Fig 3 - uploaded by Fereidoon Shams Aliee
Content may be subject to copyright.
![Digital ecosystems interoperability model details [14]](profile/Fereidoon-Shams-Aliee/publication/284849045/figure/fig1/AS:378692523053056@1467298741070/Digital-ecosystems-interoperability-model-details-14.png)
Digital ecosystems interoperability model details [14]
Source publication
![Fig. 3 Digital ecosystems interoperability model details [14]](profile/Fereidoon-Shams-Aliee/publication/284849045/figure/fig1/AS:378692523053056@1467298741070/Digital-ecosystems-interoperability-model-details-14_Q320.jpg)
For the last two decades, software architecture has been adopted as one of the main viable solutions to address the ever-increasing demands in the design and development of complex software systems. Nevertheless, the rapidly growing utilization of communication networks and interconnections among software systems have introduced some critical chall...
Context in source publication
Similar publications
![Fig.3. Detailed Semantic Enriched Metadata Software Ecosystem [34].](profile/Apollinaire-Nadembega-2/publication/318679603/figure/fig3/AS:520011031814145@1500991699041/Detailed-Semantic-Enriched-Metadata-Software-Ecosystem-34_Q320.jpg)
Information systems need to be more flexible and to allow users to find content related to their context and interests. Metadata harvesting and metadata enrichments could represent a way to help users to find content and events according to their interests. However, metadata are underused and represents an interoperability challenge. This paper pre...
Citations
... The first factor is establishment of infrastructure and connectivity (IF-1) (Ambrosio and Widergren 2007;Athanasopoulos et al. 2006;Chapurlat and Daclin 2012;Chituc et al. 2009;Diallo et al. 2010; Espadinha-Cruz and Grilo 2019; Giachetti et al. 2019;Hollenbach and Alexander 1997;Jardim-Goncalves et al. 2012;Klischewski et al. 2011;Muller 2009;Naudet et al. 2010;Neaga and Henshaw 2010;Ostadzadeh et al. 2015;Ullberg et al. 2012;Wang et al. 2010;Zarour et al. 2011;Zeinali et al. 2016). This factor includes structural aspects (Ullberg et al. 2012) as a platform (Chituc et al. 2009;Klischewski et al. 2011;Mazzetti and Nativi 2012) or system (Klischewski et al. 2011). ...
... Technical interoperability supports electronic interaction between constituent systems, capitalizing on hardware, software, and firmware infrastructure (Buhalis and Leung 2018; Espadinha-Cruz and Grilo 2019; Mordecai et al. 2016). Therefore, IF-1 influences interoperability by treating the interconnectivity layer of the systems through the interfaces that enable the use of services (Agostinho et al. 2011;Bicocchi et al. 2018;Billaud et al. 2015;Camara et al. 2010;Chituc et al. 2009;Cuenca et al. 2015;Diallo et al. 2010;Guédria et al. 2015;Jardim-Goncalves et al. 2010;Klischewski et al. 2011;Navigli and Velardi 2005;Ostadzadeh et al. 2015;Touzi et al. 2008;Whitman and Panetto 2006;Yaacoubi et al. 2006). Mordecai et al. (2016), Vargas et al. (2018), Weichhart et al. (2016), Chapurlat and Daclin (2012), Song et al. (2011), Neaga and Henshaw (2010), Mantzana and Koumaditis (2010), Naudet et al. (2010), Chituc et al. (2009), Mills andRuston (1990) include metadata information (e.g., structural, syntactic, and semantic data formats) that facilitate the integration of information around the heterogeneity of data models (Chituc et al. 2009;Cornu et al. 2012;Diallo et al. 2010;Kalatzis et al. 2019;Kazemzadeh et al. 2010;Wang et al. 2010), ontologies (Dividino et al. 2018;Lima et al. 2022;Mazzetti et al. 2022;Zarour et al. 2011), meta-model (Cornu et al. 2012), and frameworks (Anderson and Boxer 2008;Mazzetti et al. 2022). ...
