Difference between revisions of "SSE Meeting 32"
From Service Systems Engineering Group Wiki
(→What Process, Techniques, Models do we have? Which are useful when?) |
(→Actions) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
== Providing a better framework == | == Providing a better framework == | ||
| − | + | To bring work together a Enterprise Architecture could be used. | |
| − | + | However instead of producing a new one, could we provide Service specific entities that could be used within existing Architecture frameworks. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | MoDAF already has Services and service oriented views. These are for Software-based Services. On examination they cover some of the work we have done on identifying and defining Service Entities. We can provide updated Service entities and relationships too provide an enhanced Architecture Framework. | |
| − | - | + | |
| − | + | However, there are perceived issues with the use of MoDAF that detract from following this line of work. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Discussions with the Architecture Working Group would be useful for this work. | |
| − | + | == Start of lifecycle == | |
| − | + | Discussions as to what was needed for Services ranged to why would a developer develop and provide a service solution to a customer rather than a system-based solution and why might a customer want a service-based solution rather than a system-based solution. | |
| − | + | To pursue this would involve definitions of and understanding relationships between: | |
| − | + | * the Business Strategy | |
| − | + | * the Business Success | |
| − | + | * the Business System/Service Solution | |
| − | + | * the Business Case | |
| − | + | * the Business Opportunity | |
| − | + | * the Business Offering | |
| − | * | + | * the Potential Customer |
| − | * | + | * the Potential Market |
| − | * | + | * the Customer Environment |
| − | * | + | * the Existing Technical Environment |
| − | + | * the Potential Customer | |
| − | + | * the Existing Service Elements | |
| − | + | * etc. | |
| − | * | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | * | + | |
| − | * | + | |
| − | * | + | |
| − | * | + | |
| − | * | + | |
== Actions == | == Actions == | ||
| − | * | + | * JD to chase actions from last meeting |
| − | + | * JD to look at early lifecycle entities and relatiionships | |
| − | * JD | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
== Next Meeting == | == Next Meeting == | ||
| − | + | 12 November or 10 December 2018, 10-30 to 14-30, Rolls Royce, Filton, Bristol. | |
Latest revision as of 10:26, 28 September 2018
Contents |
[edit] Attendees
John Davies, Iain Cardow, Sarwar Ahmad.
[edit] Overview
Discussions were wide ranging and covered:
- What techniques we have and what service/systems can they apply to?
- Can we better handle Services within an enterprise architecture?
- Early life-cycle - how is the decision made to develop/deploy a service ?
[edit] What Process, Techniques, Models do we have? Which are useful when?
We have seen/studies/developed techniques - mostly to support analysis and design, but also to cover operation,
Service-Centric Analysis
- as described in Paper for ASEC2018
- Covers analysis of need and specification for Services
- applied to Norway Military Vehicle service and logistics
- provides detailed analysis
- not yet seen for how to/where to split providers?
- Considered for applying to
- Bus Service - good
- Health Care – poor
SOA model - as in TOGAF
- applied to many software services
- provides diagrams of how services are composed to provide business process
- Apply to Norway NCS ILS - doesn’t add/help
NECTISE Model -
- structure of services to provide capability
- mostly visual can be applied to:
- NCS ILS – OK
- Health Care, University - OK
[edit] Providing a better framework
To bring work together a Enterprise Architecture could be used. However instead of producing a new one, could we provide Service specific entities that could be used within existing Architecture frameworks.
MoDAF already has Services and service oriented views. These are for Software-based Services. On examination they cover some of the work we have done on identifying and defining Service Entities. We can provide updated Service entities and relationships too provide an enhanced Architecture Framework.
However, there are perceived issues with the use of MoDAF that detract from following this line of work.
Discussions with the Architecture Working Group would be useful for this work.
[edit] Start of lifecycle
Discussions as to what was needed for Services ranged to why would a developer develop and provide a service solution to a customer rather than a system-based solution and why might a customer want a service-based solution rather than a system-based solution. To pursue this would involve definitions of and understanding relationships between:
- the Business Strategy
- the Business Success
- the Business System/Service Solution
- the Business Case
- the Business Opportunity
- the Business Offering
- the Potential Customer
- the Potential Market
- the Customer Environment
- the Existing Technical Environment
- the Potential Customer
- the Existing Service Elements
- etc.
[edit] Actions
- JD to chase actions from last meeting
- JD to look at early lifecycle entities and relatiionships
[edit] Next Meeting
12 November or 10 December 2018, 10-30 to 14-30, Rolls Royce, Filton, Bristol.
