Igor Polyantchikov

Anoop Bangalore Srinivasa

Veerana Guruprakash

Tarvi Naikod

Taivo Tara

Eduard Kangilaski

Shevtshenko

Guruprakash Veerana Naikod

Tarvi Tara

Taivo Kangilaski

Eduard Shevtshenko

Enterprise Architecture Management-Based Framework for Integration of SME into a Collaborative Network

Keywords: ARIS, ISO 9001, Business Process Modeling

ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Under the new business conditions and increased market competitiveness, the companies often need to integrate their business processes with other company's business processes. It is considered as a Virtual Enterprise or a temporary coalition of enterprises that co-operate to fulfill common goals. Such cooperation can be successfully supported by data received directly from Information Systems (IS) of partner enterprises, but the implementation of such systems as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is time and resources consuming process. There is the need to start the implementation in the cost efficient way, due to the reason that usually small companies do not need the full functionality of ERP from the beginning.

In current research it is suggested to use the Enterprise Architecture (EA) management approach, which enables to decrease the duration and to improve the efficiency of ERP system implementation process. It is suggested that key business processes should be described internally based on common standard. The implementation and integration of enterprise IS with the collaborative partners should be started from the integration of business processes. The implementation and management of collaborative processes will decrease the risks for the new potential customers and partners on the way to successful cooperation.

Background

In global market the standalone companies are not able to stay competitive and provide the full spectrum of products and services to satisfy today's customer requirements. To face those challenges organizations should be flexible, adaptable, and prepared for the collaboration. It could be achieved through integration of Business Processes (BP) followed by efficient implementation of ERP systems and integration into the Collaborative Network It is suggested to use ISO standards and EA management for the better integration of collaborative partners. The collaborative networks enable partners to concentrate on core professional skills and capabilities [START_REF] Patrick | Partner profiling to support the initiation of collaborative networks[END_REF].

ISO Standards

ISO 9000 is a family of standards developed to provide framework for implementation of an effective and operative quality management system in organizations. The most recent ISO 9001: 2008 standard QMS clearly emphasizes on the process approach for realizing the quality within the organization. The advantage of process based approach is that, it helps organizations to identify the necessary process required to achieve the product or services [START_REF] Carmignani | Process-based management: A structured approach to provide the best answers to the ISO 9001 requirements[END_REF]. Also, the interaction of these processes within the organization can be visualized and the expected outcome of the process can be measured against the real outcome of the process. Organizations within the collaboration network are required to have ISO 9001:2008 QMS for understanding each other's major process. However, some of the major limitations of ISO 9001: 2008 QMS are, it is time consuming process for implementation and certification, difficulties in interpreting and adapting standard [START_REF] António | The impacts and success factors of ISO 9001 in education: Experiences from Portuguese vocational schools[END_REF].

ERP Systems

Over the past decade, several vendors have successfully offered configurable off-theshelf software that functions as a tool for building enterprise IS-s, known as ERP system [START_REF] Zheng | Strategic production networks[END_REF]. ERP systems do central work of running, tracking and reporting on business data processing. Even when data is efficiently captured and stored in ERP systems, it may remain relatively useless for reporting and decision making purposes.

[5]. The ERP systems are mainly focused on transactions and insufficient for VE requirements. Despite of ERP systems popularity, the failure rate of the ERP implementation still remains high [START_REF] Chen | Managing ERP implementation failure: a project management perspective[END_REF]. The majority of the ERP implementations made in SME's fail to deliver the expected results [START_REF] Wang | Improving enterprise resource planning (ERP) fit to organizational process through knowledge transfer[END_REF]. In PRODNET project it was proposed to use internal module and cooperation layer in order to achieve the software interoperability [START_REF] Msanjila | Network-Centric collaboration and Supporting Fireworks[END_REF]. Moreover the important critical failure factors are poor top management support, ERP software misfit, poor knowledge transfer, poor IT infrastructure and unclear conception for the use of ERP system from the users' perspective [START_REF] Ganesh | Critical Failure Factors in Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation at Indian SMEs[END_REF]. Finally, it can be seen that the major problems which occur in the ERP projects is due to not considering the non-technical aspects like people [START_REF] Botta-Genoulaz | An investigation into the use of ERP systems in the service sector[END_REF].

Collaborative Networks and Virtual Enterprises.

Collaboration starts with a shared objective. In a collaborative process, participants need to assume certain roles and responsibilities; they share information, take sequence of actions to accomplish the same goal [START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | Collaborative Networked Organizations -A research agenda foremerging business models, A framework for management of virtual organization breeding environments[END_REF].

Enterprise Architecture Management

In today's business environment organizations move towards business process oriented architectures like defined with the three-tier architecture of business process excellence [START_REF] Jost | Business process management: a core task for any company organization[END_REF].

When a business Process is executed by a VE parts of the decomposition of this Business Process (BP) are assigned to different enterprises, becoming a distributed business process (DBP). Several languages and formalisms have been used for BP modeling. Examples are IDEF3, MANIFOLD, UML, PIF and workflow definition languages [START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | Supporting Business Process Management and Coordination in a Virtual Enterprise[END_REF]. In production area problems can appear in any of the basic elements. [START_REF] Branzei | Strategic pathways to product innovation capabilities in SMEs[END_REF]. Still, there is a lack of adequate concepts and tools for ensuring effectiveness of integrating potential partners in collaborative networks. To improve the manufacturing activities (quality, cost, time) is necessary to find the sources of enterprise problems.

Framework for Collaborative Business Process Implementation

Importance of ISO Implementation for Virtual Enterprise and CN

In case of the collaborative networks faith and integrity between partners has overcome the need of quality standards. However, organizations that are collaborative network partners, have obligation to measure or control the quality of the other organization's processes [START_REF] Polyantchikov | Collaborative framework for Virtual organization[END_REF]. ISO 9001 QMS will provide the environment for a network partners who tries to integrate their core competences of their processes for a specific period of time in order to fulfill the customer's requirements in the best possible way. Also, by combining the core competences of all the organizational members in the collaborative network, a value chain can be created where customer requirements will act as a link between core competences of each of the organizational member in the CN.

Framework for Inter-organizational Business Processes

Developed framework for business process integration is adapted to the requirements of Virtual Collaborative Network of Enterprises. It is suggested to start from the analysis of inter-organizational business processes, prior to implementation of IS and possible process modeling solution is outlined in the current paper, see Fig. 2.

Core and Control

Processes for Company 1

Core and Control

Processes for Company ...

Core and Control

Processes for Company N

Core and Control Processes for Company Virtual Enterprise

Auxilary Services Auxilary Services Auxilary Services

Processes landscape for Virtual Enterprise

Fig. 2. Framework for the business processes integration within Virtual Enterprise

The prerequisite is that both the customer and vendor enterprise processes are described accordingly to the ISO 9001 recommendations, because it will guarantee the discipline, control of repeatability, traceability and conforms to the product quality. We suggest using the Event-Driven Process Chain (EPC) methodology for description of business processes and ARIS Express 2.3 software for this purpose. The partners in the CN share their core processes and selected supporting processes. When the processes of partner enterprises are described, the structure of collaborative business process will be described in the same way. The following steps are to be performed prior to the successful implementation of collaboration, see Fig 3 .  1.

The business processes of the customer enterprise are described as the sequence of events and activities based on ISO 9001 standard.

2.

The business processes of the vendor enterprise are described based on the same standard as in the customer enterprise.

3.

The audit of vendor enterprise business processes is performed by customer followed by recommendations of what should be improved before the cooperation.

4.

The collaborative business process is described. During this process the inputs and outputs of collaborative process are clarified, which is used as input for the integration of enterprises.

5.