... In turn, aspects of collaboration among stakeholders (Klischewski et al. 2011) expose diversity of relationships that may arise from social behavior that influences how the articulations between IS will be made (Agostinho et al. 2016;Soares and Amaral 2014;Ullberg et al. 2009). Aspects of culture, such as language differences (Agostinho et al. 2016;Marlowe et al. 2012;Ostadzadeh et al. 2015;Soares and Amaral 2014) between technical or managerial teams can hinder or facilitate aspects of human communication and collaboration. ...
The original version of this chapter was inadvertently published with the incorrect spelling of the author as Rodrigo Pereirados Santos in the online version of this book. This has now been corrected as Dr. Rodrigo Pereira dos Santos.
... The first factor is establishment of infrastructure and connectivity (IF-1) (Ambrosio and Widergren 2007;Athanasopoulos et al. 2006;Chapurlat and Daclin 2012;Chituc et al. 2009;Diallo et al. 2010; Espadinha-Cruz and Grilo 2019; Giachetti et al. 2019;Hollenbach and Alexander 1997;Jardim-Goncalves et al. 2012;Klischewski et al. 2011;Muller 2009;Naudet et al. 2010;Neaga and Henshaw 2010;Ostadzadeh et al. 2015;Ullberg et al. 2012;Wang et al. 2010;Zarour et al. 2011;Zeinali et al. 2016). This factor includes structural aspects (Ullberg et al. 2012) as a platform (Chituc et al. 2009;Klischewski et al. 2011;Mazzetti and Nativi 2012) or system (Klischewski et al. 2011). ...
... Technical interoperability supports electronic interaction between constituent systems, capitalizing on hardware, software, and firmware infrastructure (Buhalis and Leung 2018; Espadinha-Cruz and Grilo 2019; Mordecai et al. 2016). Therefore, IF-1 influences interoperability by treating the interconnectivity layer of the systems through the interfaces that enable the use of services (Agostinho et al. 2011;Bicocchi et al. 2018;Billaud et al. 2015;Camara et al. 2010;Chituc et al. 2009;Cuenca et al. 2015;Diallo et al. 2010;Guédria et al. 2015;Jardim-Goncalves et al. 2010;Klischewski et al. 2011;Navigli and Velardi 2005;Ostadzadeh et al. 2015;Touzi et al. 2008;Whitman and Panetto 2006;Yaacoubi et al. 2006). Mordecai et al. (2016), Vargas et al. (2018), Weichhart et al. (2016), Chapurlat and Daclin (2012), Song et al. (2011), Neaga and Henshaw (2010), Mantzana and Koumaditis (2010), Naudet et al. (2010), Chituc et al. (2009), Mills andRuston (1990) include metadata information (e.g., structural, syntactic, and semantic data formats) that facilitate the integration of information around the heterogeneity of data models (Chituc et al. 2009;Cornu et al. 2012;Diallo et al. 2010;Kalatzis et al. 2019;Kazemzadeh et al. 2010;Wang et al. 2010), ontologies (Dividino et al. 2018;Lima et al. 2022;Mazzetti et al. 2022;Zarour et al. 2011), meta-model (Cornu et al. 2012), and frameworks (Anderson and Boxer 2008;Mazzetti et al. 2022). ...
... In turn, aspects of collaboration among stakeholders (Klischewski et al. 2011) expose diversity of relationships that may arise from social behavior that influences how the articulations between IS will be made (Agostinho et al. 2016;Soares and Amaral 2014;Ullberg et al. 2009). Aspects of culture, such as language differences (Agostinho et al. 2016;Marlowe et al. 2012;Ostadzadeh et al. 2015;Soares and Amaral 2014) between technical or managerial teams can hinder or facilitate aspects of human communication and collaboration. ...
Pervasive Information Systems (PIS) can be seen as Information Systems (IS) deployed everywhere, going beyond the traditional frontiers of organizations. In this context, they can be considered as Systems-of-Information Systems (SoIS), which are an emerging classification of arrangements of managerial and operationally independent IS. Despite the evident importance and recurrent need for interoperability among IS, the management of interoperability links and their adjustment at a suitable level is still challenging, particularly considering the independence of IS. Given that context, we aim to bring the IS community the discussion about the importance of technical, human, and organizational factors beyond just integration among systems, around interoperability in the domain of PIS, seen as SoIS, to support their decision-making processes. We present these factors as potential issues to explain how practices around interoperability need a synergy of efforts beyond technical decisions and propose some guidelines for the design of interoperability links in PIS, seen as SoIS. We report results of a deep study about factors that potentially influence the establishment of interoperability links among IS to form PIS, seen as SoIS, and support their decision-making processes.
