Anatoly Levenchuk's Runglish Blog

Roadmap is a mix of architecture with realization timeline (at least logical timeline). In this post will be much of data architecture and not too much about tool development timeline.

I do not know what to do with reference links. I think it should be no less then 100 external links in this post but this link provide text completely unreadable. Then I decide that my readers will be using Google (but I have link to Russian text with other links to those lurkers who knows Russian: http://ailev.livejournal.com/764492.html).

Activity modeling is very old and very immature discipline. We will consider activity modeling in two interlinked domains:
— content method domain (no “process” progressing in time, no method application in time intervals)
— life cycle domain (process: progressing, evolution in time)

There is at least four life cycle model views and corresponding them viewpoints that address concerns of different stakeholders (in spirit of ISO 42010) of systems engineering project:

1. Acquirer (value, product/service, purpose, goal) view is about target system-of-interest state at the life cycle stages ends. Acquirer viewpoint include functional and nonfunctional requirements meta-model, including quality requirements (ilities, i.e. reliability, maintainability etc.) meta-model and “quality case” meta-model.

2. Engineering (technical, transformation, process) view, that define technological procedure as “activity based model”. Engineering viewpoint meta-model relate to OMG BPMN 2.0 and OMG SBVR for business rules.

3. Management (project, logistic) view that deal with work, materials, workers and cash flows (including project portfolio management). Management viewpoint meta-model is about stages, milestones, decision gates, assurance cases, resources allocation. Factory physics and Goldratt throughput/constraint accounting are also addressed by management view.

4. Organization (agreements, authority, commitments) view of work as performed by actors according to formal or informal contracts. Viewpoint is included DEMO and LastPlanner.

All this stakeholders and their view collection based on
a) ISO/IEC TR 19760 two (engineering and organizational) life cycle views
b) Lauri Koskela et al. distinction between three (value, transformation, flow) views on activity
c) Jan Dietz mention that true organizational view should be relate to work transactions defined in speech act theory terms.

All this partial meta-models we can integrate (define viewpoint correspondence rules) into Life Cycle Activity reference data model with situational method engineering approach (e.g. expanding OMG SPEM 2.0 or ISO 24744 meta-models, including defining all guides classes needed and all time-independent method content meta-model as building blocks of other process/project/organization models).

We can use “ISO 15926 inside” data characterization methodology.

Then we define all notations from all these melted 4 viewpoints as Domain Specific Languages and use language workbench (like Whole Platform) to perform actual situational method engineering and life cycle modeling endeavor.

This is all about activity model with strong intersection with plant (product) model in Acquirer view.

We should add organizational meta-model of the sort of OMG OSS, BMM etc., adding talent management meta-model to this.

Plant (product) meta-model is another important model that need to be defined and maintained. This plant (product) meta-model now reign in repositories of contemporary CAD/CAM systems.

We may use IRING data integration facade to transfer life cycle process models to ISO 15926-enabled corporate SOA CAD/CAM (and ERP/CRM/EAM/etc.) infrastructure for using in workflow engines. Also we may populate corporate knowledge management infrastructure with modeled methods content.

Then we can perform Situational Method Engineering and Life Cycle Modeling with CAD/CAM environment of contemporary enterprises that practice systems engineering.

This is also tooling Roadmap for Praxos initiative.