The plan for the collaboration establishment is developed. During this step the list of activities to be performed prior to establishment of the cooperation is created.

6.

The required changes are implemented in the IS of customer and vendor enterprise.

Framework for the Forming of Virtual Enterprise

Virtual Enterprise (VE) is usually formed based on existing requirements. In current paper we developed different topologies of VE see Fig.

Data Exchange

After the data required for the collaboration is known it is analyzed from which informational sources it could be received. One way to exchange data is import-export through Microsoft Excel or point to point integration see Fig 5.

Next option is CN solution when both customers and manufacturers have their own ERP systems. In order to exchange and transform the data the mapping of data within existing functionality of ERP system is done. Usually no changes are required from the customer side in this case. Most of the today's ERP can share data through Web Services. With proper authentication and authorization, external systems like Collaborative Network, can read and write data on pages and call code units as XML Web services. If the ERP system is not implemented the analysis will heal to agree on priorities of modules implementation. Last option is to use the Web module to provide the EPR system service for the CN participant enterprise [17].

ERP-CN -ERP ERP-CN -ERP

ERP -CN with ERP for manufacturer

Regular solution with PtP In current case study we consider how EA management based framework can be used for the integration of business processes of collaborative partners, see Fig In order to prepare for collaborative solution implementation the Marketing, Purchase and Manufacturing business processes of Densel Baltic and APL are described in ARIS express based on ISO 9001 standard. The major activities of marketing process are discussion and order confirmation. The confirmation of order in marketing process is recorded in the web of collaborative network. The next process 'purchasing' is initiated; the main activities of this process are placing purchase order and receiving it in to the warehouse. The quality of the goods received in this process is ensured by the collaborative partner. This is seen as advantage of collaborative network, where it is easier to find the trusted partner. Finally, the manufacturing process is initiated by the last activity of purchase when it is updated in the web of collaborative network. Main activities of this process includes, getting drawings from web of CN, planning the production and execution. The execution process is updated on the web of CN. Hence, it is easier for the customer to check the status of the order. The next step on the way to collaboration is to design the future CN system. In designed CN web environment we are going to use the basic ERP functionality for small manufacturers that enables the integration of several web based applications for production management.

In current case study it is considered that the customer APL has a signed agreement with manufacturer Densel Baltic, which includes the fixed price list. Before the order is placed the customer has the possibility to check the availability of resources directly from collaborative network, see Fig 7 . Collaborative network will discover if manufacturing resources are available directly from the production planning system of Densel Baltic. When customer receives this information he will place the order, which is forwarded to Manufacturer. Here we have also additional possibility for the credit check. If the answer is positive the order is forwarded directly to production planning operation, if not the corresponding answer will be received by customer.

Current solution will enhance the collaborative work and it will be also possible easily to add more customers and manufactures in future.

Conclusion

Developed framework for business process implementation is adapted to the requirements of Virtual Collaborative Network of Enterprises. It is suggested to start from the analysis of inter-organizational business processes, prior to implementation of IS which is followed by collaborative business process development. Consensus within the project team has to be established while deciding what should and should not be included in process documentation. Finally, project team has to be realistic in deciding resource implication and training activities for staff.

After the collaborative business process is described the framework suggests using the existing legacy software for communication. The data exchange can be done from Web Server of main enterprise or the Web Server of subcontractor can be used instead. This research paper is intended for use by partner enterprises that are looking forward to enhancement of collaborative business processes.

  (Highly) customized According to Stephan Alter, setting-up a collaborative network requires integration of partners on five subsequent levels, see Fig 1. [12].

1 . 4 .Fig. 1 .

 141 Fig.1. Five steps in implementing collaborative networks[START_REF] Alter | Information Systems -The Foundations of e-Business[END_REF]

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. Six steps of successful implementation of collaboration.

4 .Fig. 4 .

 44 Fig. 4. Virtual Enterprise forming Use Cases

Fig. 5 .

 5 Fig. 5. Integration of Customer and Vendor business

Fig. 6 .

 6 Fig. 6. Integration of Customer and Vendor business processes

Fig. 7 .

 7 Fig. 7. The integration of collaborative network business processes with manufacturer and customer.

Check Resource Request Resource available Place order Order Customer Collaborative network Order pool Credit check Manufacturer Request Resouce availbale Request Resouce pool Receive order Decision Service Enquire is NOT... Enquire is OK Production Planning

Acknowledgments. Authors of this paper would like to acknowledge financial funding from Estonian Ministry of Education and Research for targeted financing scheme SF0140113Bs08, Grant ETF9460 and DoRa.


John Fitzgerald
email: john.fitzgerald@ncl.ac.uk

Jeremy Bryans
email: jeremy.bryans@ncl.ac.uk

Richard Payne
email: richard.payne@ncl.ac.uk

A Formal Model-based Approach to Engineering Systems-of-Systems

Keywords: Systems-of-systems, Information flow, SysML, CSP, VDM, Analysis, Verification

are network-enabled synergistic collaborations between systems that are operationally and managerially independent, distributed, evolve dynamically and exhibit emergence. The design of dependable SoS requires model-based approaches that permit description of contracts between constituent systems at interfaces in a SoS architecture, including functionality and interaction behaviour, and that permit verification of global behaviours. We describe an approach to formal modelbased SoS engineering using complementary notations for functional, interaction and architectural aspects. A case study in modelling information flow in an emergency response SoS demonstrates the viability of the proposed approach and highlights a need for common semantic foundations.

Introduction

Systems-of-systems (SoS) are network-enabled integrations of heterogeneous systems, delivering capabilities and services which cannot be achieved by the constituent systems alone. Examples include enterprise information systems, integrated manufacturing systems, and emergency response collaborations. SoS technology enables the provision of holistic services such as more efficient management and control, more agile response or efficient energy management.

SoS are distinguished from large monolithic systems by several characteristics [START_REF] Maier | Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems[END_REF]. The managerial and operational independence of the constituent systems means that it may be impossible to exercise centralised control over operation, or to ensure that goals are respected. SoS must cope with evolution caused by changes in the purposes and identity of constituent systems. Their geographically distributed character leads to a reliance on network/Internet technologies to ensure communication between constituents. Emergence is central to their functioning in that the SoS delivers a purpose that is not explicitly present in the constituent systems.

SoS can be viewed as Collaborative Network Organisations (CNOs) in the terms of the ARCON reference modelling framework [START_REF]Collaborative Networks: Reference Modeling[END_REF]. SoS are classed as Virtual, Collaborative, Acknowledged or Directed [START_REF] Dahmann | Systems Engineering for Capabilities[END_REF][START_REF] Maier | Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems[END_REF] based on the strength of explicit acknowledgement and subordination to centralized control. They thus exhibit a range of levels of joint endeavour [START_REF]Collaborative Networks: Reference Modeling[END_REF], from simply networking to maintaining a joint identity.

The engineering of SoS is challenging because of the complexity of interactions of constituent systems, and the need for effective communication among diverse stakeholders. A consistent theme of SoS research has been the role of model-based techniques [START_REF] Maier | Research Challenges for Systems-of-Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Valerdi | A Research Agenda for Systemof-Systems Architecting[END_REF] as it has been for CNOs in general [START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | A comprehensive modelling framework for collaborative networked organizations[END_REF]. A precise model of SoS architecture, constituent systems, infrastructure and environment allows early exploration of design alternatives and the contracts that exist between constituent systems. This makes it possible to validate global properties such as resilience to faults or attacks, liveness, safety and security, that affect the reliance that can be placed on a SoS. If models are defined using languages with formal semantics, it becomes possible to perform machine-assisted analysis of global properties, providing early identification and elimination of errors. Formal methods thus offer a way to manage risk.

