Programme - asd-ssg.org … · Web view3.2.1 Starting Point Knowledge Café 4. 3.2.2 Strategic...

Programme

Integrating and Strengthening the European ResearchStrategic Objective

Networked businesses and governmentsIntegrated Project / Programme Title

Advanced Technologies for Interoperability of Heterogeneous Enterprise Networks and their Application

Acronym

ATHENAProject No

507849ATHENA – Project Name

Programme ATHEN A - Project No

Deliverable Deliverable D.B6.1

Target Group Analysis

Work package – .1, .2Leading Partner: SAP

Security Classification: Project Participants (PP)

August, 2005

Version 1.0

IP- Project / Programme ATHENA Project - No 507849ATHENA - Project Training Project Number B6 Document Deliverable D.B6.1 Date 25.05.23

Versioning and contribution history Version Description Author Date Comments

1.0 Initial Draft (Ricardo Gonçalves) 19.01.05

1.1 First Contributions (WP Members) 28.01.05

1.2 First Consolidation (Uwe Riss) 15.07.05

1.3 Final Approval (Resp. partners) 01.08.05

Work Document process schedule

No Process step ResponsibleDue Date for

COMLETING the step

Comments

1Initial drafting of the deliverable including structure, comments and first basic content.

Ricardo Gonçalves 19.01.05

2 Contributions. Work package members and others to contribute first iteration All WP members 28.01.05

3 Consolidation of input and finalization of “technical” document Uwe Riss 22.07.05

4 Final Approval Resp. partners 01.08.05

document.doc CONFIDENTIAL Page ii / 30


Table of contents

1 Executive Summary..............................................................................................................1

2 Introduction..........................................................................................................................2

3 Target Group Analysis..........................................................................................................33.1 Questions to Be Answered...........................................................................................................33.2 Methodology................................................................................................................................. 43.2.1 Starting Point Knowledge Café..................................................................................................43.2.2 Strategic Considerations............................................................................................................53.2.3 Survey on Interoperability Training.............................................................................................63.3 Results......................................................................................................................................... 63.3.1 Results of the Knowledge Café..................................................................................................63.3.2 Results of the Preliminary Strategic Considerations................................................................123.3.3 Results of the Survey...............................................................................................................133.3.4 Didactical Implications..............................................................................................................15

4 Ongoing Activities..............................................................................................................174.1 Formative Evaluation.................................................................................................................. 174.2 Summative Evaluation................................................................................................................17

5 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................18

6 Summary............................................................................................................................19

7 References.........................................................................................................................20

8 Annexes.............................................................................................................................218.1 Target Group Model................................................................................................................... 218.2 Survey Contents......................................................................................................................... 23

document.doc CONFIDENTIAL Page iii / 30


List of Figures

Figure 1. Model Tree View Metamodel for ATHENA B6 Target Groups..........................................21Figure 2. Model Tree view for Target Groups Domain....................................................................22Figure 3. Target-groups model........................................................................................................22Figure 4. Academic Teacher of Computer Science.........................................................................23Figure 5. Objective of Decision Making Support..............................................................................23

document.doc CONFIDENTIAL Page iv / 30


1 Executive Summary

The target group analysis militates in favour of an approach for ATHENA training services that primarily focuses on learners from industry although there is also an interest from the academic side. However, the strategic orientation of the ATHENA IP suggests such an approach.

Consequently learners with a practical interest and at least a certain background in IT or some domain are the potential addressees of the ATHENA training services. It is not intended to provide education for novices in both areas. Practical relevance is a key demand for the training services. One main intention is to bridge the gap between people with IT know-how and people with domain knowledge since a good understanding of both aspects is essential for good performance in interoperability.

Regarding the training contents the composition of the current curriculum was confirmed. However, it is to be kept in mind that the target audience is rather diverse in its background and interest. Practical aspects prevail against theoretical base knowledge. Since it is not feasible to create all kinds of content versions for different target groups, a strong modularization and semantic structuring of contents is to be aspired. Such an approach would allow ad hoc adaptation of learning contents to the personal preferences of the learner.

For the delivery of training a blended learning approach is to be preferred, depending to the kind of contents. Fundamental training should be offered as classroom training allowing an intensive contact with the topic. Specialized contents are to be offered as e-learning giving learners the opportunity to choose a very personal and interest adapted access to the contents. The latter point is particular relevant for business people who are often pressed for time.

document.doc CONFIDENTIAL Page 1 / 30


2 Introduction

The present target group analysis shall provide information about the groups of persons to be addressed by the ATHENA training services. In this respect it is particularly important which people are interested in interoperability training, which are their expectations and how the training services can reach these groups. Only on the basis of this analysis training services can be offered that achieve an impact as it has been formulated in the goals of the ATHENA (see Vision statement on the ATHENA website – cf. references).