... We also identified tools for some management tasks related to DBEs. More specifically, a tool for finding right partners [104], performance indicators for assessing collaborative benefits [105]- [110], an architectural framework for DBE interoperability [111], architectural options for managing usage control of data within DBEs [112], and a method supporting strategic analysis for understanding companies' roles and functions in DBEs [113], [114] were suggested. Also, two studies concerned working procedures for modeling, designing, and implementing technical structures of DBEs [115], [116]. ...
The changing business landscapes urge organizations to collaborate and combine their expertise to stay competitive. Organizations establish partnerships and collaborate via the Internet, which often happens dynamically and at fast pace resulting in formation of Digital Business Ecosystems (DBEs). DBEs are complex and their management requires having explicit and up-to-date information about them. Modeling enables thorough visual analysis and facilitates the understanding and formation of DBEs. It also allows viewing DBEs through multiple perspectives, as well as exploring alternatives in the course of DBE formation or management. This systematic review aims to synthesize existing studies pertaining to Conceptual Modeling for analysis, design, and management of DBEs. A total of 94 studies were included in the review. The findings suggest that there is a scarcity of existing Conceptual Modeling methods and tools supporting DBEs. Additionally, the extensive emphasis on DBEs’ actors in modeling leads to an urgent need for the methods to be extended to support the establishment of holistic views for integrating multiple perspectives of DBEs. Future research should focus on these areas to facilitate the transformation of how organization’s collaborations are viewed – from a single-organization to a multitude of viewpoints on organizational networks of collaboration, coexistence, and competition. Such models also need to support the key features of DBEs, such as resilience and automation.
... Several types of research [87] [88] propose ways to improve modelling the dynamic nature of architectural components and their interrelationship. Furthermore, enterprise architecture has been proposed to extend over the boundaries [89], including stakeholders along the value chain [90, pp. 7-25]. ...
... The four forces and the knowledge-driven [49] evolutionary model address the challenges of dynamics [88] of the socio-technical enterprise adaptation to changes. The enterprise posture model addresses the request to extend the enterprise [89], including the effect of the environment and the value stream. ...
Transformations of military enterprises seek to use technology to gain better performance, provide more effective outcomes, and excel in the space and time of confrontation. Enterprise Architecture should provide methods and competencies to gain more understanding of transformations and improve the success of these journeys. However, military transformations have a record of a variety
of challenges and often fail to deliver intended outcomes. Possibly, the enterprise architecture practitioners are trying to engage a moving target. The failures do not notably follow any exact pattern or line of correlation. Still, they seem to be distributed through the layers of the military structure. Despite the evident problem and risk to national security, there is a surprising lack of research in this field.
The dissertation approaches the challenges in military transformations from an enterprise architecture view in a quest to find models that would better explain the interrelationships between the military environment, affairs, knowledge, information, and technology over time—in other words, trying to engage an evolutionary enterprise and see where it may be going. The dissertation approaches the problem from a pragmatic view using a design science approach to create a better tool in modelling the dynamics and evolution of the military enterprise. Since the components and layers of an enterprise follow a different logic, the design needs to apply transdisciplinary research methods appropriate to each layer of the enterprise system.
The proposed EA tool improves the quality of an enterprise architect's analysis of military transformations in recognising the current situation, seeing the paths of evolution leading to the current position, and foreseeing both the challenges and opportunities in journeys towards the strategic end state. Furthermore, the EA tool reveals some of the hidden forces driving or hindering the change of an enterprise, and therefore improving the success of digital transformation in the military context. The military decision making may benefit from the improved architectural insight
and foresight when defining national-level strategies, implementing changes, maintaining operational capabilities, and, lately, obtaining the most out of their digital transformations.
