Model-based enterprise engineering

-
Recently, Springer initiated a new series on enterprise engineering. This series defines enterprise engineering as:
Enterprise Engineering is an emerging discipline for coping with the challenges (agility, adaptability, etc.) and the opportunities (new markets, new technologies, etc.) faced by contemporary enterprises, including commercial, nonprofit and governmental institutions. It is based on the paradigm that such enterprises are purposefully designed systems, and thus they can be redesigned in a systematic and controlled way. Such enterprise engineering projects typically involve architecture, design, and implementation aspects.
The increased complexity of enterprises as well as the ecologies in which they operate, the introduction of more regulations and compliance requirements, all require enterprises to be more explicit about their organisational design and performance.

I take the position that enterprises should turn to the use of models to make the design, as well as the performance, of organisations explicit. It also enables the conscious trade-off of different design alternatives in terms of analysis of models representing the different alternatives. I therefore would like to argue that enterprise engineering should be regarded as a model-intensive activity.

As such, I believe enterprise engineering can benefit a lot from the model-based competencies build up in the fields of information systems engineering and software engineering. It does, however, require these competencies to be extended beyond their traditional "IT focus". I do realise that both the fields of information systems engineering and software engineering have produced modelling techniques that cover more than just computing aspects. However, in terms of Morgan's Image of Organization they tend to take a machine-oriented perspective on organisations. A future challenge is to increase the richness of our modelling techniques to also include/enable other perspectives or organisations.

When looking at enterprise engineering, we could roughly define a (continuous & cyclic) value chain of modelling activities, covering:
  1. Assess - Insight into the performance of the current sitation of the enterprise. Its performance and/or its base-line design/architecture.
  2. Aim - Selection, evaluation and articulation of the desired target design/architecture of the enterprise.
  3. Act - Usage of models to govern (manage & direct) the transformation of the enterprise in the direction of the selected target.
In each of the stages, several model challenges can be discerned:
  1. Assess - Models of the existing situation need to be produced. Mixing elicitation of the current situation from domain experts, or by mining of observations of the operational situation. A shared understanding of (and consensus about) the models needed among the key stakeholders. The resulting models can be used to further analyse the desiredness of the current situation. This requires rich analysis techniques.
  2. Aim - Identification of requirements/constraints of "ideal" alternative as well as the path towards the achievement of this ideal. Formulation of different alternatives in terms of models. Evaluation and analysis of these alternatives (and the paths towards their realisation) in terms of the identified requirements. A shared understanding of (and consensus about) the selected alternative should be attained.
  3. Act - Monitor and direct the realisation of the desired target enterprise. Since the realisation, as executed by projects, involves models as well, from an analytical point of view this would boils down to forms of model verification.
Once more, the assess/aim/act phases should be regarded as highly cyclical.

Comments

  1. control valves16/6/09 22:46

    Thanks for the information, I like your take on blogging.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Models that matter; Return on Modelling Effort

-
In the context of enterprise architecture, IT architecture, (software) system development, et cetera, we use several models. Some models have a descriptive nature (e.g. UML, ArchiMate and DEMO models) and some have a prescriptive nature (e.g. sets of business rules and architecture principles). All of these models are created for many different purposes. At the same time, the creation of these models takes time and effort. In other words, they cost money. This raises the question of how these investments can be put to good use? How to increase the return on investments put into models? In other words, how to achieve return on modelling effort (RoME)? Since a year or two, my research group at the University of Nijmegen has been using the return on modelling effort question as one of the drivers in its research activities. Below I'll venture out and explore some potential returns of modelling efforts. Knowing beforehand what the expected return of modelling effort for a given model...
Read more

Enterprise architecture as organisational Zen

-
The way I have learned to understand Zen , is that it is about concentration and focus. By means of meditation , Zen teaches us to focus on the things you really want to focus on , meanwhile allowing us to obtain insight into our inner drives as well as our imprinted reflexes. Whenever we, as average beings, are put under stress, our imprinted reflexes tend take over, taking us away from the things that really matter to us. Instead, we start worrying about how good we are in our jobs, whether our boss likes us, threats to our status in society, et cetera. Zen helps us in focusing on what is important. It does so by improving our mental discipline by way of meditation . This improved discipline allows us, in our daily live, to be more aware of situations where our mind starts wondering off. Especially when we are put under stress, and the mental reflexes that are imprinted in our mind (based on past experiences and shadow beliefs ) take over. Once we have learned to observe such behavi...
Read more

Architects: Execute and evaluate your methods!

-
Since architecture is a relative new field, much debate goes on about the methods and techniques to be used within the field. As one of the key competencies of an architects is to be able think conceptually, it is only natural for architects to engage in lengthy discussions about their tools, techniques, approaches and methods. A recent example of such a discussion can be found on the  Via Nova Architectura  website, where a rather opinionative posting on TOGAF 9 resulted in an involved discussion with 38 elaborate responses. In principle, there is nothing wrong with a critical attitude towards methods. Especially in developing disciplines, one needs to be critical about the efficiency and effectiveness of the methods we apply. Regretfully, however, current discussions on architecture methods tend to be based on opinions, views and impressions rather than facts derived from thorough evaluations in practice. In the earlier mentioned discussion on TOGAF 9, several participants referred ...
Read more