Advertisement

Experimental Evaluation of HoRIM to Improve Business Strategy Models

  • Yohei Aoki
  • Hironori Washizaki
  • Chimaki Shimura
  • Yuichiro Senzaki
  • Yoshiaoki Fukazawa
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 719)

Abstract

Aligning organizational goals and strategies is important in Business Process Management (BPM). The Horizontal Relation Identification Method (HoRIM), which is our extension of the GQM+Strategies framework, improves the strategic alignment between organizations. GQM+Strategies aligns the strategies across organizational units at different levels by a strategy model, which is a tree structure of strategies called a GQM+Strategies grid. HoRIM identifies and handles horizontal relations (e.g., conflicting and similar strategies) between strategies in different branches, but we have yet to adequately inspect the impact of HoRIM on identifying correct horizontal relations and improving grids. This lack of clarity hampers the application of HoRIM to industrial business strategy models. Herein, we evaluate the impact of HoRIM on the review process and the improvement process of GQM+Strategies grids using two experiments. The review experiment confirms that HoRIM identifies about 1.5 more horizontal relations than an ad hoc review. The modification experiment where four researchers evaluated the validity of improved grids by the ranking method suggests that HoRIM effectively modifies GQM+Strategies grids.

Keywords

GQM+Strategies Business strategy model Horizontal Relation Identification Method 

References

  1. 1.
    Burlton, R.: Delivering business strategy through process management. In: Handbook on Business Process Management, vol. 2, pp. 5–37. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaplan, R.S., et al.: The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 83(7) (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mulazzani, F., Russo, B., Succi, G.: ERP systems development: enhancing organization’s strategic control through monitoring agents. In: IEEE/ACIS ICIS (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basili, V.R., et al.: Linking software development and business strategy through measurement (2013). arXiv:1311.6224
  5. 5.
    Basili, V.R., et al.: Bridging the gap between business strategy and software development. In: ICIS (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aoki, Y., Washizaki, H., et al.: Identifying misalignment of goal and strategies across organizational units by interpretive structural modeling. In: HICSS (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Warfield, J.N.: Intent structures. IEEE Trans. Syst Man Cybern. 2, 133–140 (1973)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Solingen, R., et al.: Goal question metric (GQM) approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ruble, T.L., Thomas, K.W.: Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 16(1), 143–155 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khalaj, M.E., et al.: A semantic framework for business process modeling based on architecture styles. In: IEEE/ACIS ICIS (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khlif, W., Ben-Abdallah, H.: Integrating semantics and structural information for BPMN model refactoring. In: IEEE/ACIS ICIS (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kobori, T., Washizaki, H., et al.: Efficient identification of rationales by stakeholder relationship analysis to refine and maintain GQM+Strategies models. In: APRES (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kobori, T., Washizaki, H., et al.: Identifying rationales of strategies by stakeholder relationship analysis to refine and maintain GQM+Strategies models. In: PROFES (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shimura, C., Washizaki, H., et al.: Identifying potential problems and risks in GQM+Strategies models using metamodel and design principles. In: HICSS (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uchida, C., Washizaki, H., et al.: GO-MUC: a strategy design method considering requirements of user and business by goal-oriented measurement. In: CHASE (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    William Dettmer, H.: The conflict resolution diagram: creating win-win solutions. J. Qual. Particip. 27(2) (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thurstone, L.L.: Attitudes can be measured. Am. J. Sociol. 33(4), 529–554 (1928)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leon Harter, H.: Expected values of normal order statistics. Biometrika 48(1/2) (1961)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kendall, M.G., Babington Smith, B.: The problem of m rankings. Ann. Math. Stat. 10(3) (1939)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yohei Aoki
    • 1
  • Hironori Washizaki
    • 1
  • Chimaki Shimura
    • 1
  • Yuichiro Senzaki
    • 1
  • Yoshiaoki Fukazawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Information and Computer ScienceWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations