Griffith University

School of Computing and Information Technology

Detailed Research Design for the PhD Thesis:

Enterprise Reference Architectures and Modelling Frameworks

Supervisor: Dr. Peter Bernus

original electronic version available at:

http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~noran/cit_6116

Ovidiu S. Noran

PhD Research Design Table Of Contents

i

Table of Contents.

1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1

2. Theoretical Framework. .............................................................................................. 2

3. Research Strategy........................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Case study / Action Research (previous).......................................................................... 2 3.2 Research Question............................................................................................................ 2 3.3 Critical Literature Review. ............................................................................................... 3 3.4 Theory Building / Adopting. ............................................................................................ 3 3.5 Restate research question. ................................................................................................ 3 3.6 Action Research (reflect & define)................................................................................... 3 3.7 Conceptual development. ................................................................................................. 4 3.8 Theory testing (laboratory / simulation)........................................................................... 4 3.9 Theory testing (field experimentation). ............................................................................ 5 3.10 Reflection / Theory extension. ......................................................................................... 5 3.11 State / Disseminate Findings. ........................................................................................... 5 3.12 Further Work. ................................................................................................................... 6

4. Choosing the Research Methods................................................................................. 7

4.1 Introduction. ..................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Accepted Research Methods. ........................................................................................... 7 4.3 Potential research methods. .............................................................................................. 8 4.4 Rejected research methods. .............................................................................................. 8 4.5 Data gathering methods.................................................................................................... 9

5. Research Tools.......................................................................................................... 10

5.1 General research tools. ................................................................................................... 10 5.2 EI / EM specific tools. .................................................................................................... 10

6. Approximate Timetable. ........................................................................................... 12

6.1 First year......................................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Second year. ................................................................................................................... 12 6.3 Third year. ...................................................................................................................... 13

7. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 14

8. References. ................................................................................................................ 15

Appendix A: The GERAM as a Theoretical Model. ......................................................... i

PhD Research Design Table Of Contents

ii

A.1 GERAM. .............................................................................................................................. i A.2 GERA.................................................................................................................................. ii A.3 Conclusion. ........................................................................................................................ iv

Appendix B: The Research Strategy................................................................................. v

Appendix C: The Action Research Approach Adopted.................................................. vii

Appendix D: Glossary...................................................................................................... ix

PhD Research Design Introduction

1

1. Introduction.

An agile enterprise is by definition able to readily and continually adapt itself to the ever-changing business environment brought about by phenomena such as mass customisation and globalisation. Adaptability ensures survival and success; it is therefore vital to the organisation. In the knowledge-enabled organisation, preservation and efficient use (and reuse) of this knowledge shields the business against potential loss of core competencies but also facilitates the change processes, which represent the essence of adaptability.

Enterprise modelling (EM) supports knowledge preservation and deep understanding of the business processes but most importantly it represents the ontology1 of change. Adequate enterprise models provide Enterprise Integration (EI) with the core business processes' descriptions (Bernus, Nemes, & Williams, 1996a) necessary to initiate the envisaged change process(es).

A large variety of enterprise modelling (EM) frameworks and associated tools exists. They are however mostly aimed at particular domains; therefore, given an EI problem which does not clearly belong to any of these domains, there is no single obviously applicable modelling methodology. Moreover, there is no established meta-methodology2 helping to design a suitably customised methodology.

The proposed research attempts to provide such a meta-methodology, preferably using action research. In order to achieve this ((Checkland, 1991; McKay & Marshall, 2001)), several items need to be declared from the beginning (refer to Fig. C. 1 and Appendix C for details):

- a theoretical model providing a reference framework - here, a generalised structure able to hold all the building blocks provided by the more specialised architectures;

- a research methodology - in this case, action research itself; - a problem-solving methodology - here, the meta-methodology.

Formalisations of the modelling frameworks, reference framework and mapping process (stating e.g. the object and extent of mapping) should provide a good start for the meta-methodology3.

The meta-methodology created should then be tested in laboratory (or simulation) and field experiments. Results of this testing could possibly prompt theory extension (and subsequent iterations through testing / theory extension phases), leading to an improved meta-methodology.

A functional meta-methodology would be extremely attractive to the EI/EM tool developers as the underlying semantic for a decision support tool assisting enterprise modelling practitioners in their methodology engineering efforts.

The research assumptions, methodology, ethics and the role of the analyst have all been provisionally defined (accompanied by suitable justifications) in (Noran, 2001). The present document aims to develop the preliminary research design set out in (Noran, 2001) by providing:

- discussion and justifications of the research approaches adopted, potential and rejected; - in-depth description of the research strategy and the main research approaches chosen; - short description of the potential modelling tools - short description of the initial theoretical model adopted.

! Back to TOC

1 'what is out there that there is to know' about something. 2 i.e. a methodology for designing a suitable modelling methodology by combining building blocks

provided by the existing modelling frameworks. 3 formalisation aims to provide a clear, unambiguous and consistent syntax and semantics for the

frameworks and the mapping process.

PhD Research Design Theoretical Framework

2

2. Theoretical Framework.

The theoretical model adopted for the purpose of this research is the Generalised Reference Architecture and Methodology (GERAM, in (ISO/TC184/SC5/WG1, 1999a)).

All data gathered and enterprise modelling frameworks analysed will be interpreted in respect to this theoretical framework. Some extensions / modifications to the theory may become necessary during the research phases.

For full details, refer Fig. A. 1 and Appendix A.

! Back to TOC

3. Research Strategy.

The points made in (Jarvenpaa, 1988) and (Galliers & Land, 1988) reveal a lack of consensus on 'established' research methods for the IS field. The adopted research strategy is therefore based on the idea of multiple research methods involvement presented in (Galliers, 1992; Trauth, 1997) and uses the frameworks presented there as a starting point.

A picture of the research strategy (Fig. B. 1) and some additional details are presented in Appendix B. Following is a justification and brief explanation of the elements.

3.1 Case study / Action Research (previous) Previous action research, case studies and conceptual work by the (Globeman21 (Global

Manufacturing in the 21st Century), 1999) / (Globemen (Global Engineering and Manufacturing in Enterprise Networks), 1999) consortiums (Vesterager, Bernus, Larsen, Pedersen, & Tølle, 2001) and others (e.g. (Bernus et al., 1996a) and (Noran, 2001)) has helped in identifying and articulating the research question.

Potential problems generated by the large variety of (incompatible) enterprise modelling frameworks, the need for a higher degree of frameworks and modelling methods formalism and the practical possibilities of mapping the frameworks against each other (Noran, 2001; Williams, Zoetekouw, Shewchuck, Chen, & Li, 1996) and against a matrix (Bernus, Nemes, & Williams, 1996b) are also examples of the issues that have resulted in the research question.

