ImPACT: a multifaceted implementation for conversation partner training in aphasia in Dutch rehabilitation settings.

Purpose: Exploration of the clinical uptake of a novel conversation partner training (CPT) programme in aphasia in ten Dutch rehabilitation facilities and identification of its perceived facilitators and barriers in service providers, and the evaluation of the implementation methods used. Method: Ten rehabilitation centres took part in a multifaceted implementation of conversation partner training over thirteen months. Each centre selected two speech and language therapists to act as knowledge brokers whose role it was to raise awareness of CPT in the team and to facilitate getting partners of people with aphasia into the programme. The implementation was evaluated using analysis of recruitment data and questionnaires, supplemented by consensus data and scrutiny of implementation plans. Results: Successful implementation was described as 1) four dyads included during the intervention period, 2) two more dyads included after the intervention period, before the end of the study and 3) inclusion of Partners of Aphasic Clients Conversation Training (PACT) in a description of the logistics of local stroke care (stroke care pathway). Seven centres were successful in reaching the target inclusion of 6 dyads in total. Only one centre had care pathways in place. From a recruitment pool of 504 dyads, 41 dyads were recruited and 34 partners completed the implementation of PACT study (ImPACT). Observed facilitators included the motivation to engage partners in the rehabilitation process and the perceived added value of PACT. The perceived barriers focused on time limitations within current systems to discuss the consequences of PACT with relevant professionals and to establish allocated time for PACT within existing care routines. Conclusions: The motivation of professionals to involve partners in the rehabilitation process assisted with the introduction of PACT in practice. The main barrier was time, linked to the requirement to think through integration of this innovation within existing care. Longer term evaluation would ascertain how centres sustain uptake without support

Study protocol: developing a decision system for inclusive housing: applying a systematic, mixed-method quasi-experimental design

Background Identifying the housing preferences of people with complex disabilities is a much needed, but under-developed area of practice and scholarship. Despite the recognition that housing is a social determinant of health and quality of life, there is an absence of empirical methodologies that can practically and systematically involve consumers in this complex service delivery and housing design market. A rigorous process for making effective and consistent development decisions is needed to ensure resources are used effectively and the needs of consumers with complex disability are properly met. Methods/Design This 3-year project aims to identify how the public and private housing market in Australia can better respond to the needs of people with complex disabilities whilst simultaneously achieving key corporate objectives. First, using the Customer Relationship Management framework, qualitative (Nominal Group Technique) and quantitative (Discrete Choice Experiment) methods will be used to quantify the housing preferences of consumers and their carers. A systematic mixed-method, quasi-experimental design will then be used to quantify the development priorities of other key stakeholders (e.g., architects, developers, Government housing services etc.) in relation to inclusive housing for people with complex disabilities. Stakeholders randomly assigned to Group 1 (experimental group) will participate in a series of focus groups employing Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) methodology. Stakeholders randomly assigned to Group 2 (control group) will participate in focus groups employing existing decision making processes to inclusive housing development (e.g., Risk, Opportunity, Cost, Benefit considerations). Using comparative stakeholder analysis, this research design will enable the AHP methodology (a proposed tool to guide inclusive housing development decisions) to be tested. Discussion It is anticipated that the findings of this study will enable stakeholders to incorporate consumer housing preferences into commercial decisions. Housing designers and developers will benefit from the creation of a parsimonious set of consumer-led housing preferences by which to make informed investments in future housing and contribute to future housing policy. The research design has not been applied in the Australian research context or elsewhere, and will provide a much needed blueprint for market investment to develop viable, consumer directed inclusive housing options for people with complex disability

From evidence to best practice in the management of fractures of the distal radius in adults: working towards a research agenda

