We interviewed Mark Blowers from OVUM Butler’s group to capture his views on Enterprise Architecture.

About EA:

EA has several definitions and many have their own interpretations. How do you view EA from an educational institution perspective?

An approach which can help educational institutions understand the current situation and provide agreement and visibility on the way forward. Educational organisations are increasingly finding funding coming under pressure which leads for the need to look for efficiencies, which is difficult if you don’t have the visibility and understanding of where you are now and can not compare alternative solutions.

‘’EA is interesting in theory and hard in practice ‘’ what’s your opinion regarding this statement? Can you please suggest some best practices that are applicable for educational institutions?

Historically many organisations have not gone about EA in a pragmatic way focussing on the initiative rather than the deliverables for the different stakeholders. would suggest that EA is an iterative process with frequent delivery of useful viewpoints.

Effective EA:

Measure and communicate success

Leadership role in strategy and service delivery

One architecture multiple views

Iterative creation of enterprise architecture

Development of a framework

Supported by use of intelligent tool

Key considerations:

Senior management support

Focus on speed of delivery

No need to model the entire enterprise

Be aware of people aspects

Allow solutions without architecture input

Drivers for EA

What are the main operational, tactical and strategic adoption drivers for EA?

Main drivers include:

Better strategy execution

Improved decision making

Ability to manage change effectively

Faster solution delivery

Evolve simpler environment

Do you see a shift in EA projects becoming more business focussed rather than IT focussed?

Not sure a shift. Successful EA focussed on both enterprise and IT – deliverables (viewpoints) are applicable to both. Although many organisations start from an IT perspective as that is easier and evolve to include the enterprise.

EA projects are strategic in nature rather than to fulfil short term needs. Do you agree to this statement? Have you come across any business that has implemented EA to fulfil short term goals?

No. EA is strategic in nature but this does not preclude it from being used for tactical projects. Number of instances where EA used to identify cost efficiencies.

EA adoption

How do you see the relevance of EA for educational institutions? Do you see a need there?

Most educational institutions (especially higher education) are large enterprises with the same issues as businesses, therefore EA very applicable. Would envisage that there are the same requirements.

Can you provide an example on how an educational institution has benefited from EA?

Have public sector examples but not come across an educational example.

How do you see EA adoption in forthcoming years to come? – Main challenges and drivers?

Recent Ovum survey indicated that ¾ of organisations have adopted EA. Expectation is that adoption will continue and that EA will become an accepted, and more important, a relevant approach within most organisations.

The post Interview with Mark Blowers-Ovum Butler’s Group appeared first on Cetis Blogs - expert commentary on educational technology.

Last November, I had the opportunity to attend the JISC Timetabling and resource scheduling workshop in Birmingham. This event had several participants that include vendors like CELCAT, Scientia and Serco Facility CMIS. On this event, The Academic Registrars Council (ARC) timetabling practitioner Group and the Association of university Administrators (AUA) Space Management Special Interest Group (SIG) were launched. The main role of ARC practitioner group is to conduct periodic meetings, discuss the sector wide issues with respect to timetabling, analyse system and processes,exchange information through the mailing list (JISC-TIMETABLING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK).

Zeb Nash from Oakleigh Consulting Group presented the findings of the timetabling and resource scheduling study. The study focussed on common approaches to timetabling and resource scheduling across various institutions, identified the challenges, issues and considers the outcomes as a foundation for success to meet the challenges and issues. The main objectives of the timetabling study were based on the relation between curriculum development and timetabling. As a part of the study eight regional workshops were organised where 59 institutions and 95 participants were invited. Interviews with system suppliers such as CELCAT, Scientia were also conducted which identified student expectation, complexity of curriculum, culture and strategic ownership as its main drivers.

The main findings of the study include,

1. No two institutions timetable in similar manner
2. ‘Student led timetabling works better than staff led one’
3. Developed four model approaches to timetabling based on the three main activities in timetabling(scheduling, requirements identification and location allocation) which are managed either in a centralised fashion or in a distributed manner

The most significant challenges impacting timetabling process were issues from

1. Technology- A mammoth task in implementing a timetabling system with required functionalities
2. Process- Dependent on the inputs from other connected processes such as Enrolment, Curriculum management processes
3. People – People adapting to change (changing corporate culture) in an institution.
   
4. Policy- Challenges in connection with conflicting priorities in institutions like teaching staff preferences regarding availability, efficient use of locations in producing a ‘student-focused’ timetable.

Following topics/ areas for discussion were discussed towards the end of the event

1. Good timetabling policies adopted across institutions
2. Strategic influence to timetabling /not considering it as a secondary activity
3. Space charging issues
4. Where should timetabling sit?-Needs championship at senior level
5. Regular analysis on ongoing change requests and ways of managing them.
6. Improved use of technology, usability/capability of systems must be highlighted in institutions
7. To see answers from different institutions for questions like -‘Is your timetable meeting your drivers? If so, how efficient is it?

Finally, it was recommended to consider Timetabling as a strategic issue rather than an operational exercise.

The post Timetabling and Resource Scheduling workshop-Birmingham appeared first on Cetis Blogs - expert commentary on educational technology.

The goals in the design of UML were
•To provide an expressive, ready- to-use visual modeling language that can develop and exchange meaningful models.
•To provide a formal basis for understanding the modeling language and support higher-level development concepts.
•Integrate best practices and methodologies.

UML defines nine graphical diagrams such as Class diagram, Use-Case diagram, Behaviour diagram (Interaction, Sequence, and Collaboration diagram), Statechart diagram, Activity diagram, Implementation diagram (Component, Deployment diagram) where not all are used in practice.

