
Open EDI (ISO/IEC, 1998), Open buying on the
Internet (OBI, 1999), and open trading protocol
(IOTP, 1998), among others. Unfortunately, those
protocols did not succeed in achieving wider
acceptance, mainly on account of the following
factors:
• Most of those protocols cover only a frac
-
tion of possible e-business scenarios and
activities. For example, the OBI protocol
(OBI, 1999) deals with payment only, and
payment is but one phase in any e-business
WUDQVDFWLRQ&RQVHTXHQWO\WKHEHQH¿WV
achievable through deploying such a proto-
FROZHUHSHUFHLYHGDVLQVXI¿FLHQWWRRIIVHW
the high initial cost in infrastructure and
manpower.
• As some of the new protocols were exten
-
sions of the existing ones (e.g., Open EDI
has evolved from EDI), business that did not
use the original protocols had little incentive

to jump start the new ones.
• The sheer number of such protocols meant
that there was no clear winner in sight.
Therefore, a majority of businesses were
rather reserved in deploying them, deferring
the costly switching to the new technology
until they could be assured of widest possible
interoperability. In contrast, the World Wide
Web has been readily embraced by most
businesses—but a universally interoper-
able standard was available (HTML), and
WKHFRVWVLQFXUUHGZHUHVHHQDVMXVWL¿HGLQ
view of the increased reach and presence.
Consequently, each developer of e-business
systems was free to design its own interoperability
standard without any concern regarding interoper-
ability with the others. This was further aggravated
by the relative immaturity of e-business, as the
traditional business models and approaches were
found inappropriate for the new business envi-
ronment, and new modes of conducting business
had to be devised, validated and perfected. Note
that similar situations are quite common in many
industries, in particular in information technol-
ogy-related markets at an early stage—remember
the number of incompatible PC-based operating
systems, word processors and spreadsheets that
were available in the early eighties, and compare
it to the numbers available in the respective mar-
kets now. However, as the markets mature, the

number of competitors tends to diminish. Quite
often, a new standard (or a new set of standards)
appears that replaces the existing ones, either as a
synthesis of their best features or merely as their
least common denominator—but at least only one
standard remains upon which new, interoperable
systems can be built.
The problems mentioned above could be ad-
dressed in different ways. In one approach, stan-
dards are built in a bottom-up manner, starting from
the lowest common denominator that all interested
parties can agree upon, and then gradually adding
PRUHIXQFWLRQDOLW\DVQHHGHG6XFKD³PLQLPDO-
ist” approach was adopted by the proponents of
Web services, a recent interoperability standard
endorsed by all major players on the market:
BEA, IBM, Microsoft, Sun and others (Erl, 2004;
Fletcher & Waterhouse, 2002). While the Web
services paradigm provides just the bare interop-
erability between applications (which means it is
not too useful in practice), it also offers a common
conceptual and technical foundation upon which
PRGHOVDQGV\VWHPVFDWHULQJWRVSHFL¿FEXVLQHVV
requirements can be built.
333
E-Business Reference Models
Another approach gives preference to depth over
breadth, as it attempts to leverage the advances in
organizational knowledge. Namely, when new ap-
plication domains arise, requirements are initially

YDJXHDQG¿UVWV\VWHPVLQYDULDEO\VXIIHUIURPWKH
ODFNRIIRFXVDQGZHOOGH¿QHGVFRSH$VDUHVXOW
such systems, including reference models, are not
very successful—as production-quality solutions,
WKDWLVEXWWKH\GRDOORZXVWRFODU LI\DQGUH¿QHWKH 
requirements, and ultimately improve our knowl-
edge. As the market matures, our knowledge of it
improves—we know more about both problems and
their solutions, and we can choose more promising
routes to follow in solving those problems. The
qualitative and quantitative improvement obtained
in this manner is inversely proportional to the scope
of the domain: The narrower the scope, the greater
the improvement that can be achieved. This enables
the development of standards and practices that
GLVWLOODQGHPERG\WKDWNQRZOHGJHIRUWKHEHQH¿W
RIDO O S D U W LHV L QYR OYHG  6 X F K D ³ V S H F L D O L V W ´ D S SUR D F K 
LVSHUKDSVEHVWH[HPSOL¿HGE\WKHGHYHORSPHQWRI
two recent families of standards known as ebXML
(Eisenberg & Nickull, 2001) and RosettaNet (Kak
& Sotero, 2002), both of which build upon existing
standards at different levels, including Open-EDI
and XML (among others), while focusing on their
respective application areas in depth. A more
detailed description of both standards is given in
Section 4.
Extendibility
Extendibility refers to the ability of the model to
evolve over time. Evolution includes accommo-
dating new or changed requirements, which may

(and ultimately will) emerge over time. Require-
ments may change because of new or changed
business needs, technology changes due to new
advances or phasing out of obsolete technologies
or changes in the business environment. Yet re-
gardless of their particular cause, changes must
be absorbed and seamlessly integrated into the
model, if it is to remain a coherent foundation for
the development of e-business systems. Extend-
ibility might also mean that existing standards are
enriched or extended using certain new facilities:
For example, the SWIFT messaging standard for
¿QDQFLDOLQGXVWU\KDVUHFHQWO\EHHQHQULFKHGZLWK
appropriate UML models and XML message
structure (ISO, 2004).
E-BUSINESS MODELS: PAST AND
PRESENT
7KLV VHFWLRQ ZLOO EULHÀ\ SUHVHQW D QXPEHU RI
e-business reference models, including some
that have already been mentioned, in historic
succession.
Early Attempts
A number of early attempts at creating a reference
model for e-business are worth mentioning:
• The DoD electronic commerce model, in
fact an extension of the EDI standard (Jo,
Pottmyer, & Fetzner, 1995).
• A layered model described by Kalakota and
Winston (1996), which is similar to the Zwass
(1996) framework mentioned above.

• The EBES/EWOS model mentioned above
(EBES/EWOS, 1997) was sponsored by the
European Commission through EBES (Eu-
ropean Board for EDI/EC Standardisation)
and EWOS (European Workshop for Open
Systems); both bodies were later superseded
by the European Committee for Standardisa-
tion (CEN).
Building on Existing Pre-Internet
Models
Soon enough, as more experience in various
aspects of e-business was obtained, a number of
more mature models began to appear.