A Method To Support The Alignment Of Business

transcript

A Method to Support the Alignment of Business Models and Goal Models

Belgium, Namur, the 25th of June 2008,Pierre HALLEUX and Ludovic MATHIEU

{pHalleux,lMathieu}@info.fundp.ac.be

Pierre HALLEUX

A master thesis submitted for the degree of Master in Computer Science,University of Namur, departement of computer science

I. Introduction

Context

Figure 1.1: Overview of the problematic (adapted from [17])

Products cycles shorter, growing competition, complex environement,…

One solution to deal with these problems : models

I. Introduction (2/3)

Address one part of the alignment problem between the goals of an organization and the IT-resources

A relevant problem …

In the literature goal and business models are studied separately

A method to cope with changesrelies on a templates and rules based approach [4]

Purpose

Figure 1.2: Overview goal model to business model

Scope i * instead of BMM

e³value instead of REA

I. Introduction (3/3)

Thesis Goals ~ Presentation Inline ~ Thesis Structure

Compare the different results with the previous method changes ➔ a real improvement ?

➔ more efficiency ?

Test the new method on a case study

Propose improvements and extensions on templates and rules to correct these issues

Analyze the method presented in [4] : by highlighting the (non-)syntactical issues

Purpose

Background, Chapter 2,

Detailled Analysis and Improvement of the Approach, Chapter 3,

Case study,Chapter 4,

Benefits of the Improved Method

Future Work

Conclusion Chapter 5,

Introduce an existing method (and frameworks)

Purpose

Future Work

II. Background

Align business model with the associated goal modelTemplates and rules based approach« Template » :

Relates to a means situated in the goal modelCompulsory part (what the template aims to do): < Event, Resource, Agent > Optional part (consequences of the template): [optional part]

e.g. Template 1

A Templates and Rules Approach for Goal and Value Models Alignment (1/3)

II. Background (2/3)

« Transformation rule » � templateis removing (adding) elements from (into) the value model according to the expressed template. has two parts :

Primary action is associated to the compulsory partdraws on the model what the current template aims to do.

Secondary action is associated to the optional part represents the choices and obligations linked to the optional part

Primary action: Add one exchange event for the resource from the principal agent to an existing or new agent in an existing or new duality.Secondary action:a. Connect the new exchange event to a new conversion event, orb. Connect the new exchange event to an existing conversion event, orc. Add a new exchange event from the principal agent to a new or existing agent from whom the resource is procured; andd. Add a new exchange event for receiving a resource from agent to the principal agentas a compensation for the resource offered by the principal agent.

e.g., Transformation rule associated to template 1:

II. Background (3/3)

Figure 2.1: How [4] aligns goal model with business model

Purpose

Future Work

III. Detailled Analysis and Improvement of the Approach (1/13)

The Templates > Syntactical Issues Not very well formed templates and ambiguous syntax :

Formulation of the logical operators (« AND », « | ») (use AND , XOR )Normal rules of the logic (useless AND at the beginning of the templates removed)Formulation of the compulsory part < Event, Resource, Direction, Agent > (from, to, in)

Formulation of the optional part (only one pair of square brakets « [… ] »)Implicit calls of templates (use compulsory part names instead of synonyms)

The Templates > Non Syntactical Issues Name of event in the compulsory part (introduced in a more formal way stop � start) Change of ontology (REA • e3value terms)Scheduling between the templates (scheduling conditions for the templates)Ambiguous Name for “agent” and “resource” (specialize the terms by using the role played)Unnecessary event in template 9 (remove the financial compensation from the template 9)

by generalization from the solutions proposedit solves the issues in the templates of [4]

The Templates > Backus-Naur-Form Grammar for the Templates

e.g. What happens if the organization wants to start offering a resource to an agent ?➔ template 1

Figure 3.1: Graphical notation for template 1

The Templates > Graphical Representation

Templates can call other templates ➔ relevant to draw a global network

e.g. for template 4, if the organization wants to stop procuring resource from agent (T4), then it needs to stop offering the resource (T2) or to start producing the resource in a value activity (T5)

Figure 3.2: Global network

The Templates > Graphical Representation > Global Network

resource j

resource l

customer i

provider p

Organization

➔ Possible confusions among the resources.

To be more specic and able to distinguish the different variables: subscripts added

e.g. customer1, customer2, provider1, provider2, …

The Templates > Instantiation

How to link the elements situated into the i* goal model with the set of templates ?

