Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
COBI 2014 - An Empirical Evaluation of Capability Modelling using Design Rationale:
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

COBI 2014 - An Empirical Evaluation of Capability Modelling using Design Rationale:

117
views

Published on

The purpose of this paper, which was presented at the Cobi 2014 workshop as full paper, is to report on the utility of a specific meta-model in terms of the design and process for defining …

The purpose of this paper, which was presented at the Cobi 2014 workshop as full paper, is to report on the utility of a specific meta-model in terms of the design and process for defining capabilities. This investigation was carried out through the FR use case that involved capability modelling on the same application, by different designers. Each approach was documented using design rationale techniques.

Published in: Software

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
117
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. An Empirical Evaluation of Capability Modelling using Design Rationale George Bravos , Pericles Loucopoulos, Christina Stratigaki, Dimitris Valvis Fresh TL-Harokopio University
  • 2. Overview Context Capability meta-model Use cases Objectives Design rationale Instantiations Observations Contribution & Future work 7/29/2014 2
  • 3. Context-CaaS Project 7/29/2014 3 36 months
  • 4. Context-Business Capability • It is a way of linking enterprise aspects to software solutions. • Several efforts include: • information system agility1,2, • service-orientation3,4, • software process improvement5 and • business-IT alignment6,7,8 7/29/2014 4 1. Sambamurthy, V., A. Bharadwaj, and V. Grover, Shaping Agility through Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the Role of IT in Contemporary Firms. MIS Quarterly, 2003. 27(2): p. 237-263. 2. Weill, P., M. Subramani, and M. Broadbent, IT Infrastructure for Strategic Agility. Sloan Management Review, 2002. 44(1): p. 57-65. 3. OPENGROUP. ArchiMate - Modelling Language for Enterprise Architecture, V2.0. 2012; Available from: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/c118. 4. OPENGROUP. TOGAF - Enterprise Architecture Methodology, Version 9.1. 2012; Available from: http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/. 5. Curtis, B., B. Hefley, and S. Miller, People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM) Version 2.0, Second Edition, 2009, SEI Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. 6. Danesh, M.H. and E. Yu, Modeling Dynamic Capabilities to Reason about Information Systems Flexibility, CAiSE 2014 (Submitted), 2014. 7. Ulrich, W. and M. Rosen, The Business Capability Map: Building a Foundation for Business/IT Alignment, 2012, Cutter Consortium for Business and Enterprise Architecture. 8. Zdravkovic, J., J. Stirna, and M. Henkel, Modeling Business Capabilities and Context Dependent Delivery by Cloud Services, CAiSE 2013, 2013: Valencia, Spain.
  • 5. Context-CaaS motivation 7/29/2014 5
  • 6. Context-CaaS Objectives • Objective 1: To elaborate a CDD methodology and supporting methods for CaaS which is adopted by the industrial partners involved in the project and their customers. • Objective 2: To create and capture best practices for delivery of digital businesses as capability delivery patterns • Objective 3: To develop methods for capability delivery adjustment according to the changes in context. • Objective 4: To establish the CDD environment and to introduce it in business environments by industrial partners. • Objective 5: To validate the capability design and delivery methodology in at least three industrial use cases, to implement capability delivery applications for these industrial cases and to test ability to adjust capability delivery to changing context in real life situations. • Objective 6: To prepare the methodology for successful industrial and academic dissemination, exploitation and uptake 7/29/2014 6
  • 7. Context-FR’s role 7/29/2014 7 FreshTL provides the CaaS capabilities to the Enterprises The enterprises are the clients According to their requirements, the CaaS capabilities will be formed Capabilities exist in those companies and not known a-priori by FR The use cases are owned by different companies
  • 8. Capability meta-model (1) Early version of the CaaS framework The focus of the meta-model (core components): representation of Goals Processes realizing Goals using required Resources Capability Context KPIs (measure the achievements of goals) Capability formulates the requirements for the ability of accomplishing a Goal, realized by applying a solution described by a capability delivery Pattern. This realization requires certain business Processes, Process Variants and Resources, such as infrastructure or IT components. 7/29/2014 8
  • 9. Capability meta-model (2) 7/29/2014 9
  • 10. Use cases The Shipping Company Use Case To integrate Shipping Expertise, modern Management principles and experience gained from existing implementations into flexible and user-friendly Software. Specific focus: Compliance of every shipping company with medical regulations. Investment promoters Use Case Help investors capitalize on their investments by striving for excellence with their investment options and offering the best customer service Specific focus: Automate a process. 7/29/2014 10
  • 11. Objectives 7/29/2014 11 Study the meta- model under a certain use case example Instantiate the capability meta- model Record with a solid methodology the reasoning process Derive an empirical evaluation of the meta-model “To what extent does the meta-model support modelling activities in a consistent and generic manner?”
  • 12. Objectives-Capability driven methodology Investigate the utility of a specific meta- model Identify Enterprises’ goals Study a specific problem of the use cases Two different modelers Documentation of each approach with design rationale techniques 7/29/2014 12
  • 13. Design rationale-Reasoning cycle 1Louridas, P. and P. Loucopoulos, A Generic Model for Reflective Design. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2000. 9(2): p. 199-237. 2 Jansen, A.J., The Goal Argumentation Method Analyzed, 2013. 7/29/2014 13
  • 14. Design rationale-Modelling tool • Compendium LD • Modelling tool for designing learning activities • Can be used for design rationale purposes 7/29/2014 14
  • 15. Design rationale-Goal design tree Goal representation, 1st modeler Goal representation, 2nd modeler 7/29/2014 15
  • 16. Design rationale-Identification of capability Enterprise instantiation of 1st researcher Enterprise instantiation of 2nd researcher 7/29/2014 16
  • 17. Instantiations-Shipping company’s compliance 7/29/2014 17
  • 18. Instantiations-Automate a process 7/29/2014 18
  • 19. Observations-Treatment of concepts 7/29/2014 19 Modeler 1 Modeler 2 Capability Context Goal Variability Similar approaches in defining capability resulted in quite different definitions. For both researchers context is directly related to capability. The two modellers derived two slightly different context definitions Despite the difference in the priority given, goals were defined in the same way from both modellers. Different rationales regarding use case’s variability affected the context definition. Variability may be considered in the meta model, as related both to context and processes.
  • 20. Observations-Approach to the process of modelling 7/29/2014 20 Modeler 1 Modeler 2Method guidance Validating model quality Both modellers were troubled about how to start due to lack of documentation. Different method guidance between modellers finally resulted in different instantiations. Lack of ontological definition leads to alternative approaches.
  • 21. Observations 7/29/2014 21 Capability Context Key factors Need for ontological & formal definition of capability The final models are not capability centric after all Need for clear guidance regarding phases , inputs , outputs and constraints Further elaboration of the different modelling approaches
  • 22. Contribution & Future work 7/29/2014 22 Provide feedback to enhance the capability meta- model Improvement of capability driven design activities ? HOW ? ACCURATE DEFINITION OF ALL SUPPORTIVE MODELLING LANGUAGES REQUIRED COMPLETE CAPABILITY META-MODEL
  • 23. QUESTIONS? 7/29/2014 23

×