BACKGROUND: Fracture of the distal radius is a common clinical problem, particularly in older white women with osteoporosis. We report our work towards evidence-based and patient-centred care for adults with these injuries. METHODS: We developed a systematic programme of research that built on our systematic review of the evidence of effectiveness of treatment interventions for these fractures. We devised schemata showing 'typical' care pathways and identified over 100 patient management questions. These depicted the more important decisions taken when progressing along each care pathway. We compiled a comprehensive document summarising the evidence available for each decision point from our reviews of randomised trials of treatment interventions. Using these documents, we undertook a formal and structured consultation process involving key players, including a patient representative, to obtain their views on the available evidence and to establish a research agenda. The resulting feedback was then processed and interpreted, using systematic methods. RESULTS: Some evidence from 114 randomised trials was available for 31 of the 117 patient management questions. However, there was sufficient evidence to base some conclusions of effectiveness for particular interventions in only five of these. Though only 60% of those approached responded, the responses received from the consultation group were often comprehensive and provided important insights into treatment practice and policy. There was a clear acceptance of the aims of the project and, aside from some suggestions for the more explicit inclusion of secondary prevention and management of complications, of the care pathways scheme. Though some respondents stressed that randomised trials were not always appropriate, there was no direct overall criticism of the evidence document and underlying processes. We were able to identify important core themes that underpin management decisions and research from the feedback of the consultation exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this project is an important advance towards evidence-based and patient-centred management of adults with distal radial fractures. It exposes the serious deficiency in the available evidence but also provides a template for further action. As well as being a valuable basis for viewing and informing current practice, the insights gained from this project should inform a future research agenda

Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? an international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF

PURPOSE: To identify important treatment outcomes from the perspective of people with aphasia and their families using the ICF as a frame of reference. METHODS: The nominal group technique was used with people with aphasia and their family members in seven countries to identify and rank important treatment outcomes from aphasia rehabilitation. People with aphasia identified outcomes for themselves; and family members identified outcomes for themselves and for the person with aphasia. Outcomes were analysed using qualitative content analysis and ICF linking. RESULTS: A total of 39 people with aphasia and 29 family members participated in one of 16 nominal groups. Inductive qualitative content analysis revealed the following six themes: (1) Improved communication; (2) Increased life participation; (3) Changed attitudes through increased awareness and education about aphasia; (4) Recovered normality; (5) Improved physical and emotional well-being; and (6) Improved health (and support) services. Prioritized outcomes for both participant groups linked to all ICF components; primary activity/participation (39%) and body functions (36%) for people with aphasia, and activity/participation (49%) and environmental factors (28%) for family members. Outcomes prioritized by family members relating to the person with aphasia, primarily linked to body functions (60%). CONCLUSIONS: People with aphasia and their families identified treatment outcomes which span all components of the ICF. This has implications for research outcome measurement and clinical service provision which currently focuses on the measurement of body function outcomes. The wide range of desired outcomes generated by both people with aphasia and their family members, highlights the importance of collaborative goal setting within a family-centred approach to rehabilitation. These results will be combined with other stakeholder perspectives to establish a core outcome set for aphasia treatment research. Implications for Rehabilitation Important outcomes for people with aphasia and their families span all components of the ICF. The relevancy and translation of research findings may be increased by measuring and reporting research outcomes which are important to people living with aphasia. The results of this study indicate that important treatment outcomes for people living with aphasia most frequently link to the activity/participation and body function components of the ICF. The outcomes identified in this study suggest a broad role for clinicians working in aphasia rehabilitation. The categories of identified outcomes may be used clinically as a starting point in goal-setting discussions with clients and their families

A multidimensional evaluation framework for personal learning environments

Evaluating highly dynamic and heterogeneous Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) is extremely challenging. Components of PLEs are selected and configured by individual users based on their personal preferences, needs, and goals. Moreover, the systems usually evolve over time based on contextual opportunities and constraints. As such dynamic systems have no predefined configurations and user interfaces, traditional evaluation methods often fall short or are even inappropriate. Obviously, a host of factors influence the extent to which a PLE successfully supports a learner to achieve specific learning outcomes. We categorize such factors along four major dimensions: technological, organizational, psycho-pedagogical, and social. Each dimension is informed by relevant theoretical models (e.g., Information System Success Model, Community of Practice, self-regulated learning) and subsumes a set of metrics that can be assessed with a range of approaches. Among others, usability and user experience play an indispensable role in acceptance and diffusion of the innovative technologies exemplified by PLEs. Traditional quantitative and qualitative methods such as questionnaire and interview should be deployed alongside emergent ones such as learning analytics (e.g., context-aware metadata) and narrative-based methods. Crucial for maximal validity of the evaluation is the triangulation of empirical findings with multi-perspective (end-users, developers, and researchers), mixed-method (qualitative, quantitative) data sources. The framework utilizes a cyclic process to integrate findings across cases with a cross-case analysis in order to gain deeper insights into the intriguing questions of how and why PLEs work