This report is structured in 3 main sections that describe the Main Analysis (Section 3), suggestions for further activities to keep the target group analysis up-to-date (Section 4), and the conclusions (Section 5) that result form the analysis concerning the ATHENA training curriculum and further activities related to the training. The most extensive part is Section 3 which describes the methodologies that have been applied as well as the outcome of the different view points. At the beginning of this investigation we formulate the main questions we expect to be answered by the analysis.

Section 3 states three main approaches to determine the ATHENA target groups that form three stages of the analysis and therefore depend on each other. The first methodology consists in a Knowledge Café that has been applied to obtain an initial guess for the target groups. This starting point should yield an overview as broad as possible of the groups for which the ATHENA training offering could be of interest. However, this broad vision of the training focus must be restricted due to existing constraints and strategic considerations. In particular the following factors had been taken into consideration: alignment with the INTEROP Network of Excellence, transition of the ATHENA training services to the Enterprise Interoperability Centre (EIC), and the competitive situation on the market of training providers in the field of interoperability. The final part of the target group analysis consists of the description of a survey that has been performed to obtain detailed information about the needs of the target groups in the focus of the ATHENA training services.

Beside the description of the approach to all these methods Section 3 contains the results of the respective investigations and documents the conclusions that have to be drawn from it. Here it is intended to come to concrete consequences for the curriculum or the execution of the training courses as well as providing a guideline to the providers of contents in the research projects which kind and which form of contents might be most appropriate for ATHENA training.

A target group analysis is not a one-off task. Due to changes in the business environment or changing strategic orientation of the project and the EIC it will be necessary to periodically update the results of the analysis. Moreover, only the actual execution of the training courses will show whether these courses will be accepted by the customers and whether they actually meet these customers’ needs. Furthermore, it might transpire that other target groups have to be addressed. Section 4 gives a rough description of how such subsequent updates can be implemented.

Section 5 summarizes the conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis and provides guidelines for the design and execution of the ATHENA training. Section 5 gives a few references to external sources. In two annexes details of the investigation and arrangement are provided, which mainly have the purpose to document the proceeding. This helps to clarify detailed questions that might occur after the finalization of the analysis.



3 Target Group Analysis

This section describes the target group analysis. At the beginning we formulate a number of questions that are intended to clarify the following points: Who are the persons to be addressed by the ATHENA training services? What is the knowledge that has to be imparted to these addressees? How can this be done in the most efficient way?

The ensuing analysis aims at the identification of possible target group candidates for the ATHENA training services and their needs with respect to concrete interoperability projects. This includes the target groups’ background, expectations, requirements, profile etc. In particular it has to be analysed which of the possible target groups will be addressed in which way and with which intensity.

To ensure the success of the ATHENA training services the training format and contents to be produced have to fit the profile and requirements of each identified target group. This section starts with the statement of the questions to be clarified and a description of the approach for the analysis. It ends with a description of a consolidated set of target-groups and the formulation of requirements that result from the analysis.

3.1 Questions to Be AnsweredThe first step of the target group analysis consists in clarifying the questions that this analysis

has to answer. On the basis of these answers the detailed training contents and execution will be planned. The questions are also the basis for a questionnaire that is used to collect material that answers the following questions. In which regard are you concerned with interoperability problems?

This question shall clarify which are the interoperability areas that occur within a stakeholder’s organization. This information gives us a first hint whether the methods developed in the ATHENA projects can be applied to these problems and are therefore relevant for the stakeholder. Who are the stakeholders within an organization concerned with interoperability (e.g. what’s the

typical set up of a project team working on interoperability projects)

Usually there are different groups in the company which face different interoperability problems. It is important to assign the occurring problems to the right groups to be able to offer courses that specifically address the problems of these groups. What’s the relationship between the individual stakeholders

The relationships between the different stakeholder groups are important to clarify which groups communicate with each other. The courses for the different stakeholder groups must impart competence and terminology in such a way that communication between these groups is ensured even if they participate in different courses with different focuses. What are the job profiles?

This question is to clarify which previous knowledge can be expected if these stakeholders join a course. The answer also gives a hint about their way of thinking. Are they more concerned with technical problems, with organizational problems or with both kinds of problems? What are the corresponding information and training needs?

