The work provides statistical documentation for the connection between organizational resources and the organisation's subsequent capacities. To achieve this, we analyze the semantics of the Business Strategy and Valuation Concepts (BSVC) extension to ArchiMate (Iacob, Quartel, and Jonkers 2012), building on our previous work presented in (Azevedo et al. 2013). Similarly to other previous ArchiMate extension proposals (e.g. the motivation extension presented in (Carlos L. B. Azevedo et al. 2011)), the initial development of BSVC has been carried out without a strict definition of the semantics of the proposed modeling elements.
In our ontological analysis, we make use of the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) as a semantic foundation. In this section, we discuss the ontological analysis and interpretation of the resource modeling element introduced in (Iacob, Quartel, and Jonkers 2012).
Problem R1
We discuss possible interpretations in terms of UFO and consider the consequences of the different interpretations on the use of the language. In some cases, such as 'Car Damage Assessment Resource', the context of use is emphasized, thus focusing on the role or role mixin that is instantiated when the resource is used; in other cases, such as 'Money', the allowed type required for roleplay is highlighted in the tag. For example, the 'Car Damage Assessment Expert' is a resource in the 'Damaged Cars Inspection Process' because of the 'Car Damage Assessment Expertise', but should not be considered a resource for the 'Purchase Premiums' process.
Problems R2 and R3
Further, in order to play a particular role, an object may be required to instantiate a particular type (referred to as a "permitted type" in (Bock and Odell 1998)). Car Damage Assessment Resource' may need to have specific damage assessment skills to create a certain universal characterized by those skills. The fact that a resource models both the role that an object plays in a particular context of use and its permitted type has some implications for the terms used in the resource tag.
Problems R4 and R5
Intuitively in the example, not only "John", but also any other damage assessment expert is a "Car Damage Assessment Resource". For these cases, the language does not specify whether one or more individuals instantiating the role (mix) represented by the resource are required, used, or controlled in the given context. Each role instance (mixin) represented by the resource must complete the request proposition.
Problem R6
We believe the language designers tried to cover this by extending the resource element and using it directly to represent such objects. The concept of resource is related to the extension of motivation through the realization relation in which "the resource realizes the request". This section deals with 5 problems revealed by the ontology analysis, called C1 to C5, although the ontology analysis continues in all subsections.
Problem C1
In this section, we discuss the ontological analysis and interpretation of the capability modeling element presented in (Iacob, Quartel, and Jonkers 2012).
Problems C2, C3 and C4
Problem C5
In this section, we discuss the ontological analysis and interpretation of the competency modeling element introduced in (Iacob, Quartel, and Jonkers 2012). This section discusses the 3 problems revealed by the ontological analysis, named C1.1, C2.1 and C6, although the ontological analysis is continued throughout the subsections.
Problems C1.1 and C2.1
Problem C6
Our analysis confirms and deepens the informal suspicions raised in the original proposal text when it states that "depending on (the interpretation of) the definition of competence, it can be argued that it is, for example, more natural to introducing competence into the meta-model as a specialization of a capacity" (Iacob, Quartel and Jonkers 2012). The original proposal also states that "the semantic distance between competence on the one hand and either resource or ability on the other hand is too small" .In this section, we propose improvements to the language based on the ontological analysis, the original intended meaning of the extension concepts, and solutions to problems revealed in Sections 5, 6, and 7.
We have tried to preserve the original intended interpretations and original relationships whenever possible, while still addressing semantic issues. Some additional expressiveness is made possible by using relationships that were not originally used in the BSVC metamodel, but most of which already existed in ArchiMate. We refrain from defining extensions to the core of ArchiMate, focusing only on the BSVC capability and resource concepts and their relationships.
Resource
According to (Weber 1997), "construct redundancy occurs when more than one grammatical construct can be used to represent the same ontological construct". Another link that includes resources is the assigned to relation, which we use to indicate that a resource has that capability. It means that the object that instantiates the role represented by the resource has a disposition of the type represented by the ability.
Combining the two aforementioned relationships allows the modeler to represent the prescribed capabilities that resources should have in order to perform a specific capability (eg, to perform c1, resource r should have ca, cb, and cc). Being controlled is understood as being available to the organization (e.g. through an employment contract between an employer and an employee or with the right/ownership of a certain object). Issue R6 states that in ArchiMate there is no distinction between AND or OR grouping of resources and as such the language lacks expressiveness for specifying optional resources.
Although ArchiMate does not distinguish between AND or OR aggregations, an extension that allows the display of optional resources is covered and described in Section 8.5.
