Logo blue background.png

Bruce Powel Douglass, Ph.D.

  • Content

    • Resources
    • Embedded World
    • Papers
    • Presentations
    • Models
    • Harmony aMBSE Overview
    • Harmony aMBSE Functional Analysis
    • Harmony Embedded Software Overview
    • Harmony ESW Nanocycle
    • Safety Analysis and Design
    • Books
    • On the Web
    • Links
  • Services

  • Public Interest

  • Blog

  • What's New

  • Forum

  • About

  • Comments

  • Site Map

  • Geekosphere

  • Members

    • Members Only
  • More

    Use tab to navigate through the menu items.
    To see this working, head to your live site.
    • Categories
    • All Posts
    • My Posts
    Avraham Makeler
    Jul 27, 2020

    Modeling how organizations work

    in Systems Engineering

    Hello Dr. Douglass,


    I assume that this is the most appropriate sub-forum in your site for asking questions on modeling the running an organization (i.e., things ‘higher’ than the work of designing the product (the actual operational system)). Namely, how the ‘organization’ goes about designing its product, requirements collection, product management and project management, IT support for management – and much else besides.

    My questions, from the most specific to most general:

    Question 1: I assume this what is these days termed enterprise architecture?

    Question 2: What term is appropriate to use for the flow of information between these three teams: (i) the requirements and analysis team, (ii) the design team, and (iii) the safety analysis team? In one of my work emails I have used the term “business flow”. How correct is that?

    Question 3: I have seen various graphic X-layered diagrams describing companies/organizations, e.g., Four-layered: (e.g., Business (top), Function, Information, Data). I have noticed also the Zachman Framework, from which various layered models were derived. I have also noticed Caminao’s Pagoda framework.

    But I am not clear whether the intention of these layered models is: (A) to model the operational system -or- (B) to model the company/organization. Seems to me you need both, i.e., you use the same layering concept: one instance of an X layered model for the operational system, and a separate instance of the X layered to model the company/organization. I have never seen this written explicitly, but that’s what seems to me. Your opinion?

    I have just completed modeling the top-level design of our company’s product in sysML/UML. Now there is a need to move up a level.


    Thanks in advance.

    Avraham

    2 answers0 replies
    0
    1
    Bruce Douglass
    Aug 01, 2020

    There are lots of ways to model enterprise architectures, depending on what your goal is. In general: one or more class/block diagrams to identify the systems or organizations involved in the enterprise and their relations; one or more structure/internal block diagram to show the "connected" architecture. These can show information flows if you just want to show information flow but don't care about sequencing.


    For showing sequencing (optionally with information flows), activity diagrams or state diagrams show the sequenced behavior and interaction of those systems in a full specification; sequence diagrams are best for showing specific interactions (scenarios), as they are "partially constructive".


    I hope this helps.


    • b

    1
    Avraham Makeler
    Aug 21, 2020

    I see I did not thank you yet for your answer. Apologies. Thank you so much. - Avi

    2 comments
    Site Map

    (c) Bruce Powel Douglass, Ph.D. 2019, 2020

    bruce.douglass@outlook.com