Although formal methods can be challenging to apply [START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | A comprehensive modelling framework for collaborative networked organizations[END_REF], advances in their automation have increased their viability, notably in software development [START_REF] Woodcock | Formal Methods: Practice and Experience[END_REF]. However, these techniques have been applied only experimentally in SoS Engineering (e.g. [START_REF] Caffall | Formal methods in a system-of-systems development[END_REF]). The goal of our work, supported by the COMPASS project 1 , is to develop modelling languages that are expressive enough to model the architecture and behaviour of candidate SoS structures, and sufficiently rigorously defined to permit trustworthy machine-assisted analysis of global properties.

This paper proposes an approach to formal model-based SoS engineering using complementary formalisms to describe functional and behavioural aspects of constituent systems, and verify global properties of the SoS. In Section 2 we describe this approach, and in Section 3 we describe its pilot application to a study of an emergency response SoS. Section 4 describes future research towards our goal.

A Formal Model-based Approach to SoS

Model-based engineering approaches are challenged by several characteristics of SoS. Independence means that there can only be limited knowledge about, and control over, constituent systems. This suggests that models should support the recording of contracts that bound constituents' behaviour without defining it completely and deterministically. Geographical distribution implies a need to model concurrency in terms of message passing between constituents. The need to manage evolution and structural change requires the ability to model architectural structures and particularly interfaces between constituents. The central role of emergence in SoS makes it imperative to support the verification of SoS-level properties. In addition to these requirements, experience in industry deployment of formal methods teaches us that it is necessary to provide strong links to an accepted architectural notation, and to have robust tools that support both simulation and static analysis [START_REF] Woodcock | Formal Methods: Practice and Experience[END_REF].

No single formalism meets all of the demanding requirements. As the ECOLEAD project concluded, there is no "universal language" for modelling problems for CNOs in general [START_REF]Collaborative Networks: Reference Modeling[END_REF]. We therefore aim to define combinations of interoperable modelling techniques and extend them for SoS development to allow trade-off analysis and verification of SoS-level properties.

Many formal languages have been developed for expressing and analysing particular system characteristics [START_REF] Woodcock | Using Z Specification, Refinement, and Proof[END_REF][START_REF] Hoare | Communicating Sequential Processes[END_REF][START_REF] Pnueli | The temporal logic of programs[END_REF]. However, for a SoS, we need to cover functionality, concurrency, communication, inheritance, time, sharing, and mobility. Some languages cover a few of these features, and there are integrations of formalisms that cater for data, concurrency, and time [START_REF] Treharne | Using a process algebra to control B OPERATIONS[END_REF][START_REF] Fischer | Combination and Implementation of Processes and Data: from CSP-OZ to Java[END_REF][START_REF] Dong | Timed Patterns: TCOZ to Timed Automata[END_REF][START_REF] Leavens | JML: notations and tools supporting detailed design in Java[END_REF][START_REF]Verification of Object-Oriented Software: The KeY Approach[END_REF]. The verification of global properties in design also suggests a need for a theory that covers refinement.

Given the requirements above, our baseline technologies are SysML for architectural description, CSP [START_REF] Hoare | Communicating Sequential Processes[END_REF] for describing concurrency and communication and VDM [START_REF] Fitzgerald | Validated Designs for Object-oriented Systems[END_REF] for data and functionality. We extend SysML [START_REF]Object Management Group: OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML) v1.2, OMG Document Reference[END_REF] with the ability to express rigorous interface contracts [START_REF] Payne | Interface Contracts for Architectural Specification and Assessment: a SysML Extension[END_REF], giving SoS engineers the ability to experiment with consequences of different architectural design decisions. SoS engineers may also define expected interfaces of the constituent systems, which may in turn be provided to developers/operators of constituent systems, or used as a basis of their assessment, providing greater confidence that constituent systems adhere to the expected properties on interfaces. We aim to allow engineers to operate either at the SysML graphical level or at the textual level, or at a combination of these, since there will be support for moving between these views. In Section 3, we explore the feasibility of this combination of formalisms for model-based SoS engineering via a case study.

A Case Study in Emergency Service Co-ordination

In this section we present a study in emergency coordination in order to evaluate the modelling approach proposed in Section 2. Our study is based on the London Emergency Services Major Incident Procedure Manual [START_REF]London Emergency Services Liaison Panel: Major Incident Procedure Manual[END_REF] which documents the process for identifying a major incident, initiating appropriate services (fire, police, ambulance etc.), and the roles and responsibilities of service members involved. The coalition of services forms a SoS: the constituent systems are normally independent services; there is mobility and geographic distribution, and a need to evolve rapidly as goals or volatile conditions change. Ultimately, the SoS must provide an emergent service to stakeholders ranging from people involved in the incident to the media and authorities. This coalition was previously explored using the Event-B formalism [START_REF] Bryans | Refinement-Based Techniques in the Analysis of Information Flow Policies for Dynamic Virtual Organisations[END_REF]. However, that model does not address interaction between participants, and does not provide an accessible representation of the SoS architecture.

We first introduce the application and then the formalisms SysML, CSP and VDM. We present models of the complementary architectural, behavioural and functional aspects of the SoS (Sections 3.1-3.3). For brevity, we omit some details of the formal models, but give a flavour of them. In Section 4, we draw conclusions about the research required to develop a more integrated modelling and analytic framework.

The response to all major incidents follows a broadly similar structure. Members of each service attending the scene form Bronze (operational) command. For more severe incidents, a Silver (tactical) command is formed containing representatives of all the services involved. For long-running incidents, a Gold (strategic) command may be formed at a geographically distant point. Each service has members working at each level, e.g. Silver Police. Each level and service has different responsibilities.

There is a strict information flow policy in the Bronze/Silver/Gold structure, illustrated in Fig. 1. The members of the coalition in a given service and level are permitted to communicate with other members and the same level, for example Bronze Police may communicate with other Bronze officers. The services also have their own communication structure which may be used between adjacent levels. For example, Bronze Police may communicate with Silver Police, but not directly with Gold Police. Communication with the media is (in this example) the sole responsibility of Gold Police. We focus on the rules [START_REF]London Emergency Services Liaison Panel: Major Incident Procedure Manual[END_REF][START_REF] Payne | Modelling the Major Incident Procedure Manual: A Systems of Systems Case Study[END_REF] for releasing casualty information to the media, and the requirements that these rules place on the interfaces between the emergency services (constituent systems). Confusion can arise if the media aggregate casualty figures from multiple sources ("double-counting"), leading to overestimation of the incident's severity. To avoid this, all casualty details must be given to Gold command, which is then responsible for producing a more reliable estimate and passing this to the media. The previous Event-B study [START_REF] Bryans | Refinement-Based Techniques in the Analysis of Information Flow Policies for Dynamic Virtual Organisations[END_REF] considered the passage of information through the emergency response system, and sought to ensure that information was not released to the media without first being cleared by Gold.

Architectural Model in SysML

SysML [START_REF]Object Management Group: OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML) v1.2, OMG Document Reference[END_REF] is a profile for UML 2.0, developed for system engineering, but also supporting the modelling of SoS architectural definitions. It has wide industrial support and a sound tool base. SysML provides several diagram types, with "precise natural language" semantics, to support the description of SoS architectural structure, behaviour and requirements.