Figure 3.3: Generic to-be goal model

The Templates > Link between the Goal Model and the Templates

Figure 3.4: through the goal model to the templates with a substitution tree

The Templates > Link between the Goal Model and the Templates

Original template 1

Original template 1 from [4]:

Improved template 1:

The Templates > Improved List of 10 Templates

Lack of Information for TransformationRules have to remove some unecessary elements in the business modelIn [4] every rule is not always doing that correctly (e.g. template 4)➔ add the necessary information

Missing Rules for Templates 5 to 8 ➔ add these rules

Figure 3.5: Consequences of lack of information for transformation in the rule 4

The Rules > Issues in the Rules

T5 (Start producing resourcej in value activityk)has to call T1 to offer the resourcej which is produced (as stated in its optional part)

Possible redundant change: T1 can call T5 to produce the resourcej to be offered.

Figure 3.6: when a template is called from another template

➔ Solution : restrict the choice in the precursors when called from another template

The Rules > Issues in the Rules > Avoid Redundant Changes on the Model (1/2)

a) Restricting Conditions for the Choice of the Optional Part

e.g. illustration of the issue with T2 and T4

Figure 3.7: overview of the links between T2 and T4

➔ Solution : introduction of a Prev(Ti) in the rules

The Rules > Issues in the Rules > Avoid Redundant Changes on the Model (2/2)

b) Restrictions within the Rules

The Rules > Improved Transformation Rules

Figure 3.9: How the improved method aligns goal model with the business model

The Improved Method > Summary

Purpose

Future Work

IV. Case Study (1/7)

Case Presentation > As-Is Goal Model

Figure 4.1: as-is goal model

Case Presentation > As-Is Business Model

Figure 4.2: as-is business model with e3alue

IV. Case studyImproved Method Application > To-Be Goal Model

Figure 4.3: to-be goal model

Improved Method Application > Substitution Tree

Figure 4.4: improved method chain of templates

IV. Case Study (4/7)

IV. Case studyImproved Method Application > Aligned To-Be Business Model

Figure 4.5: aligned to-be business model

IV. Case studyComparison of both Methods (1/2)

Figure 4.6: explicit results of the method of [4]

Comparison of both Methods (2/2)

Figure 4.7: highlighted issues in the previous method

Previous Method : To-Be BM

(1) Implicit new v. act. (buy content,…)Many redundant names for v.activities

(2) & (4) Implicit renaming for v.object

(3) V. object not present in the rules

(5) Implicit different flows for $

(6) Implicit extension of value exchange

Purpose

Future Work

V. Conclusion (1/2)

All these improvementsBetter alignment between the goal and business modelsLess time to produce an aligned business modelBetter methodological support

Benefits of the Improved Method Templates easier to read and more understandable

Reduce mistakes, avoid ambiguities, clearer templates

Better transformation rulesList of rules completed, higher level of details in the BM

More formal and less heuristic methodBNF grammar, explicit calls, substitutions, instantiation

More advanced presentation of the methodGraphical representationFirst step of the method clarified

V. Conclusion (1/2)

Add new templates (to match with more goal models)With BNF and scheduling conditions

Templates are highly context-dependent Fill in the optional part (see Sect. 3.2.3)

(Dis)advantages to increase the level of details? e.g. notion of port, sub-value activity, or possibility to distinguish the interfaces in the rules

Level of formalism

ToolsTextual template ➔ graphical representation (to add new templates)

With BNF grammar and UML graphical notationProduce the to-be business model

With as-is models, to-be business model, and a library of templates and associated rules in inputs.

Future Work

Thank you for

your attention.

Templates will be associated to means situated into the i* goal model➔ the templates must be clear and understandable (to choose a right one)

Unfortunately, only abstract notions in [4] (e.g. “agent ”, “resource ”, …. )

The goal modeler will more likely look for the notion of “customer”, “provider”,etc.➔ “agent ” • “customer”, “outsourcer” or “provider”➔ “resource ” • “compensation” when necessary Easier to distinguish the roles and select the templates (e.g. template 1)

The Templates > Specialization

e3value vs c3value

How Introduce More Formalism?

May be use Interface Description Language (e.g.: Darwin)

Process Modelisation

(e.g FSP)

(Source : V. Englebert, Advanced distributed System Course)

Prolog ?

A Method To Support The Alignment Of Business

Education