Using real options to select stable Middleware-induced software architectures

The requirements that force decisions towards building distributed system architectures are usually of a non-functional nature. Scalability, openness, heterogeneity, and fault-tolerance are examples of such non-functional requirements. The current trend is to build distributed systems with middleware, which provide the application developer with primitives for managing the complexity of distribution, system resources, and for realising many of the non-functional requirements. As non-functional requirements evolve, the `coupling' between the middleware and architecture becomes the focal point for understanding the stability of the distributed software system architecture in the face of change. It is hypothesised that the choice of a stable distributed software architecture depends on the choice of the underlying middleware and its flexibility in responding to future changes in non-functional requirements. Drawing on a case study that adequately represents a medium-size component-based distributed architecture, it is reported how a likely future change in scalability could impact the architectural structure of two versions, each induced with a distinct middleware: one with CORBA and the other with J2EE. An option-based model is derived to value the flexibility of the induced-architectures and to guide the selection. The hypothesis is verified to be true for the given change. The paper concludes with some observations that could stimulate future research in the area of relating requirements to software architectures

D3.2 Cost Concept Model and Gateway Specification

This document introduces a Framework supporting the implementation of a cost concept model against which current and future cost models for curating digital assets can be benchmarked. The value built into this cost concept model leverages the comprehensive engagement by the 4C project with various user communities and builds upon our understanding of the requirements, drivers, obstacles and objectives that various stakeholder groups have relating to digital curation. Ultimately, this concept model should provide a critical input to the development and refinement of cost models as well as helping to ensure that the curation and preservation solutions and services that will inevitably arise from the commercial sector as ‘supply’ respond to a much better understood ‘demand’ for cost-effective and relevant tools. To meet acknowledged gaps in current provision, a nested model of curation which addresses both costs and benefits is provided. The goal of this task was not to create a single, functionally implementable cost modelling application; but rather to design a model based on common concepts and to develop a generic gateway specification that can be used by future model developers, service and solution providers, and by researchers in follow-up research and development projects.<p></p> The Framework includes:<p></p> • A Cost Concept Model—which defines the core concepts that should be included in curation costs models;<p></p> • An Implementation Guide—for the cost concept model that provides guidance and proposes questions that should be considered when developing new cost models and refining existing cost models;<p></p> • A Gateway Specification Template—which provides standard metadata for each of the core cost concepts and is intended for use by future model developers, model users, and service and solution providers to promote interoperability;<p></p> • A Nested Model for Digital Curation—that visualises the core concepts, demonstrates how they interact and places them into context visually by linking them to A Cost and Benefit Model for Curation.<p></p> This Framework provides guidance for data collection and associated calculations in an operational context but will also provide a critical foundation for more strategic thinking around curation such as the Economic Sustainability Reference Model (ESRM).<p></p> Where appropriate, definitions of terms are provided, recommendations are made, and examples from existing models are used to illustrate the principles of the framework

Social Security Administration: Workloads, Resources, and Service Delivery

Some Members of Congress have expressed concern about whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) has adequate resources to manage its workloads. The agency has struggled to provide quality service to the public. Backlogs in the disability programs have caused widespread concern. SSA’s efforts to ensure the accuracy of benefit payments have declined. Many applicants and beneficiaries have experienced long waits at field offices and on the phone. SSA’s workloads are growing as the population increases, the baby boomers retire, the economic situation worsens, and the agency takes on new and more complex responsibilities. SSA’s primary workload is administering the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. In addition, SSA provides substantial administrative support to Medicare and other programs, and partners with the Department of Homeland Security in verifying employment eligibility. The resources SSA has to meet its growing workloads include funding, staff, infrastructure, and management. In recent years, SSA’s administrative funding has increased, but has generally fallen short of requests by the SSA Commissioner and the Bush Administration. SSA’s FY2008 appropriation was the first time that Congress appropriated at or above the President’s budget request in over ten years. SSA’s staffing levels have decreased overall and fluctuated among the specialized staff who manage key workloads; at the same time, SSA’s productivity has increased, according to agency measures. The agency has gradually modernized its technological infrastructure and made efforts to streamline its processes, but independent analysts have argued that these initiatives fall short of what is needed to meet SSA’s growing workloads. Congress could facilitate changes at SSA through the appropriations and oversight processes. Options for congressional action include changing the amount of SSA’s administrative expenses and how they are financed. For example, the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has recommended that Congress increase funding for SSA’s administrative expenses, arguing that the agency does not have adequate resources. The board has also suggested excluding SSA’s administrative costs from discretionary spending caps. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recommended dedicating funds for program integrity. Congress could also use its oversight powers to encourage more effective management at SSA in areas such as implementing technological improvements, streamlining processes, and recruiting and retaining key staff. Congress could decide not to take any action. However, inaction would likely have consequences. As SSA’s workloads increase, it is unlikely that the agency would be able to reduce the backlogs in the disability programs, and possible that the backlogs would grow further, resulting in longer waits for potential beneficiaries. Managing growing workloads could also preclude efforts to maintain or increase the program integrity activities that are projected to save the Social Security and SSI programs money in the long run. Customer service problems could be difficult to address in the absence of additional staff or resources. Finally, SSA’s outdated computer systems pose security risks and are vulnerable to collapse, according to outside experts. This report provides an overview of SSA’s workloads, resources, and service delivery, as well as issues for Congress. It does not cover H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 98, which are intended to provide a stimulus to the economy. For more information on that legislation, please see CRS Report R40188, Comparison of Social Security Provisions in the Stimulus Packages Proposed by the House of Representatives and Senate. This report will not be updated

Becoming Lean pocket guide

This pocket guide aims to give an overview of what Lean is on a conceptual level, explain how Lean fits into the Higher Education setting, detail how Lean is being applied in the University, and give ideas about how Lean can be implemented in other areas of the University.Publisher PD

Working Paper: Measuring Job Creation in Private Sector Development

The Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED) Standard offers a best practice by outlining the key elements for practically and credibly estimating the results of Private Sector Development programmes, in a process which can be managed by programmes internally. It involves a few common impact indicators to ensure that donors will be able to add up their results across country programmes. The Standard is being piloted on a multi-agency basis; the DCED invites new programmes to join in adopting the approach