Although it might appear appropriate to estimate the stakeholders’ information needs from the information obtained by the answers of the questions above, it seems to be more adequate to directly ask them what they think what they require. This is not necessarily identical to what will later be taught in the training causes since stakeholders sometimes join the courses with wrong expectations. However, it is valuable information and can help to avoid later misunderstandings. What kind of training will be appropriate (company policy, availability, budget per employee,

certification?)

This question concerns the contextual conditions for a training course. For example it can happen that stakeholders can be identified and the topics they are interested in are completely clear and covered by the training courses but the form or the costs of the training course are not appropriate for this group. For example the stakeholders might be bound to their location. In this case they could only be addressed by e-learning or in-company courses. The same holds for the budget. It does not make



sense to develop a series of courses if the stakeholders are unwilling to spend money for one course. What is the basic knowledge we can assume?

This is a similar question to the one concerning the job profile but more direct as they have to estimate their previous knowledge themselves. This might be more appropriate but also bears the risk that the stakeholders fail to do this correctly or completely. The question for the job profile has the advantage that it makes the answer comparable.

3.2 MethodologyAfter the identification of the relevant questions the description of the methodology is provided

how these questions will be answered. The investigation started with the identification of all possible groups that could be interesting for the target group analysis. In order to obtain this initial target groups we resorted to the knowledge of the B6 partners who already possess a rather good overview of the field of interoperability and the people who are concerned with this topic. This knowledge was harnessed and explained in a Knowledge Café as described in section 3.2.1. The results were consolidated by e-mail consultation that concerned all B6 partners. The discussion was then extended to all ATHENA partners at the ATHENA general meeting in Maiorca (in May 2004), where an open session was carried out to present and discuss the accomplishments at that time.

The initial target group was then considered from a strategic point of view. Here the goal was to find out which of these groups might be susceptible for interoperability training and which of the groups deserves increased intention. Moreover, it should be avoided to address groups which are already provided with extensive interoperability training offers by commercial providers. Finally the training should be coordinated with other EU initiatives which are also active in this area. These considerations lead to a classification of target groups according to their relevance for ATHENA training courses.

For the most important target groups a questionnaire was developed, based on the questions mentioned before. Here the goal was to clarify the specific needs of these groups and make recommendations for the training contents and execution to address these groups in an optimal way.

3.2.1 Starting Point Knowledge CaféTo obtain an initial guess about possible target groups a Knowledge Café approach was used. Its

goal was to create a starting point for the analysis that forms the framework for the later detailed investigation. Knowledge Cafés are miniature workshops in which the participants discuss a certain topic. The advantage is that it brings people with different backgrounds together and motivates them to learn from each other.3.2.1.1 Method description

The knowledge café methodology places emphasis on the following issues to: generate input, share knowledge, stimulate innovative thinking, and explore action possibilities

around real life issues and questions engage people (who are meeting for the first time, or are in established relationships) in real

conversation; conduct in-depth exploration of key strategic challenges or opportunities; deepen relationships and mutual ownership of outcomes in an existing group; engage large groups (more than 12 participants) in an authentic dialogue process.

The overall methodology consists in gathering experts around an issue; disperse them in small groups (~4 persons); discussion inside each group; presentation of achieved results by each group. The knowledge café proceeds in the following way:1) The context is clarified, e.g., by an introductory presentation that describes the idea of what and

why the knowledge café takes place.2) Questions relevant to the discussion are addressed in a simple and clear way.3) People are explicitly encouraged to contribute to the conversation. 4) Members offered their individual perspectives.5) The expressed views are accurately gathered.6) Finally, making conversations from all tables visible to everyone. Each table reports out to the

whole group the results achieved inside the group, sharing knowledge.



3.2.1.2 Proceeding

The issue for discussion were the target-groups for training. The questions to address were previously prepared and explained in a clear way. The list below shows the main points focused during the conversation: Area – The area that the target group integrates itself in. It could be Industrial, Academic,

Citizens, Public Service, or ATHENA partner Target group – The specific target-group that we are focusing for training activities. This could be

for example an IT manager or a PHD Student Responsibility – Understand what kind of responsibility is associated with this target, according

to its position in the society. Profile – Define the target-group specific profile and what it has to offer. Background – The pre-requisites that the target-group has to fulfil in order to attend the courses. Motivations – This answers the reasons that encourage the attendance of the course. The

benefits that a specific target-group will acquire from the ATHENA training services. Infrastructure – ATHENA aims at several types of training environments, such as classroom,

virtual and e-learning, providing a blended learning approach. This point tries to establish which of these alternatives fits better in each target-group.

