A Framework for A Business Intelligence-Enabled Adaptive Enterprise Architecture

Transcription

1 A Framework for A Business Intelligence-Enabled Adaptive Enterprise Architecture Okhaide Akhigbe, Daniel Amyot and Gregory Richards okhaide@uottawa.ca

2 Business IT Alignment Aligning business objectives with Information Systems has always presented a challenge. Is the blame on the Information Systems? Survey shows this is among the top priorities of CIOs today. ER2014 p.2

3 Source: IT WORLD CANADA (OCTOBER 17th 2014) Source: InformationWeek (September 18th 2014) ER2014 p.3

4 Enterprise Architecture Informs how information, processes and technology should be positioned in an organization. Enterprise Architecture is supposed to offer alignment. Frameworks exist. Are they adaptive? ER2014 p.4

5 Current Business Requirements Business Objectives Information System Business evolves New Business Requirements Business Objectives Information System Business requirements drive changes Architecture drives changes ER2014 p.5

6 Business Intelligence Theme BI is about getting data in and out. But to do what? BI helps organizations derive meaning from data (Useful in dynamic environments). BI Theme refers to instrumenting of data used to make decisions. ER2014 p.6

7 BI-EAEA Approach The Business Intelligence Enabled Adaptive Enterprise Architecture (BI-EAEA) Framework comprises: Methodology Model Tool Support Model created with URN and tool support in jucmnav ER2014 p.7

8 Why URN The User Requirements Notation: First international standard to model and analyze requirements with goals and scenarios. Goal-oriented Requirement Language (GRL): used to models actors and their intentions. Use Case Maps (UCM): used to describe scenarios, processes and architectures. KPIs/indicators in URN are used to evaluate performance with respect to some objective or goal. jucmnav is a free Eclipse-based tool that supports GRL and UCM modeling and analysis. ER2014 p.8

9 BI-EAEA Approach: Methodology To Be Scenario Business Goal Modeling As Is Scenario Model Response and Potential Impact of Modeled Constructs Information System and KPI Modeling To Be Scenario Evaluate Current Impacts of Modeled Constructs As Is Scenario ER2014 p.9

10 Types of Changes and Enterprise Levels What are the types of changes: Modifications Deletions Additions Where are changes required in an Enterprise: Business Objectives (High Level) Decision Makers (Decisions Level) Information Systems (IS Level) ER2014 p.10

11 BI-EAEA Approach: Sample Model High level Decisions level IS Level Goal Decisions Information ER2014 p.11

12 BI-EAEA Approach: Sample Model High level Decisions level IS Level Goal Decisions Information ER2014 p.12

13 BI-EAEA Approach: Tool Support Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) used to get importance and contribution levels. Models are checked against OCL rules. 28 rules exist as part of URN profile for Adaptive EA An example: The elements of the Information System must not receive contributions from other actors ER2014 p.13

14 BI-EAEA Approach: Tool Support ER2014 p.14

15 BI-EAEA Approach: Tool Support ER2014 p.15

16 Response and Potential Impact of Modeled Constructs Change Need Adaptation Automation Modification of importance level of a High level, Decision level or IS level modeled intentional element. Modification of the contribution weights to a High level, Decision level or IS level modeled intentional element. Modification of the KPIs definitions or current evaluations. Modification of the desired satisfaction level of a High level, Decision level or IS level modeled intentional element. Deletion of a High level, Decision level or IS level modeled actor or intentional element (their importance and satisfaction levels as well). Deletion of contribution links to a High level, Decision level or IS level modeled intentional element. Addition of an actor, or intentional element or their contributions to a High level, Decision level or IS level. 1) Locate goal, decision or IS. 2) Increase or decrease importance level as required. 3) Check the sum of importance level. 4) Execute As Is Strategy. 1) Locate contribution. 2) Increase or decrease contribution link. 3) Check the sum of contribution links to goal, decision or IS. 4) Execute As Is Strategy. 1) Change in KPI values as fed by BI System (or manual increase or decrease). 2) Execute As Is Strategy. 1) Locate objective, decision or IS. 2) Increase or decrease satisfaction level as required. 3) Execute As Is Strategy. 1) Locate actor, goal, decision or IS. 2) Remove actor, goal, decision or IS from model (in a copy of the model). 3) Check the sum of importance levels of actor s intentional elements. Also sum of related destination contributions links if applicable. 4) Execute As Is Strategy. 1) Locate contribution. 2) Set contribution link to 0. 3) Check the sum of importance level. 4) Execute As Is Strategy. 1) Include actor, goal, decision, IS (and characteristics) or contribution link (in a copy of the model). 2) Check that they are linked. 3) Execute As Is Strategy. 2) Pairwise comparison to compute new levels. 3) OCL rule checks violation. 4) jucmnav evaluations to indicate impact. 2) Pairwise comparison to compute new values. Use of jucmnav contributions overrides for new weights. 3) OCL rule checks violation. 4) jucmnav evaluations to indicate impact. 1) Feeds from BI systems. 2) jucmnav evaluations (quantitative GRL algorithm) to indicate impact. 2) OCL rule checks violation. 3) jucmnav evaluations (Constraint-Oriented GRL Algorithm) to indicate impact. 3) Pairwise comparison to compute new values. OCL rule checks violation. 4) jucmnav evaluations to indicate impact. 2) jucmnav contributions override. 3) OCL rule checks violation. 4) jucmnav evaluations to indicate impact. 2) OCL rule checks violation. 3) jucmnav evaluations to indicate impact. ER2014 p.16

17 Case Study Enterprise Architecture of the Grants and Contribution Program of a large Government of Canada Department. Worked with 4 Enterprise Architects The goal model comprised of 4 Diagrams, 8 Actors 40 intentional elements (12 goals, 9 softgoals. 8 tasks and 11 resources), 30 indicators and 102 links. A To Be Scenario mainly based on a deletion, with the potential impact on the modeled constructs was investigated. ER2014 p.17

18 ER2014 p.18

19 ER2014 p.19

20 Evaluation Work by Yu et al. (2013) identifies 12 characteristics an adaptive Enterprise should have. Questions based on the 12 characteristics, were asked and administered to the Enterprise Architects anonymously. Framework performance was encouraging. ER2014 p.20

21 Evaluation CHARACTERISTIC MODEL RESPONSE Weighted All Most Some Few None Average (Max: 5) (76% - 100%) (51% - 75%) (26% - 50%) (1% - 25%) (0) Diversity and Variability Uncertainty and Commitment for known changes Uncertainty and Commitment for unknown changes Sensing and Effecting Change (known changes) Sensing and Effecting Change (unknown changes) Barrier to Change Multiple Levels of Dynamics for documented change Multiple Levels of Dynamics for ease of use of documented change Dynamic Systems, Boundaries and Closure Actor Autonomy and Alignment ER p.21 Business-IT Alignment Adaptiveness as a Business

22 Informal Observations from Stakeholder They liked our URN-based modeling approach since: It shows the levels where change occurs. It offers minimal modeling investments. It accommodates changing the granularity of the IS to measure other factors. It reflects what they informally do now It allows them to disagree sooner! The KPIs and satisfactions values accommodates the government s needs for numbers. The models and GRL strategies can be used as documentation trail for analysis and decisions. ER2014 p.22

23 Limitations & Future Work Directions Limitations: What triggers decisions as organizations decide Our questionnaires did not have a comparison point Future: Model and assess enterprise architectures of different sizes and domains Look at the cost implication of decisions as adaptation occurs ER2014 p.23

24 You re Invited ER2014 p.24

25 Thanks! Questions? Okhaide Akhigbe ER2014 p.25