Other previous research (Fig. B. 1, upper left)(Bernus & Nemes, 1994; IFIP-IFAC Task Force, 1993) has produced and refined the theoretical framework (GERAM) adopted in this research.

3.2 Research Question. The initial research question has emerged from the previously mentioned action research and

case studies (refer 3.1), which have revealed: - the lack of adequate formalisation (for the current endeavour) of the GERAM and of the

mapping of the modelling frameworks onto GERAM; - lack of guidelines as how to apply / combine existing modelling frameworks to a particular

problem which does not clearly fall into any of the categories covered by these frameworks. Therefore, the initial research question is whether a methodology describing how to construct a

customised modelling method may be built and what other factors may (positively) influence such an endeavour.

The research question will have to be subsequently restated in the larger context of other recent achievements / needs in the EI / EM domain, which may be revealed by a critical literature review.

PhD Research Design Research Strategy

3

3.3 Critical Literature Review. The critical literature review will use the descriptive / interpretive research approach (Galliers,

1992). It will attempt not only to review the achievements in enterprise modelling, but also to interpret them using a consistent terminology4 and identify their contribution within a larger scope (subsequently identified as a generalised reference architecture). This may considerably help towards potential future formalisation efforts.

Critical literature review has been perceived to yield better (and more timely) results and be more efficient for the current research project compared to e.g. survey research. However, care should be taken as to clearly state the researcher biases and assumptions5 and to assert (and limit if at all possible) their influence on the interpretation6.

3.4 Theory Building / Adopting. This stage involves adopting a particular (modified or not) theory or a combination of theories

as the theoretical framework for the research. It is currently7 envisaged that GERAM (refer Appendix A) will be chosen for the purpose of this research. The main research approach adopted (AR) includes possible iterations resulting in potential theory extensions.

3.5 Restate research question. At this stage the research question will have to be restated / refined, in view of the critical

literature review. The question will most likely arise as to whether formally describing the (previously reviewed) modelling frameworks, the generalised reference architecture and the mapping process would assist in the development of the meta-methodology. It is therefore envisaged that the refined research question will cover:

1. the achievability of a methodology on how to combine modelling frameworks; 2. the possibility to formalise the theoretical framework (GERAM itself) and the mapping of

modelling frameworks onto it; usability of these formalisations towards enabling and supporting the meta-methodology (point 1.).

The potential reformulation of the research question may determine a change in the priorities of the research activities - formalisation will be the highest on the list followed by the meta-methodology design. Priorities do not necessarily imply succession - development of the meta-methodology (e.g. eliciting its needs for the control of the formalisation activity etc) should be started in parallel with the formalisation.

3.6 Action Research (reflect & define). Once the research question has been refined and an initial theoretical model has been adopted,

there are two main endeavours to be addressed: - provide new insights / knowledge into the problem of a methodology to combine various

partially overlapping (but also partially incompatible) modelling methods, making use of formalisation and generalised frameworks;

- provide a solution to the practical problem of designing a modelling methodology following a meta-methodology and using specific (modelling framework provided) building blocks for a specific EI problem.

4 Case study / conceptual work in (Noran, 1999) has reinforced the idea of lack of consistency in the

meanings associated to the same words and/or phrases by the various enterprise modelling framework developers.

5 e.g. towards favouring a particular EI 'school of thought'. 6 still, being aware that "many of the research findings are 'nothing until we call them'" (White, 1985). 7 'currently' refers to the phase of articulating the research question and preliminary research strategy

(present phase in Fig. B. 1).

PhD Research Design Research Strategy

4

This provides an ideal scenario to employ action research (AR), which is "both a mechanism for practical problem solving and generating and testing theory" (Eden & Chisholm, 1993; McKay & Marshall, 2001). Full details on the application of the action research approach to the proposed research project are given in Appendix C.

NOTE. The view adopted in this research is that AR is a research approach, closely related to case study and field experiment (Galliers, 1992), potentially including other research methods.

This notion, in combination with reflection on the previous activities will yield the concept that AR actually encompasses most of the research activities employed within the current research (refer Fig. C. 1 in Appendix C). Therefore, in this context AR is not just another activity but rather a concept. Only at this point however would this former speculation be confirmed.

3.7 Conceptual development. Conceptual development is a constructive research method allowing for the development of

conceptual artefacts. As such, it will address the two aspects of the research question: - attempt to develop formalisations of the GERAM itself and of the mapping of the

modelling frameworks onto the GERAM; - develop a methodology to design a modelling method for given EI problems. The conceptual activity fits well in the research part of the action research approach adopted

because it attempts to contribute to the theory (formalisations and the meta-methodology). In Fig. B. 1 the conceptual phase is included in the possible develop - test - reflect / extend

iterations since theory extension would necessarily include revising the formalisations and the methodology.

Meta-methodology conceptual development must also rely upon the critical literature review in order to identify the domain of inputs8 applicable to the meta-methodology.

3.8 Theory testing (laboratory / simulation). Laboratory testing is useful towards establishing the internal validity9 of the model created in

the previous activity. Although criticised for its 'sanitised' environment (Galliers, 1992), this method can be turned into an advantage in the case of EM where by contrast external validation needs an organisation prepared to co-operate, often over a period of several years.

Laboratory experiments (or simulation, depending on the specific artefact being tested) may be successfully used to validate the model in a variety of scenarios. The scenarios may be constructed by giving discrete values or isolating one of more variables, while studying the influence of the remaining variables on the results of the experiment.

Examples: the human element may be considered totally deterministic or voluntaristic10; technology choices may be restricted in number or constant (e.g. predominant legacy systems, not likely to be upgraded); organisations may be considered slow (inertial) / fast (agile) to change in view of a sudden change in environment, etc.

Laboratory experiments and/or simulations provide a controlled and repeatable environment, well suited for preliminary testing and refining (through successive cycles of development / laboratory testing / reflection) of the meta-methodology. However, laboratory testing is by no means sufficient for the complete methodology validation. It must be complemented by perhaps lengthy, non-repeatable and complex, but otherwise vital field experimentation.

8 this translates into the range of environmental situations prompting development / redesign of a change

process - e.g. mergers, downsizing, branching out, etc. 9 validity in the context of the research study (Jarvenpaa, 1988), or assertion of a causal relationship

(Trochim, 2000) (e.g., 'has the application of the meta-methodology resulted in a change in the modelling methodology adopted?').

10 the initial view adopted being of humans as voluntaristic with deterministic elements (Noran, 2001).

PhD Research Design Research Strategy

5

Moreover, the use of scientific research methods within the context of an interpretivist (anti-positivist) research approach is beneficial since it may enable the use of triangulation for the purpose of additional validation of the model.

