Identification of key process areas in the production on an e-capability maturity model for UK construction organisations

Uptake of e-procurement by construction organisations has been slow (Martin, 2008). Positive e-business achievements in other industries, point towards the potential for the construction industry to accomplish similar results. Since the Modernising Government White paper set targets through best value indicator BV157 for implementation in the public sector, Government has supported many initiatives encouraging e-procurement. These are based on documented efficiency and cost savings (Knudsen, 2003; Minahan and Degan, 2001; McIntosh and Sloan, 2001; Martin, 2008). However, Martin (2003, 2008) demonstrates only a modest increase in the uptake of e-procurement in the UK construction industry. Alshawi et al (2004) identified the significance of possessing a model to sustain the embedment of any business process within an organisation. Saleh and Alshawi (2005) describe a number of model types used to gauge maturity in an organisation. One of these models is the capability maturity model. Paulk et al (1993) released the Software Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in 1991. Since then many CMM’s have evolved. This paper reports on how a CMM based on Drivers and Barriers to e-procurement identified in Eadie et al (2009) can be developed to gauge the maturity of an organisation in relation to e-procurement. This paper presents details of a research project which used factor analysis to produce a set of Key Process Areas (KPA) from the drivers and barriers identified in Eadie et al (2009). These KPAs were then subjected to a mapping process linking them to maturity levels to develop a CMM to analyse the e-procurement capability of construction organisations. The mapping will be reported in a later paper. This termed as e-readiness of organisations will indicate the current state of a construction organisation in terms of its readiness to carry out e-procurement. The paper describes in detail the identification of the KPA’s

Maturity Model for Interoperability Potential Measurement

Interoperability potential concerns the preparation level of an enterprise to establish an efficient collaboration with possible part- ners. In order to improve their interoperability, enterprises need to know witch level of maturity they have achieved. This article pro- poses a complete maturity model composed by a methodology and a reference set of parameters to measure interoperability potential. In order to clarify the proposal, an example of application in a real case is described.Campos, C.; Chalmeta, R.; Grangel, R.; Poler Escoto, R. (2013). Maturity Model for Interoperability Potential Measurement. Information Systems Management. 30(3):218-234. doi:10.1080/10580530.2013.794630S218234303Alfaro, J. J., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, R., Verdecho, M. J., & Ortiz, A. (2009). Business process interoperability and collaborative performance measurement. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 22(9), 877-889. doi:10.1080/09511920902866112Sabucedo, L. Á., & Rifón, L. A. (2010). Managing Citizen Profiles in the Domain of e-Government: The cPortfolio Project. Information Systems Management, 27(4), 309-319. doi:10.1080/10580530.2010.514181Berre, A.-J., Elvesæter, B., Figay, N., Guglielmina, C., Johnsen, S. G., Karlsen, D., … Lippe, S. (s. f.). The ATHENA Interoperability Framework. Enterprise Interoperability II, 569-580. doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-858-6_62Blanc, S., Ducq, Y., & Vallespir, B. (2007). Evolution management towards interoperable supply chains using performance measurement. Computers in Industry, 58(7), 720-732. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.011Campos, C., Martí, I., Grangel, R., Mascherpa, A. and Chalmeta, R. A methodological proposal for the development of an interoperability framework.Model Driven Interoperability for Sustainable Information Systems (MDISIS′08) (CAiSE′08). Vol. 340, pp.47–57. CEUR-WS. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-340/paper04.pdfChalmeta, R., & Grangel, R. (2005). Performance measurement systems for virtual enterprise integration. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 18(1), 73-84. doi:10.1080/0951192042000213164Doumeingts, G. and Chen, D. Basic concepts and approaches to develop interoperability of enterprise applications.PRO-VE,IFIP Conference Proceedings. Edited by: Camarinha-Matos, L. M. and Afsarmanesh, H. Vol. 262, pp.323–330. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Duque, A., Campos, C., Jimenez-Ruiz, E. and Chalmeta, R. An ontological solution to supprot interoperability in the textile industry.Second IFIP WG 5.8 International Workshop, IWEI 2009. Edited by: Poler, M. V. S. R. Vol. 38, pp.38–51. New York: Springer.Guédria, W., Naudet, Y., & Chen, D. (2008). Interoperability Maturity Models – Survey and Comparison –. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 273-282. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88875-8_48Hoving, R. (2007). Information Technology Leadership Challenges — Past, Present, and Future. Information Systems Management, 24(2), 147-153. doi:10.1080/10580530701221049Palomares, N., Campos, C., & Palomero, S. (2010). How to Develop a Questionnaire in Order to Measure Interoperability Levels in Enterprises. Enterprise Interoperability IV, 387-396. doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-257-5_36Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74-81. doi:10.1057/ejis.1995.

Study of Tools Interoperability

Interoperability of tools usually refers to a combination of methods and techniques that address the problem of making a collection of tools to work together. In this study we survey different notions that are used in this context: interoperability, interaction and integration. We point out relation between these notions, and how it maps to the interoperability problem. We narrow the problem area to the tools development in academia. Tools developed in such environment have a small basis for development, documentation and maintenance. We scrutinise some of the problems and potential solutions related with tools interoperability in such environment. Moreover, we look at two tools developed in the Formal Methods and Tools group1, and analyse the use of different integration techniques

User Experience for Model-Driven Engineering : Challenges and Future Directions

Since its infancy, Model Driven Engineering (MDE) research has primarily focused on technical issues. Although it is becoming increasingly common for MDE research papers to evaluate their theoretical and practical solutions, extensive usability studies are still uncommon. We observe a scarcity of User eXperience (UX)-related research in the MDE community, and posit that many existing tools and languages have room for improvement with respect to UX [26], [44], [37], where UX is a key focus area in the software development industry. We consider this gap a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed by the community if MDE is to gain widespread use. In this vision paper, we explore how and where UX fits into MDE by considering motivating use cases that revolve around different dimensions of integration: model integration, tool integration, and integration between process and tool support. Based on the literature and our collective experience in research and industrial collaborations, we propose future directions for addressing these challenges

Comparing and Contrasting e-Government Maturity Models: A Qualitative-Meta Synthesis

The e-government maturity model has dissimilar stages that range from basic to advance online interaction competence. E-government’s portals use the stages to determine maturity. The aim of this paper is to evaluate e-government maturity models through a comprehensive review of related literature by identifying and mapping cohesions across the models. Apparently, the paper picks seventeen different e-government maturity models and makes contrasts and comparisons using a qualitative meta-synthesis method. Ideally, the paper draws two key results namely presence, communication and integration are main stages involved in all the maturity models and the level of interaction and complexity are found in all models

Comparison of current common data environment tools in the construction industry

The basic premise of a Common Data Environment (CDE) proposed by ISO19650 is exposing all relevant data as a single source of truth for all stakeholders. This work investigates tools currently used as CDE solutions in the industry and their practical challenges. Data was collected through a web search, a survey, and semi-structured interviews with industry professionals. Twelve tools were identified and compared in a desk review providing insights into their strengths and weaknesses. The results show that multiple CDEs are needed throughout the project lifecycle as no tool on the market can provide required functionalities in all lifecycle phases

BlogForever D3.2: Interoperability Prospects

This report evaluates the interoperability prospects of the BlogForever platform. Therefore, existing interoperability models are reviewed, a Delphi study to identify crucial aspects for the interoperability of web archives and digital libraries is conducted, technical interoperability standards and protocols are reviewed regarding their relevance for BlogForever, a simple approach to consider interoperability in specific usage scenarios is proposed, and a tangible approach to develop a succession plan that would allow a reliable transfer of content from the current digital archive to other digital repositories is presented