Patient preferences for the allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation: a mixed methods study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Deceased donor kidneys are a scarce health resource, yet patient preferences for organ allocation are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to determine patient preferences for how kidneys should be allocated for transplantation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients on dialysis and kidney transplant recipients were purposively selected from two centres in Australia to participate in nominal/focus groups in March 2011. Participants identified and ranked criteria they considered important for deceased donor kidney allocation. Transcripts were thematically analysed to identify reasons for their rankings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From six groups involving 37 participants, 23 criteria emerged. Most agreed that matching, wait-list time, medical urgency, likelihood of surviving surgery, age, comorbidities, duration of illness, quality of life, number of organs needed and impact on the recipient's life circumstances were important considerations. Underpinning their rankings were four main themes: enhancing life, medical priority, recipient valuation, and deservingness. These were predominantly expressed as achieving equity for all patients, or priority for specific sub-groups of potential recipients regarded as more "deserving".</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients believed any wait-listed individual who would gain life expectancy and quality of life compared with dialysis should have access to transplantation. Equity of access to transplantation for all patients and justice for those who would look after their transplant were considered important. A utilitarian rationale based on maximizing health gains from the allocation of a scarce resource to avoid "wastage," were rarely expressed. Organ allocation organisations need to seek input from patients who can articulate preferences for allocation and advocate for equity and justice in organ allocation.</p

An exploration of the use of simple statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The criteria for stopping Delphi studies are often subjective. This study aimed to examine whether consensus and stability in the Delphi process can be ascertained by descriptive evaluation of trends in participants' views.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A three round email-based Delphi required participants (n = 12) to verify their level of agreement with 8 statements, write comments on each if they considered it necessary and rank the statements for importance. Each statement was analysed quantitatively by the percentage of agreement ratings, importance rankings and the amount of comments made for each statement, and qualitatively using thematic analysis. Importance rankings between rounds were compared by calculating Kappa values to observe trends in how the process impacts on subject's views.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Evolution of consensus was shown by increase in agreement percentages, convergence of range with standard deviations of importance ratings, and a decrease in the number of comments made. Stability was demonstrated by a trend of increasing Kappa values.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Following the original use of Delphi in social sciences, Delphi is suggested to be an effective way to gain and measure group consensus in healthcare. However, the proposed analytical process should be followed to ensure maximum validity of results in Delphi methodology for improved evidence of consensual decision-making.</p

