Top

Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics

Published in:

01-02-2022 | INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Structural and Functional Modeling of Processes with a Dedicated Control Subject

Author: L. A. Mylnikov

Published in: Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics | Issue 1/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract—

The efficiency of informational support depends on the speed and quality of making management decisions, as well as their relevance and adaptability to changing conditions, which determine the efficiency of the functioning of production systems. The paper considers the development of artifacts to represent structural and functional models of organizational systems described by the set of interacting processes and subprocesses functioning under uncertainty. The creation of a new system of artifacts is caused by the necessity to distinguish the subject of management in an explicit form combining discrete and continuous processes within the framework of one model, as well as determining the efficiency of the obtained models. The eEPC, BPMN, and IDEF methodology of structural modeling served as a basis for this development. The use of the proposed system of artifacts is shown using the example of managing the product portfolio of production systems operating on a free market. The presented form of representation allows one to structure the running processes and investigate their efficiency by the methods of simulation modeling and statistical analysis.

previous article Predicting the Development of Scientific Trends on the Basis of Analysis of Conflicts between Fields of Knowledge

Markowitz, H.M., Portfolio selection, J. Finance, 1952, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 77–91.

Sharpe, W.F., Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk, J. Finance, 1964, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1964.tb02865.xCrossRef

Lintner, J., The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets, Rev. Econ. Stat., 1965, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 13–37.CrossRef

Mossin, J., Equilibrium in a capital asset market, Econometrica, 1966, vol. 34, no. 4, p. 768.CrossRef

Black, F. and Litterman, R., Global portfolio optimization, Financial Analysts J., 1992, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 28–43. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v48.n5.28CrossRef

Olson, D.L., Supply Chain Information Technology, New York: Business Expert Press, 2014.

Zou, X., Yang, Q., and Wang, Q., Analysing the risk propagation in the project portfolio network using the sirf model, proceedings of the 10th international conference on operations research and enterprise systems, Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems—ICORES, 2021, pp. 226–232. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010288102260232

Ghasemi, F., Sari, M.H.M., Yousefi, V., Falsafi, R., and Tamošaitienė, J., Project portfolio risk identification and analysis, considering project risk interactions and using bayesian networks, Sustainability, 2018, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 1609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051609CrossRef

Young, M. and Conboy, K., Contemporary project portfolio management: reflections on the development of an australian competency standard for project portfolio management, Int. J. Proj. Manage., 2013, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1089–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.03.005CrossRef

10.

Nabati, M.M. and Ashrafi, M., Modeling projects interdependencies to measure their synergic impacts on a project portfolio, J. Proj. Manage., 2021, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 143–156. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2021.2.003CrossRef

11.

Danesh, D., Ryan, M.J., and Abbasi, A., Using analytic hierarchy process as a decision-making tool in project portfolio management, Int. J. Econ. Manage. Eng., 2015, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 4194–4204. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1110373CrossRef

12.

Neumeier, A., Radszuwill, S., and Garizy, T.Z., Modeling project criticality in it project portfolios, Int. J. Proj. Manage., 2018, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 833–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.04.005CrossRef

13.

Tirole, J., The Theory of Industrial Organization, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988.

14.

Mezhov, S. and Mylnikov, L., Specifics of project management on industrial innovation, Proc. Int. Conf. Appl. Innovation IT, 2018, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 103–108. https://doi.org/10.13142/kt10006.32

15.

Mylnikov, L.A., Managing economic efficiency of production systems in a fluent flow of new projects, Probl. Upr., 2020, no. 6, pp. 31–45. https://doi.org/10.25728/pu.2020.6.4

16.

Titarenko, B., Hasnaoui, A., Titarenko, R., and Buzuk, L., Robust data analysis in innovation project portfolio management, MATEC Web Conf., 2018, vol. 170, p. 01017. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201817001017

17.

Gutjahr, W.J., Optimal dynamic portfolio selection for projects under a competence development model, OR Spectrum, 2011, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-009-0180-9MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

18.