3.9 Theory testing (field experimentation). The theory used and the developed model (meta-methodology and implicitly the formalisations

used to construct it) must also be externally validated11. Consequently, they will be tested within a real-world project (the action part of the AR), which will tackle a concrete EI problem (e.g. how to apply the newly devised meta-methodology to design a customised modelling methodology for a particular enterprise - be it simple or virtual12). As can be observed from Fig. B. 1, in this phase there are both inputs and outputs from the research environment, as external validation is carried out. Member checking13 may also be employed, depending on the concrete setting of the project joined by the researcher. All feedback received will be used towards reflection upon the action taken and suitability of the model employed in the current AR cycle.

3.10 Reflection / Theory extension. Triangulation may be employed at this stage in order to establish a potential convergence of

the results. The divergence of the results may be due to: - incompleteness of the theoretical model for the specific task (e.g. lack of suitable constructs); - faults in the formalisation(s) or the meta-methodology; - other factors that have not been appropriately (or at all) taken into account. The first two causes may be addressed by subsequent research iterations. The third cause, if

resolved, may well provide a deeper (holistic) understanding of the phenomenon studied14. Theory extension could be a possible outcome of the reflection on the results obtained from

both simulation (research) and field experimentation (action). If the theory is extended, a new iteration will have to be performed in order to re-evaluate the conceptual model and re-test (i.e. internally and externally validate) the modified theory.

A subjective / argumentative approach may be employed towards extending the theory. Although not generally recommended (von Hellens, 2001), in the opinion of the author contributions by such means may be considered acceptable provided that the theory is always subsequently internally / externally tested 15.

3.11 State / Disseminate Findings. This phase will be reached when a satisfactory 16 result is obtained from reflections on both the

practical and the theoretical problems (McKay & Marshall, 2001). While interim results may be

11 i.e. to determine whether the findings from the laboratory experiments would hold "for other persons in

other places and at other times" (Trochim, 2000), e.g. in the field. 12 a group of enterprises acting as one autonomous entity for the purpose of its product (Bernus, 1999;

Noran, 1999). 13 "establishing credibility whereby the researchers check interpretations with the people who are being

studied" (Trauth, 1997). 14 reconciliation of discrepancies is seen as "opportunities for enriching the explanation" (Jick, 1979). 15 "in the right hands (� this approach) makes a valuable contribution to the building of theories which

can subsequently be tested by more formal means" (Galliers, 1992). 16 a 'satisfactory' result would (ideally) be internal / external validity and completeness of the

formalisation(s) and meta-methodology.

PhD Research Design Research Strategy

6

communicated via seminars and research papers, the final results will be disseminated via the PhD Thesis and subsequent presentation(s).

3.12 Further Work. Further work may comprise further refinement of the meta-methodology and enlargement of its

scope (i.e. by adding new possible inputs and testing / extending the meta-methodology in order to produce the desired outputs).

Advanced analysis (sensitivity, stability etc) could be preformed on the constructed enterprise models in order to determine their behaviour in changing environment conditions. The outcome of these tests could determine the need to re-model the enterprise or, if needed, to re-design the customised modelling framework by employing the meta-methodology. Ultimately theory extensions may also occur prompting also the redesign of the meta-methodology.

Another avenue of further research would be to study the effects of the change processes brought about by employing the enterprise models (constructed using the newly designed meta-methodology) and use the findings to e.g. include such effects in the modelling meta-methodology design.

! Back to TOC

PhD Research Design Research Methods

7

4. Choosing the Research Methods.

4.1 Introduction. The IS research taxonomy presented in (Galliers, 1992, Table 8.1)17 has been used as a general

guide in identifying suitable research approaches for the formalisation / meta-methodology development and underlying theory testing and extension. Multiple research methods have been accepted, suitable for various phases of the research project (Trauth, 1997).

The selection of the research methods is by no means final; some of the selected methods may be discontinued in favour of a formerly 'potential' method due to e.g. adjustments in the research paradigm, better suitability or towards achieving the 'between-method' triangulation (Jick, 1979).

4.2 Accepted Research Methods.

Action Research.

Action Research (AR) will be employed largely because of the presence of both a theoretical (research) and a practical (real-world) problem which need to be addressed (refer the restated Research Question) and in accordance with the interpretivist18 (Burrell & Morgan, 1979) stance taken by the researcher (Jönsson, 1991; Noran, 2001).

Details of the selected research method (reflective and iterative AR - (Chiasson & Dexter, 2001)) are presented in Appendix C.

Conceptual development.

Conceptual development is part of the constructive research methodology type (Iivari, Hirschheim, & Klein, 1998). It will be employed in the current research in order to enable the development of the formalisations and the meta-methodology.

Descriptive / Interpretive research.

This research method has been chosen for use in the critical literature review. The main reason for this choice is that it will allow the researcher to develop a cumulative knowledge of the enterprise modelling problems and will ensure that the current research is relevant and builds on previous achievements (Galliers, 1992).

Laboratory experiment.

Use of laboratory experimentation in IS is controversial (Galliers, 1992; Galliers & Land, 1988; Jarvenpaa, 1988). Laboratory experimentation may be used primarily for internal validation of the formalisation(s) and theory testing / extension. Simulation may be preferred to laboratory experimentation for meta-methodology development / testing.

Field experiment.

This method may be used for external validation19. In the context of the current research , it has been accepted as representing the 'action' part of AR. May include member checking ((Trauth, 1997), refer Field Experimentation phase for details).

Subjective / Argumentative.

Potential use for theory extension; accepted only under the provision of subsequent rigorous testing of the theory.

17 the taxonomy does have its critics, especially regarding the claimed unsuitability of laboratory

experiments in the field of IS (Jarvenpaa, 1988). 18 or social-relativist, according to the modified framework by (Hirschheim & Klein, 1989). 19 validation in a real-world situation - e.g. apply model (the meta-methodology ) to a real EI problem.

PhD Research Design Research Methods

8

4.3 Potential research methods.

Case Study

Case study is a very suitable method for this research. It could provide a detailed description of the as-is state (and relevant past events) of the organisation involved in the field experimentation phase. However, at this point, the details of potential case studies are not fully clarified. Therefore, case study has been provisionally included as a potential research method.

Ethnography.

Ethnography as an interpretivist IS20 research method aims to explore "contextual webs of meaning" (Myers, 1997), i.e. examine human actions in (a socially constructed) context, with the intention to enrich the understanding of human thought. The post-modernist (as described in (Harvey, 1997)) and critical (Myers, 1997) ethnographies are well suited for the exploration of the complex and changing social context of IS.

Ethnography has been placed in the repository of potential research methods since it may be employed to study the effects of the change process(es) (driven by enterprise models created using the meta-methodology) on the organisation. Such studies may provide feedback towards the meta-methodology future fine-tuning.