The objective is not only to gather a significant mass of target-groups, but also to contextualize them. Why are we targeting them and for what purpose? The above list tries to give a clear answer to these and other questions, which are very important when developing a training service of the magnitude of the one that is being developed in ATHENA. The results of the Knowledge Café were then used to help the identification of the initial target groups.

3.2.2 Strategic ConsiderationsBefore starting a detailed analysis the results of the Knowledge Café had to be consolidated with

respect to strategic goals. Here it was important that ATHENA is not an isolated IP but embedded in an environment of initiatives with similar goals. Moreover, it is planned that ATHENA will be the seedbed for a new centre for interoperability, the EIC. Therefore the training activities must be coordinated with the stakeholders of these initiatives to avoid double work or unnecessary competition.3.2.2.1 Coordination with INTEROP

ATHENA is closely affiliated to the INTEROP network of excellence (http://interop-noe.org), which is also concerned with the problem of interoperability. Several partners of INTEROP are simultaneously partners in the ATHENA consortium and there are regular meetings between both projects. Therefore it seems to be obvious that a close coordination of the activities of ATHENA and INTEROP is required. This particularly holds for the training activities. Since various partners of ATHENA are also partners of INTEROP the communication between both organizations is comparably simple so that an efficient coordination is possible.

In contrast to the ATHENA IP integrated project INTEROP NoE is mainly focussed on the academic community whereas ATHENA is primarily addressing industry. This also becomes obvious regarding the plans for education in interoperability. Thus INTEROP has planned to establish bachelor and master studies in interoperability as education offered by universities. Curricula for these studies are already in preparation. In contrast to ATHENA the INTEROP partners predominantly originate from academia.

A continuous exchange of information between ATHENA and INTEROP training initiatives has been established between ATHENA B6 and INTEROP WP10 project leaders to ensure a continuous information flow.3.2.2.2 Coordination with the EIC

The EIC will continue the ATHENA training program after the conclusion of the ATHENA IP. Therefore it is necessary to closely coordinate the training activities with the plans of the EIC. To this end, meetings between EIC representatives and SAP as a B6 partners were arranged and a common directive for training activities was discussed.

In particular both parties agreed to jointly develop a survey on interoperability training and perform the interviews with this survey. Details of this survey composition can be found in section 3.2.3.


http://interop-noe.org/


Motivation of this joint action was the insight that the parties interested in the EIC are very similar to the addressees of the ATHENA training services, in particular if we keep in mind that the EIC will later continue the services. Moreover, the EIC provided an excellent basis to find experts in interoperability who could be interviewed.

3.2.3 Survey on Interoperability TrainingATHENA activities B6 and B1, as predecessor for the EIC, agreed to jointly develop a survey and

perform the interviews. The contents of the survey were mainly provided by B6 while the selection of interview partners and the execution was accomplished by B1 activity. The details of the survey contents are described in the annex (8.2 Survey Contents).

The main focus of the survey was to answer the questions that had been stated in section 3.1. The selection of the interviewed persons was adapted to the strategic considerations that resulted from the considerations in section 3.2.2. The interviewees were selected from the EIC Interest Group. Thus it was ensured that the interviewees possess enough experience in the area of interoperability. The interviews were performed via telephone calls so that it was possible to answer the questions of the interviewees related to the survey. Doing so it was possible to avoid misunderstandings and it could be checked how well the questions were grasped. This information simplified the evaluation of the survey and allowed to estimate the reliability of the answers.

According to this approach particular emphasis was placed on the activity B4 scenarios. Since these are the core scenarios of ATHENA, the project results are especially adapted to them. Although the questions in the survey are not really domain specific it might occur that even the relevance of some technologies vary with the corresponding scenario and domain. However, coming from scenarios close to ATHENA might be a good starting point.

The survey concentrated on industry experts that have already dealt with interoperability related projects and focussed on industries like automotive, furniture, software etc. that are in the focus of ATHENA and the EIC.

3.3 ResultsIn this section the results of the activities specified in section 3.2 concerning the identification of

target groups are presented. The particular focus is placed on statements about which target groups should be actually addressed by the ATHENA training services and which consequences concerning the contents and delivery methods are to be drawn from this identification. The presentation of the results follows the same scheme as the description of the methodology.

The methodology was chosen in such a way that the individual steps follow each other. Section 3.3.1 gives an initial guess resulting from the Knowledge Café that is consolidated with respect to the results of the strategic considerations in section 3.3.2. The consideration is finalized by the survey results that reveal details about the specific requirements of the identified target groups.

3.3.1 Results of the Knowledge CaféThe consolidation of the Knowledge Café results was mainly done by e-mail consultation. The

target groups that resulted from this could be categorized according to the following scheme, depicted in Table 1.

