The Standards Mapping Working Group aims to create a vocabulary of business concepts and a mapping of those concepts to entities in various OMG and other standards. The purpose of this effort is to understand the coverage of the domain of business concepts by existing and proposed standards and to determine overlaps and gaps in the standards. It is complementary to and supportive of the work of the Architecture Ecology SIG.
The Mapping Working Group has a teleconference call every other week. If you would like to participate, please sign up at the BASIG Status page.
A brief summary of the working group calls and shared materials is here.
This metamodel, based on the Balanced Scorecard methodology, is a framework for linking together a variety of other business architecture and domain metamodels. The current state of this metamodeling effort can be viewed here.
What is the domain structure of Business Architecture Vocabulary concepts?
For more information, see this Wiki page BA-Mapping Vocabulary Domain Structure
At the Minneapolis meeting, the BASIG agreed that an initial scope should be defined for BASIG working groups, and that this scope should be defined by an existing and well-respected practice. In subsequent discussions, we decided to focus on the Balanced Scorecard practice, including Strategy Maps.
The Balanced Scorecard Institute offers training, certification and contacts with partner organizations.
This is a prototyping effort to develop a relational schema, editing application, and report application for the Mapping Working Group vocabulary. For more information, see BA-Mapping Vocabulary Database
The articles and books by Kaplan and Norton use a variety of figures and prose to describe the artifacts and methods of the Balanced Scorecard practice. The abstract discussions are complemented with case studies that provide examples of the practice. A wide variety of implementations of parts of the Balanced Scorecard practice have been observed. This is partly because of the different needs and situations of the implementing enterprise, but also partly because of individual approaches used by practicing consultants. That the practice can be extended to cover many situations is an important positive, but individual variations will make it difficult to reconcile and extract value from multiple Balanced Scorecard engagements within and across enterprises.
Is it possible to remove some of the unwanted variability by defining a consensus metamodel for the Balanced Scorecard concepts? Can Semantic Web technology be used to endow this metamodel with semantics that ensure that the metamodel is self-consistent, that models created from the metamodel are consistent with the metamodel, and that reduce the amount of specification needed in the models by using reasoning over the metamodel to extend the model? For example, Balanced Scorecard defines four perspectives: financial, customer, internal, learning and growth. Each of these perspectives contain many items, and these items have components and are specialized during engagements. By implication, all components and specializations of a primary item in the financial perspective also belong to the financial perspective. Semantic Web technology can provide these implications, eliminating the ned to specify each of them explicitly.
For more information, see BA-Mapping Vocabulary Semantic Metamodel.