A detailed SysML architectural definition of the case study is given in [START_REF] Payne | Modelling the Major Incident Procedure Manual: A Systems of Systems Case Study[END_REF]. For brevity, we omit the general SoS structure. However, Fig. 2, a SysML Internal Block Diagram, details the points of interaction between the SoS constituent systems relevant to casualty information clearance. Contracts between constituent systems are given as provided and required interfaces, containing collections of operation signatures. For example, in Fig. 2, the order_to_collect_info interface is provided by Bronze officers and required by Gold command. The interface contains a single operation (given in the full interface definition [START_REF] Payne | Modelling the Major Incident Procedure Manual: A Systems of Systems Case Study[END_REF], with the signature collectCasualtyDetails(loc:Location), where location is an abstract data type) to order Bronze officers to collect casualty information. The inclusion of pre/postconditions on operations is optional in SysML, and rarely used in practice. However, in order to accommodate interface specifications rich enough for formal analysis of SoS, extensions to interfaces have been proposed, including more rigorous operation definitions, state machine diagrams defining communication protocols, and the means to record the rationale for contract agreement between interfaces [START_REF] Payne | Interface Contracts for Architectural Specification and Assessment: a SysML Extension[END_REF]. Given a SysML architectural model, complementary CSP and VDM models may be defined covering the interaction behaviour and data and functionality aspects respectively. The SysML model provides a basis for ensuring consistency between the defined SoS internal structure and the interface definitions.

Modelling Interaction Behaviour using CSP

The CSP [START_REF] Hoare | Communicating Sequential Processes[END_REF] formalism allows the interaction behaviour of the SoS to be modelled as a set of processes. A process is made up of sequences of actions (or events). Process combinators make explicit the events shared between processes. An abstract model serves to specify the permitted SoS behaviours; more concrete models include communication and structural detail, and may be checked for conformance with the abstract model.

In the abstract specification, the passage of information through the SoS is modelled as a process INFO(i). The variable i is parameterised over the set of all information Inf. A process INFO(i) is made up of three events: each information item i can first be learned, then cleared, and finally released to the media. No further activity is then possible for that process. The specification ACOAL is the combination (|||) of these processes for all possible values of parameter i. The interleaving combinator (|||) indicates that the individual processes INFO(i) do not interact with each other.

INFO(i) = learn.i -> clear.i -> release.i -> STOP ACOAL = ||| i:Inf @ INFO(i)
The more concrete model below identifies the coalition levels and the communication events between them. The Bronze process BR(i) begins by learning the information item i and then describes the passing of i to Silver. The synchronisation event bscomm.i describes the passing of information item i along the channel bscomm. The Silver process SI(i)begins with the synchronisation event bscomm.i, through which it learns about information item i. Silver then passes the item to Gold, which clears and releases the item.

The distributed SoS combines the distributed GOLD with the previous processes.

COALdist = (BRONZE [| {|bscomm|} |] SILVER) [| {|sgcomm|} |] GOLDdist \ {|bscomm, sgcomm, pclear, fclear, aclear|}
The requirement that the distributed coalition model (COALdist) respects (denoted by "[T=") the behavioural constraints specified in the abstract model (ACOAL) can be asserted formally as follows and checked with tool support:

assert ACOAL \ {|clear|} [T= COALdist

Modelling Functionality using VDM

The VDM formal method [START_REF] Fitzgerald | Validated Designs for Object-oriented Systems[END_REF] supports the description of functionality in terms of executable code or in terms of abstract contracts. Tool support is particularly strong for simulation, and there is an established coupling to UML. A model of the emergency response SoS is given in this section. The model contains two model-specific data types: Info is an abstract token type and CType is an enumerated type representing the coalition levels (Bronze, Silver, and Gold). The model focuses on recording its state in terms of the information in each state (known, cleared or released), and the level at which that information is known (coal_known). A data type invariant records consistency restrictions on the allowable state. In this model, the invariant ensures that released information must have been cleared (released subset cleared), and all known information is known by allowed coalition levels (dom coal_known = coalition). State-changing functionality is defined in terms of operations that are specified contractually by means of preconditions and postconditions. Consider, for example, Gold command's clear and release events, the interaction behaviours of which are specified in CSP in process GD(i) in Section 3.2. In VDM, the functionality is specified as operations parameterised over information i:Info. The ClearGold operation assumes in the precondition, pre i in set coal_known(<Gold>), that i is known to Gold command. If this assumption is satisfied, the operation guarantees in the postcondition, post cleared = cleared~ union {i}, to add it to the cleared set (where cleared~ refers to the initial value of the cleared state variable). The ReleaseGold operation is similar. Both operations give rise to proof obligations to ensure preservation of the state invariant, including that of ensuring that released information must have previously been cleared, and that both operations preserve this. Such obligations can be generated automatically, and may be discharged by inspection, testing or formal proof. Comments on the Case Study. Compared to Bryans et al.'s model in Event-B [START_REF] Bryans | Refinement-Based Techniques in the Analysis of Information Flow Policies for Dynamic Virtual Organisations[END_REF], this multi-paradigm approach more clearly shows the interfaces between constituent systems, and hence the points at which structural change is possible, as well as the interaction behaviour, which is here explicit in the CSP rather than "hidden" in event guards. Most importantly, it permits the verification of SoS-level properties that cut across multiple aspects. For example, extending the model to encompass communications errors entails alterations to interaction behaviour (in CSP) and functionality (recording "lost" messages) in the VDM model. Adding redundancy to manage such error would require a modification to the architectural model as well.

Although Bryans et al.'s previous model is less transparent with respect to the SoS architecture and interaction behaviour, it does benefit from the specialist automated verification tools that can be developed for a single formalism. Currently our multiple formalisms do not benefit from a completely consistent semantic base, so that we are not yet able to automate analysis to the same extent.

Conclusions and Future Work

We have proposed a multi-paradigm modelling approach to address the particular challenges of SoS engineering, using baseline formalisms that cover architectural modelling, communication and concurrency, data and functionality. Our case study suggests that it is possible to produce consistent models in such formalisms that describe features of a SoS sufficient to verify global properties of interest.

Although multiple modelling techniques are required to cover the full range of aspects of a SoS, we note that researchers and practitioners in CNO modelling tend to stick with one approach even though it might not be the most appropriate for all or a part of the modelling effort [START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | A comprehensive modelling framework for collaborative networked organizations[END_REF]. We aim to develop a unified framework that integrates architectural, behavioural and functional models. Semantic interoperability between models is needed for verification of properties that cross aspects. A promising starting point is Hoare & He's Unifying Theories of Programming [START_REF] Hoare | Unifying Theories of Programming[END_REF]. This will be developed in a series of definitions starting with basic modelling features and extending these with time and object-orientation.

While formal model-based methods are valuable in describing and verifying the properties of SoS configurations, the capacity exists to restructure or reconfigure during operation in response to faults or attacks. Indeed, a SoS architecture has been proposed to manage such reconfiguration [START_REF] Calinescu | Software Engineering Techniques for the Development of Systems of Systems[END_REF]. The semantics and pragmatics of policy languages for dynamic reconfiguration remain open, including the definition and acquisition of metadata, and the expression and verification of policies [START_REF] Payne | Verifiable Resilience in Architectural Reconfiguration[END_REF].

Feedback from practice is required in any attempt to develop any formal modelling framework. In the COMPASS project, our emerging methods will be evaluated through several industry case studies. For example, in a home audio-video ecosystem, networked systems such as TV, home cinema, DVD and MP3 players deliver digital content from internal or external sources to multiple users. Providers and integrators of constituent systems require the ability to verify overall performance and that the SoS will respect digital rights management (DRM) contracts on the content. A second example is dynamic coordination of healthcare services in response to an accident (call management, dispatching, triage, hospital management systems, etc.). As with the audio-video ecosystem, global properties such as confidentiality need to be analysed. In both cases, the ability to perform such verification is complicated by the need to cope with failures in infrastructure or constituents.

