Cloud EnterprisePLUS [E+] - User contributions [en]

Objects:Meta Object Nature

2015-09-04T06:28:12Z

90.185.212.37:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Meta Object Nature}}

<div class="nature">
<onlyinclude></onlyinclude>{| class="wikitable"
!colspan="17"|Conceptual & Logical Object Clustering
|-
! rowspan="2" style="background-color:#575757;"| LEAD Meta Object !! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #48D0FF"|Purpose & Goal
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #0B98D6"|Business Competency
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #014480" |Business Service
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #1F992D"|Business Process
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #F7B206"|Application
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #F08D00"|Data
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #DC5028"|Platform
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #A0281E"|Infrastructure
|-
|#
|Name
|#
|Name
|#
|Name
|
|
|#
|Name
|#
|Name
|#
|Name
|#
|Name
|-
| rowspan="3" |'''Type**'''
|H
|High
|(D)
|Core Differentiating
|(R)
|Management
|(R)
|Management
|
|
|(A)
|Master
|
|
|
|
|-
||M
|Medium
|(C)
|Core Competitive
|(M)
|Main
|(M)
|Main
|
|
|(E)
|Meta
|
|
|
|
|-
|L
|Low
|(N)
|Non-Core
|(S)
|Supporting
|(S)
|Supporting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| rowspan="5" |'''Level <br/>*(decomposition)'''
|1
|SBOs
|1
|Competency Area
|1
|Service Area
|1
|Process Area
|1
|Component
|1
|Component
|1
|Component
|1
|Component
|-
|2
|BPIs
|2
|Competency Group
|2
|Service Group
|2
|Process Group
|2
|Module
|2
|Data Object
|2
|Device
|2
|Device
|-
|3
|CSFs
|3
|Business Competency
|3
|Business Service
|3
|Business Process
|3
|Function
|3
|Entity
|3
|Function
|3
|Function
|-
|4
|KPIs
|
|
|
|
|4
|Steps
|4
|Task
|4
|Data Service
|4
|Platform Service
|4
|Infrastructure Service
|-
|5
|PPIs/SPI
|
|
|
|
|5
|Activities
|5
|Service
|5
|Data Table
|
|
|
|
|-
| rowspan="3" |'''Tiers*'''
|S
|Strategic
|S
|Strategic
|
|
|S
|Strategic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|T
|Tactical
|T
|Tactical
|
|
|T
|Tactical
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|O
|Operational
|O
|Operational
|
|
|O
|Operational
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| rowspan="3" |'''Nature**'''
|
|
|n.a.
|Simple/Static
|n.a.
|Simple/Static
|n.a.
|Simple/Static
|
|
|
|Structured
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|n.a.
|Generic/Hybrid
|n.a.
|Generic/Hybrid
|n.a.
|Generic/Hybrid
|
|
|
|Unstructured
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|n.a.
|Complex/Dynamic
|n.a.
|Complex/Dynamic
|n.a.
|Complex/Dynamic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|}
</div>

<nowiki>*Classify = to assemble by order
</nowiki> **Categorize = to divide into groups

[[Category:Objects]]

Objects:Meta Object Nature

2015-09-04T06:27:28Z

90.185.212.37:

<div class="nature">
<onlyinclude></onlyinclude>{| class="wikitable"
!colspan="17"|Conceptual & Logical Object Clustering
|-
! rowspan="2" style="background-color:#575757;"| LEAD Meta Object !! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #48D0FF"|Purpose & Goal
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #0B98D6"|Business Competency
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #014480" |Business Service
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #1F992D"|Business Process
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #F7B206"|Application
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #F08D00"|Data
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #DC5028"|Platform
! colspan="2" style="color:white; background-color: #A0281E"|Infrastructure
|-
|#
|Name
|#
|Name
|#
|Name
|
|
|#
|Name
|#
|Name
|#
|Name
|#
|Name
|-
| rowspan="3" |'''Type**'''
|H
|High
|(D)
|Core Differentiating
|(R)
|Management
|(R)
|Management
|
|
|(A)
|Master
|
|
|
|
|-
||M
|Medium
|(C)
|Core Competitive
|(M)
|Main
|(M)
|Main
|
|
|(E)
|Meta
|
|
|
|
|-
|L
|Low
|(N)
|Non-Core
|(S)
|Supporting
|(S)
|Supporting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| rowspan="5" |'''Level <br/>*(decomposition)'''
|1
|SBOs
|1
|Competency Area
|1
|Service Area
|1
|Process Area
|1
|Component
|1
|Component
|1
|Component
|1
|Component
|-
|2
|BPIs
|2
|Competency Group
|2
|Service Group
|2
|Process Group
|2
|Module
|2
|Data Object
|2
|Device
|2
|Device
|-
|3
|CSFs
|3
|Business Competency
|3
|Business Service
|3
|Business Process
|3
|Function
|3
|Entity
|3
|Function
|3
|Function
|-
|4
|KPIs
|
|
|
|
|4
|Steps
|4
|Task
|4
|Data Service
|4
|Platform Service
|4
|Infrastructure Service
|-
|5
|PPIs/SPI
|
|
|
|
|5
|Activities
|5
|Service
|5
|Data Table
|
|
|
|
|-
| rowspan="3" |'''Tiers*'''
|S
|Strategic
|S
|Strategic
|
|
|S
|Strategic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|T
|Tactical
|T
|Tactical
|
|
|T
|Tactical
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|O
|Operational
|O
|Operational
|
|
|O
|Operational
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| rowspan="3" |'''Nature**'''
|
|
|n.a.
|Simple/Static
|n.a.
|Simple/Static
|n.a.
|Simple/Static
|
|
|
|Structured
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|n.a.
|Generic/Hybrid
|n.a.
|Generic/Hybrid
|n.a.
|Generic/Hybrid
|
|
|
|Unstructured
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|n.a.
|Complex/Dynamic
|n.a.
|Complex/Dynamic
|n.a.
|Complex/Dynamic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|}
</div>
<nowiki>*Classify = to assemble by order
</nowiki> **Categorize = to divide into groups

[[Category:Objects]]

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Meta Object Nature}}

Main page

2015-09-02T09:01:59Z

90.185.212.37: Blanked the page

Main

2015-09-02T09:01:38Z

90.185.212.37: Blanked the page

Objects:About Enterprise Ontology

2015-07-17T11:37:06Z

90.185.212.37:

The Enterprise Ontology Reference Framework

The Global University Alliance (GUA) is an open group of academics with the ambition to provide both business and academia with state-of-the-art insights. Through its ties with the LEADing practice community, which includes large firms and governments, the GUA is able to evaluate and valorize its scientific output. Since 2004, the members of the GUA strive for a continuous improvement of their expertise through the research, comparison, analysis and development of Best and LEADing Practices in Business. Throughout this process, the GUA built its own implicit ontology that revolves around its expertise of Best and LEADing practices.

As ontology formally represents knowledge as a set of concepts within a domain, and the relationships between those concepts, it can be used to model a domain and support reasoning about concepts. The Global University Alliance has used the concept of ontology as both a shared vocabulary and the very definition of its objects and concepts. In order to go the next steps and fully use the potential of its ontology.

[[File:Ontology Reference Content - Enterprise Ontology Concept.png]]

Ontology Reference Content - Enterprise Ontology Concept
Ontology Reference Content – Enterprise Ontology Concept
The Enterprise Ontology Reference Framework, in which the GUA’s implicit ontology has been embedded, includes the specific objects and/or concepts that exist, and their properties and relations in the following domains of business (that might be covered by the following ontologies):

Business Model Design (Business Model Ontology, e3value, LEAD Business Model Ontology)
Strategy and Goal (i*, LEAD Strategy Ontology)
Scorecards and Decision Making (i*, Balance Scorecard, LEAD Value Ontology)
Value Management (e3value, LEAD- Value Ontology)
Information Management (DEMO, REA, LEAD Information Ontology)
Data Modelling (UFO, LEAD Data Ontology)
Enterprise Engineering (DEMO)
Process Modelling (X-BPMN, DEMO, LEAD Process Ontology)
Performance Management (Balanced Scorecard, LEAD Performance Ontology)
Service Modelling (SOA, SOC, X-SON, LEAD Service Ontology)
Measurements & Reporting (LEAD Value & Performance Ontology)
Governance (COBIT, LEAD Governance Ontology)
Enterprise Modelling (Organization Ontology for Enterprise Modelling)
Enterprise Architecture (Zachman, IEEE, ISO)
The first GUA Enterprise Ontology research was published within the LEADing Practice concepts in December 2009 and today resulted in the Enterprise Ontology Framework. The Initial Enterprise Ontology modelling and architecture principles yielded the attention of mayor software vendors like SAP AG, IBM, Software AG (IDS Scheer and ARIS). Some of these vendors used our entire conceptualization, while others adapted the Enterprise Ontology meta-model or specific concepts e.g. eXtended BPMN concepts. IGrafx, which is a new player in the Decision Support Systems field, currently incorporates our modelling aspects into their methods and or meta-models. Below is a short overview of the fast adoption of GUA-concepts by industry:

2009 our information ontology modelling and architecture concept was presented at SAPphire 2009 (SAP biggest customer event)
2010, our process and measurement ontology principles where presented at the IDS Scheer, ARIS Process World
2010, the Official SAP book was published, using our Enterprise Ontology principles: Taylor, J, von Rosing, M., von Scheel, H., Rosenberg, A., Applying Real-World BPM in an SAP Environment, Issue Date: 2011-01, Published by: SAP Press, ISBN: 978-1-59229-343-8, Page(s): 694,
2011, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers publishes a paper based on the research and findings around combining our Enterprise Ontology process and architecture principles: Presten, T., Hove, M., von Rosing, M., Academic paper on Combining BPM and EA in Complex IT Projects, Published by: IEEE Commerce and Enterprise Computing Page(s): 271 – 278, Issue Date: 2011-05
2010-2012, the Global University Alliance collaborated with TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) to develop the profession of a Business Architect, this included the business and process ontology modelling as well as architecture principles.
2010-2011, SAP adapted the process, value, measurement ontology modelling principles into their SAP ASAP Method, thereby the SAP customers apply the process, value, measurement ontology modelling principles within their blueprint, implementation, maintenance and upgrade methods and approaches.
2011-2012: Software AG-IDS Scheer enhace their ARIS process modelling meta model, based on the LEADing Practice ontology concepts
2012, the Government of Canada, uses the LEADing Practice Enterprise Ontology modelling and architecture concepts to transform their organization as well as blueprint/implement SAP and Oracle ERP systems.
2012-2013: IBM builds the LEADing Practice Enterprise Ontology modelling and architecture concepts into the rational suite software,enabling advanced System Architecture modelling.
2012-2013: IGrafx, builds the entire LEADing Practice Enterprise Ontology modelling and architecture concepts into their process flow, process modeller, performance reporting and enterprise modeler software.
2013, LEGO Group wins the Gartner Group‘s BPM award: Best BPM Transformation by leveraging the LEADing Practice Enterprise Ontology principles.
Sept 2013 LEAD 3.0 is published having the full Enterprise Ontology concepts within them and has a community of over 2500 certified practitioneers.
The recent Enterprise Ontology workgroup within the Global University Alliance, has adopted the concept of holistic Enterprise Ontology Frameworks, as it identified the necessity of introducing such a framework into today’s enterprises through the LEADing practice community. In order to develop this Enterprise Ontology Framework, the GUA recently started looking for more mature business and enterprise ontologies that could provide them with state of the art semantics they could found their practices on. These practices should promote new ways of thinking, working and modelling about value identification, creation, and realization through the use of Enterprise Ontology. The Enterprise Ontology concepts in the framework should provide sound semantic foundations for best and LEADing practices in different domains (e.g. process, service, value, information). The concepts and practices will be shared and published as an open standard in the LEADing Practice community. Thereby enabling all academics and practitioners in the community to build on common leading principles to identify, create and realize value, competitive advantage and agility to deal with future challenges.

To realize this vision, the GUA alliance reaches out to all business and enterprise ontology researchers to contribute to the consolidation of academic findings in a research-based Enterprise Ontology Framework that can be used by industries and universities alike. As the GUA considers dissemination and valorization of research as its core tasks, the Enterprise Ontology Framework should provide the foundations for an Enterprise Ontology university curriculum at both Bachelor and Master level, in which the core concepts of Ontology design and all relevant Enterprise and Business Ontologies are incorporated. If you are interested in or would like to contribute to the Enterprise Ontology Framework, do not hesitate to contact the coordinator.

When an organization decides to make use of ontology and semantics to lay the foundation of ‘what we call process things’, it is done so for a vast variety of purposes (we will be naming a few of them throughout this chapter), but the most important purpose is the fact that – once you have established a specific and very clear definition for a meta object, for example – this definition will be available to all the relevant employees across organizational boundaries of the enterprise after is has been documented and published for use. This means that a common understanding and consensus has been reached within the organization for what name a particular meta object has for whenever you’re referring to that particular meta object. This, of course, makes it a lot more practical for organizations to handle objects in the bigger picture. Not just for documenting, but also for using them when modelling, engineering and architecting process concepts and solutions, regardless of business unit and/or business requirement. In the sense of semantics then, it allows you to accurately describe how a particular object relates to another particular object (regardless of object type or hierarchical location). This has to be defined as well, of course, but just like the ontology definitions, an organization must also in semantic relationships reach a common understanding and consensus on how exactly each object relate to another. This is meticulous work and takes time and effort, but it is nevertheless extremely important to avoid common pitfalls.
So, we now know what to call a particular object, in our case we choose to use the Driver meta object (through the creation of our ontology), and we know how the Driver meta object relate to a Business Process meta object (because we have also defined a set of semantics that accurately describe how they influence and relate to one another). If we would then create a process template where the relationship to a value driver is relevant, we would be able to use the Business Process meta object and place it in the process template, both for information and documentational purposes as well as the ability to further on relate it to other aspects. We would most likely be identifying and listing (for example in columns in an excel spreadsheet) values such as the name of each Business Process meta object, where it is located, what resources it uses, etc. Maps are always used within the concept of the BPM Way of Thinking, which is the starting point, where the conceptual aspects are covered. It is at this planner’s view we generate and describe business concepts, document important and essential information around the business, and we create a general overview of more or less anything of importance.
Continuing from this path, we would next create a process matrix for the purpose of relating the value drivers meta object (in a row next to the columns in the excel spreadsheet) to the relevant Business Process meta object. Matrices are almost always created within the concept of the BPM Way of Working, because it is here we begin to actually take action and relate objects to each other. And keep in mind, that whenever you’re creating a matrix, you are actively using the information provided to you through the previous creation of a process map. The map provides you with the information that you need to create an efficient process matrix. By creating a process matrix, we then allow ourselves to directly and accurately identify which kind of value driver (whether internal or external) has an impact to the business process (regardless of impact type, although it has to carry some importance because we expect to note down information that impacts the business somehow, and bearing that in mind, it is therefore worth documenting) on the business processes of the organization (regardless of business unit). Not only do we describe which value driver impacts which business process, we could also identify exactly how the value driver impacts the business process, where the impact occurs, what are the consequences, and who is responsible (role object) and who is accountable (owner object) for acting upon this knowledge.
Last, but not least, we could – if deemed necessary and/or beneficial – create a process model to build a visual representation of how these value drivers would impact the business processes of the organization. Process models, as the name implies, are mostly used within the concept of the BPM Way of Modelling. It is here that we illustrate (visually) behaviors, relationships, connectivity, location as well as function and purpose. But keep in mind, however, that a model always makes use of both the process map and the process matrix. The map and the matrix is your source of information, the model is how you would visualize this information.
As you can see, this is why the BPM ontology and semantics have real business value, because you have put down definitions of what (ontology) the objects are, and how (semantics) they relate to other objects. And as you can possibly imagine, this is an absolutely essential piece of information for any process expert (process modeller), process engineer and/or process architect in their daily work. This is also the foundation and the reason that our process templates are 100% standardized and integrated with each other, enabling the ability to share process objects across various process templates.