•Class diagram -It is developed through Use-case, Sequence and Collaboration diagrams. It represents the class structure of the system with relationships between classes and inheritance structure.
•Use-Case diagram-It is a scenario-building approach in which we model the processes of the system.
•Behaviour diagram-It comprises three divisions such as Interaction, Sequence, and Collaboration diagram. Sequence diagram are mainly used in dynamic modelling situations. Collaboration diagram is all about showing in a scenario how objects interrelate in a system and Interaction diagram is used to examine the behaviour of objects within a single use case.
•Statechart diagram – It’s also used in dynamic modeling situations that specifically describe the events occurring within a single object in a system.
•Activity diagram- It is used to model the entire business process.
•Implementation diagram shows the implementation phase of systems development, such as the source code and runtime implementation structures. It comprises the component diagram which is usually represented as a graph that models the physical components such as the user interface part of the system and Deployment diagrams are used in conjunction with the component one in representing the physical modules in a system.

The choice of what models and diagrams one chooses and creates entirely depends on the problem scenario and how the corresponding solution is shaped to it. UML combines best techniques from data modeling, business modeling ,object modeling, and component modeling concepts. It can be used with all processes, throughout the software development life cycle, and across different implementation technologies. On the other hand, the main disadvantage was that it does not support other diagrams to be used in it like the data flow diagram (DFD) as they do not fit into the object oriented paradigm. Also, the comments from various blogs and reports read out to be ‘’Advanced concepts of UML are well documented in theory but little formulated in practice’’. Finally, the interesting fact on UML graphical notations is that it can define a model itself in addition to system’s components; this is called as a meta- model. It does provide a single, common and definitive statement of the syntax and semantics of the elements in the UML.

Resources:
A brief guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language (2nd Edition) by Martin Fowler and Kendall Scott (Addison Wesley, 1999)

The post Unified Modeling Language (UML) appeared first on Cetis Blogs - expert commentary on educational technology.

It can be considered as a
• New language that can create your own Domain-Specific Languages (DSL),
• Visual modeling tool and
• Repository for models that we build.

Microsoft promised that Oslo will be the unified basis for “future versions” of Visual Studio, Microsoft System Center, BizTalk Server and Microsoft SQL Server. “Oslo” is slated to have “visual modeling and composition tools, a foundational repository built on SQL Server 2008 for managing application metadata, and a new, declarative modeling language to enable interoperability of models between tools and domain-specific modeling notations (Microsoft subnet blog). The aim is to increase the communication between developers, modellers, business analysts and decrease the time involved in designing complex projects. It is a tool for working with data and creating data. Several articles in the e-week reveals that it breaks down the barriers to sharing models between projects and enables stakeholders involved to utilise the other resources.

After the launch of Microsoft Oslo many experts posted questions such as, ‘‘Will Microsoft’s Oslo Support UML (Unified Modeling Language) and BPMN (Business Process Modelling Notation)?’’ with answers from the concerned people,’’This tool enables users to capture domain knowledge in domain specific views and will be useful for more advanced programming, such as enabling the development of BPMN workflows and UML services.

Finally, I would like to quote the article,’ Where is Microsoft Oslo from SD Times blog, that recently, Microsoft is whittling away from the development of the designing tool- Oslo, which is quite disagreed from the developers.

More resources can be found at
•http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Microsoft-Defends-Oslo-Move-to-SQL-Server-203987/
•http://www.douglaspurdy.com/2009/08/17/on-oslo/
•http://www.developer.com/db/article.php/3792011/Building-Microsoft-Oslo-Models.htm
•http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1430

The post Microsoft Oslo appeared first on Cetis Blogs - expert commentary on educational technology.

(1)SSM as an inquiring process, in turn established the ‘hard/soft’ distinction in systems thinking. Do you agree with this statement?
My opinion is that, it is a process of enquiry closely aligned to action research (i.e.) identification of problem, where the solution is enhanced by people working in itself. It enables people to identify, come up with the solution process to solve the problem themselves at some stage.

(2)The rules of SSM are always applicable to high level mapping. What’s your view on this?
I don’t see SSM as a mapping exercise. My view with a bit of experience in co educate project is as a problem solving one.

(3)Regarding the adoption and use of SSM; level of exposure is considered as a major factor and many feel it’s time consuming too. What’s your opinion on this?
Yes, I agree with this statement. Definitely it’s not a one man show. Adoption and use becomes easier when working in groups. In real world, we need to be pragmatic and practical. Following the seven steps of SSM rigidly might be time consuming.
I’d like to share my experiences with SSM like,
Initially, understanding the idea of complexity of the problem was a big milestone. Through interviews, focus groups we identified the exact location where the problem sits. We then made choices on discussions, interactions after the root definitions were framed up. Then identified, the biggest strength of SSM is that it’s practical usability in a wide range of situations by people without technical background.

(4)People taking baby steps in modelling, do you recommend soft side of modelling at the start or the hard bit like the Enterprise Architecture Modelling?
Yes, definitely I will recommend SSM to be the starting point to understand the problem scenario and then migrate to the hard side of the modelling spectrum. The main advantage to start with the soft side is that, SSM as a methodology offers good facility where the intensity of the problem can be compared at each stage.

(5)What are the advantages of SSM considering that it has played a good role in the co educate project?
I feel it’s not hard, simple to understand. The harder bit is the interactions with the people and formulating the problem scenarios. It does address some questions at the end by analysing the problem. I feel Enterprise Architecture modelling is not really involved in solving a problem. It’s a diagrammatic depiction of the problem.

References and Resources
(1) THE ART OF MODELLING IN SSM by Dr Mark P. Mobach,Prof.dr Jos J. van der Werf,Prof.dr Th. (Dick) F.J. Tromp
(2)Soft Systems Methodology in Action by Peter Checkland and Jim Scholes.

The post Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) appeared first on Cetis Blogs - expert commentary on educational technology.