... Structural transformation of an organization for the alignment of structures requires a design methodology Collaboration Inter-and intra-organizational interactive and willing working relationship is essential to recognize shared goals roles and responsibilities [5].Furthermore, institutional arrangements which is a prerequisite for inter-organizational governance requires collaboration between organizations. [26] [27] Consequently collaboration is a determinative factor for the assessment of maturity level of organizational interoperability Compatibility with legislation issues ...
The achievement of interoperability between public administrations across Europe is considered to be a crucial factor for the delivery of efficient, cost-effective and transparent public services. There are still many challenges and limitations to be faced, due to technical, semantic, legal and organizational factors. The importance of organizational interoperability towards information integration has been known for years. Nowadays, it still remains an enduring challenge and undoubtedly gains momentum due to the complexity of organizational aspect as the public organizations move toward inter-organizational governance as well as due to the enforcement of new policies such as Once Only principle and Open data. This paper initially highlights the importance of organizational interoperability in e-Government and the need to define metrics in order to assess the degree of organizational interoperability. A brief literature review on existing assessment tools, frameworks and models is presented. The development of a new model and tool for the assessment of organizational interoperability maturity of a digital public service, based on a referential model along with conceptual attributes, is thoroughly presented. The new approach can be used as an independent assessment model/tool in the area of organizational interoperability, while it could furthermore extend the IMAPS tool.
... Structural transformation of an organization for the alignment of structures requires a design methodology Collaboration Inter-and intra-organizational interactive and willing working relationship is essential to recognize shared goals roles and responsibilities [5].Furthermore, institutional arrangements which is a prerequisite for inter-organizational governance requires collaboration between organizations. [26] [27] Consequently collaboration is a determinative factor for the assessment of maturity level of organizational interoperability Compatibility with legislation issues ...
The achievement of interoperability between public administrations across Europe is considered to be a crucial factor for the delivery of efficient, cost-effective and transparent public services. There are still many challenges and limitations to be faced, due to technical, semantic, legal and organizational factors. The importance of organizational interoperability towards information integration has been known for years. Nowadays, it still remains an enduring challenge and undoubtedly gains momentum due to the complexity of organizational aspect as the public organizations move toward inter-organizational governance as well as due to the enforcement of new policies such as Once Only principle and Open data. This paper initially highlights the importance of organizational interoperability in e-Government and the need to define metrics in order to assess the degree of organizational interoperability. A brief literature review on existing assessment tools, frameworks and models is presented. The development of a new model and tool for the assessment of organizational interoperability maturity of a digital public service, based on a referential model along with conceptual attributes, is thoroughly presented. The new approach can be used as an independent assessment model/tool in the area of organizational interoperability, while it could furthermore extend the IMAPS tool.
... Prague Czechia Sep 03-04, 2020, Part I (OIM) in 1998 to evaluate the capability of organizations to interoperate [28], [29]. To also assess the non-technical, or human-activity, characteristics of one organization's capability to interoperate with another [26]. ...
... OIM has levels (independent, cooperative, collaborative, combined, and unified) similar to LISI and four organizational interoperability attributes (preparation, understanding, command style, and ethos) [13], [28]. [29], [30]. ...
... Organizational [28], [13], [29], [30], [27], [36], [36], [37], [35], [36] [31], [33], [34], [35], [37] Government interoperability maturity matrix model ...
The main purpose and focus of this paper are to determine the Interoperability Maturity Models to consider when using School Management Systems (SMS). The importance of this is to inform and help schools with knowing which Interoperability Maturity Model is best suited for their SMS. To address the purpose, this paper will apply a scoping review to ensure that all aspects are provided. The scoping review will include papers written from 2012-2019 and a comparison of the different types of Interoperability Maturity Models will be discussed in detail, which includes the background information, the levels of interoperability, and area for consideration in each Maturity Model. The literature was obtained from the following databases: IEEE Xplore and Scopus, the following search engines were used: Harzings, and Google Scholar. The topic of the paper was used as a search term for the literature and the term 'Interoperability Maturity Models' was used as a keyword. The data were analyzed in terms of the definition of Interoperability, Interoperability Maturity Models, and levels of interoperability. The results provide a table that shows the focus area of concern for each Maturity Model (based on the scoping review where only 24 papers were found to be best suited for the paper out of 740 publications initially identified in the field). This resulted in the most discussed Interoperability Maturity Model for consideration (ISIMM and OIM).
