|
All |
Reference Books |
Focus Books |
Study Guides |
|
Definitions |
Intro |
PF2 |
POET |
PEAF |
Transformation
Debt |
What Is
EA |
EA
Tools |
ETMC |
Culture |
Foundation
Part A |
Foundation
Part B |
Certified
Part A |
Certified
Part B |
BOOK - Enterprise Transformation - A Pragmatic Approach Using POET
There are many meta-models out there. Some large, some small
but they all tend to describe generally the same things albeit using different
names a lot of the time.
Most meta-models have many entities related to the Structure
of the Enterprise. The WHAT; Departments, Locations, Processes, Applications,
etc, etc and most meta-models also allow for the composition and decomposition
of these entities. Although not explicit, there is also the general notion that
these things can exist at different levels of Idealisation/Realisation (one
type of Abstraction) - from the very Ideal at the top (Contextual), to the very
Real at the bottom (Operational).
Over time, many meta-model users and providers realised that
while the structure of something is very important - especially in terms of
being able to change it, there needs to be some other information that ties the
existence of a particular structure up to some kind of requirements or notion
of WHY…
|
Questions to ponder... |
Since Idealisation/Realisation is the key type of abstraction related to Transformation, do you think that meta-models should explicitly define and state which entities are associated with which levels of idealisation/realisation? | If not, what will you use to describe structural information in a way that enables transformation? | If it is not defined, what problems do you think will result? |
|