Simulation.

According to (Galliers, 1992), simulation is well suited to methodology development and testing. It is also accepted for theory testing and/or extension. It is therefore a clear competitor of laboratory experimentation.

Theorem Proof.

Theorem proof deals with the "development and testing of theorems at the technical end of the socio-technical spectrum" (Galliers, 1992). As such, it could potentially be used for the development and validation of the formalisations.

4.4 Rejected research methods. Some of the research methods have been rejected due to the topic of the research project at

hand. Other methods, although potentially suitable, have proven to have impracticable requirements or better alternatives that have been adopted instead.

Survey.

The survey approach has been abandoned in favour of the critical literature review. A survey of the major enterprise modelling framework / architectures development groups21 has not been perceived as potentially revealing new facts compared to a critical review of the recent relevant literature produced by these groups22.

Furthermore, due to the most common data gathering methods for a survey (questionnaire and semi / structured interviews) surveys can be influenced by negative effects (refer Data Gathering Methods)

Game / Role Playing. At this point, simulation (positivist) has been preferred to role playing (interpretivist) as a

potential method of preliminary testing and internal validation of the meta-methodology. The choice has been made primarily due to the object of the test (a methodology).

Forecasting / Futures Research.

20 borrowed from anthropology: "writing about a culture" (Harvey, 1997). 21 potentially representing enterprise integration / modelling 'schools of thought'. 22 method employed by e.g. (Iivari, 1991; Iivari et al., 1998) towards identifying IS 'schools of thought' .

PhD Research Design Research Methods

9

Forecasting (scientific) and futures research (interpretivist) methods appear to be out of context for the purpose of the current research. Futures Research may however be employed if needed in order to reason about possible future trends of the enterprise modelling framework development and framework interoperability.

Longitudinal. The longitudinal research approach allows for measurement of behaviour (involving several

other research methods) at a number of points in time during a finite time span (Galliers, 1992). However, longitudinal research may be plagued by high cost, obsolence, bias and call for extended effort and resources; it may also require an extended period in order to be effective, which may not be available in the case of the current research. Longitudinal research may still be involved, provided that multiple iterations through field experimentation will occur.

4.5 Data gathering methods.

Primary Data.

Primary data (data gathered by the researcher himself /herself) use is desirable, however it is not a preferred option within this research. The main reasons are mainly connected to the available methods of data collection (and some of their weaknesses):

- questionnaire: subject to bias on the respondents' part, worsened by the self-selection of questionnaire respondents (Galliers, 1992). Other undesirable effects in using questionnaires may be delays incurred and low rate of response.

- interview: may be subject to interviewee e.g. observing (and potentially counteracting) the strategy of the interviewer;

- participant observation: may be employed in the field experimentation phase. Depends heavily upon the research team being representative of the viewpoints in the research project environment (Trauth, 1997);

- open forums / interest groups: may offer focussed discussion and anonymity, making use e.g. of the Internet (moderated or not) newsgroup facilities. Information gathered however may be hard to verify / validate, especially in case of anonymous contributors.

Primary data collection may be considered in view of potential lack of suitable secondary data or acute need for first-hand information in the field (which will be decided during or after the critical literature review).

Secondary Data.

Use of secondary data for purposes has its critics (Bowering, 1984; Kiecolt & Nathan, 1985) and its defenders23. Secondary data is becoming more available by use of data warehousing, public databases, and automatically collected traces on organisations and their employees behaviour (Jarvenpaa, 1991).

The approach adopted in this research project is that secondary data originating from a reliable source may be used, observing some precautions such as the purpose of, and the methods used in the original data collection.

In EI, data referring to business processes, strategies and networks may provide a decisive edge to a business. Hence, in the current research some secondary data may have a confidential nature, posing some restrictions on the use of real company names, sources, etc. While not normally affecting the accuracy and/or reliability of the data, it may still necessitate trust building between the researcher and the practitioners within the organisation. Adoption of the action research approach may be a catalyst for such cases.

! Back to TOC

23 "(...) use of secondary data, either as a complement or a substitute for primary data." (Jarvenpaa, 1991).

PhD Research Design Research Tools

10

5. Research Tools.

5.1 General research tools. This section presents some of the tools currently available for research design, or specialised

qualitative, quantitative or mixed data analysis. The research tools chosen for the current research must support the research methods actually used. Therefore, final choices for research tools will have to be made as the research progresses.

Research Design.

Methodologist's Toolchest by IdeaWorks is a research design tool that may be employed in an early phase. It is an expert system providing research strategies, scheduling and budgeting.

Qualitative.

NUD*IST allows management of 'Non-numerical Unstructured Data' using indexing, searching and theorising. Atlas.ti and HyperResearch provide visual qualitative analysis of textual, graphical or audio/video data. This kind of tool may provide additional insights on the qualitative data gathered within the current research.

Quantitative.

SphinxSurvey provides for the design, administration, processing and analysis of surveys. SphinxSurvey is not likely to be used. GBStat supports statistic research methods. This type of tool may be potentially involved e.g. in the laboratory and/or field experimentation phases.

Mixed.

C-I-Said and Code-A-Text are examples of software providing qualitative and quantitative analysis of text, charts, audio/video etc. Their dual approach to data analysis may readily enable the use of triangulation.

5.2 EI / EM specific tools. The conceptual development activities within this research create a need for suitable modelling

tools towards building and testing models. There is currently a large range of modelling techniques (methodologies) on the market that

claim to be the ultimate solution to enterprise modelling (Hommes, 2001), accompanied by an even larger number24 of EI / EM / CASE tools.

Since one modelling tool only cover one or a few of the aspects that need to be modelled within an enterprise (refer Fig. A. 2), in order to construct a complete enterprise model a combination of tools has to be considered. The critical issue of selecting the right combination of the modelling techniques and tools for a given problem is the actual real-world problem P in the Action Research approach adopted in this research (refer Fig. C. 1 and Appendix C).

A large number of modelling tools (and especially from those covering several modelling methodologies) have a poor underlying theoretical model that could provide proper semantics and therefore they only represent 'unaware'25 graphical editors associated with a basic database.

The tool selection for this research will be dictated by factors such as: - suitability for the particular research; - interoperability / compatibility (e.g. possibility to import / export models); - availability of these tools for the researcher26.

24 over 350, according to (Hommes, 2001). 25 'unaware' of the meaning of the symbols they provide (syntax) and of the complete set of rules of how to

combine them (semantics).

PhD Research Design Research Tools

11

Potential tools to be used within this research are:

ERWin / BPWin.

A set of tools from Computer Associates which allows Entity Relationship data modelling and Business process modelling. Interoperable, web enabled (e.g. via ModelMart);

Metis.

