Modeling a Process Assessment Framework in ArchiMate
1008 Words5 Pages
In order to evaluate the concept mappings from TIPA to ArchiMate, we will perform a BWW (Wand and Weber 1993) analysis according to two criteria: completeness and clarity. The Bunge-Wand-Weber Model provides an ontological evaluation of grammars method, where we compare two sets of concepts to identify four ontological deficiencies:
1. Incompleteness: can each element from the first set be mapped on an element from the second? – The mapping is incomplete if it is not total.
2. Redundancy: are the first set elements mapped to more than a second set element? – The mapping is redundant if it is ambiguous.
3. Excess: is every first set element mapped on a second set one? – The mapping is excessive if there are first set elements without a relationship.
4. Overload: is every first set element mapped to exactly one second set element? – The mapping is overloaded if any second set element has more than one mapping to a first set one.
The amount of TIPA concepts that have no representation in ArchiMate defines the lack of completeness. Clarity is a combination of redundancy, overload and excess of concepts. Lack of completeness can be a serious issue while lack of clarity can make the mapping unidirectional and hard to reverse.
Considering all the above, we can say our mapping is complete, because every TIPA concept has an ArchiMate representation of itself. Furthermore, ArchiMate concepts can be so generic in a way that can accommodate some TIPA concepts, meaning sometimes the mapping does not reflect exactly the actual element meaning, but its generic meaning. We take advantage of this, through a set of assumptions, in order to achieve completeness. However, an extension to specialize and accurately represent these concepts would be ...
... middle of paper ...
... Centre Henri Tudor: Béatrix Barafort, Valérie Betry, Stéphane Cortina, Michel Picard, Marc St-Jean, Alain Renault and OV (2009) ITSM Process Assessment Supporting ITIL. Van Haren Publishing
20. Renault A, Barafort B (2014) TIPA for ITIL – from genesis to maturity of SPICE applied to ITIL 2011. 21st Eur. Software, Syst. Serv. Process Improv. Innov.
21. Sante T, Ermers J (2009) TOGAF 9 and ITIL v3 Two Frameworks Whitepaper. Getronics Consult. OGC
22. Vicente M, Gama N, Silva MM Da (2013) Using ArchiMate to Represent ITIL Metamodel. 2013 IEEE 15th Conf Bus Informatics 270–275.
23. Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars. Inf Syst J 3:217–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.1993.tb00127.x
24. Zachman JA (1987) A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst J 26:276–292. doi: 10.1147/sj.263.0276