[[Category:Enterprise Ontology]]
{{DISPLAYTITLE:About Enterprise}}

Objects:About Enterprise Semantics

2015-07-17T11:33:41Z

90.185.212.37:

The Enterprise Semantics Reference Content

Since 2004, the members of the Global University Alliance have researched, compared, analyzed and developed Best and LEADing Practices based on the concept of Enterprise Semantics.

The term Semantics arises from Ancient Greek: σημαντικός – sēmantikós – and is originally about the study of meaning. The word semantics itself denotes a range of ideas and focuses on the relation between signifiers, symbols and objects. Semantics (or Semantic) is about making meaning from the objects using the best possible signifiers and symbols. It includes those signifiers and symbols used to describe the relationship between objects as this comparison further enhances their meaning. Enterprise Semantics is therefore the study of objects and symbols used to describe the enterprise, what they stand for, their underlying formal logics and their relationship and correlation.

The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including:

Enterprise Ontology – the nature of something as well as the basic categories.
Enterprise Pragmatics – the sharing of meanings gathered from Enterprise Semantics across its diverse interpretations in practice, leading towards a universal truth whilst maintaining these wide-ranging interpretations and beliefs in the real world.
Modelling Perspective- the impact of modelling and engineering as it most usefully aligns the relevant parts of the enterprise.
Enterprise Philosophy considers the fundamental principles that underlie the formation and operation of a specific object (and thereby business/enterprise).
As Enterprise Semantics represents as a set of objects within a specific area and or domain, and the relationships between the other objects and the multiple areas, the study of Enterprise Semantics can therefore be very complex. To address these complexities in search of their simplest possible solution, the Global University Alliance researches, studies and conducts the analysis and development of the Enterprise Semantics Reference Framework.

The framework includes the specific objects, their properties and relations around:

Business Model: The link of the different competencies e.g. core differentiated, core competitive and none-core competencies. (See example: Business Model – Hospital Service Provider.)
Value Management: Relationship between value identification, creation, value realization as well value governance. (See example of value objects, their relationship and artifacts/templates that relate to the objects.)
Performance Management: The correlation between performance drivers, performance indicators as well as performance monitoring for continuous improvement e.g. optimization, effectiveness and efficiency.
Business Process Management: Association of the various processes, steps, activities as well as the events and the flows.
Service Oriented Computing: The link between service delivery and its business services, service construct as well as automated services e.g. application services, data services, platform and infrastructure services. (See example: Service Object Meta Model and their relationship.)
Business Rules: Which rule is applied to which business function, resource, service, process and how are they related to application, data and technology (platform and infrastructure) rules.
Information Management: Relating relevant information with respect to a given domain and area. Improving information retrieval thereby reducing information overload.
Application Management: Facilitating the integration of information from heterogeneous sources.
Data Management: Relating and structuring data components, data objects, data entities and data tables and their relations to information systems. (See example of data objects and role relations in the different phases).
Measurement & Reporting: which measurements (KPIs, PPIs, SPIs) are use in different decisions and reporting mechanisms (cockpits, dashboards and scorecards). (See example of Finance Scorecard Measurements.)
Business Transformation: The relationship between alteration, improvement and change of the various components.
Business Innovation: Creating and introducing something new in order to do something different.
Enterprise Requirement Management: the relations of and between the high level business, application and technology requirements as well as the link within and between the detailed business, application and technology requirements. (See example of full Enterprise Requirement Management relations).
The first Enterprise Semantic research was published within the LEADing Practice concepts in December 2009 resulting in the current Enterprise Semantic Framework. The work included both the packaging of the academic research and findings into an Enterprise Semantic framework that can be used by industries and universities alike. We bring our expertise into our university teaching, thus enhancing the employability of our graduates through benefitting the organizations they work by being armed with this knowledge. There are collaborations, research and interlinks with organizations such as governments, businesses and vendors. This work has led to a new groundbreaking concept and idea of holistic Enterprise Semantic Frameworks with metamodels and fully integrated templates e.g. maps, matrices and models to enable:

Enterprise Modelling: using the metamodels and templates to enable the simplification, description, abstract representation as well design, sculpturing and forming of the linked objects.
Enterprise Engineering: using the metamodels and templates to enable the functional decomposition and composition, identifying duplication as well as enabling development, relations and reuse.
Enterprise Architecture: the correlation of the object groups and meta-objects, throughout the areas, domains and layers. As well as using the templates/artifacts to understand, structure and relate the conceptual context, logical design and physical execution.
The Enterprise Semantic modelling, engineering and architecture principles have captured so much interest that software vendors like SAP AG, IBM, Software AG (IDS Scheer and ARIS), as well as IGrafx have started to investigate and incorporate our modelling aspects into their methods and or metamodels. Some of the vendors used our entire concepts, while others adapted the Enterprise Semantic metamodel or some of the specific templates or even concepts e.g. eXtended BPMN concepts. Below is a short overview of the fast industry adoption:

2009 our information ontology modelling and architecture concept was presented at SAPphire 2009 (SAP biggest customer event)
2010, our process and measurement ontology principles where presented at the IDS Scheer, ARIS Process World
2010, the Official SAP book was published, using our Enterprise Ontology principles: Taylor, J, von Rosing, M., von Scheel, H., Rosenberg, A., Applying Real-World BPM in an SAP Environment, Issue Date: 2011-01, Published by: SAP Press, ISBN: 978-1-59229-343-8, Page(s): 694,
2011, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers publishes a paper based on the research and findings around combining our Enterprise Ontology process and architecture principles: Presten, T., Hove, M., von Rosing, M., Academic paper on Combining BPM and EA in Complex IT Projects, Published by: IEEE Commerce and Enterprise Computing Page(s): 271 – 278, Issue Date: 2011-05
2010-2012, the Global University Alliance collaborated with TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) to develop the profession of a Business Architect, this included the business and process ontology modelling as well as architecture principles.
2010-2011, SAP adapted the process, value, measurement ontology modelling principles into their SAP ASAP Method, thereby the SAP customers apply the process, value, measurement ontology modelling principles within their blueprint, implementation, maintenance and upgrade methods and approaches.
2011-2012: Software AG-IDS Scheer enhace their ARIS process modelling meta model, based on the LEADing Practice ontology concepts
2012, the Government of Canada, uses the LEADing Practice Enterprise Ontology modelling and architecture concepts to transform their organization as well as blueprint/implement SAP and Oracle ERP systems.
2012-2013: IBM builds the LEADing Practice Enterprise Ontology modelling and architecture concepts into the rational suite software,enabling advanced System Architecture modelling.
2012-2013: IGrafx, builds the entire LEADing Practice Enterprise Ontology modelling and architecture concepts into their process flow, process modeller, performance reporting and enterprise modeler software.
2013, LEGO Group wins the Gartner Group‘s BPM award: Best BPM Transformation by leveraging the LEADing Practice Enterprise Ontology principles.
Sept 2013 LEAD 3.0 is published having the full Enterprise Ontology concepts within them and has a community of over 2500 certified practitioneers.
We have been overwhelmed by the speed of adoption, and pleasantly surprised by the recognition of Enterprise Semantic Modelling, Engineering and Architecture paradigm shift by leading companies and the method and IT community at large. These experiences have substantiated that we had something unique in the Enterprise Semantics Reference Framework.

With the Enterprise Semantic work in the Global University Alliance, we promote a new way of thinking, working and modelling and governance. The Enterprise Semantic concepts are built into the different frameworks, methods and approaches and then shared and published as an open standard in the LEADing Practice community. Thereby we enable all organizations to take forward these common best and leading principles to identify, create and realize value.

[[Category:Enterprise Semantics]]

Objects:About Enterprise Ontology

2015-07-17T10:51:01Z

90.185.212.37:

When an organization decides to make use of ontology and semantics to lay the foundation of ‘what we call process things’, it is done so for a vast variety of purposes (we will be naming a few of them throughout this chapter), but the most important purpose is the fact that – once you have established a specific and very clear definition for a meta object, for example – this definition will be available to all the relevant employees across organizational boundaries of the enterprise after is has been documented and published for use. This means that a common understanding and consensus has been reached within the organization for what name a particular meta object has for whenever you’re referring to that particular meta object. This, of course, makes it a lot more practical for organizations to handle objects in the bigger picture. Not just for documenting, but also for using them when modelling, engineering and architecting process concepts and solutions, regardless of business unit and/or business requirement. In the sense of semantics then, it allows you to accurately describe how a particular object relates to another particular object (regardless of object type or hierarchical location). This has to be defined as well, of course, but just like the ontology definitions, an organization must also in semantic relationships reach a common understanding and consensus on how exactly each object relate to another. This is meticulous work and takes time and effort, but it is nevertheless extremely important to avoid common pitfalls.
So, we now know what to call a particular object, in our case we choose to use the Driver meta object (through the creation of our ontology), and we know how the Driver meta object relate to a Business Process meta object (because we have also defined a set of semantics that accurately describe how they influence and relate to one another). If we would then create a process template where the relationship to a value driver is relevant, we would be able to use the Business Process meta object and place it in the process template, both for information and documentational purposes as well as the ability to further on relate it to other aspects. We would most likely be identifying and listing (for example in columns in an excel spreadsheet) values such as the name of each Business Process meta object, where it is located, what resources it uses, etc. Maps are always used within the concept of the BPM Way of Thinking, which is the starting point, where the conceptual aspects are covered. It is at this planner’s view we generate and describe business concepts, document important and essential information around the business, and we create a general overview of more or less anything of importance.
Continuing from this path, we would next create a process matrix for the purpose of relating the value drivers meta object (in a row next to the columns in the excel spreadsheet) to the relevant Business Process meta object. Matrices are almost always created within the concept of the BPM Way of Working, because it is here we begin to actually take action and relate objects to each other. And keep in mind, that whenever you’re creating a matrix, you are actively using the information provided to you through the previous creation of a process map. The map provides you with the information that you need to create an efficient process matrix. By creating a process matrix, we then allow ourselves to directly and accurately identify which kind of value driver (whether internal or external) has an impact to the business process (regardless of impact type, although it has to carry some importance because we expect to note down information that impacts the business somehow, and bearing that in mind, it is therefore worth documenting) on the business processes of the organization (regardless of business unit). Not only do we describe which value driver impacts which business process, we could also identify exactly how the value driver impacts the business process, where the impact occurs, what are the consequences, and who is responsible (role object) and who is accountable (owner object) for acting upon this knowledge.
Last, but not least, we could – if deemed necessary and/or beneficial – create a process model to build a visual representation of how these value drivers would impact the business processes of the organization. Process models, as the name implies, are mostly used within the concept of the BPM Way of Modelling. It is here that we illustrate (visually) behaviors, relationships, connectivity, location as well as function and purpose. But keep in mind, however, that a model always makes use of both the process map and the process matrix. The map and the matrix is your source of information, the model is how you would visualize this information.
As you can see, this is why the BPM ontology and semantics have real business value, because you have put down definitions of what (ontology) the objects are, and how (semantics) they relate to other objects. And as you can possibly imagine, this is an absolutely essential piece of information for any process expert (process modeller), process engineer and/or process architect in their daily work. This is also the foundation and the reason that our process templates are 100% standardized and integrated with each other, enabling the ability to share process objects across various process templates.

[[Category:Enterprise Ontology]]
{{DISPLAYTITLE:About Enterprise}}

Business model domain drivers

2015-06-18T13:48:36Z

90.185.212.37: /* Mixed martial arts record */

{| class="wikitable"
|+Food complements
|-
|Orange
|Apple
|-
|Bread
|Pie
|-
|Butter
|Ice cream
|}

Business model domain drivers

2015-06-18T13:15:25Z

90.185.212.37:

===Mixed martial arts record===
{{MMArecordbox
| draws=
| nc= 1
| ko-wins= 10
| ko-losses= 3
| sub-wins= 16
| sub-losses= 1
| dec-wins= 8
| dec-losses=
| dq-wins=
| dq-losses=
| other-wins=
|
}}
{{MMA record start}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 34–4 (1)
| [[Pedro Rizzo]]
| KO (punches)
| M-1 Global: Fedor vs. Rizzo
| {{dts|2012|June|21}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 1:24
| [[St. Petersburg]], [[Leningrad Oblast]], Russia
| {{small|Emelianenko retired following this fight.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 33–4 (1)
| [[Satoshi Ishii]]
| KO (punches)
| [[Fight For Japan: Genki Desu Ka Omisoka 2011]]
| {{dts|2011|December|31}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 2:29
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 32–4 (1)
| [[Jeff Monson]]
| Decision (unanimous)
| M-1 Global: Fedor vs. Monson
| {{dts|2011|November|20}}
| align=center| 3
| align=center| 5:00
| Moscow, [[Moscow Oblast]], Russia
|
|-
| {{no2}}Loss
| align=center| 31–4 (1)
| [[Dan Henderson]]
| TKO (punches)
| [[Strikeforce: Fedor vs. Henderson]]
| {{dts|2011|July|30}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 4:12
| [[Hoffman Estates, Illinois]], United States
|
|-
| {{no2}}Loss
| align=center| 31–3 (1)
| [[Antônio Silva (fighter)|Antônio Silva]]
| TKO (doctor stoppage)
| [[Strikeforce: Fedor vs. Silva]]
| {{dts|2011|February|12}}
| align=center| 2
| align=center| 5:00
| [[East Rutherford, New Jersey]], United States
| {{small|Strikeforce 2011 Heavyweight Grand Prix Quarterfinal.}}
|-
| {{no2}}Loss
| align=center| 31–2 (1)
| [[Fabrício Werdum]]
| Submission (triangle armbar)
| [[Strikeforce: Fedor vs. Werdum]]
| {{dts|2010|June|26}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 1:09
| [[San Jose, California]], United States
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 31–1 (1)
| [[Brett Rogers]]
| KO (punch)
| [[Strikeforce: Fedor vs. Rogers]]
| {{dts|2009|November|7}}
| align=center| 2
| align=center| 1:48
| [[Hoffman Estates, Illinois]], United States
| {{small|Defended WAMMA Heavyweight Championship.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 30–1 (1)
| [[Andrei Arlovski]]
| KO (punch)
| [[Affliction: Day of Reckoning]]
| {{dts|2009|January|24}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 3:14
| [[Anaheim, California]], United States
| {{small|Defended WAMMA Heavyweight Championship; Knockout of the Year (2009).}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 29–1 (1)
| [[Tim Sylvia]]
| Submission (rear-naked choke)
| [[Affliction: Banned]]
| {{dts|2008|July|19}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 0:36
| [[Anaheim, California]], United States
| {{small|Won inaugural WAMMA Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Year (2008).}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 28–1 (1)
| [[Choi Hong-man]]
| Submission (armbar)
| [[Yarennoka!]]
| {{dts|2007|December|31}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 1:54
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 27–1 (1)
| [[Matt Lindland]]
| Submission (armbar)
| BodogFIGHT: Clash of the Nations
| {{dts|2007|April|14}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 2:58
| [[St. Petersburg]], [[Leningrad Oblast]], Russia
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 26–1 (1)
| [[Mark Hunt]]
| Submission (kimura)
| [[Pride Shockwave 2006|Pride FC - Shockwave 2006]]
| {{dts|2006|December|31}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 8:16
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
| {{small|Defended [[Pride Heavyweight Championship]].}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 25–1 (1)
| [[Mark Coleman]]
| Submission (armbar)
| [[Pride 32|Pride 32 - The Real Deal]]
| {{dts|2006|October|21}}
| align=center| 2
| align=center| 1:17
| [[Las Vegas, Nevada]], United States
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 24–1 (1)
| [[Zuluzinho]]
| Submission (punches)
| [[Pride Shockwave 2005]]
| {{dts|2005|December|31}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 0:26
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 23–1 (1)
| [[Mirko Filipović]]
| Decision (unanimous)
| [[Pride Final Conflict 2005]]
| {{dts|2005|August|28}}
| align=center| 3
| align=center| 5:00
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
| {{small|Defended [[Pride Heavyweight Championship]]. Fight of the Year (2005). Fight of the Decade (2000s).}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 22–1 (1)
| [[Tsuyoshi Kohsaka]]
| TKO (doctor stoppage)
| [[Pride Bushido 6]]
| {{dts|2005|April|3}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 10:00
| [[Yokohama, Kanagawa]], Japan
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 21–1 (1)
| [[Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira]]
| Decision (unanimous)
| [[Pride Shockwave 2004]]
| {{dts|2004|December|31}}
| align=center| 3
| align=center| 5:00
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
| {{small|PRIDE 2004 Heavyweight Grand Prix Final. <br> Unified [[Pride Heavyweight Championship|Pride Fighting Championship World Heavyweight Championship]].}}
|-
| {{nocontest}}NC
| align=center| 20–1 (1)
| [[Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira]]
| No Contest (accidental headbutt)
| [[Pride Final Conflict 2004]]
| {{dts|2004|August|15}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 3:52
| [[Saitama, Saitama|Saitama]], Japan
| {{small|[[Pride Final Conflict 2004|2004 Pride Heavyweight Grand Prix Final]].}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 20–1
| [[Naoya Ogawa]]
| Submission (armbar)
| [[Pride Final Conflict 2004]]
| {{dts|2004|August|15}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 0:54
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
| {{small|PRIDE 2004 Heavyweight Grand Prix Semifinal.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 19–1
| [[Kevin Randleman]]
| Submission (kimura)
| [[Pride Critical Countdown 2004]]
| {{dts|2004|June|20}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 1:33
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
| {{small|PRIDE 2004 Heavyweight Grand Prix Quarterfinal.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 18–1
| [[Mark Coleman]]
| Submission (armbar)
| [[Pride Total Elimination 2004]]
| {{dts|2004|April|25}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 2:11