A modelling tool and browser plug-in from Metis Solutions providing a visual representation of the linkages and relationships between a company's various functions and its technology infrastructure. Allows meta-modelling27, custom methods writing (via its own Application Interface) and what-if analysis.

System Architect.

A modelling tool from Popkin Software supporting Data Modelling (IDEF1x), Function Modelling (IDEF0), Process Modelling (IDEF3), and Object Modelling (Jacobson Use Cases).

Oracle Process Manager.

Oracle's modelling tool supports enterprise-wide modelling, graphic simulation, time / resource management etc.

First Step.

First Step, from Interfacing Technologies, is an ISO / ENV compatible28, CIMOSA-compliant suite of modelling tools allowing business process analysis / design and simulation of what-if scenarios. Implements the 'Process Design and Management' (proprietary) methodology.

AI0Win / ProCap / SmartER / SmartCost.

A suite of tools from KBSI, Inc that supports the IDEF family of languages, entity relationship data modelling and activity based costing. Supports limited import / export of models.

NOTE. Meta-modelling attempts to modify the meta-model, i.e. the definition of syntax and semantics of the modelling language. However, a modelling language must reflect a methodology supported by an underlying theory (e.g. in GERAM the EETs implement modelling languages and methodologies and are supported by GEMC - theories and definitions). Therefore, when using meta-modelling, care must be taken to ensure the changes to the meta-model are reflected in the methodology and compatible with the underlying theory (or the theory must be explicitly extended).

! Back to TOC

26 As a general observation, severe limitations imposed by the demonstration versions, lack of academic

versions and high price of the full commercial versions of these tools often prevent the access of the researcher to a sufficient number of tools and thus may work against the best interests of the tool developers themselves.

27 i.e. allows limited redesign of the modelling language (syntax and semantics). 28 claims construct compatibility with GERAM, ENV40003 and ENV12204.

PhD Research Design Approximate Timetable

12

6. Approximate Timetable.

This section describes possible milestones in the current research project. The provisional schedule presented is subject to time, human error and financial resources availability.

6.1 First year.

The first year of the PhD research project must provide a sound starting point and a solid knowledge base of the state-of-the-art in EI/EM. As such it must include generic (philosophical), IS and EI research methodology analysis and review of the state-of-the-art in EI/EM. The first year may also include partial conceptual development.

Preliminary research design.

Assertion of the ontological and epistemological assumptions, main research methodologies, ethics of research, research paradigm and role of analyst. Identification and relevance assessment of applicable IS / EI research methodology literature .

Advanced research design

The advanced research design should provide a clear direction and application area for the research. As such, it should contain: further refinement of the research assumptions and methodology; in-depth discussion of the research strategy and the main research approach(es) selected; justification of the choices made; brief review of the theoretical model; brief review of the potential research tools.

Critical literature review.

The review must identify relevant literature, describing the research objects in an analytical manner (i.e. identify ambiguities, commonalities, incompatibilities in the frameworks reviewed) in order to provide an effective knowledge base for the development of the formalisations and meta-methodology. It should also critically interpret the achievements in enterprise modelling in respect to a common generic framework.

Conceptual development (partial)

Start preliminary conceptual work building on the findings from the critical literature review activity: identify distinct and overlapping modules within modelling frameworks and their potential position within the theoretical framework (GERAM). Review / reuse (if practicable) existing modelling frameworks formalisations; attempt to define formal29 methods of mapping.

6.2 Second year.

The second year research will contain conceptual development and subsequent testing of the theory, followed by reflection on both the theoretical and practical results and possible theory extension proposals.

Conceptual development

Develop a formalisation of the GERAM. Attempt a formalisation of the mapping of other modelling frameworks onto GERAM. Test formalisation in laboratory conditions only and reflect / iterate. In parallel, prepare the meta-methodology construction - study the possible change situations (domain of inputs for the meta-methodology), viable existing configurations (domain of outputs) and possible implementations of the meta-methodology (e.g. expert system).

Once the formalisations are stable, develop the meta-methodology and apply testing and iterations as necessary and practicable.

29 e.g. having rigorously defined syntax and semantics (Williams, 1996).

PhD Research Design Approximate Timetable

13

Theory testing (laboratory experimentation).

Test formalisations and meta-methodology under controlled conditions. Observe behaviour under various scenarios. If models are stable enough, proceed to field experimentation. Otherwise, reflect and iterate thorough development / laboratory testing until a stable state is reached.

Theory testing (field experimentation).

Test the developed models in the field: find / select organisation. Immerse in the situation, apply the meta-methodology to the organisation, gather results for triangulation / reflection.

Reflection on the results / Theory extension.

Reflection may occur after laboratory only, or both laboratory and field experiments have been carried out. If both laboratory and field experiments have been accomplished, also attempt to perform triangulation (attempt convergence, use reconciliation if needed). Reflect on the results. Identify any necessary theory extensions and attempt to carry them out.

6.3 Third year. The third year contains two main tasks: possible refinement of the formalisations and meta-

methodology and dissertation writing.

Possible iterations.

If any theory extensions have been performed as a result of experimentation and reflection, iterate through the development30 and testing phases.

A new iteration through field experimentation may involve the same or another organisation (acceptable or even desirable since it may improve the external validity (Trochim, 2000)).

NOTE. Writing of the final dissertation must start early in the third year, putting together the bits and pieces of documentation produced during the previous activities.

State findings / Disseminate results.

Sharing of the results may also occur during the research (via seminars and articles31). Any interesting side issues to the research may also be preserved (or also developed into articles, time permitting) as potential future research avenues.

Once acceptable (e.g. valid even if not complete) results have been achieved, the writing of the dissertation may be completed and the dissertation submitted.

! Back to TOC

30 both the formalisation and the meta-methodology will need to be revised in view of the modified theory 31 subject to the university policies on published material and PhD dissertation contents.

PhD Research Design Conclusions

14

7. Conclusions.

The proposed research project will adopt the following theoretical model and research approach and methods:

Adopted Theoretical Model: The GERAM framework - a life cycle reference architecture and methodologies capable of specifying a complete set of tools, methods and models for enterprise modelling and integration.

Refined Research Question:

- would a formalisation of the theoretical framework and of the mapping of modelling frameworks onto it be achievable? Would such a formalisation help in building robust rules for methodology design ?

- would a meta-methodology32 on combining modelling frameworks be achievable ?

Research Approach:

Action Research (iterative and reflective) regarded here as an 'umbrella' approach comprising several other (including positivist) research methods.

Research Methods:

- Accepted: action research, conceptual development, descriptive / interpretive, laboratory experiment, field experiment, subjective / argumentative;

- Potential: case study, ethnography, simulation, theorem proof; - Rejected: survey, game/role playing, forecasting / futures research, longitudinal.

