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.

Impact Evaluation of Interoperability Decision Variables on P2P Collaboration Performances

This article deals with the impact evaluation of interoperability decision variables on performance indicators of business processes. The case of partner companies is studied to show the interest of an Interoperability Service Utility (ISU) on business processes in a peer to peer (P2P) collaboration. Information described in the format and the ontology of a broadcasting entity is transformed by ISU into information with the format and the ontology of the receiving entity depending on the available resources of interoperation. These resources can be human operators with defined skill level or software modules of transformation in predefined languages. A design methodology of a global simulation model for estimating the impact of interoperability decision variables on performance indicators of business processes is proposed. Its implementation in an industrial case of collaboration shows its efficiency and its interest to motivate an investment in the technologies of enterprise interoperability

A Patient-Centered Framework for Evaluating Digital Maturity of Health Services: A Systematic Review

© Kelsey Flott, Ryan Callahan, Ara Darzi, Erik Mayer.Background: Digital maturity is the extent to which digital technologies are used as enablers to deliver a high-quality health service. Extensive literature exists about how to assess the components of digital maturity, but it has not been used to design a comprehensive framework for evaluation. Consequently, the measurement systems that do exist are limited to evaluating digital programs within one service or care setting, meaning that digital maturity evaluation is not accounting for the needs of patients across their care pathways. Objective: The objective of our study was to identify the best methods and metrics for evaluating digital maturity and to create a novel, evidence-based tool for evaluating digital maturity across patient care pathways. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature to find the best methods and metrics for evaluating digital maturity. We searched the PubMed database for all papers relevant to digital maturity evaluation. Papers were selected if they provided insight into how to appraise digital systems within the health service and if they indicated the factors that constitute or facilitate digital maturity. Papers were analyzed to identify methodology for evaluating digital maturity and indicators of digitally mature systems. We then used the resulting information about methodology to design an evaluation framework. Following that, the indicators of digital maturity were extracted and grouped into increasing levels of maturity and operationalized as metrics within the evaluation framework. Results: We identified 28 papers as relevant to evaluating digital maturity, from which we derived 5 themes. The first theme concerned general evaluation methodology for constructing the framework (7 papers). The following 4 themes were the increasing levels of digital maturity: resources and ability (6 papers), usage (7 papers), interoperability (3 papers), and impact (5 papers). The framework includes metrics for each of these levels at each stage of the typical patient care pathway. Conclusions: The framework uses a patient-centric model that departs from traditional service-specific measurements and allows for novel insights into how digital programs benefit patients across the health system

Designing and managing Organizational Interoperability with organizational capabilities and roadmaps

This paper discusses organizational interoperability issues in through the study of two cases. Then it presents a framework which can help to design and manage this interoperability, by driving the development of “organizational capabilities”.Organization learning, Functional interoperability

A Tale of Evaluation and Reporting in UK Smart Cities

Global trends towards urbanisation are associated with wide-ranging challenges and opportunities for cities. Smart technologies create new opportunities for a range of smart city development and regeneration programmes designed to address the environmental, economic and social challenges concentrated in cities. Whilst smart city programmes have received much publicity, there has been much less discussion about evaluation of smart city programmes and the measurement of their outcomes for cities. Existing evaluation approaches have been criticised as non-standard and inadequate, focusing more on implementation processes and investment metrics than on the impacts of smart city programmes on strategic city outcomes and progress. To examine this, the SmartDframe project conducted research on city approaches to the evaluation of smart city projects and programmes, and reporting of impacts on city outcomes. This included the ‘smarter’ UK cities of Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Milton Keynes and Peterborough. City reports and interviews with representative local government authorities informed the case study analysis. The report provides a series of smart city case studies that exemplify contemporary city practices, offering a timely, insightful contribution to city discourse about best practice approaches to evaluation and reporting of complex smart city projects and programmes