Structure Element and Its Specializations
However, both of these proposals are outside the scope of this work, as they relate to the core of ArchiMate. The main ArchiMate language or an extension that deals with the core elements of ArchiMate should address these limitations.
The Behavior Element Concept
The Capability Concept
This connection means that C2 enables C1, in the sense that C2 is partially realized or required for one to have capability C1.
The Capability-enabling Bundle Concept
Problem C3 states that if no resource is represented, the object manifesting (or acquiring) the ability is unknown to the relations “ability realized by behavioral element” and “resource assigned to ability.” The proposed metamodel relates resources to capabilities using the associated relationship with the aim of indicating the resource that participates in the performance of the capability. Problem C4 states that the language is not expressive to indicate the number/amount of resources related to the capabilities when the resource represents a universal (a type).
However, the solution to problem C4 is similar to the solution to problem R4 described in Section 8.1, so that the constraint can be handled by adding a duplication attribute to the language, such as a cardinality constraint. However, this is beyond the scope of this work as it requires changes to the ArchiMate core. A further key feature of extension is that it allows capabilities and resources to serve as abstractions for (more detailed) business processes and structure elements.
This case shows the applicability of the capability concept and its relationships to other elements of the enterprise architecture. The case is instructive in that it shows that the capability concept directly captures key aspects of Toyota's approach to "organizational capability improvement" as applied at one of its suppliers (JECO). This case has previously been used in the original proposal to extend Business Strategy and Valuation Concepts (Iacob, Quartel and Jonkers 2012).
With this example, we can compare our proposal with the original one and demonstrate the improvements that a well-reasoned proposal provides to the language.
Toyota’s JECO Supplier Use Case – Organizational Capability Enhancement 4 This use case considers supplier development, which is a procedure undertaken by a company
Toyota had some factors to achieve some of its targets such as "fluctuations in demand" and "changes in the model mix". Jishuken study groups were designed to help suppliers improve their sales premises by improving the use of TPS. The 'Jishuken Study Group' must select a specific topic from among those discussed by the OMCD and identify a specific factory area to be studied by the group.
The JECO study group chose the output fluctuations in an age of low demand ('Demand Fluctuations') and 'Model Mix Changes'. Toyota has considered mainly geographic location and the absence of direct competitors in the formation of these groups to aid interaction and know-how sharing during the 'jishuken activities'. The study section starts by setting concrete performance targets in the form of indicators on the shop floor, which should be achieved using the 'Jishuken activities'.
A 'senior OMCD engineer' with 'observation and analysis skills' heads the 'jishuken study group' and visits the company under study during the 'Jishuken Activity' period, in which he is responsible for making critical observations. These capabilities helped JECO achieve 'On-Time Manufacturing Capability', a specialization of its 'Manufacturing Capability', which realizes 'On-Time Parts Delivery Capability', used in 'On-Time Delivery of Parts' . However, the Just-in-Time Production capability is enabled by the Kanban (Just-in-Time Planning) Capability and the Defect Handling Capability.
This helped the company reduce its inventory of rotors and its general inventory, realize 'Just in Time Manufacturing Capability' and thus address Toyota's assessment that 'Supplier has no just in time production', and realize JECO's goal of.
IT Consolidation for an European Energy Supplier Company
- Analyzing baseline capability gaps and creating baseline heat capability map Figure 13 shows the relation between the assessments and the capabilities whose current
- Relating capability gaps to the baseline architecture
- Using resource portfolio management approaches and creating a target architecture and target capability map
- Concluding remarks
Strategic capabilities depicted in red are those whose realization needs to be improved in relation to the addressed problem. In this process, we make use of the linkages between the strategic capabilities and the operational capabilities shown in the lower part of Figure 13. In this paper, we have discussed an ontological analysis of the BSVC ArchiMate extension and the associated notions of capacity, resources and competencies.
This enables them to accommodate future changes in the operational parts of the business architecture while realizing higher-level capabilities and resources. In the second case study we show the application of the approach in portfolio management for an energy supplier. The model captures capabilities that remained stable even in the face of changes in the operational elements of the architecture.
Ontological analysis of the concept of community in the business language RM-‐ODP.” Computer standards &. Exploring Proposed ARIS Ontology Questions with Different Model Categories." In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems. DoDAF Limitations and Improvements for Performance Testing Methodology." In Proceedings of the 2007 Spring Simulation Multiconference - Volume 3, 170-176.
Ontological Reengineering of REA-‐EO Using UFO.” In OOPSLA International Workshop on Ontology-Driven Software Engineering. Ontological Foundation of Enterprise Information Systems REA.” American Accounting Association Annual Meeting: 1–. An Ontology-Based Semantic Foundation for ARIS EPC.” In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 124–130.