Sharifighazvini, M.R., Ghezavati, V.R., Raissi, S., and Makui, A., Integration of a new MCDM approach based on the DEA, FANP with MONLP for efficiency-risk assessment to optimize project portfolio by branch and bound: a real case-study, Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res., 2018, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 261–278. https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/52.1.18.16CrossRef

19.

Yu, L., Wang, S., Wen, F., Lai, K.K., Genetic algorithm-based multi-criteria project portfolio selection, Ann. Oper. Res., 2012, vol. 197, no. 1, pp. 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-010-0819-6MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

20.

Tavana, M., Khalili-Damghani, and Abtahi, A.-R., A fuzzy multidimensional multiple-choice knapsack model for project portfolio selection using an evolutionary algorithm, Ann. Oper. Res., 2013, vol. 206, no. 1, pp. 449–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1387-3CrossRef

21.

Burkova, I., Titarenko, B., Hasnaoui, A., and Titarenko, R., Network programming theory application to project portfolio formation, Serb. J. Manage., 2021, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 5–19. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm16-24417CrossRef

22.

Mylnikov, L.A., The model of effective management in the formation of a production portfolio, Autom. Doc. Math. Linguist., 2021, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 203–209. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0005105521050034CrossRef

23.

Geunes, J., Taaffe, K., and Romeijn, H.E., Models for integrated production planning and order selection, IIE Ann. Conf., Proc., Norcross, Ga., 2002, 2002, pp. 1–6.

24.

Perez-Castillo, R., Ruiz-Gonzalez, F., Genero, M., and Piattini, M., A systematic mapping study on enterprise architecture mining, Enterp. Inf. Syst., 2019, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 675–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2019.1590859CrossRef

25.

Kulkarni, V., Clark, T., Barat, S., and Barn, B., Model based enterprise simulation and analysis, Advances in Conceptual Modeling. ER 2014, Indulska, M. and Purao, S., Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8823, Cham: Springer, 2014, pp. 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12256-4_1CrossRef

26.

Zimmermann, A., Schmidt, R., Sandkuhl, K., Wißotzki, M., Jugel, D., and Möhring, M., Digital enterprise architecture – Transformation for the internet of things, IEEE 19th Int. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop, Adelaide, 2015, IEEE, 2015, pp. 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOCW.2015.16

27.

Checkland, P.B., Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, New York: Willey, 1981.

28.

Bertoni, M., Bordegoni, M., Cugini, U., Regazzoni, D., and Rizzi, C., PLM paradigm: How to lead BPR within the Product Development field, Comput. Ind., 2009, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2009.02.004CrossRef

29.

Champy, J., Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, New York: Harper Collins, 1994.

30.

Larsen, M.A. and Myers, M.D., BPR success or failure? A business process reengineering project in the financial services industry, Proc. 18th Int. Conf. on Information Systems. ICIS 1997, Atlanta, 1997, Association for Information Systems, 1997, pp. 367–382.

31.

Wilden, R., Hohberger, J., Devinney, T.M., and Lumineau, F., 60 years of March and Simon’s organizations: An empirical examination of its impact and influence on subsequent research, J. Manage. Stud., 2019, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 1570–1604. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12531CrossRef

32.

Costello, K., The evolution of enterprise architecture, Gartner, 2019. https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/the-evolution-of-enterprise-architecture. Cited November 20, 2020.

33.

Bollard, A., Singla, A., and Sood, R., The next-generation operating model for the digital world, McKinsey Digital, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/ mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-next-generation-operating-model-for-the-digital-world. Cited November 20, 2020.

34.

Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and Its Support Environment, Hofstede, A.H.M., Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., and Russell, N., Eds., Berlin: Springer, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03121-2CrossRef

35.

Scheer, A.-W., ARIS—Modellierungsmethoden, Metamodelle, Anwendungen, Berlin: Springer, 2001, 4th ed.CrossRef

36.

Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Object Management Group, 2013.

37.

Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0, OASIS, 2007.

38.