In spite of the emerging potential of formal techniques, there naturally remains a gap between the formal "supply-side" models of SoS compositions and the users' "demand-side" experience [START_REF] Cohen | Why Critical Systems Need Help to Evolve[END_REF]. As with collaborative networked organisations more generally, the development of dependable SoS requires a wide range of disciplines and skills, both socio-technical and formal.

Fig. 1 :

 1 Fig. 1: Permitted information flows between coalition members of different levels

Fig. 2 :

 2 Fig. 2: SysML Internal Block Diagram of Major Incident Response connections

types

  Info = token; CType = <Bronze> | <Silver> | <Gold> state Coal of known: set of Info cleared: set of Info released: set of Info coalition: set of CType coal_known: map CType to set of Info inv mk_Coal(-,cleared, released, coalition, coal_known) == released subset cleared and dom coal_known = coalition

  ClearGold(i:Info) pre i in set coal_known(<Gold>) post cleared = cleared~ union {i}; ReleaseGold(i:Info) pre i in set coal_known(<Gold>) and i in set cleared post released = released~ union {i};

Comprehensive Modelling for Advanced Systems-of-Systems, EC FP7 Project

287829, http://www.compass-research.eu

BR(i) = learn.i -> bscomm.i -> STOP BRONZE = ||| i:Inf @ BR(i) SI(i) = bscomm.i -> sgcomm.i -> STOP SILVER = ||| i:Inf @ SI(i) GD(i) = sgcomm.i -> clear.i -> release.i -> STOP GOLD = ||| i:Inf @ GD(i)

The three processes are combined in the concrete specification as CCOAL, communicating on the events bscomm and sgcomm.

CCOAL = BRONZE [|{|bscomm|}|] (SILVER [|{|sgcomm|}|] GOLD) \ {| bscomm, sgcomm |}

A model checker such as FDR can be used to check that this concrete SoS description admits only behaviours permitted by the abstract specification. The next step is to decompose GOLD into processes representing the emergency services. For example:

The distributed GOLD command is the combination of these processes:


Pawadee Meesapawong
email: meesapawongp@cardiff.ac.uk

Yacine Rezgui
email: rezguiy@cardiff.ac.uk

Haijiang Li

Assessing Value-based Plans in Public R&D Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Keywords: AHP, collaboration, innovation, public R&D, societal value

There is a need for research regarding how to manage public research and development (R&D) to create societal values. The paper focuses on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in a case study, the microelectronics research center. Twenty-four factors (e.g. mission, internal R&D, collaboration and management-related factors) were constructed in a hierarchy model for assessing three innovation plans: knowledge, societal and commercial orientation. The AHP analysis reveals that commercial orientation has the highest impact score on innovation factors. However, given that the selected case study is a taxpayer-funded public R&D organisation, societal expectations have to be factored into their innovation plans. Hence, the paper provides a sensitivity analysis as a result of which a suggestion is made to increase the priority of collaboration-related factors to improve the impact of societal orientation.

Introduction

Managing research and development (R&D) needs more efforts to develop innovation models which span multiple dimensions such as individual, organisational, and environmental [START_REF] Shavinina | The international handbook on innovation[END_REF]. Environmental factors influencing corporate innovations involve the customer dimension, i.e. how to carry out customer-oriented innovations [START_REF] Shavinina | The international handbook on innovation[END_REF], [START_REF] Hoonsopon | The Empirical Study of the Impact of Product Innovation Factors on the Performance of New Products: Radical and Incremental Product Innovation[END_REF]. In contrast, taxpayer-funded organisations should not only serve specific customers but also serve general citizens, thus focusing on societal-oriented innovations [START_REF] Denhardt | The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering[END_REF], [START_REF] Greener | Public management : a critical text[END_REF]. However, many taxpayer-funded R&D organisations have failed to create values to theirs nations [START_REF] Shavinina | The international handbook on innovation[END_REF], [START_REF] Cozzarin | Data and the measurement of R&D program impacts[END_REF].

Additionally, values can be created at different levels: individual, organisational, and societal level [START_REF] Vorakulpipat | Value creating construction virtual teams: A case study in the construction sector[END_REF]. The individual values that employees perceive in a given situation influence the overall values of an organisation [START_REF] Burnes | Managing change : a strategic approach to organisational dynamics[END_REF]. The important issue for employees is what the organisations values are. Societal values can guide expressions of individuals and organisations, however, individual perceptions to societal values are non-systematic approaches. Employees tend to respond to performance evaluations whether or not they meet such values. Organisations have to realise which functional areas are relevant to societal values and shape perception of those areas into systematic approaches [START_REF] Dierkes | Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge[END_REF]. However, value orientations within societies change over time, thus proactive organisations learn to respond to societal influences [START_REF] Dierkes | Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge[END_REF].

The authors identify a research gap in that there have been very few studies on how to manage innovations in public R&D [START_REF] Meesapawong | Perceiving societal value as the core of innovation management in public research and development organizations[END_REF]. Organisations may build collaborative networks in order to perform meaningful contribution [START_REF] Denhardt | The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering[END_REF], [START_REF] Greener | Public management : a critical text[END_REF]. Hence, this paper first reviews existing collaborative networks in R&D. Next, the consolidation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to achieve a hierarchy model for corporate innovations in public R&D is described. The AHP findings in the selected case study, namely 'MEC', are then further discussed. The final section draws out the contribution of the paper and provides the directions for further research.

Collaboration Dimension in R&D

Innovation has become an important aspect of organisational management. It has been defined broadly in different contexts and usually the word 'new' is emphasised. Managing innovation is a process to find the proper ways involving all the activities in turning new ideas into widely used practice such as commercialisation [START_REF] Tidd | Managing Innovation : Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change[END_REF].There has been a growing awareness in a crucial role of collaborative networks in innovation performance [START_REF] Shavinina | The international handbook on innovation[END_REF], [START_REF] Nieto | The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation[END_REF], [START_REF] Tsai | Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective[END_REF]. Private R&D organisations collaborate with others for several economic reasons, such as reducing cost, reducing time, reducing risk and achieving high novelty degrees of innovations [START_REF] Tidd | Managing Innovation : Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change[END_REF], [START_REF] Nieto | The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation[END_REF]. For public R&D organisations, however, the reasons to initiating collaboration may be slightly different. Some public R&D organisations have been spurred to collaborate with universities and firms because of the growth of societal expectations and factors related to national policies [START_REF] Mowery | The changing structure of the US national innovation system: implications for international conflict and cooperation in R&D policy[END_REF].

To achieve successful collaboration, public R&D has to communicate with internal and external players. For internal players, public R&D needs to motivate employees with clear understanding of responsibilities and clear policies for commitments such as time-limited policies [START_REF] Shavinina | The international handbook on innovation[END_REF]. For external players, budget constraints force public R&D to select potential projects and make the decision whether funding is on the basis of repayment, non-repayment or repayable if successful [START_REF] Cozzarin | Data and the measurement of R&D program impacts[END_REF], [START_REF] Mowery | The changing structure of the US national innovation system: implications for international conflict and cooperation in R&D policy[END_REF]. Performance of collaboration can be assessed both in terms of tangible and intangible values. The tangible values are new products which meet societal expectations and intellectual properties for innovation competitiveness. The intangible values include, for example, that professional researchers in public R&D help industries which lack human capital [START_REF] Shavinina | The international handbook on innovation[END_REF]. An important role of collaborative R&D leads to a growing need for new perspectives on innovation management in R&D [START_REF] Daniel | A model of value assessment in collaborative R&D programs[END_REF]. R&D should emphasis strong and strategic linkages amongst collaborating stakeholders. The model of innovation management should increase importance of societal ingredients such as having the potential to capture knowledge originating from social interactions [START_REF] Trott | Innovation management and new product development[END_REF]. However, a business model of an organisation should represent of what value is provided to customers [START_REF] Osterwalder | Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept[END_REF]. In addition, innovation management encompasses all the key activities needed to develop successful products and services [START_REF] Tidd | Managing Innovation : Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change[END_REF], thus the authors argue that the innovation model should not only focus on the performance of collaboration, but also the other organisational dimensions.

Meesapawong et al. [START_REF] Meesapawong | Perceiving societal value as the core of innovation management in public research and development organizations[END_REF] proposed an innovation model involving four dimensions of public R&D: the mission of public R&D, internal R&D, collaborative projects, and management. They advocated that public R&D organisations should focus on nurturing values from these four dimensions. Furthermore, Meesapawong et al. [START_REF] Meesapawong | Factors influencing innovation management in public research and development[END_REF] employed the Delphi method, an expert-based judgment, to provide the factors associated to each dimension which are essential for applying the proposed framework in public R&D. However, the Delphi findings could not provide a clearcut rank of the factors. Moreover, the level of importance of the collaboration-related factors is what constitutes the focus of the research?

Methodology

To address research gap of practicing collaborative projects to stimulate innovations in public R&D, the authors employ the AHP to provide a clear-cut rank of collaboration-related factors including an authoritative model to manage innovations in practice.

The AHP is a widely used tool in solving a complex problem involving tangible and intangible factors. Breaking down a decision problem into a hierarchical structure makes decisions more comfortably than rating the large number of items [START_REF] Saaty | The Analytic Hierarchy Process[END_REF], [START_REF] Saaty | Models, Methods, Concepts and Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process[END_REF], [START_REF] Turban | Decision support and expert systems : management support systems[END_REF]. The unequal priorities by which alternatives are evaluated could be used as supporting information to describe how changes of the factors affect scores of alternatives [START_REF] Saaty | The Analytic Hierarchy Process[END_REF], [START_REF] Chin | An AHP based study of critical factors for TQM implementation in Shanghai manufacturing industries[END_REF]. Although many studies propose that the combination of the AHP and Fuzzy theory can handle uncertainty of decision making, Saaty [START_REF] Saaty | On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process[END_REF], who first introduced the AHP, states that the way in which the Fuzzy approach reduces inconsistency judgments distort the original priorities and makes the validity of the outcome worse.

The research focuses on a case study drawn from Thailand, the same country as selected in the Delphi study of Meesapawong et al. [START_REF] Meesapawong | Factors influencing innovation management in public research and development[END_REF] because conducting research across countries may face results diversity stemmed from socio-cultural differences [START_REF] Hayne | A comparative analysis of critical issues facing Canadian information systems personnel: a national and global perspective[END_REF]. The AHP case study is the first integrated circuits fabrication research center in Thailand, namely MEC (the name has been disguised for confidentiality issues). MEC is fully funded by Thai government to develop commercialised products and to collaborate with local industries. The current shrinking of governmental budget forces MEC to plan a management model to deal with its complex missions. Thus, the AHP is employed to select a proper plan of managing future innovations in MEC.

The first step of adapting AHP for innovation planning in MEC is to construct a pre-determined hierarchy and then discuss it with MEC's managers. The top level of the hierarchy is the goal to evaluate innovation plans in MEC. The next levels consist of the factors verified by the Delphi study of Meesapawong et al. [START_REF] Meesapawong | Factors influencing innovation management in public research and development[END_REF]. Alternative plans evaluated by the factors are then arranged at the lowest level. Although the factors are assumed to be influencing factors fitting to Thai public R&D, MEC's managers are expected to approve and rearrange the factors in the hierarchy. The approved hierarchy is used as the model in developing the AHP questionnaire asking the respondents to compare the importance of the factors in the hierarchy, and then evaluate the impact of alternative plans on the factors. The scale of pairwise comparison in the AHP uses integer '1' to '9' to represent the intensity of importance over another factor ranging from equal importance to extreme importance [START_REF] Saaty | Models, Methods, Concepts and Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process[END_REF]. The AHP questionnaire asks each expert to compare importance amongst factors: which factor is more important, and how much more? The answers of each expert represented in ratio scale are then transferred to a matrix. The validity of AHP is approved by 'Consistency Ratio (C.R.)' calculated to reflect the confidence in the priorities derived from a pairwise matrix. The acceptable consistency ratio should be less than 0.10 [START_REF] Saaty | The Analytic Hierarchy Process[END_REF], [START_REF] Saaty | Why the magic number seven plus or minus two[END_REF]. The consistency ratio is calculated from equation [START_REF] Shavinina | The international handbook on innovation[END_REF]. If a consistency ratio of a matrix is unacceptable, revisions are called for.

(1)

where: λ max = max eigenvalue of matrix ; n = matrix size ; R.I.= random index [START_REF] Saaty | Why the magic number seven plus or minus two[END_REF] Each question yields a set of matrices results from individual experts, hence the set of matrices need to be aggregated into a group's matrix by deriving geometric means. The importance priorities of each group's matrix are then derived from the principal eigenvector of the matrix [START_REF] Saaty | The Analytic Hierarchy Process[END_REF]. The summation of local priorities in each matrix (or each hierarchical level) is equal to 1. Each local priority needs to be converted to global priority by multiplying with the priority of its parent's priority. The sum of global priorities of all factors in a hierarchy is equal to 1.

The impacts of alternative plans are rated in pairs with respect to each of the subfactors. Similar to importance priorities, impact weights of alternative plans (a mn ) are calculated from the eigenvectors of group's matrices where total impact weight of all alternative plans is equal to 1. Basically, the alternatives are evaluated by using the composite scores which each alternative contributes to all the criteria in the hierarchy [START_REF] Saaty | The Analytic Hierarchy Process[END_REF]. The alternative which shows the highest composite score is the most likely selected alternative. The composite scores are the product of impact multiplied by importance as shown in equation ( 2).

(2)

where: a mn = impact weight of alternative plan m with respect to factor n g n = global priority of factor n

Results

Discussion with top management in MEC resulted in a five-level hierarchy model (Fig. 1) the first level (H1) of which is the goal of the hierarchy model to evaluate innovation plans in MEC. The second level (H2) is constructed from four main dimensions of MEC: mission, internal R&D, collaboration and management. The third and fourth levels are composed of factors verified by the MEC's managers. The fifth level of the hierarchy is arranged for alternative plans which are hypothesised . . .

Discussion

The AHP study shows that the commercial orientation has the greatest impact on innovations. As a taxpayer-funded organisation, MEC cannot ignore the importance of collaboration-related factors and the innovation plan focusing on societal values. Hence, a sensitivity analysis is performed to establish whether any change in priority of any factor could make the societal orientation plan become the most impact plan on innovations. The sensitivity tests with respect each dimension shows that changes in ranks of plans are only found in the collaboration dimension (Fig. 2). The societal orientation becomes the most impact plan on innovations when the priority of collaboration is more than 43%, whereas the original value is 9.42%. There is a large gap to bring the priority of collaboration to the point that made the societal orientation plan become more important in terms of impact to the overall innovation factors. To highlight the collaboration dimension, MEC may start from understanding the subfactors under the dimension. Fig. 3 reveals similar patterns of impact and importance of sub-factors. This means that MEC have already distributed priorities to the subfactors corresponding to the impact. However, to increase in overall importance of collaboration-related factors by keeping the same fraction amongst them is essential for MEC to improve its innovation capability and satisfy societal aspirations. The AHP findings in MEC can be further applied for particular activities in collaboration such as selecting collaborative projects based on the collaborationrelated factors obtained from the paper (as shown in Fig. 4). With respect to all factors, the commercial plan shows the highest impact score on innovation factors. However, the sensitivity analysis provides a view that MEC can improve its innovation capability and satisfy societal aspirations by raising the priorities of collaboration-related factors. Additionally, there is a large gap to bring the priority of collaboration to the point that made the societal orientation plan become the most impact plan.