Data used.

Primary data: at this stage, not likely to be used; Secondary data: critical literature / project documentation review, public databases etc.

Other important assumptions.

Research paradigm: interpretivist / social relativist with functionalist elements. Role of analyst: facilitator but also systems expert. Role of IS: interpretivist but also means-end oriented; Value of IS research: serve organisational values, achieve user / decision maker satisfaction.

A PhD research project may be regarded as an entity having a life history33 of its own (refer Fig. A. 2). (Noran, 2001) and the present document have attempted to cover the preliminary and detailed design phases based on the identification, concept and requirements phases of the project. Changes in the environment, new insight gained or need for additional research work during the implementation and operation stages of the project may prompt adjustments in the choices described in the two aforementioned documents. ! Back to TOC 32 stated in a more obscure way: a methodology on how to build methodologies of how to build models.

PhD Research Design References

15

8. References.

Avison, D., Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. (2001). Controlling action research projects. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 28-45. Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 11(3), 235-246. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 23(1), 3-16. Bernus, P. (1999). Topics in Enterprise Integration, [Lecture Notes / Slides]. School of CIT, Griffith University. Available: www.cit.gu.edu.au/~bernus [2000, Aug - Nov 2000]. Bernus, P. (2001). Personal Communication. Nathan, Brisbane. Bernus, P., & Nemes, L. (1994). A Framework to Define a Generic Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology (MTM366). Melbourne: CSIRO Division of Manufacturing Technology. Bernus, P., Nemes, L., & Williams, T. J. (1996a). Architectures for Enterprise Integration. London: Chapman & Hall. Bernus, P., Nemes, L., & Williams, T. J. (1996b). Mapping against a matrix. In P. Bernus & L. Nemes & T. J. Williams (Eds.), Architectures for Enterprise Integration. London: Chapman & Hall. Bowering, D. J. (1984). Secondary Analysis of Available Data Bases. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. London: Heineman. Checkland, P. (1991). From Framework through Experience to Learning: the Essential Nature of Action Research. In H.-E. Nissen & H. K. Klein & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches & Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Chiasson, M., & Dexter, A. S. (2001). System development conflict during the use of an information systems prototyping method of action research. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 91-108. Davison, R. (2001). GSS and action research in the Hong Kong police. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 60-77. Doumeingts, G., Vallespir, B., Zanettin, M., & Chen, D. (1992). GRAI-GIM Integrated Methodology - A Methodology for Designing CIM Systems (Version 1.0). LAP/GRAI University Bordeaux I [1992, May 1992]. Eden, M., & Chisholm, R. F. (1993). Emerging varieties of action research: introduction to the special issue. Human Relations, 46, 121-142. ESPRIT Consortium AMICE. (1993). CIMOSA - Open System Architecture for CIM. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Galliers, R. D. (1992). Choosing Information Systems Research Approaches. In R. Galliers (Ed.), Information Systems Research - Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines (pp. 144-162): Alfred Waller Ltd. Galliers, R. D., & Land, F. F. (1988). The importance of Laboratory Experimentation in IS Research: A Response. Communications of the ACM, 31(12), 1504-1505. Globeman21 (Global Manufacturing in the 21st Century). (1999). IMS project no. 95001. EU: ESPRIT 26509. Available: http://ims.toyo-eng.co.jp/. Globemen (Global Engineering and Manufacturing in Enterprise Networks). (1999). IMS project no. 99004. EU: IST-1999-60002. Available: http://globemen.vtt.fi/.

PhD Research Design References

16

Harvey, L. (1997). A Discourse on Ethnography. In A. S. Lee & J. Liebenau & J. I. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research - Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.2 on IS and Qualitative Research (pp. 207-224). London: Chapman & Hall. Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (1989). Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199-1216. IFIP-IFAC Task Force. (1993). IFIP-IFAC Task Force on Architectures for Integrating Manufacturing Activities and Enterprises. IFIP Newsletter / IFAC Newsletter. Iivari, J. (1991). A Paradigmatic Analysis of Contemporary Schools of IS Development. Eur. J. Information Systems, 1(4), 249-272. Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (1998). A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 164-193. ISO/TC184/SC5/WG1. (1999a). Annex A: GERAM. In ISO-1999 (Ed.), ISO/DIS 15704: Industrial automation systems - Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies. ISO/TC184/SC5/WG1. (1999b). ISO/DIS 15704: Industrial automation systems - Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies. Jarvenpaa, S. (1988). The importance of Laboratory Experimentation in IS Research. Communications of the ACM, 31(12), 1502-1504. Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1991). Panning for Gold in Information Systems Research: 'Second-Hand' Data, Information Systems Research - Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines (pp. 63-80): Alfred Waller Ltd. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4). Jönsson, S. (1991). Action Research. In H.-E. Nissen & H. K. Klein & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Kiecolt, K. J., & Nathan, L. E. (1985). Secondary Analysis of Survey Data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lau, F. (1997). A review on the use of action research in information systems studies. In A. Lee & J. Liebenau & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research (pp. 31-68). London: Chapman & Hall. McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 46-59. Myers, M. D. (1997). Critical Ethnography in Information Systems. In A. S. Lee & J. Liebenau & J. I. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research - Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.2 on IS and Qualitative Research (pp. 276-300). London: Chapman & Hall. Noran, O. S. (1999). VITE - The Fruit and Vegetable Virtual Enterprise, [Report / Slides]. School of CIT, Griffith University [1999, Sept-Nov 1999]. Noran, O. S. (2001). Preliminary Design for the PhD Thesis: Enterprise Reference Architectures and Modelling Frameworks, [Report / Slides]. Griffith University. Available: www.cit.gu.edu.au/~noran/cit_6116.htm [2001. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). Discovering: Inventing and Solving Problems at the Frontiers of Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Trauth, E. M. (1997). Achieving the Research Goal with Qualitative Methods: Lessons Learned along the Way. In A. S. Lee & J. Liebenau & J. I. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research - Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.2 on IS and Qualitative Research (pp. 225-246). London: Chapman & Hall.

