Open Source Enterprise Systems: Towards a Viable Alternative

Enterprise systems are located within the antinomy of appearing as generic product, while being means of multiple integrations for the user through configuration and customisation. Technological and organisational integrations are defined by architectures and standardised interfaces. Until recently, technological integration of enterprise systems has been supported largely by monolithic architectures that were designed, and maintained by the respective developers. From a technical perspective, this approach had been challenged by the suggestion of component-based enterprise systems that would allow for a more user-focused system through strict modularisation. Lately, the product nature of software as proprietary item has been questioned through the rapid increase of open source programs that are being used in business computing in general, and also within the overall portfolio that makes up enterprise systems. This suggests the potential for altered technological and commercial constellations for the design of enterprise systems, which are presented in different scenarios. The technological and commercial decomposition of enterprise software and systems may also address some concerns emerging from the users’ experience of those systems, and which may have arisen from their proprietary or product nature.

Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model

Practitioners and academics have developed numerous maturity models for many domains in order to measure competency. These initiatives have often been influenced by the Capability Maturity Model. However, an accumulative effort has not been made to generalize the phases of developing a maturity model in any domain. This paper proposes such a methodology and outlines the main phases of generic model development. The proposed methodology is illustrated with the help of examples from two advanced maturity models in the domains of Business Process Management and Knowledge Management.

A natural model for architecture : the nature of the evolutionary model 1995

John Frazer's architectural work is inspired by living and generative processes. Both evolutionary and revolutionary, it explores informatin ecologies and the dynamics of the spaces between objects. Fuelled by an interest in the cybernetic work of Gordon Pask and Norbert Wiener, and the possibilities of the computer and the "new science" it has facilitated, Frazer and his team of collaborators have conducted a series of experiments that utilize genetic algorithms, cellular automata, emergent behaviour, complexity and feedback loops to create a truly dynamic architecture. Frazer studied at the Architectural Association (AA) in London from 1963 to 1969, and later became unit master of Diploma Unit 11 there. He was subsequently Director of Computer-Aided Design at the University of Ulter - a post he held while writing An Evolutionary Architecture in 1995 - and a lecturer at the University of Cambridge. In 1983 he co-founded Autographics Software Ltd, which pioneered microprocessor graphics. Frazer was awarded a person chair at the University of Ulster in 1984. In Frazer's hands, architecture becomes machine-readable, formally open-ended and responsive. His work as computer consultant to Cedric Price's Generator Project of 1976 (see P84)led to the development of a series of tools and processes; these have resulted in projects such as the Calbuild Kit (1985) and the Universal Constructor (1990). These subsequent computer-orientated architectural machines are makers of architectural form beyond the full control of the architect-programmer. Frazer makes much reference to the multi-celled relationships found in nature, and their ongoing morphosis in response to continually changing contextual criteria. He defines the elements that describe his evolutionary architectural model thus: "A genetic code script, rules for the development of the code, mapping of the code to a virtual model, the nature of the environment for the development of the model and, most importantly, the criteria for selection. In setting out these parameters for designing evolutionary architectures, Frazer goes beyond the usual notions of architectural beauty and aesthetics. Nevertheless his work is not without an aesthetic: some pieces are a frenzy of mad wire, while others have a modularity that is reminiscent of biological form. Algorithms form the basis of Frazer's designs. These algorithms determine a variety of formal results dependent on the nature of the information they are given. His work, therefore, is always dynamic, always evolving and always different. Designing with algorithms is also critical to other architects featured in this book, such as Marcos Novak (see p150). Frazer has made an unparalleled contribution to defining architectural possibilities for the twenty-first century, and remains an inspiration to architects seeking to create responsive environments. Architects were initially slow to pick up on the opportunities that the computer provides. These opportunities are both representational and spatial: computers can help architects draw buildings and, more importantly, they can help architects create varied spaces, both virtual and actual. Frazer's work was groundbreaking in this respect, and well before its time.

Business process modeling : current issues and future challenges

Business process modeling has undoubtedly emerged as a popular and relevant practice in Information Systems. Despite being an actively researched field, anecdotal evidence and experiences suggest that the focus of the research community is not always well aligned with the needs of industry. The main aim of this paper is, accordingly, to explore the current issues and the future challenges in business process modeling, as perceived by three key stakeholder groups (academics, practitioners, and tool vendors). We present the results of a global Delphi study with these three groups of stakeholders, and discuss the findings and their implications for research and practice. Our findings suggest that the critical areas of concern are standardization of modeling approaches, identification of the value proposition of business process modeling, and model-driven process execution. These areas are also expected to persist as business process modeling roadblocks in the future.