IT Knowledge Domain Knowledge

Academia Industry Academia Industry

Beginner Expert Manager Beginner Expert Manager

Table 1. Target groups for training

Approximately, one month after the Lisbon meeting in December 2004, B6 grabbed the opportunity of the ATHENA general assembly in Maiorca to extend the discussion to all the ATHENA partners. The objective was to get input from partners who are not involved directly in B6 project. The existing information should be supplemented by proposals from the general assembly. In this way, we got a deeper and extended view of the target-groups, which strengthened the whole analysis process.

One issue raised in Maiorca was the approach adopted to manage the identified requirements.



The target-groups were organized in tables using an Excel file. But, it would be good to have a visual model, which allowed the support management of different target groups and views. The approach had the following advantages: Visual representation Integration with ATHENA Collaboration Platform (ACP) Possibility of querying the model Different views of the target-groups Further input on the target groups analysis

After applying the methods described in this section, a final agreement on target groups was reached and the results are shown in the next section.

The set of target groups and its respective characteristics, which were extracted from the target group analysis, are described in this section. The results structured in tables are available in annexes. 3.3.1.1 Beginners

By attending ATHENA courses, beginners with general IT knowledge are expected to become interoperability IT specialists, gaining deeper knowledge of interoperability.

From the industrial area attendants will gain personal knowledge, skill and promotion. Academic individuals will be able to better understand their job opportunities and will have the possibility to develop a thesis in interoperability fields.

Beginners with business and industrial experience can expand their general domain knowledge. Thus, industry focused individuals will gain expertise in their job, while academics will enhance their knowledge concerning interoperability.

At the beginner level, the following target-groups are considered: Software engineers/developers Junior consultants Junior IT vendors Students of computer science (PhD, MSc) Engineers Developers Vendors Students of business administration Students of organizational engineering (industrial)

Target Groups IT KnowledgeFocus of Interest Industrial Area Academic Area

Beginners

Profile

Software engineers / developers; Junior consultants; Junior IT vendors.

Students of computer science (Phd, Msc).

Background General IT knowledge

Expectations

Becoming interoperability IT specialist; Gaining deeper knowledge of interoperability.

Personal knowledge and skill;Personal promotion.

Better understanding of job opportunities; Thesis in interoperability fields.

Target Groups Domain KnowledgeFocus of Interest Industrial Area Academic Area

Beginners

Profile Junior consultants; Engineers; Developers; Vendors.

Students of business administration; MBA; Students of organizational engineering (industrial).



Target Groups IT Knowledge

Background General domain knowledge

Expectations

Gaining expertise for their job

Complete their knowledge concerning interoperability

Table 2. Target groups (Beginners)3.3.1.2 Experts

IT Knowledge experts at the industry level that are enrolling on training courses, are considered to have detailed IT knowledge of their infrastructure. They will gain an overview of technical solutions, relevant information for practical applications, knowledge about standards, and deeper understanding of tools. They will also understand how to make improvements to IT infrastructures, how to create smarter working technical solutions, how to integrate new interoperability technologies, and how to improve capacity to monitor and manage interoperability in the IT infrastructure.


Experts

Profile

Software specialists / architects; Senior IT vendors; Senior consultants; Project managers; Technical course authors / trainers.

Researchers in computer science; Academic teachers of computer science.

BackgroundDetailed IT knowledge of their infrastructure.Knowledge of other IT training courses (course authors / trainers).

Experts in their interoperability field; Detailed knowledge of specific technologies.

Expectations

Gaining overview of technical solutions;Information relevant for practical applications;Improvements of the IT infrastructure;Create elegant working technical solutions;Learn how to integrate new interoperability technologies;Improve capacity to monitor and manage interoperability IT infrastructure;Knowledge about standards;Deeper understanding of tools;Gaining knowledge for IT training courses on interoperability (course authors / trainers).

Keeping up-to-date on developments; New approaches and methodologies for teaching;Extend knowledge in related areas.


Experts

Profile

Domain experts; Senior consultants; Domain course authors / trainers.

Researchers in business administration; Academic teachers of business administration.

Background

Detailed domain knowledge with respect to their focus area; Basic IT knowledge; Knowledge of other domain training courses (course authors / trainers).

Detailed knowledge of applications, processes and industries

Expectations

Interoperability opportunities for their domain;

Keeping up-to-date on the opportunities



Target Groups IT KnowledgeInteroperability market requirements and standards;Domain problems well supported by technology;Interoperability solutions & their application at domain/business level;Gaining knowledge for domain training courses on interoperability (course authors / trainers)

of interoperability; New approaches and methodologies for teaching.