Responsive Production in Manufacturing: A Modular Architecture

[EN] This paper proposes an architecture aiming at promoting the convergence of the physical and digital worlds, through CPS and IoT technologies, to accommodate more customized and higher quality products following Industry 4.0 concepts. The architecture combines concepts such as cyber-physical systems, decentralization, modularity and scalability aiming at responsive production. Combining these aspects with virtualization, contextualization, modeling and simulation capabilities it will enable self-adaptation, situational awareness and decentralized decision-making to answer dynamic market demands and support the design and reconfiguration of the manufacturing enterprise.The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union H2020 project C2 NET (FoF-01-2014) nr 636909.Marques, M.; Agostinho, C.; Zacharewicz, G.; Poler, R.; Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2018). Responsive Production in Manufacturing: A Modular Architecture. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control. 140:231-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78437-3_10S231254140European Commission: For a European Industrial Renaissance, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (2014)Hartmann, B., King, W.P., Narayanan, S.: Digital manufacturing: the revolution will be virtualized. McKinsey & Company (2015)European Forum for Manufacture: Driving Innovation and Growth in European Manufacturing (2015)European Factories of the Future Research Association (EFFRA): Factories of the Future: Multi-annual Roadmap for the Contractual PPP under the Horizon 2020 (2013)European Commission: Horizon 2020—Work Programme 2016–2017: 17. Cross-cutting Activities (2016)Schlaepfer, R.C., Koch, M., Merkofer, P.: Industry 4.0 challenges and solutions for the digital transformation and use of exponential technologies. Deloitte AG (2015)7iD: Industry 4.0. https://www.7id.com/technology/industry-4-0/ (2016)European Commission: Horizon 2020—Work Program 2016-2017—Cross-cutting Activities, 25 July 2016EFFRA: Factories of the Future: Multi-annual Roadmap for the Contractual PPP under the Horizon 2020 (2013)FInES Research Roadmap Task Force (2012)Jacinto, J.: Smart manufacturing? Industry 4.0? What’s it all about? Siements Totally Integrated Automation, Automation World & Design World (2014)Monostori, L.: Cyber-physical production systems: roots, expectations and R&D challenges. Procedia CIRP 17, 9–13 (2014)Adolphs, P.: RAMI 4.0—An architectural Model for Industrie 4.0. Platform Industrie 4.0 (2015)Collins, M.: Why America has a shortage of skilled workers. Industry Week (2015)Forbes, J., Naujok, N., Geissbauer, R., Vedso, J., Schrauf, S.: Industry 4.0: building the digital enterprise. PWC (2016)World Economic Forum Industrial Internet Survey (2014)Chen, D., Vernadat, F.B.: Enterprise interoperability: a standardisation view. Enterprise Inter- and Intra-Organizational Integration, Volume 108 of the series IFIP—The International Federation for Information Processing, pp. 273–282 (2003)Yan, L., Li, Z., Yuan, X.: Study on method-of-robust-multidisciplinary-design-collaborative-decision for product design. Inf. Technol. J. 8(4), 441–452 (2009)Ruiz Dominguez, G. A.: Caractérisation de l’activité de conception collaborative à distance: étude des effets de synchronisation cognitive (2005)Jung, J.J.: Reusing ontology mappings for query routing in semantic peer-to-peer environment. Inf. Sci. (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2010.04.018Ranjan, R., Zhao, L., Wu, X., Liu, A., Quiroz, A., Parashar, M.: Peer-to-Peer Cloud Provisioning: Service Discovery and Load-Balancing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-241-4_12Agostinho, C., Pinto, P., Jardim-goncalves, R.: Dynamic adaptors to support model-driven interoperability and enhance sensing enterprise networks. In: 19th World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC’14), Cape Town, South Africa (2014)Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., Vernadat, F.: Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: past, present and future. Comput. Ind. 59, 647–659 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.016Ducq, Y., Chen, D., Alix, T.: Principles of servitization and definition of an architecture for model driven service system engineering. In: 4th International IFIP Working Conference on Enterprise Interoperability (IWEI 2012), Harbin, China, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33068-17_12Elvesæter, B., Hahn, A., Berre, A., Neple, T.: Towards an interoperability framework for model-driven development of software systems. In: 1st International Conference on Interoperability Enterprise Software and Applications. Springer. http://www.springerlink.com/index/L10NU4306N054T6G.pdf (2005)OMG: MDA Guide Version 1.0.1 (omg/2003-06-01), Object Management Group. http://www.omg.org/cgibin/doc?omg/03-06-01.pdf (2003)Agostinho, C., Ducq, Y., Zacharewicz, G., Sarraipa, J., Lampathaki, F., Poler, R., Jardim-Goncalves, R.: Towards a sustainable interoperability in networked enterprise information systems: trends of knowledge and model-driven technology. Comput. Ind. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.001Santucci, G., Martinez, C., Vlad-câlcic, D.: The sensing enterprise. In: FInES Work. FIA 2012, Aalborg, Denmark. http://www.theinternetofthings.eu/sites/default/files/%5Buser-name%5D/Sensing-enterprise.pdf (2012)Sriram, R.: Smart networked systems and societies: what will the future look like? In: IEEE IT Professional Conference (IT Pro). IEEE Computer Society (2014)Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., et al.: Big data: the next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/big_data_the_next_frontier_for_innovation (2011)Zacharewicz, G., Diallo, S., Ducq, Y., Agostinho, C., Jardim-Goncalves, R., Bazoun, H., Wang, Z., Doumeingts, G.: Model-based approaches for interoperability of next generation enterprise information systems: state of the art and future challenges. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-016-0317-8Jardim-Goncalves, R., Agostinho, C., Steiger-Garcao, A.: A reference model for sustainable interoperability in networked enterprises: towards the foundation of EI science base. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 25(10) (2012). (Special Issue on Collaborative Manufacturing and Supply Chains). https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192x.2011.653831Schatsky, D., Muraskin, C.: Blockchain is coming to disrupt your industry. Deloitte (2015)Shi, J., Wan, J., Yan, H., Suo, H.: A survey of cyber-physical systems. In: International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing, pp. 1–6 (2011)Rajkumar, R.: Workshop report on foundations for innovation in cyber-physical systems. NIST. http://www.nist.gov/el/upload/CPS-WorkshopReport-1-30-13-Final.pdf/ (2013)Lee, J., Lapira, E., Yang, S. Kao, H.-A.: Predictive manufacturing system trends of next generation production systems. In: 11th IFAC Workshop on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, vol. 11, issue 1, pp. 150–156 (2013)IDC: The digital universe of opportunities: rich data and increasing value of the internet of things. EMC Digital Universe. emc.com/collateral/analyst-reports/idc-digital-universe-2014.pdf . (2014)Baheti, R., Gill, H.: Cyber-physical systems. Impact Control Technol. 1–6 (2011)Lee, J., Bagheri, B., Kao, H.-A.: A cyber physical systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing system. Manuf. Lett. 2015, 3, 18–23 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001Bagheri, B., Lee, J.: Big future for cyber-physical manufacturing systems. Design World. http://www.designworldonline.com/big-future-for-cyber-physical-manufacturing-systems/ (2015)Lucke, D., Constantinescu, C., Westkämper, E.: Smart factory-a step towards the next generation of manufacturing. Manufacturing Systems and Technologies for the New Frontier, pp. 115–118. Springer, London (2008)Weiser, M.: The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, Special Issue on Communications. Comput. Netw. (1991)Westkämper, E., Jendoubi, L., Eissele, M., Ertl, T.: Smart factory—bridging the gap between digital planning and reality. Manuf. Syst. 35(4), 307–314 (2006)Goryachev, A., Kozhevnikov, S., Kolbova, E., Kuznetsov, O., Simonova, E., Skobelev, P., Tsarev, A., Shepilov, Y.: Smart factory: intelligent system for workshop resource allocation, scheduling, optimization and controlling in real time. Adv. Mater. Res. 630, 508–513 (2012)Agostinho, C., Marques-Lucena, C., Sesana, M., Felic, A., Fischer, K., Rubattino, C., Sarraipa, J.: Osmosis process development for innovative product design and validation. 2015 ASME IMECE, Houston, USA (2015)Ko, J., Lee, B., Lee, K., Hong, S.G., Kim, N., Paek, J.: Sensor virtualization module: virtualizing IoT devices on mobile smartphones for effective sensor data management. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/730762Guo, T., Papaioannou, T.G., Aberer, K.: Efficient indexing and query processing of model-view sensor data in the cloud. J. Big Data Res. 1, 52–65 (2014)Kumra, S., Sharma, L., Khanna, Y., Chattri, A.: Analysing an industrial automation pyramid and providing service oriented architecture. Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. 3(5), 586–594 (2012)Endsley, M.: Design and evaluation for situational awareness enhancement. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting. HFES, Santa Monica, pp. 97–10 (1988)Stanton, N.A., Chambers, P.R., Piggott, J.: Situational awareness and safety. Saf. Sci. 39(3), 189–204 (2001)Endsley, M.