An Analysis of Services
The goal of this report is to provide an in-depth common conceptual understanding of services end-to-end across the enterprise – one that encompasses business, IT and technical services and gives a picture of what, in essence, a service is.
Introduction to MODEM:
Building a Semantic Foundation for EA: Reengineering the MODAF™ Meta-Model Based on the IDEAS Foundation
Describes the MODEM framework under development - the building of a Semantic Foundation for EA by reengineering the MODAF™ Meta-Model Based on the IDEAS Foundation Model.
MOD Ontology
A presentation on the MOD Ontology. Topics covered: MOD Ontology Team, Background on MOD Ontology (Why we started it – What it’s founded on – IDEAS), The BORO Method, The MOD Ontology Demonstrator.
What is a service?
Presentation of the report 'An Analysis of Services' prepared for the UK MoD.
This describes a forensic approach to developing a common understanding of Service across business and IT.
The goal of this report is to provide an in-depth common conceptual understanding of services end-to-end across the enterprise – one that encompasses business, IT and technical services and gives a picture of what, in essence, a service is. Prepared for the UK MoD in 2010.
MODEM – Building a semantic foundation for enterprise architecture:
Reengineering the MODAF meta-model based on the IDEAS foundation model
Introduction: A presentation of the background for the work concerning MODEM, its origins as part of the IDEAS group effort and the reasons behind starting the work as an effort funded by the Swedish Armed Forces. Discussions around the goal of harmonization and the difficulties presented by having multiple, different, national frameworks.
The starting point: MODAF in its current form: A brief introduction of the MODAF meta-model as well as the IDEAS foundation model and the reasons for modifying MODAF based on a UML profile based meta-model to a non-UML meta-model based on the IDEAS foundation model.
Semantic technology, the road ahead: The semantic basis for IDEAS is presented and how this can improve the utility of framework usage. Examples from the reengineering work are presented as well as how a semantic approach cleared up various areas within the MODAF meta-model.
MODEM, what was done, patterns and examples: The work that resulted in MODEM is presented. The use of semantic patterns is presented as a crucial part of the MODEM reengineering effort. Some of these patterns are presented as well as exemplified. Some examples of MODEM used to model the standard search and rescue example used extensively in framework development are also presented.
Relationship between this effort and other IDEAS foundation based models: The US DoD architecture framework DoDAF 2 DMM has also used the IDEAS foundation model as a basis for development and similarities as well as differences are presented.
Conclusions: Conclusions as well as future directions of this work effort are presented.
A Forensic Approach to Information Systems Development: Part II - Ways to Fix the Problem
In the first of this two-part Executive Update series,1 I took a swipe at the currently accepted approach to systems development. My argument was that if a system is to adequately support a business, the information it handles must be rigorously derived from the business itself. By producing a process model, then an information model, then a data model, and then handing it all over to an implementation team, we can end up somewhat removed from the reality of the business. The people responsible for each of these steps in the chain usually don’t have a good understanding of each other’s specialities, and the result can be “Chinese whispers.”
I also noted there are a number of legacy systems out there that are decades old and attempts to replace them with modern technology have failed. The fact that the old systems are so useful is perhaps more of a mystery than the fact that today’s technology seems to offer nothing to beat them. Another trait of the these old systems that have stood the test of time is that they (mostly) seem to have been developed inhouse, in the days before there was a specialist IT function in the business. This is even stranger. How can a system that’s 20 to 30 years old and developed by a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs outperform the latest technology, designed and developed by highly specialized information technologists and business analysts?