The AHP study in MEC can be further elaborated by establishing a new AHP model, the goal of which is to implement the plan of societal orientation such as selecting collaborative projects. Nevertheless, this study is limited at the stage of innovation planning and is not extended to the implement stage such as selecting collaborative projects.

Although, the AHP model is specifically designed for MEC, other public R&D organisations could use this model as a pre-determined hierarchy model to develop hierarchy models suited to their organisational environment because the factors are originally gathered from research of public R&D in developed and developing countries before refinement by a Thai Delphi panel. The authors hope that the present paper will contribute to the ongoing improvement of innovation management in public R&D.

  management that are conceived by making assumptions about current and future trends of MEC. There are 3 plans which focus on different orientations (a) knowledge orientation focusing on for academic excellence (b) societal orientation focusing on societal values and (c) commercial orientation focusing on commercial values of research products. As shown in the hierarchies (Fig. 1), there are 24 sub-factors arranged in the third (H3) and the fourth level (H4) by which alternative plans are evaluated. Group's judgments regarding unequal importance of the factors are presented in terms of 'Global priorities (G)'. The results show that the 'Commercial orientation (Plan C)' has the highest composite score at 0.4871, while the composite score of the 'Societal orientation, (Plan S)' and the 'Knowledge orientation (Plan K)' are 0.3369 and 0.1760, respectively.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Hierarchy model for innovation management in MEC

Fig. 2 .Fig. 3 .

 23 Fig. 2. Sensitivity of innovation plans with respect to collaboration

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. A pre-determined hierarchy for selecting collaborative projects


Marcus Vinicius Drissen-Silva

Ricardo J Rabelo
email: rabelo@das.ufsc.br

A Model for Collaborative Decision-Making for the Evolution of Virtual Enterprises

Keywords: Collaborative discussion, Decentralized Decision-making, Project Management, Change Management, Virtual Enterprises

des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Collaborative Networks (CN) have been considered one of the most prominent business strategies to face global competition. Collaboration between companies offers conditions to reduce expenses, increase capacity, broaden markets and improve themselves with knowledge acquired in business [START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | ECOLEAD: A Holistic Approach to Creation and Management of Dynamic Virtual Organizations[END_REF]. There are several manifestations of CN. This paper focuses on Virtual Enterprises (VE).

A Virtual Enterprise (VE) can be generally defined as a temporary alliance of autonomous and heterogeneous enterprises that dynamically joint together to cope with a given business opportunity, acting as one single enterprise. A VE dismiss itself after accomplishing its goal [START_REF] Rabelo | Effective management of dynamic supply chains[END_REF].

Managing the VE life cycle efficiently is crucial for the business realization, so involving the creation, operation, evolution and the dissolution of a VE. This paper focuses on the VE evolution phase. In general, the VE evolution phase comprises activities related to the management of changes and adaptations in the VE's plan in order to achieve its goals and duties. This comprehends actions like modifications in some technical specification, changes or negotiations in the VE's schedule, replacement of some members, among others [START_REF] Drissen-Silva | A Collaborative Decision Support Framework for Managing the Evolution of Virtual Enterprises[END_REF].

VEs impose, however, respecting a number of requirements in decision making. The most important one is that decisions should be performed in a collaborative, decentralized, distributed and transparent way, considering that VE members are partners, autonomous, independent and geographically dispersed. Besides that, the fact that each VE is per definition completely different from one to another (in terms of number of partners, their skills, culture, local regulations, specificities determined by given clients, etc.) the solution of some problems is not necessarily deterministic and the usage of previous decisions for equivalent problems is not necessarily useful [START_REF] Drissen-Silva | A Collaborative Decision Support Framework for Managing the Evolution of Virtual Enterprises[END_REF].

Within this wide context, this paper presents very final results of previous and so far ongoing research of the authors, providing a collaborative, flexible and humancentered decision support framework to help VE members in the management of problems that cause changes in the VE operation, considering those mentioned requirements. The underlying research hypothesis is that an environment like that can significantly enhance the agility, quality and trustworthiness in the VE decisionmaking. It assumes that VE members come from a long-term alliance of VBE (Virtual organization Breeding Environment) type, so having some level of preparedness and sharing some common working principles [START_REF] Camarinha-Matos | Collaborative Networked Organizations -A Research Agenda for Emerging Business Models[END_REF].

This research was developed under an applied, partially exploratory, researchaction and qualitative scientific methodological basis. The essential value proposition of this work compared to related works on decision-making for VE is to offer a supporting framework and methodology that systematize, guide and assist VE managers in the discussions about a specific problem within the VE evolution phase towards its resolution.

This paper is organized as follows: Section 1 has presented the general requirements for VE management in the evolution phase. Section 2 discusses the problem related to collaborative decision-making. Section 3 presents the developed framework for managing the VE evolution. Section 4 presents the prototype. Section 5 discusses the results and conclusions of this work.

Collaborative Decision Making

Distributed decision-making is not a new research topic. A number of works have been developed along the last decade on this matter, especially in the form of distributed decision support systems [START_REF] Bostrom | Group facilitation and group support systems[END_REF]. Actually, the work presented in this paper follows the same line but it adds diverse elements and requirements from the VE area.

Developing a comprehensive and flexible environment that can cope with those basic requirements for managing the VE evolution phase is very challenging, both in terms of managerial methods and models, and from the IT point of view. Some authors have approached this problem (including the operation phase) in different ways. Rabelo and Pereira-Klen [START_REF] Rabelo | A Multi-agent System for Smart Co-ordination of Dynamic Supply Chains[END_REF] have introduced a fixed decision protocol to deal with changes in the VE. Hodík and Stach [START_REF] Hodík | Virtual Organization Simulation for Operational Management[END_REF] have developed a multi-agent-based decision support system to simulate the impact of decisions in a VE. Negretto et al. [START_REF] Negretto | VO Management Solutions: VO management eservices[END_REF] have created a distributed supervision system to monitor the VE plan. Noran [START_REF] Noran | A Decision Support Framework for Collaborative Networks[END_REF] has developed a decision support framework to help managers in the partners' selection in the VE creation. In spite of their values, they are limited in properly coping with two key requirements in the VE evolution: the need for decentralized decision-making and the consideration of partners' autonomy. They assume that the so-called VE coordinator is the only one who has the rights to access all information and to take / impose related decisions, i.e. a centralized approach. The fact is that there are so many particular details to be considered about all the involved partners that it is even dangerous to leave the decision only up to the VE coordinator, regarding that the ultimate goal is to reach a feasible solution and not just another theoretical VE plan. Partners should discuss about the problem, and the solution should emerge from this respecting their autonomies and current governance model.

In order to cope with this scenario, five basic aspects have to be supported for a comprehensive decision-making environment for the VE evolution [START_REF] Drissen-Silva | A Collaborative Decision Support Framework for Managing the Evolution of Virtual Enterprises[END_REF]: Partners' Discussion, Methodological guidance, Decision Protocols, Performance evaluation, ICT Infrastructure. Actually there are several works that handles these issues but in an isolated way. None of the works analyzed in the literature presented a comprehensive decision model and environment that cope with those requirements in an integrated way and that are devoted to the VE evolution phase, which is the case of the this presented work.