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors (The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society) 37, 32–64 (1995)Bedny, G., Meister, D.: Theory of activity and situation awareness. Int. J. Cogn. Ergon. 3(1), 63–72 (1999)Smith, K., Hancock, P.A.: Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness. Hum. Factors (The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society) 37(1), 137–148 (1995)Ranganathan, A., Campbell, R.H.: An infrastructure for context-awareness based on first order logic. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 7(6), 353–364 (2003)Ning, K., Scholze, S., Marques, M., Campos, A, Neves-Silva, R. O’Sullivan, D.: A service oriented platform for context aware knowledge enhancing. In: 5th IFAC Conference on Management and Control of Production and Logistics (2010)Marques, M., Sucic, B., Vuk, T.: Context-based decision support for sustainable optimization of energy consumption. KES Trans. Sustain. Des. Manuf. 1(1), 899–910 (2014)Schneeweiss, C.: Distributed decision making in supply chain management. Int. J. Product. Econ. 84, 71–83 (2003)Alemany, M.M.E., Alarcón, F., Lario, F.C., Boj, J.J.: An application to support the temporal and spatial distributed decision-making process in supply chain collaborative planning. Comput. Ind. 62(5), 519–540 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2011.02.002Hong, I.H., Ammons, J.C., Realff, M.J.: Centralized versus decentralized decision-making for recycled material flows. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(4), 1172–1177 (2008)Pibernik, R., Sucky, E.: An approach to inter-domain master planning in supply chains. Int. J. Product. Econ. 108, 200–212 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.12.010Lee, H., Whang, S.: Decentralized multi-echelon supply chains: incentives and information. Manag. Sci. 45(5), 633–640 (1999)Jung, H., Chen, F., Jeong, B.: Decentralized supply chain planning framework for third party logistics partnership. Comput. Ind. Eng. 55(2), 348–364 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.12.017Wang, K.-J., Chen, M.-J.: Cooperative capacity planning and resource allocation by mutual outsourcing using ant algorithm in a decentralized supply chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(2), 2831–2842 (2009)Simon, H.A.: The Science of the Artificial, 1st edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, (1969). (3rd ed. in 1996, MIT Press)Mesarovic, M.D., Masko, D., Takahara, Y.: Theory of Hierarchical Multilevel Systems. Academic Press, New York and London (1970)Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H.J.: Collaborative networks: a new scientific discipline. J. Intell. Manuf. 16(4), 439–452 (2005)Popplewell, K., Stojanovic, N., Abecker, A., Apostolou, D., Mentzas, G., Harding, J.: Supporting adaptive enterprise collaboration through semantic knowledge services. In: Enterprise Interoperability Iii: New Challenges and Industrial Approaches, pp. 381–393 (2008). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-221-0_30Agostinho, C., Ducq, Y., Zacharewicz, G., Sarraipa, J., Lampathaki, F., Jardim-Goncalves, R., Poler, R.: Towards a sustainable interoperability in networked enterprise information systems: trends of knowledge and model-driven technology. Accepted for Publication at Computers in Industry. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.001Agostinho, C., Jardim-Gonçalves, R.: Sustaining interoperability of networked liquid-sensing enterprises: a complex systems perspective. Annu. Rev. Control 39, 128–143 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2015.03.012Weichhart, G., Molina, A., Chen, D., Whitman, L. E., Vernadat, F.: Challenges and current developments for sensing, smart and sustainable enterprise systems. Computers in Industry (2015). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.002Weichhart, G.: Supporting Interoperability for Chaotic and Complex Adaptive Enterprise Systems. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2013 Workshops. Confederated International Workshops: OTM Academy, OTM Industry Case Studies Program, ACM, EI2N, ISDE, META4eS, ORM, SeDeS, SINCOM, SMS, and SOMOCO 2013. Proceedings: LNCS 8186, 86–92. (2013). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41033-8_14Truex, D.P., Baskerville, R., Klein, H.: Growing systems in emergent organizations. Mag. Commun. ACM CACM Homepage Arch. 42(8), 117–123 (1999)Weiberg, S.: Facilitating collaborative decision-making in six steps. International Association of Facilitators Annual Meeting, pp. 14–15 (1999)Delbecq, A.L., VandeVen, A.H.: A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 7, 466–492 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637100700404Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA (1980