Amberg, M., Bodendorf, F., and Möslein, K.M., Wertschöpfungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik, Springer-Lehrbuch, vol. 4, Berlin: Springer, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16756-0

39.

Dori, D., Object-process analysis: maintaining the balance between system structure and behaviour, J. Logic Comput., 1995, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/5.2.227CrossRef

40.

Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Object Management Group, 2017.

41.

ArchiMate(r) 3.1 Specification, The Open Group, 2019.

42.

Penicina, L., Linking BPMN, ArchiMate, and BWW: Perfect match for complete and lawful business process models?, Short Paper Proc. 6th IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conf. on the Practice of Enterprise Modeling (PoEM), Riga, 2013, Grabis, J., Kirikova, M., Zdravkovic, J., and Stirna, J., Eds., 2013, pp. 156–165.

43.

Díaz-Madroñero, M., Mula, J., and Peidro, D., A review of discrete-time optimization models for tactical production planning, Int. J. Prod. Res., 2014, vol. 52, no. 17, pp. 5171–5205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.899721CrossRefMATH

44.

Jalali, H. and Van Nieuwenhuyse, I., Simulation optimization in inventory replenishment: A classification, IIE Trans., 2015, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 1217–1235. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740817X.2015.1019162CrossRef

45.

Scheidegger, A.P.G., Pereira, T.F., de Oliveira, M.L.M., Banerjee, A., and Montevechi, J.A.B., An introductory guide for hybrid simulation modelers on the primary simulation methods in industrial engineering identified through a systematic review of the literature, Comput. Ind. Eng., 2018, vol. 124, pp. 474–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.07.046CrossRef

46.

Sovetov, B.Ya. and Yakovlev, S.A., Modelirovanie sistem (Modeling of Systems), Moscow: Vyssh. Shkola, 2001.

47.

Mourtzis, D., Doukas, M., and Bernidaki, D., Simulation in manufacturing: Review and challenges, Procedia CIRP, 2014, vol. 25, pp. 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.10.032CrossRef

48.

Doyle, P.G., Grinstead and Snell’s Introduction to Probability, Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical Society, 2006.

49.

Mesarovich, M.D., Macko, D., and Takakhara, Y., Theory of Hierarchical Multilevel Systems, New York: Academic Press, 1970.

50.

Watson, A.H. and McCabe, T.J., Structured Testing: A Testing Methodology Using the Cyclomatic Complexity Metric, Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1996.

51.

Kostrov, A.V., Informatsionnyi menedzhment. Otsenka urovnya razvitiya informatsionnykh system (Information Management: Assessing the Level of Development of Information Systems, Vladimir: Vladimir. Gos. Univ., 2012.

52.

Mylnikov, L., Efficiency management of discrete production systems under the dynamics of project portfolio, Comput. Ind. Eng., 2022, vol. 163, p. 107807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107807CrossRef

53.

Sutherland, J., SCRUM: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time, New York: Crown Business, 2016.

54.

Steinke, G. and Al-Deen, M.S., LaBrie, R., Innovating information system development methodologies with design thinking, Proc. Int. Conf. Appl. Innovation IT, 2017, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 51–55. https://doi.org/10.13142/KT10005.22

Title: Structural and Functional Modeling of Processes with a Dedicated Control Subject
Author: L. A. Mylnikov
Publication date: 01-02-2022
Publisher: Pleiades Publishing
Published in: Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0005-1055
Electronic ISSN: 1934-8371
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3103/S0005105522010083

Springer Professional

Structural and Functional Modeling of Processes with a Dedicated Control Subject

Abstract—

Premium Partner

Springer Professional

Abstract—

Please log in to get access to your license.

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

An Adaptive Data-Exchange System

Prospective Scientific Research Trend Identification Methods (Based on the Analysis of Gas Fuel-Related Publications)

Predicting the Development of Scientific Trends on the Basis of Analysis of Conflicts between Fields of Knowledge

Indexing Languages for Digital Humanities

On the Incorrect Use of Citation Indices for Assessment by Comparison of Divisions of Science

Premium Partner