Distributed Decision Support Framework

In order to cope with the requirements previously mentioned and to transform them into more concrete artifacts and integrated model, a framework has been conceived. It considers such requirements, transform and groups them into four pillars: Human, Organizational, Knowledge and Technological. The rationale is to enable (empowered) people to discuss and to decide about a problem related to a given organizational process, applying a set of organizational procedures and methods, using information and knowledge available in the VBE's data repositories, all this supported by ICT (technological) [START_REF] Drissen-Silva | A Collaborative Decision Support Framework for Managing the Evolution of Virtual Enterprises[END_REF]. The Human pillar represents VE companies' managers who use their tacit knowledge and collaborative attitude to help solving the problem come from the VE operation. The Organizational pillar comprises intra and inter-enterprises processes, ontologies, working methods, techniques and procedures that should be involved in the distributed and collaborative decision-making process. The Knowledge pillar comprises explicit information and knowledge available in the VBE's data repositories. The Technological pillar refers to all kind of ICT tools, platforms and security artifacts available that help managers accessing organizational methods.

Those pillars are 'operated' through three concrete elements: the Decision Protocol, the Distributed and Collaborative Decision Support environment, and the ICT Toolbox. They all form the Distributed Collaborative Decision Support System for the Management of VE Evolution (DDSS-VE). Based on the classification proposed by Turban and Aronson [START_REF] Turban | Decision support systems and intelligent systems[END_REF], the DDSS-VE is classified as a negotiation-based, decentralized, partially hierarchical, semi-structured, multi-participant and team-based system. Figure 1 presents the framework's architecture, also illustrating the relation of these elements with those pillars.

VE operation services & systems represent the activities responsible for monitoring and detecting problems in the current VE's plan. Once a problem is detected, the control flow is passed to the DDSS-VE in order to manage the problem resolution. There are three main modules in the DDSS-VE architecture. The Decision Protocol (Figure 2) is responsible for guiding and coordinating the discussions among partners, also considering the set of (configured) particularities of the VE, depending on each case offering the required flexibility and adaptability. The Discussion Environment is responsible for supporting discussions among VE partners (VE Coordinator, the VE members and, optionally, helped by an invited expert). It is composed of an instant message module (a Chat), a forum module and a file exchange module, where partners can discuss, argument and exchange information during the problem resolution. The Tool Box contains a set of tools and software services that help partners in the discussions and evaluations. It is composed of performance monitoring and evaluation tools and other supporting services. ICT infrastructure acts as the 'bus' that integrates all these modules, tools and services as well as that grants access to the VBE database. The decision protocol reflects the vision that sees a VE as a project, regarding that a project consists of a temporary effort to create a product or a unique service [START_REF] Pmbok | A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge[END_REF]. As such, managers can have a support from project management reference models.

A number of project reference models were deeply evaluated and it was realized that most of them are not adequate at all to cope with the intrinsic dynamics of VEs, where changes and uniqueness are a routine and not an exception, besides the fact that VEs are often short-term projects. ECM (Engineering Change Management) [START_REF] Tavčar | Engineering change management in individual and mass production[END_REF] was the one considered as the most adequate model, defining the phases of identification of a need of change, the proposal of a change, its planning and its effective final implementation.

Prototype Implementation

Partners Discussion Environment supports functionalities for argumentation, which were adapted from HERMES system [START_REF] Karacapilidis | Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system[END_REF]. Yet, it helps partners in finding consensus on topics of discussion (essentially via comparing alternatives to solve problems, checking the impact of proposed solutions at each member, and voting), whose functionalities were adapted from DELPHI method [START_REF] Dalkey | An experimental application of the Delphi method to the case of experts[END_REF]. In general, these adaptations had the aim of supporting partners' autonomy and transparency as well as of providing a more structured way of deciding (via the decision protocol).

The decision protocol helps managers to follow general actions (according the ECM model) at the right moment in the decision making process.

The Toolbox was populated with a tool for capacity planning, which uses dashboards to support performance evaluation. The protocol was modeled in BPMN / BPM environment and its 'decision blocks' (based on ECM) were implemented as web services. The whole decision support environment was implemented in a web portal, on top of Liferay web application server (www.liferay.com).

Decision Protocol

Once started the decision-making environment (i.e. once a problem is detected at VE operation phase), the decision protocol appears to each invited participant as a sequence of instructions to be done. These instruction are general steps (from ECM) to guide a more or less free discussion about a problem among the affected VE members. The protocol can be customized for particular cases when a VE is created or can be generally instantiated for the whole VBE, i.e. valid for all VEs.

Partners' Discussion

Considering that the decision protocol has already passed through the phase "Need of Change Identification" (see Figure 2), figure 3 generally illustrates how the discussion would proceed when trying to solve a conflict from the protocol's phase "Change Proposal" on. In this example, four partners from different countries would be involved: the VE Coordinator (Mr. Ricardo) has concluded that it is necessary to start a discussion with two members (Mr. Marcus and Mr. Rui) due to a problem detected in the specification of the first allotment related to the development of a new helmet style for racing. After starting the collaborative discussion, the protocol enters in the "Changing Planning" phase of the protocol (Figure 2) where different scenarios are evaluated using tools from the toolbox. "Changing Planning" phase ends when the most suitable alternative is chosen in the "Implementation" phase, where the new VE plan is settled and then the VE goes back to the Operation phase.

Evaluation Tool for Decision Making

In order to offer a tool for previous evaluation of the decision impact using performance evaluation methods, a specific module was developed. The performance indicators were mostly based on the SCOR model [15]. This tool uses different spreadsheets, containing dashboards that offer the possibility to see each partner's competence, production scheduling, available resources, amount of resources, etc., to consider each partner's task schedule to calculate scenarios for solving the problem under discussion within the DDSS-VE. Figure 4 shows the developed dashboard.

For the decision model evaluation and considering the exploratory nature of this research, the system was tested within a controlled environment (in a lab-scale), where some near-real problems were introduced related to some hypothetical VEs using reference information models. Discussions were then simulated in an asynchronous way, with a number of invited users distributed over a set of computers in a local network. The prototype and protocol were executed properly and users could realize the more agility the whole framework provided. Besides that, the system and model were carefully presented to a group of experts in the area, both from academia and companies. After this, an evaluation questionnaire was distributed to them. In general, they all agreed that the proposal has the potential to provide more transparency, quality, agility and confidence in decision-making in a VE scenario.

Conclusions

This paper has presented final results of a research on an integrated model to support collaborative decision-making among VE members for solving problems during the VE evolution phase. The model combines a decision protocol and a distributed and collaborative decision support framework and system. It has been designed to cope with VE requirements, in particular in what members' autonomy and decision transparency is concerned, including some governance and impact analysis.

Discussions are driven by a decision protocol and it is semi-automated by a system. This means that managers' experience and knowledge are preserved in order to reach a feasible solution for the given problem while their macro actions are guided by a protocol that help them to keep focused on the main issues about the problem, having the ECM project management model as the basis for.

The results have showed that supporting partners' autonomy, Internet-based decentralized decision-making, voting and transparency have effectively worked out in a controlled environment. During the discussions, selected partners could have access to the problem, could freely exchange opinions about how to solve it, and could express their preferences via voting. This guaranteed that the solution emerged from the collaboration and trust among partners. The decision protocol drove participants to take actions at the right moment.

Considering the limitations and assumptions applied to this research, it was possible to conclude that a framework like that has the potential to enhance: the agility in decision-making (discussions tends to flow more straight-forwarded as they are guided by a protocol that is based on project management models); the quality in the decisions (as information is obtained on-line and partners can check the impact of possible solutions at their companies); and that partners were more confident in sharing information about problems as long as the environment preserved their autonomy and they could expose their opinions and further voting.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Framework Architecture

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Basis Protocol for the VE Evolution Management

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. Some snapshots of the Partner's Discussion Environment

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. Evaluation Scenarios Tool using Dashboards for Tasks Rescheduling