Table 3. Target groups (Experts)

At the academic level, attendants are required to be experts in their interoperability field and to have detailed knowledge of specific technologies. The training courses will allow them to stay up-to-date on new developments, learn new approaches and methodologies for teaching, and extend their knowledge in related areas.

Domain knowledge experts at industry level are required to have detailed domain knowledge of their focus area and basic IT knowledge. The training courses will enable them to be aware of interoperability opportunities for their domain, interoperability market requirements and standards, domain problems well supported by technology, and interoperability solutions and their application at the domain/business level.

At the academic level, individuals with detailed knowledge of applications, processes, and industries, will stay up-to-date on the opportunities of interoperability and learn new approaches and methodologies for teaching.

At the expert level the following target-groups are considered: Software specialists/architects Senior IT vendors Senior consultants Project managers Researchers in computer science Academic teachers of computer science Domain experts Researchers in business administration Academic teachers of business administration3.3.1.3 Managers

Managers in the IT knowledge domain at the industry level need to have, as background, knowledge of IT infrastructures, overall business background, basic business administration knowledge, and an interest in future technologies. This group will gain support for planning their IT strategy and information about cost reduction potentialities of interoperability IT infrastructure and cost reduction to monitor actual management of interoperability IT infrastructure. They will learn how to use current technologies and integrate new technologies in an organization for maximum impact and efficiency, understanding how to integrate IT infrastructure within enterprise strategy & models (from an Interoperability perspective). In addition, new technical solutions to business problems that are practical to implement will be addressed.

At the academic level, individuals need to have expertise in their field of interest, and an overview on future technologies, and knowledge of infrastructures in order to conduct research in their domain of expertise. With the courses, the students will gain ideas for research programs, be aware of impact of interoperability trends on their field of research, and open new paths for the creation of new academic curricula. At both levels (industrial and academic) students will gain foundations for decision making with respect to interoperability initiatives, as well as, an overview of technological trends and decision making support.




Managers

ProfileIT managers; IT training content administrators.

Research managers of IT programs; Professors of computer science.

Background

Knowledge of IT infrastructure;Overall business background;Basic business administration knowledge;Interest in future technologies;Overview of existing IT training courses on interoperability (content administrators).

Expertise in their field of interest; Current methodology;Overview on future technologies;Infrastructure to conduct research in their domain of expertise.

Expectations

Gaining basis for decision making with respect to interoperability initiatives

Overview of technological trends and Decision making support

Support for planning their IT strategy;Information about cost reduction potentialities of interoperability IT infrastructure;Learn to utilize current technologies and integrate new technologies in an organization for maximum impact and efficiency;Understand how to integrate IT infrastructure within enterprise strategy & models (from an Interoperability perspective);Cost reduction to monitor actual management of interoperability IT infrastructure;New technical solutions to business problems that are practical to implement;Identification of additionally required courses (content administrators).

Ideas for research programs;

Impact of interoperability trends on their field of research; Creation of new academic curriculum.

Table 4. Target groups (IT Managers)


Managers

Profile

Business managers; Business domain experts; Domain training content administrators.

Research managers of business administration; Directors of non-technical disciplines.

Background Detailed business knowledge;Knowledge of business processes (e.g. BPM, BPR, EM);Understanding business governance;Basic IT knowledge;Knowledge about business ontologies;Enterprise integration approaches from management point of view (e.g. change management for merging,

Expertise in their domain



Target Groups Domain Knowledgereorganisation, branching);Knowledge on Virtual, integrated, networked organisations;Overview of existing domain training courses on interoperability (content administrators).

Expectations

Informative basis for decision making; Overview of business trends.

Support business strategy;Improve company management;Optimization of business processes;Improve flexibility with respect to market needs;Understand technologies, which can overcome business challenges, maximize results, and provide return on investment;Reduce infrastructure costs;Create competitive organization and products;Identification of new business opportunities;Plan the process to move from the current way of making business to become a networked organization;Awareness of other commonly used business processes.Authority interest in adapting new technologies and methods;Identification of additionally required courses (content administrators).

New aspects of business administration;Identification of research issues in the area of interoperability.