PhD Research Design References

17

Trochim, W. M. (2000). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, [2nd Edition. Internet WWW page]. Available: http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/index.htm [2000, Aug 2000]. Vesterager, J., Bernus, P., Larsen, L. P., Pedersen, J. D., & Tølle, M. (2001). Use of GERAM as basis for a virtual enterprise framework model -- Results from the IMS-projects Globeman21 and Globemen. Proceedings of the DIISM(to be published). von Hellens, L. (2001). Advanced Concepts in Information Systems, [Lecture Notes]. School of CIT, Griffith University [2001, Apr/May 2001]. White, K. B. (1985). Perceptions and Deceptions: Issues for Information Systems Research. In E. Mumford & R. Hirschheim & G. Fitzgerald & A. T. Wood-Harper (Eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems - Porceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium (pp. 237-242). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Williams, T. J. (1994). The Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture. Computers in Industry, 24(2-3), 141-158. Williams, T. J. (1996). The needs of the field of integration, Architectures for Enterprise Integration. London: Chapman & Hall. Williams, T. J., Zoetekouw, D., Shewchuck, J. P., Chen, D., & Li, H. (1996). Techniques to map the architectures directly against one another. In P. Bernus & L. Nemes & T. J. Williams (Eds.), Architectures for Enterprise Integration. London: Chapman & Hall. Wood-Harper, A. T. (1985). Research methods in IS: Using Action Research. In E. Mumford & R. Hirschheim & G. Fitzgerald & A. T. Wood-Harper (Eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems - Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium (pp. 169-191). Amsterdam: North-Holland. ! Back to TOC

PhD Research Design Appendix A

i

Appendix A: The GERAM as a Theoretical Model.

A.1 GERAM. The GERAM (ISO/TC184/SC5/WG1, 1999a) represents a framework aiming to advise on a

complete collection of tools, methods and models to be employed by any enterprise engineering and integration effort. As such, GERAM assists in the choice of tools and methodologies by providing criteria to be satisfied by them, rather than trying to enforce particular options. Used as a generic framework, GERAM may also assist in establishing the completeness and suitability of the solution to a particular change process (used as a checklist towards identifying potential gaps / uncovered areas). Concisely, GERAM is "a tool-kit of concepts for designing and maintaining enterprises for their entire life history"33 (ISO/TC184/SC5/WG1, 1999a).

An essential component of GERAM is GERA (the reference architecture), which provides the critical architectural concepts needed in EI. GERA features a three-dimensional structure and contains several views in order to limit the complexity of the enterprise model (refer Fig. A. 2).

Fig. A. 1 GERAM framework components (adapted from (ISO/TC184/SC5/WG1, 1999a))

33 GERA(M) states the difference between life cycle (seen as "the finite set of generic phases and steps a

system may go through over its entire life history") and life history ("the actual sequence of steps a system has gone through during its lifetime")(ISO/TC184/SC5/WG1, 1999b).

EMDs

PhD Research Design Appendix A

ii

The enterprise engineering methodologies (EEMs) are aimed at assisting the user in the enterprise modelling activity. EEMs may represent models of the engineering processes by making use of enterprise modelling languages (EMLs). Due to their limited scope, different EMLs (or a variety of combinations) have to be used for various modelling viewpoints. GERAM provides guidelines for choosing a complete set of modelling languages.

Generic enterprise modelling concepts (GEMCs) provide the necessary concepts and definitions for enterprise modelling (e.g. semantics for modelling languages). GERAM describes three types of generic concepts: glossaries, meta-models and ontological theories.

Partial enterprise models represent reusable, partially instantiated models34 of human roles (organisational), processes(describe only common functionality) or technology (resources, e.g. Information Technology (IT)).

Enterprise Engineering Tools (EETs) implement the modelling languages (and implicitly the enterprise engineering methodologies) in order to construct the desired enterprise model (EM). GERAM defines essential requirements for EETs, such as support for analysis / design and enactment / simulation of the model, model upgrading capabilities etc, which should be particularly relevant to the EET developers.

Enterprise models (EMDs) are the ultimate purpose of the modelling activity. A complete model as described by GERAM should include enterprise operations and organisation but also its control and information systems.

GERAM sets out three main requirements for enterprise models: to enable decision support (via analysis); to be a communication tool across various user groups; and to enable model-driven operation and control of the business processes35. The implicit requirement is however that enterprise models should enable and support the change process that determined their creation in the first place36.

The Enterprise Operational System (EOS) represents a fully instantiated model, i.e. a model representing a particular enterprise. The modelling tools construct models by employing enterprise modules (EMOs). EMOs are implemented partial models, which may be used as plug-and-play components (i.e. typically no customisation is necessary).

A.2 GERA. GERA is a life cycle reference architecture, i.e. an architecture able to model activities involved in

the implementation of a project spanning over part or whole of an entity life cycle37. GERA is developed along three main dimensions:

Life Cycle.

Provides modelling of the enterprise entities according to the life cycle activities. Seven such activities have been identified (inherited and extended from PERA (Williams, 1994) and CIMOSA (ESPRIT Consortium AMICE, 1993)): identification; concept; requirements; preliminary and detailed design; implementation; operation; decommissioning.

Genericity.

Accommodates various degrees of specialisation and possible instantiation (refer Note below) of the models. Example: two partial models, ISO 15288 ('Systems Life Cycles') and ISO 12207 ('Software Life Cycles'), are both in the Partial (middle vertical) area of GERAM. However, ISO

34 or rather specialised, i.e. where only some of the variables taken known values. 35 only in the case of executable models. 36 since enterprise modelling represents the ontology of change (Bernus, 2001). 37 as opposed to system architecture, which models the structure of a system (ISO/TC184/SC5/WG1, 1999b).

PhD Research Design Appendix A

iii

12207 will be represented to the right of ISO 15288 because it is more specialised (it refers to software systems life cycles (Noran, 2000)).

View. Provides visualisation of certain aspects of the whole (and complex) enterprise model in isolation.

Views are also grouped by: - model content: function vs. information vs. resource vs. organisation (inherited from CIMOSA

and GRAI-GIM (Doumeingts, Vallespir, Zanettin, & Chen, 1992); models processes, data, technology and human);

- purpose: customer service vs. product management and control; - implementation: mission support technology vs. human tasks vs. management and control

technology (inherited from PERA: important - showing the role of the human in the enterprise); - physical manifestation: software vs. hardware.

NOTE. In this research, specialisation is regarded as the transition from generic to partial, while

instantiation is the transition from partial to particular (refer Fig. A. 2, instantiation axis - a one step process). The view is adopted that there may be several specialisations (where a model becomes more specialised by e.g. giving values to some variables) but only one instantiation (when all the variables are given known values). Fig. A. 2 presents examples of specialisations (e.g. a successive increase in detail of the model on the life cycle axis), and instantiations (perceived as a one-step process, e.g. model implementation, again on the life cycle axis).

Fig. A. 2 The GERA modelling framework (adapted from (ISO/TC

Specialise (detail)

In(im

Specialise

stantiate plement)

Instantiate

184/SC5/WG1, 1999a)).

PhD Research Design Appendix A

iv

The current research will attempt to identify distinct, overlapping and missing modules of the modelling frameworks in the context of the GERA. The far-reaching expressiveness38 of the GERA will provide a reference framework able to reveal potential module overlaps and gaps.

