Advertisement

Requirements Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 184–197 | Cite as

Measuring the fitness relationship

  • Anne Etien
  • Colette Rolland
Original Article

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that the system functionality captured in a system model has to match organisational requirements available in the business model. However, such a matching is rarely used to support design strategies. We believe that appropriate measures of what we refer to as the fitness relationship can facilitate design decisions. The paper proposes criteria and associated generic metrics to quantify to which extent there is a fit between the business and the system which supports it. In order to formulate metrics independent of specific formalisms to express the system and the business models, we base our proposal on the use of ontologies. This also contributes to provide a theoretical foundation to our proposal. In order to illustrate the use of the proposed generic metrics we show in the paper, how to derive a set of specific metrics from the generic ones and we illustrate the use of the specific metrics in a case study.

Keywords

Fitness relationship Criterion Metric Alignment Bunge’s ontology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Sincere thanks are to the anonymous reviewers who provided constructive criticism that has made improvements possible.

References

  1. 1.
    Davenport TH, Short JE (1990) The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Manag Rev 31(4):11–27Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giaglis GM (2001) A taxonomy of business process modelling and information systems modelling techniques. Int J Flexible Manufact Syst 13(2):209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arsanjani A, Alpigini J (2001) Using grammar-oriented object design to seamlessly map business models to component-based software architectures, proceedings of the international symposium of modelling and simulation, Pittsburgh, pp 186–191Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salinesi C, Rolland C (2003) Fitting business models to systems functionality exploring the fitness relationship. In: Proceedings of CAiSE’03, Velden, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fifth workshop on business process modeling, development, and support BPMDS’04, Riga, Latvia, 2004Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eatock J, Giaglis GM, Paul RJ, Serrano A (2000) The implications of information technology infrastructure capabilities for business process change success. In: Henderson P (ed) Systems engineering for business process change. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 127–137Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Regev G, Wegmann A (2004) Remaining fit: on the creation and maintenance of fit. In: Proceedings of BPMDS’04, Riga, LatviaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nadler D, Tushman ML (1980) A congruence model for diagnosing organizational behavior. In: Miles R (ed) Resource book in macro organizational behavior, Goodyear, Santa Clara, pp 30–49Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soffer P, Wand Y (2004) Goal-driven analysis of process model validity. In: Proceedings of CAiSE’04, Riga, LatviaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wand Y, Weber R (1992) An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans Software Eng pp 1282–1292Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bunge M (1977) Treatise on basic philosophy: ontology I. The furniture of the world, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bunge M (1979) Treatise on basic philosophy: ontology II. A world of systems, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bodhuin T, Esposito R, Pacelli C, Tortorella M (2004) Impact analysis for supporting the co-evolution of business processes and supporting software systems. In: Proceedings of BPMDS’04, Riga, LatviaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boehm B, Brown JR, Kaspar H, Lipow M, McLeod G, Merritt M (1978) Characteristics of software quality. North HollandGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cavano JP, McCall JA (1978) A framework for the measurement of software quality. In: Proceedings of the software quality and assurance workshop, San Diego, CA, ACM SIGMETRICS and SIG-SOFT, pp 133–139Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wand Y, Weber R (1989) An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods. In: Falkenberg ED, Lindgreen P (eds) Information system concepts: an in-depth analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 79–107Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosemann M, Green P (2002) Developing a meta model for the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontological constructs. Inf Syst J 27:75–91CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J Inf Syst 3(4):217–237Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wand Y, Weber R (1995) On the deep structure of information systems. Inf Syst J 5:203–223Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ralyté J, Rolland C, Deneckère R (2004) Towards a meta-tool for change-centric method engineering: a typology of generic operators. In: Proceedings of CAISE’04, Riga, LatviaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pohl K (1996) Process-centered requirements engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ISO/IEC 9126: Software Engineering—Product quality—Part 1: Quality model (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rolland C, Prakash N (2001) Matching ERP system functionality to customer requirements. In: Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’01), Toronto, Canada, pp 66–75Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prat N (1997) Goal formalisation and classification for requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the third international workshop on requirements engineering: foundations of software quality REFSQ’97, Barcelona, Spain, pp 145–156Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Aalst WMP (2004) Business alignment: using process mining as a tool for delta analysis. In: Proceedings of BPMDS’04, Riga, LatviaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CRI University Paris1ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations