Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2:
As the boundary of an enterprise is extended, it becomes increasingly important that a common “big picture” of needed [[business]], people and IT system activities is developed and shared by all the parties involved [1]. A Functional Software Architecture does this by breaking down the organisation in business functions and corresponding IT needs. In this way the enterprise engineer provides a rich schematic reference that can be used by the software engineer in the development of these IT-systems.
==Development of a FSA==
Line 26 ⟶ 27:
These methodologies/techniques and methods are all more or less suited in modeling the enterprise and its underlying processes. So, which of them are suited for the further development of Information Technology systems that are needed for effective and efficient (re)designed processes? More important, why using a time consuming enterprise methodology when information and software engineers can’t or won’t use the unclear results in the development of efficiency enabling IT systems? Before we can give the answers to these questions some short descriptions of the listed methods above are given.
===Computer Integrated Manufacturing Open Systems Architecture===
CIMOSA provides templates and interconnected modeling constructs to encode business, people and IT aspects of enterprise requirements. This is done from multiple perspectives. These constructs can further be used to structure and facilitate the design and implementation of detailed IT systems.
===Integrated DEFinition===
IDEF is a structured modeling technique, which was first developed for the modeling of manufacturing systems. It was already being used by the U.S. Airforce in 1981. Initially it had 4 different notations to model an enterprise from a certain viewpoint. These were IDEF0, IDEF1, IDEF2 and IDEF3 for functional, data, dynamic and process analysis respectively. In the past decades a number of tools and techniques for the integration of the notations are developed in an incremental way. However, recent interesting attempts by Kim et. al. (2002) show it can be done; skip the IDEF2 notation and use an extended version of the IDEF1 (IDEF1x) enables the creation of an integrated IDEF/UML framework for the development of IT systems within the organization. I will discuss their findings later on in this article.
===Petri Nets===
Line 38 ⟶ 42:
In recent years a number of attempts have shown that Petri Nets can contribute to the development of business process integration. One of these is the Model Blue methodology, which is developed by IBM Chinese Research Laboratory and outlines the importance of model driven business integration as an emerging approach for building integrated platforms [9]. A mapping between their Model Blue business view and an equivalent Petri Net is also shown, which indicates that their research closes the gab between business and IT. However, instead of Petri Nets they rather use their own Model Blue IT view, which can be derived from their business view trough a transformation engine.
So, pros and cons in using Petri Nets as a modelling tool for the implementation of integrated IT systems are present. Maybe it should be combined with other methods and techniques to deliver positive results? For instance, various classes of Petri Nets can be used in combination with IDEF or CIMOSA and even UML [10]. Mostly to exercise alternative system design. However, a major drawback of Petri Nets, the inability to provide multiple views of entire enterprise systems, remains.
===Unified Modeling Language===
[[UML]] is a broadly accepted modeling language for the development of software systems and applications. The, so called, “object oriented community” also tries to use UML for enterprise modeling purposes. They emphasize the use of enterprise objects or business objects from which complex enterprise systems are made. A collection of these objects and corresponding interactions between them can represent a complex business system or process. Where Petri Nets focus on the interaction and states of objects, UML focuses more on the business objects themselves. Sometimes these are called the “enterprise building blocks”, which includes resources, processes, goals, rules and metamodels [11]. Despite the fact that UML in this way can be used to model an integrated software system it has been argued that the reality of business can be modeled with a software modeling language. In reaction the “object oriented community” makes business extensions for UML and adapts the language. UEML is derived from UML and is proposed as a business modeling language. The question remains if this business transformation is the right thing to do. It was earlier said that UML in combination with other “pure’ business methods can be a better alternative.
===Enterprise Function Diagrams===
Line 59 ⟶ 65:
So, maybe EFD could be used as a business front-end to a software modeling language like UML. The major resemblance with IDEF as a modeling tool indicates that it can be done. However, more research is needed to improve the EFD technique in such a way that formal mappings to UML can be made (see dashed line figure 1). Work of Kim et. al. [1] about the complementary use of IDEF and UML has contributed to the acceptance of IDEF as business-front end. A similar study should be done with EFD and UML.
==Conclusion==
Bringing the best of both worlds together and incorporate it in a clear Functional Software Architecture; this is one of the first objectives an organization has to reach when business process efficiency has to be improved. This rich schematic reference must be constructed by the right combination of methods and techniques in order to set detailed software specifications into the wider enterprise context. Figure 1 shows the methods and techniques that can be used or combined. Further research must reveal which combination is best in filling in the gab between business and software.
==References==
| |||