Difference between revisions of "SSE Meeting 30"
From Service Systems Engineering Group Wiki
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Paper for ASEC 2018 == | == Paper for ASEC 2018 == | ||
| − | == Service-Centric views | + | SW had submitted the abstract for ASEC 2018 that had been developed at the April meeting. This had been accepted and a six page paper is to be submitted by 11 June. The meeting agreed to focus on this paper. |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Paper format == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The ASEC paper format was used and content for each section provided. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Time was spent discussing and deciding: | ||
| + | * The overall message we want to get out | ||
| + | * What is different about the approach being used | ||
| + | * Why this difference is important. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == How to express the findings == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Four different expressions of our contribution were produced and discussed. It was agreed that considering two views of the system - one service oriented and one system oriented could be used to cover the four different sets of expressions. | ||
| + | * It was agreed that the major contribution to be expressed in this paper is for the analysis of Services in terms of Context Diagrams, Stakeholder Analysis, Behaviour Analysis, Context Analysis and Structure Analysis are different if you take Service-Centric views against what you get if you take a System-Centric views. | ||
| + | * The difference compared to Architecture Frameworks that include Service views such as MoDAF, is that AFs are looking at services as system components, whereas we are looking at the enterprise or business from two views - one Service-Centric and one System-Centric. | ||
| + | * Hence for example a Service-Centric Stakeholder Analysis will be similar (and use the same or similar methods) to a System-Centric Stakeholder Analysis but will provide a richer set of outputs. | ||
| + | * Comparison was made with Product Service Systems (Tukker) which delas with a rnage of Services from Pure Service to Pure Product. | ||
| + | * It was noted that the standard Service Oriented Architecture relating Business Model to Services provided by System Components fits into our wider | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 18:26, 22 May 2018
Contents |
Attendees
Iain Cardow, Andrew Farncombe, Alan Crawford, Simon Wright, Filippo Farina(RR), John Davies.
Paper for ASEC 2018
SW had submitted the abstract for ASEC 2018 that had been developed at the April meeting. This had been accepted and a six page paper is to be submitted by 11 June. The meeting agreed to focus on this paper.
Paper format
The ASEC paper format was used and content for each section provided.
Time was spent discussing and deciding:
- The overall message we want to get out
- What is different about the approach being used
- Why this difference is important.
How to express the findings
- Four different expressions of our contribution were produced and discussed. It was agreed that considering two views of the system - one service oriented and one system oriented could be used to cover the four different sets of expressions.
- It was agreed that the major contribution to be expressed in this paper is for the analysis of Services in terms of Context Diagrams, Stakeholder Analysis, Behaviour Analysis, Context Analysis and Structure Analysis are different if you take Service-Centric views against what you get if you take a System-Centric views.
- The difference compared to Architecture Frameworks that include Service views such as MoDAF, is that AFs are looking at services as system components, whereas we are looking at the enterprise or business from two views - one Service-Centric and one System-Centric.
- Hence for example a Service-Centric Stakeholder Analysis will be similar (and use the same or similar methods) to a System-Centric Stakeholder Analysis but will provide a richer set of outputs.
- Comparison was made with Product Service Systems (Tukker) which delas with a rnage of Services from Pure Service to Pure Product.
- It was noted that the standard Service Oriented Architecture relating Business Model to Services provided by System Components fits into our wider
Actions
SW – to develop draft ASEC2018 paper for review before/on 21 May JD/AC – to add definitions/notes on Characteristics. AF – to look at Standard Architecture Frameworks and their relationship/impact on what we are proposing s contact members of the INCOSE UK Architectures Working Group and Rail Interest Group. IC/NH - to review updated draft Handbook.
Next Meeting
Monday 16 July 2018, 10-30 to 14-30, Babcock, Keynsham, Bristol.
