Case Reports describe real world cases. These papers typically take a “practitioner’s” perspective, and tend not to use formal scientific protocols. These papers provide interesting starting points for discussion and reflection during the conference.
Papers must follow the Springer LNBIP format and should be restricted to the page limit, including all text, figures, references and appendices. The review process is double-blind (except for doctoral papers), so papers must be submitted in PDF format having no author information. Submissions are made through our Easychair conference management system. Submitted papers must be unpublished and must not be under review elsewhere. Information about the Springer LNBIP format can be found at Springer LNBIP web page. Submissions not conforming to the LNBIP format or exceeding the maximum pages will be rejected without review.
|Paper Type||max pages initial version||max pages final version|
Case Report Guidelines
Case report papers should bring together academia and the industry regarding the EDEWC topics (see CfP). Case reports should stimulate the discussion and the synergy between these two “worlds”, with the ultimate objective of improving the field of enterprise engineering.
Case reports involving the use of models in science and/or industry (including NGO’s) are welcomed.
Each case report should at least aim to address the following questions:
- Purpose & requirements: What was the intended purpose (and audience) of the model and/or its creation? What were specific requirements on the model?
- Context & challenge: What was the social and/or technical context in which the model was created and/or used. What was specifically challenging? What were uncertainties? Were there any social and/or technical complexities?
- Activities & effort: What were the activities involved in creating the model? How much effort (time, budget, people/roles involved, etc) was needed to create the model? What tools and methods were used? How was the validity (in relation to the goal & requirements) of the model managed and assessed?
- Resulting model: What kind of model resulted? A formal model? An implicit, or informal model? Did the model have to include “quality compromises” for strategic/political reasons? Was the developed model a refinement of a standard or published/known model? Was a specific modelling language and/or tool used? If so, which language/tool? If it is allowed to be shared, then include (a summary of) the actual model.
- Return on modelling effort: In line with the intended purpose, what was the expected return on modelling effort? What was the materialised return on modelling effort? Which stakeholder(s) made the investment in modeling, and which stakeholder(s) reaped the benefits?
- Reflection: What were lessons learned? Positive lessons? Negative lessons? Challenges for (future) research?
- Evidence: What sources were used to author the case report? How were they gathered and used in authoring this case report? For instance: Was the case report (co-)authored by the actual practitioners? Did the authors conduct interviews of the practitioners involved? How were these interviews conducted? Or, did the authors conduct a form of “investigative journalism”?
Case reports can be (co)authored by practitioners who participated in the development/use of the actual model(s). However, we are specifically also open to case reports based on e.g. interviews of practitioners involved in the creation/use of models in specific cases, or based on “investigative journalism”, conducted by (young / aspiring) researchers.
Contrary to e.g. case studies, no formal scientific methods is required for the reflections in a case report. Case reports are also specifically intended to allow practitioners to engage in discussions.
Paper submission from industry as well as from young researchers (MSc. graduates, young PhD researchers) is strongly encouraged.