Advances in decision analysis and systems engineering for managing large-scale enterprises in a volatile world: Integrating Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks (BOCR) with the Business Motivation Model (BMM)

Abstract

Over the past few decades, innovations in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) have led to a significant increase in the complexity of enterprise information systems. This has led to new challenges for enterprise architects, systems engineers, business managers and other decision makers who must cope with the complexity of business plans and processes (particularly automated engineering processes). In order to better manage this complexity, the Business Rule Group (BRG) has put forth the Business Motivation Model (BMM). The original BMM uses a SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat) decision analysis approach. However, the SWOT framework contains significant limitations with respect to decision making and ICT risks, hampering the decision making ability of enterprise architects, business managers, engineers, and other decision makers. The AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) and ANP (Analytic Network Process) are among the most widely used decision making tools: they commonly implement a Benefit — Opportunity — Cost — Risk (BOCR) analysis to improve the effectiveness of business decision making. A new approach is put forth that replaces the original SWOT assessment with an ANP-based BOCR analysis. As well, the original BMM is modified and applied in a Component Architecture Framework (CAF).

Keywords

Analytic Network Process (ANP) / Business Motivation Model (BMM) / architecture framework / Benefits-Opportunities-Costs-Risks (BOCR)

References

[1] Bauman, R. (2004). Private WAN infrastructure for today’s utility communication, SCI2004. In: The 8th Proceedings of World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2004

[2] Business Rules Group (2000). Organizing Business Plans — the Standard Model for Business Rules Motivation. http://www.BRCommunity.com Cited 2005

[3] Chaanakya, A.D. & Narasimhalu, A.D. (2004). An entrepreneur’s dilemma: to SWOT or not to SWOT. In: IEEE International Engineering Management Conference (IEMC), 67–69, Singapore, 2004

[4] Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council (2002). IT Portfolio Management with Expert Choice http://www.expertchoice.com/epfa/default.htm

[5] Chutimaskul, W. & Wangpipatwong, S. (2004). E-Government information quality (e-GIQ) framework. In: International Conference on Politics and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications, (PISTA’ 04). July 21–24, 2004 — Orlando, Florida, USA

[6] Crowne, M. (2004). The seven habits of highly effective programs, practices you need to change your organization with information technology. In: 2004 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, 18–21 October 2004, Singapore

[7] Dhaoui, C. & David A. (2004). The use of economic intelligence process and information and communication technologies to enhance decision process in an enterprise. In: 2004 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, 18–21, Singapore, October, 2004

[8] Doumeingts, G. (1997). The application of grai approach to the service. In: IFID / IFAC task Force Detroit Meeting, Detroit, 1997

[9] Doumeingts G., Vallespir B., Zanettin M., Chen D.. GIM, GRAI integrated methodology, a methodology for designing CIM systems. Version 1, LAP/GRAI, 1992, France: University Bourdeaux

[10] Feglar, T. (2003). Decision modeling based approach to the BS 7799 deployment. In: ISAHP 2003, Bali, Indonesia, August 7–9, 2003

[11] Feglar, T. (2004). AHP/ANP usage for a cooperation between IT architect and decision maker. In: MCDM 2004 Proceedings of the 17th International Conference Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Whistler B.C. Canada, August 6–11, 2004

[12] Hamalainen R.P.. Reversing the perspective on the applications of decision analysis. Decision Analysis, 2004, 1(1): 29-35.

[13] Mitchell, C.L. (2004). Networking technologies and the rate of technological change. In: International Conference on Politics and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications, PISTA 2004

[14] The Open Group, TOGAF as an Enterprise Architecture Framework, 1998–2005

[15] Saaty T.L.. The Analytic Hierarchy Process — Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory, 2001, Pittsburg: RWS Publications

[16] Saaty T.L.. The Analytic Network Process — Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback, 2001, Pittsburgh: RWS Publications

[17] Saaty, R.W. (2004a). Why Barzilai’s criticisms of the AHP are incorrect. In: Proceedings of the 17^th Internation MCDM Conference. Whistler, Canada, August 6–11, 2004

[18] Saaty, T.L. (2004b). The analytic network process: dependence and feedback in decision making (part1) theory and validation examples MCDM 2004. In: 17th International Conference Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Whistler B.C. Canada, 2004

[19] Scheer, A.W. (1999). ARIS — Business Process Framework, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 3-540-65834-3

[20] Sha, K.H.K., Hung, C. Y. & Lin, P. (2004). Evaluating development strategies for Taiwan’s IB3G industry: a fuzzy MCDM approach. In: 2004 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, 18–21 October 2004, Singapore

[21] Wagenhals, L.W., Levis, A.H. & Haider, S. (1997). Advances in C4ISR architectures. Object orientation for architecting: a candidate process. C4ISR Architecture Working Group, 18 December, 1997

[22] Wu, T.D. (2004). Six sigma real-time decision making management system for integrating production, design and development, marketing and finance management in Taiwan, SCI 2004. In: the 8th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando, Florida, USA, July 18–21, 2004

[23] Zachman J.. A framework for information systems architecture. IBM System Journal, 1999, 26(3): 454-470.

[24] Zwahr, T. & Finger, M. (2004a). Enterprise architecture as a potential methodology to build a holistic framework, enhancing the E-Governance model. In: International Conference on Politics and Information Systems (PISTA): Technologies and Applications, Orlando, Florida, 2004

[25] Zwahr, T. & Finger, M. (2004b). Enhancing the e-governance model: enterprise architecture as a potential methodology to build a holistic framework. In: International Conference on Politics and Information Systems (PISTA): Technologies and Applications, Orlando, Florida, 2004