Table 5. Target groups (Domain Managers)

Managers in domain knowledge at the industry level need to have, as background, a detailed business knowledge, knowledge of business processes (e.g. BPM, BPR, EM), an understanding of business governance, basic IT knowledge, knowledge about business ontologies. Knowledge of enterprise integration approaches from the management point of view (e.g. change management for a merging, reorganisation, branching), and knowledge on virtual, integrated, networked organizations is also required. With the training courses, they will be able to support business strategy, improve company management, optimize business processes (awareness of other commonly used business processes), improve flexibility with respect to market needs, understand technologies (which can overcome business challenges, maximize results, and provide return on investment). Reduction of infrastructure costs will be achieved, creating competitive organization and products. New business opportunities will arise, and plan the process to move from the current way of making business to become a networked organization.

At the academic level, those who have expertise in their domain, will be aware of new aspects of business administration, and will also be able to identify research issues in the area of interoperability. At both levels (industrial and academic), the courses will offer an informative basis for decision making and overview of business trends.

At the manager level the following target groups are considered: IT managers Research managers of IT programs Professors of computer science Business managers



Business domain experts Research managers of business administration Directors of non-technical disciplines

All target groups identified in the Knowledge Café form the basis for all following considerations. However, it was clear that the totality of all these target groups is too broad to be reasonably considered for the ATHENA training. It is rather necessary to reduce this selection according to additional conditions as described in the following section.

3.3.2 Results of the Preliminary Strategic ConsiderationsThe goal of the preliminary strategic consideration was to restrict the focus of training to a

selection of target groups out of the totality identified in the Knowledge Café. Reductions of target groups result from the following constraints:

Avoid double coverage by ATHENA and INTEROP Avoid competition with professional training providers, the partnership of which might be gained Concentrate on the expertise collected in the ATHENA integrated project and avoid topics already

offered on the market

The aim of the consideration of these aspects was to come to an optimal exploitation of the existing resources of ATHENA B6. Although the resources available in B6 allow offering a rather broad spectrum of courses in the realm of interoperability the restricted timeframe of the ATHENA IP nevertheless implies that the training activities should not be designed too excessively but concentrate on the actual strengths of ATHENA.

Concerning the double coverage of training topics by ATHENA and INTEROP coordinative talks between both organizations were carried out. From the ATHENA side Ricardo Gonçalves from UNINOVA was involved while the INTEROP side was represented by Guy Doumeingts from ITREC. The talks made clear that the focus of INTEROP is apparently placed on the academic audience. This has to be seen against the background that the INTEROP partners mainly originate from universities.

On the other hand ATHENA is characterized by industrial partners like IBM, SAP, Siemens, EADS, FIAT etc. Another factor is that it is planned to transfer the ATHENA training services to the EIC (see reference link) after the project will have been completed. Although the EIC also invites academia as members it has nevertheless a strong focus on industry. These considerations suggest that the ATHENA training services should have a clear focus on industry.

ATHENA training has an industry focus.

This does not mean that there will be a strict division between INTEROP and ATHENA training activities but only that both organizations focus on different target groups. Beside this division there are still consultations regarding the coordination of curricula and the exchange of training material.

This focus is also in agreement with the goals of the EIC. This was asserted in meetings between members of ATHENA B1 and B6. In order to achieve a relevant role in the standardization process regarding interoperability it is essential for the EIC to attract the leading companies that are concerned with this problem. The training services yield an additional opportunity to attract the interest of these stakeholders but this can only be achieved if the offering of training courses that are well trimmed to fit industry needs. This particularly emphasizes the importance of business practice for the training.

The second constraint was related to the competitive situation in the market of training providers. Indeed there are already offerings on the market that are related to technologies concerning interoperability. Here the principle question arose whether ATHENA training should also cover these well established topics or whether it should concentrate on the results of the ATHENA research activities only. In the former case it would be possible to attract a broader audience and attract it by topics that are already well known. This could lead to higher revenues and form a basis to introduce learners to the actual ATHENA topics, i.e., those contents that are based on its research results. The disadvantage of this strategy would be that it leads ATHENA to a competitive situation with other established professional training providers. Here the question arises whether such a competitive situation would really be advantageous for ATHENA.



This leads to the other alternative to concentrate the ATHENA training on its research results only, which would not lead to a competitive situation. In this scenario basic interoperability training is performed by other professional training providers so that the ATHENA training services could simply refer to their courses. In this case one could even imagine cooperation between these providers and ATHENA. Indeed the B1 partners consider the involvement of these training providers in the EIC. Therefore it would by counterproductive to compete with them on the field of training. Since ATHENA training services are focussing on the industry sector it does not seem to be necessary to offer a complete spectrum of contents. It has to be emphasized that the actual goal of the ATHENA training is to achieve impact for the research results. Also this argument supports a focussing on training of the research topics.