A.3 Conclusion. GERAM has been considered very relevant to the current research because it is generic enough to

accommodate all other modelling frameworks and it has evolved out of and built upon significant achievements in the EI field (such as: CIM Open Systems Architecture (CIMOSA, (ESPRIT Consortium AMICE, 1993)), Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture (PERA (Williams, 1994)), GRAI-GIM (Graphs et Rėsultats et Activitės Interreliės GRAI Integrated Methodology (Doumeingts et al., 1992)) etc). GERAM satisfies all requirements set out in (ISO/TC184/SC5/WG1, 1999b). ! Back to TOC

38 i.e. ability to contain concepts expressed in all the other modelling frameworks involved in the formalisation

and mapping efforts.

PhD Research Design Appendix B

Appendix B: The Research Strategy.

Within the context of this research, AR is perceived as a research approach (Galliers, 1992) employing other research methods, such as descriptive / interpretative, conceptual development, simulation and field experimentation.

Fig. B. 1 The IS research strategy

Previous Research (Case study & AR)

State Research Question & Preliminary Research Design

Critical Literature Review

Build / Adopt + Modify Theory

Restate Research Question

(la

Refle

Co(forma

Previous Research

Pr

(enter cycle)

Action

Research / environment boundary

Cont

Contributions towards practice

Reflect, decide & acknowledge AR

Literature

MFram

nceptual development lisation / meta-methodology)

v

(concepts from (Galliers, 1992; Wood-

Theory testing boratory experiments /

simulation )

Theory testing (field experiments)

(Triangulation)

ction / Theory Extension

State Findings

ributions towards theory

Action Research (cycle)

Action Research (prepare)

Action Research (exit cycle)

esent Phase

odellingeworks

Harper, 1985))

PhD Research Design Appendix B

vi

It is envisaged that after restating the research question (refer 'reflect, decide & acknowledge AR' phase in Fig. B. 1), reflection on what has been accomplished thus far and on the outstanding activities will decide on and possibly acknowledge action research as being already in use and being further suitable as an 'umbrella' research approach.

Fig. B. 1 represents the current research as a system having a boundary, inputs and outputs. The main input is previous research, either contributing towards articulating / refining the research question, or providing the theoretical framework to be used in the research. Other inputs are the literature describing the objects of the research and feedback from the action (field experimentation).

The outputs are, as typical from an AR research approach, contributions towards theory and practice.

! Back to TOC

PhD Research Design Appendix C

vii

Appendix C: The Action Research Approach Adopted.

Problems for which previous research has yielded a validated theory are well suited for the Action Research (AR) (Davison, 2001) - the action researcher intervenes in the problem situation, applying and evaluating the usefulness of the theory provided. The present research is therefore very suitable for AR since a usable theory (GERAM) has been provided by previous research.

AR is very often seen as an iterative process, wherein reflection is the crucial phase (Davison, 2001). There is also a debate going on about rigor vs. relevance in the IS field, whereby IS research has to produce implementable results (relevance to practice) (Benbasat & Zmud, 1999) while the cyclic character of AR may be used to build the necessary scientific rigor (Davison, 2001). As a result, both reflection and iteration are considered equally important to the current research.

AR is a potentially useful qualitative research approach (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1996), but displays a great diversity of methods (Lau, 1997). To delineate the particular AR approach employed in the current research, (Chiasson & Dexter, 2001)'s four characteristics of a particular AR approach will be employed:

- the AR process model (iterative, reflective, linear); - the structure of each AR step (rigorous or fluid); - researcher involvement (collaborative, facilitative, expert); - AR primary goals (organisational development, system design, scientific knowledge or

training).

The process model of the AR used in this research includes: - repetitive use of a sequence of activities (iterative AR); - reflection upon the results obtained and attempt to uncover and resolve potential differences

between theory-in-use vs. espoused theory39 (reflective AR). The structure of each step will not be rigidly reinforced; it will however follow explicitly

declared guidelines, such as a timetable and university PhD policies (e.g. PhD confirmation seminar, etc).

The researcher may be seen as both a facilitator and an expert (following from the social-relativist / functionalist research paradigm and role of analyst declared in (Noran, 2001)).

The primary goals in the current research are perceived to be system design and scientific knowledge.

Any project aspiring to successfully employ AR should also address the following essential issues (Avison et al., 2001):

- initiation: in this case, research and problem driven40 (researcher discovered the problem but also vice versa (Root-Bernstein, 1989));

- determination of authority: here, formally defined in the university policies - distributed mainly between the researcher (PhD student), and primary and secondary supervisors.

- degree of formalisation: in the present research, formal mechanisms exist for project renegotiation / change of focus in the university PhD policies.

39 theories guiding behaviour vs. theories spoken by the participants (Avison, Baskerville, & Myers,

2001). 40 it is also 'problem driven' because in the current EI practitioner environment fragmentation,

specialisation and incompatibility of the modelling methods have created the practical problem of what and how to use, for which problem.

PhD Research Design Appendix C

viii

Fig. C. 1 The dual cycle of Action research ((Checkland, 1991; McKay & Marshall, 2001))

Fig. C. 1 highlights a view on AR emphasizing its duality: theoretical and practical. The terms

(as applied to the current research) have the following meanings: Theoretical Framework F: GERAM

Research Methodology MR: Action Research itself (McKay & Marshall, 2001), comprising other research methods;

Problem Solving Methodology MPS: The meta-methodology; Theoretical problem A: How to formalise the theoretical model and the process

of mapping of the various frameworks onto the model;

How to construct a meta-methodology using (among others) the devised formalisations;

Real World Problem P: For a given EI problem, how to combine / apply existing modelling methodologies to achieve a complete and consistent enterprise modelling method41.

For the purpose of this project, both research and action are cycles, i.e. the researcher (and the

host organisation where applicable) may iterate through them more than once. In addition, the research cycle would occur more often than the action cycle.

! Back to TOC

41 The purpose of which is to achieve enterprise models, which ultimately enable the change process(es).

PhD Research Design Appendix D

ix

Appendix D: Glossary42.

AI: Artificial Intelligence CASE: Computer Aided Software Engineering EA: Enterprise Architectures EI: Enterprise Integration EM: Enterprise Modelling EMD: Enterprise Model ER: Entity Relationship GERAM: The Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology Here: the current research project IFIP: International Federation for Information Processing IFAC: International Federation for Automation and Control IS: Information System ISD: Information Systems Development ISDA: Information System Development Approach ISDM: Information System Development Methodology ISR: Information Systems Research IT: Information Technology MF: Modelling Framework. Phase: used here interchangeably with Activity. ! Back to TOC

42 All abbreviations have also been stated in full when first occurred in the text.