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
| {{small|PRIDE 2004 Heavyweight Grand Prix Opening Round.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 17–1
| [[Yuji Nagata]]
| TKO (punches)
| Inoki Bom-Ba-Ye 2003
| {{dts|2003|December|31}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 1:02
| [[Kobe, Hyogo]], Japan
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 16–1
| [[Gary Goodridge]]
| TKO (soccer kicks & punches)
| [[Pride Total Elimination 2003]]
| {{dts|2003|August|10}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 1:09
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 15–1
| [[Kazuyuki Fujita]]
| Submission (rear-naked choke)
| [[Pride 26]]
| {{dts|2003|June|8}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 4:17
| [[Tokyo, Tokyo]], Japan
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 14–1
| [[Egidijus Valavicius]]
| Submission (kimura)
| [[2003 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings Lithuania: Bushido Rings 7: Adrenalinas|Rings Lithuania: Bushido Rings 7: Adrenalinas]]
| {{dts|2003|April|5}}
| align=center| 2
| align=center| 1:11
| [[Vilnius]], Lithuania
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 13–1
| [[Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira]]
| Decision (unanimous)
| [[Pride 25]]
| {{dts|2003|March|16}}
| align=center| 3
| align=center| 5:00
| [[Yokohama, Kanagawa]], Japan
| {{small|Won [[Pride Heavyweight Championship]].}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 12–1
| [[Heath Herring]]
| TKO (doctor stoppage)
| [[Pride 23]]
| {{dts|2002|November|24}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 10:00
| [[Tokyo, Tokyo]], Japan
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 11–1
| [[Semmy Schilt]]
| Decision (unanimous)
| [[Pride 21]]
| {{dts|2002|June|23}}
| align=center| 3
| align=center| 5:00
| [[Saitama, Saitama]], Japan
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 10–1
| [[Chris Haseman]]
| TKO (punches)
| [[2002 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings: World Title Series Grand Final|Rings: World Title Series Grand Final]]
| {{dts|2002|February|15}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 2:50
| [[Yokohama, Kanagawa]], Japan
| {{small|RINGS 2001 Absolute Class Tournament Final.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 9–1
| [[Lee Hasdell]]
| Submission (guillotine choke)
| [[2001 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings: World Title Series 5|Rings: World Title Series 5]]
| {{dts|2001|December|21}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 4:10
| [[Yokohama, Kanagawa]], Japan
| {{small|RINGS 2001 Absolute Class Tournament Semifinal.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 8–1
| [[Ryushi Yanagisawa]]
| Decision (unanimous)
| [[2001 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings: World Title Series 4|Rings: World Title Series 4]]
| {{dts|2001|October|20}}
| align=center| 3
| align=center| 5:00
| [[Tokyo, Tokyo]], Japan
| {{small|RINGS 2001 Absolute Class Tournament Quarterfinal.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 7–1
| [[Renato Sobral]]
| Decision (unanimous)
| [[2001 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings: 10th Anniversary|Rings: 10th Anniversary]]
| {{dts|2001|August|11}}
| align=center| 2
| align=center| 5:00
| [[Tokyo, Tokyo]], Japan
| {{small|RINGS 2001 Openweight Title Tournament Semifinal.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 6–1
| [[Kerry Schall]]
| Submission (armbar)
| [[2001 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings: World Title Series 5|Rings: World Title Series 1]]
| {{dts|2001|April|20}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 1:47
| [[Tokyo, Tokyo]], Japan
| {{small|RINGS 2001 Openweight Title Tournament Quarterfinal.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 5–1
| [[Mihail Apostolov (fighter)|Mihail Apostolov]]
| Submission (rear-naked choke)
| [[2001 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings Russia: Russia vs. Bulgaria|Rings Russia: Russia vs. Bulgaria]]
| {{dts|2001|April|6}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 1:03
| [[Yekaterinburg|Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Oblast]], Russia
|
|-
| {{no2}}Loss
| align=center| 4–1
| [[Tsuyoshi Kosaka]]
| TKO (Doctor Stoppage)
| [[2000 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings: King of Kings 2000 Block B|Rings: King of Kings 2000 Block B]]
| {{dts|2000|December|22}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 0:17
| [[Osaka, Osaka]], Japan
| {{small|King of Kings 2000 Tournament 2nd Round. Kohsaka cut Emelianenko with an illegal elbow, which led to doctor stoppage}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 4–0
| [[Ricardo Arona]]
| Decision (unanimous)
| [[2000 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings: King of Kings 2000 Block B|Rings: King of Kings 2000 Block B]]
| {{dts|2000|December|22}}
| align=center| 3
| align=center| 5:00
| [[Osaka, Osaka]], Japan
| {{small|RINGS King of Kings 2000 Tournament Opening Round. After 2 rounds it was declared a draw, so a third round was fought.}}
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 3–0
| [[Hiroya Takada]]
| KO (punches)
| [[2000 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings: Battle Genesis Vol. 6|Rings: Battle Genesis Vol. 6]]
| {{dts|2000|September|5}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 0:12
| [[Tokyo, Tokyo]], Japan
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 2–0
| [[Levon Lagvilava]]
| Submission (rear-naked choke)
| [[2000 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings: Russia vs. Georgia|Rings: Russia vs. Georgia]]
| {{dts|2000|August|16}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 7:24
| [[Tula, Russia|Tula, Tula Oblast]], Russia
|
|-
| {{yes2}}Win
| align=center| 1–0
| [[Martin Lazarov]]
| Submission (guillotine choke)
| [[2000 in Fighting Network Rings#Rings Russia: Russia vs. Bulgaria|Rings Russia: Russia vs. Bulgaria]]
| {{dts|2000|May|21}}
| align=center| 1
| align=center| 2:24
| [[Ekaterinburg|Ekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Oblast]], Russia
|
{{end}}

Business model domain drivers

2015-06-18T12:54:19Z

90.185.212.37: Created page with "File:Revenue Opportunity-01.png"

[[File:Revenue Opportunity-01.png]]