08.01.2013 Views

Back Room Front Room 2

Back Room Front Room 2

Back Room Front Room 2

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

40<br />

ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS VI<br />

representation, spectators arrive at the service<br />

facility (going to facilities), queue there for a<br />

while if no service point is available (Specs Queue<br />

at Facilities), and eventually get serviced<br />

(servicing).<br />

Using this model fragment we can elaborate on<br />

the way that stakeholder goals were refined through<br />

the use of process modelling. We previously<br />

mentioned the high-level goal ‘Minimise the time<br />

that a customer has to wait in order to get serviced’.<br />

The realisation of this goal for a given type of<br />

service facility, and for a given demand, depends on<br />

the availability of supply for that facility. Supply is<br />

composed of two independent factors, the number of<br />

service points and the service rate. Therefore, the<br />

initial goal was decomposed into two<br />

complementary (i.e. non-competing) goals:<br />

‘Maximise the number of service points’ and<br />

‘maximise the service rate’. These goals are more<br />

accurate than the initial one, however they need to<br />

be analysed further in order to become quantifiable.<br />

2.2 Scenarios<br />

Figure 2: Stakeholder-Defined Parameters for Catering<br />

The generation of different scenarios concerning<br />

each problem studied, and the simulation of these<br />

scenarios with the help of the process models<br />

developed, is an essential part of requirements<br />

definition in the S 3 approach. Evidence from the use<br />

of this approach on a number of industrial-strength<br />

applications indicate that scenarios are an<br />

indispensable tool for truly understanding the<br />

implications of stakeholders in their deliberation of<br />

requirements. For example, in the components of the<br />

system model that deals with services (ATMs,<br />

merchandising, catering, etc), fragment of which is<br />

shown in Figure 1, there is a plethora of stakeholder<br />

defined assumptions regarding demand and supply<br />

for each service facility. Each set of parameter<br />

instantiation gives rise to a specific behaviour. For<br />

example, the example shown in Figure 2 is the result<br />

of the following choices: (a) all catering outlets are<br />

situated in a central area; (b) there are 44 catering<br />

outlets in this area.<br />

These two sets of parameters define the way that<br />

support may be offered. In addition to these,<br />

stakeholders also defined the demand for service as<br />

shown in Figure 3. The choices available are: (a) the<br />

possible demand for catering set at 15 percent of all<br />

spectators and (b) the likely average response of<br />

each catering service which is set at 2 minutes per<br />

customer.<br />

These 4 sets of parameters dictate the way that<br />

strategy-service-support interact to give rise to<br />

different system behaviours. Although in this<br />

example the focus of stakeholders was on catering,<br />

the interaction between requirements for catering<br />

and requirements for all other components of the<br />

system became highly visible. Catering for example,<br />

does not exist in isolation. It is influenced by other<br />

components and in turn it influences others. Other<br />

relevant factors, such as spectators’ arrival and<br />

departure patterns, were taken into account. The<br />

stakeholders involved in scenario generation<br />

investigated the range of probable values for each of

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!