... There are different definitions of SECO in the literature [4][5][6][7][8]. Moreover, although software ecosystem is the most common term, there are some authors that use other terms such as digital ecosystem [9,10], service ecosystem [11] or technological ecosystem [12,13], among others, to talk about a set of software components that are related to each other in some way to give rise to more complex systems. Each term has different shades. ...
There is a need to improve the definition and development of technological ecosystems in order to solve the main problems detected in previous studies. To achieve this goal, it is required to identify and analyse the solutions available in the literature in the field of software engineering applied to ecosystems. The research in software ecosystems is a relatively young research area, but there are already several works that analyse the literature associated. To conduct a new systematic literature review is necessary to ensure that there are no studies that do the same, namely, that do not answer the same research questions. The identification of the need for a review was done through a study focused on systematic literature reviews and mapping studies about software ecosystems. This work aims to describe the mapping conducted as part of that study. It provides a global state of the art of this kind of studies in the area of software ecosystems.
Industry 4.0 is a revolution of creating added value, based on the use of machinery and robot power instead of arm strength of works that do not require any qualification and specialization on jobs that require qualification. Replacing the manpower of the machines, making them coordinable; thanks to new developments in computers and internet technology, and making the production processes self-manageable, led to the emergence of the Industry 4.0 concept. Logistics 4.0 explains the implications of Industry 4.0 on transport and cross-functional coordination tasks and how digitalization and automation in logistics should be shaped and supported. In the case of applying Logistics 4.0 in the supply chain, it provides significant and potential cost savings. The financing of the supply chain in the Logistics 4.0 process, which is the subject of this study, is extremely important for logistics companies to gain profits with low resource cost and working capital, and maximize cash flows and increase firm values. The supplier companies and the focal company in the supply chain utilize the credibility of the focal company to finance their investments at a low cost. Firms in the supply chain also need to reduce their working capital and increase asset turnover (sales/assets) by lowering their stock levels in order to increase their return on equity (ROE). In order to reduce the working capital of logistics companies, they need to decrease their stock levels, storage costs, transportation costs, and increase their service levels to customers. According to the case study findings related to SCF, if the suppliers in the supply chain use the SCF instrument, a serious decrease in credit costs is observed. In order for Focal Company to take advantage of these transactions, the supplier companies in the supply chain must make an additional “pro rato” payment or sale discount.
Introduction: This study highlights the importance of technological ecosystems in supporting informal caregivers and vulnerable populations in coping with the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This study integrates the available literature on internet of things (IoT) e-health ecosystem and informal care. Results: In the first part of this article, we describe the health consequences of quarantine and isolation and outline the potential role of informal care in containing the risk of spreading the infection and reducing the burden on the health care system. Then, we present an overview of the characteristics of emerging technological ecosystems in health care and how they can be adopted as a strategic option to achieve different goals: (1) support informal carers to help vulnerable populations during quarantine and isolation and facilitate the recovery process; (2) promote the adoption of e-health and telemedicine resources to reduce the well-documented burden experienced by caregivers; and (3) lessen the various forms of digital disadvantage among vulnerable individuals, who are at more risk to be digitally excluded. In the last part of this work, we introduce solutions to overcome potential challenges related to the development and adoption of advanced technological ecosystems and propose a reflection on the legacy of COVID-19 on telemedicine. Conclusions: Thanks to the disruptive potential of IoT for health and wellness promotion, technological ecosystems emerge as a valuable resource to support both informal carers and vulnerable populations. The main factors that represent a strategic advantage of a technological ecosystem are affordability, regulatory, and availability. A high degree of interconnection between all the stakeholders emerges as a key element for the provision of intergenerational care. The most important technical challenges of IoT e-health require to optimize privacy, security, and user-friendliness of IoT e-health.