A certain drawback of the latter solution is the required coordination of ATHENA training offering with the existing training offerings on the market. ATHENA training requires a strong fundament to publicise its rather high level results. Therefore coordination between existing offering and ATHENA training is necessary. Here cooperation with the respective providers would be helpful although this means additional efforts for the training services.

However, even against this background the latter variant appears as preferable since it allows the full concentration of the ATHENA training activities on the ATHENA research results:

ATHENA training has a focus on the ATHENA research results.

For the target group analysis this means that beginners without any kind of pre-existing interoperability knowledge do not belong to the groups of potential learners who are to be supported. This holds for both fields, i.e., domain knowledge and IT knowledge. Although it is planned to offer an introductory course for ATHENA newcomers, this course cannot be a substitute for a profound basic education on the field of interoperability. The resulting concentration must be seen as a chance for ATHENA to make the best of its own results.

Moreover, it is not the goal of the ATHENA training services to offer a broad fundamental education for learners without any experience in IT or domain areas. Addressing target groups in industry we can assume that the learners have such a background in at least one of these areas, i.e., either IT or domain knowledge. This means that ATHENA training services will not offer courses for people without any background:

ATHENA training does not address absolute beginners.

This means that we have to concentrate on two main groups, those with experience in IT and those with experience in some domains. The latter group might be further fragmented according to the specific domain but at least all of these groups should possess a specific knowledge of business administration.

3.3.3 Results of the SurveyThe particular content of the survey is described in annex 8.2. We performed five interviews;

enough to see general trends and get an impression of the central aspects expected by the potential learners. On this basis it is not possible to draw statistical conclusions since this would have meant to perform a much larger number of interviews which was not possible.

Generally the answers have partly been quite diverse, depending on the particular business area the interviewee was working in. The most relevant information obtained from the interviews was not contained in the answers to the questions but in the conversation that resulted form the discussion of the questions. Therefore we abandoned a presentation of the individual survey answers which even might be misleading without further explanation. In particular the answers showed that the execution of individual interviews with its emphasis on open conversation instead of statistical evaluation was the most appropriate way to obtain relevant information about the needs of the stakeholders. Nevertheless, some conclusions can be derived that clearly point into certain directions in terms of target groups (who), the structure of demanded training curricula (what) as well as the execution of training (how). These directions will be summarized in the following, referring to the corresponding class of questions in the questionnaire:



In which regard are you concerned with interoperability problems? Are there current or planned projects, targeted to facilitate/automate the cooperation of your company with its business partners?

The answers to these questions clearly indicated that the project space and problem areas related to interoperability are very widespread. One interviewed person even stated that every project is potentially interoperable. Therefore the software application space ranges from classical interoperability domains like Supply Chain Management, Procurement to Collaborative Product Management (in particular in automotive), Facility Management, E-Payment or E-Contracting (e.g. in retail), etc. In specific industries there seems to be a trend to outsource tasks in supply chains which brings automatically a dimension of interoperability into process reengineering. Moreover, it was stated that interoperability projects often extremely depend on the specific problem to be solved. This means that there is a strong demand for tailoring training according to the context of the interoperability project. Summing up we can conclude:

ATHENA training has to be modularized and adaptable to different focuses.

Although it will not be possible to provide specialized courses for every particular focus of a target group it should be kept in mind that even at the beginning the course material should be structured in such a way that it allows for recombination. Who are the stakeholders within an organization concerned with interoperability? What is the

typical setup of a project team working on interoperability projects? What’s the relationship between the individual stakeholders?

There is no indication of a typical project setup. However, projects are most likely business driven. This means that IT experts usually join the project at a later stage. It was stated by every interviewee that IT people need to understand the business impact and the business problems to a further extent than in ordinary projects. Ideally there is no clear distinction between domain owners and IT experts anymore. Instead both parties speak a common language that make implementation much more effective. This gives a clear indication that technical experts need to be trained on interoperable business know-how and vice versa business experts need to understand at least the basics of the technology to be used (e.g. Business Process Modelling tools).

ATHENA training has to bridge the gap between business know-how and IT know-how regarding the interoperability problem.

Usually the overall project lead is executed by business project managers whereas IT people rather have responsibilities for sub-projects. Business process owners and even task owners (end-users) are part of the team from the beginning. Also external stakeholders join the team in domains like consulting (business and IT), software solution provision or software development. Sometimes IT is completely outsourced. The responsibility of the individual stakeholders is subject to changes during the lifecycle of a project (e.g. in different phases like business blueprint versus implementation). In terms of project management there are specifics on interoperability projects that project managers need to be aware of. Training should offer these specifics in order to prepare project managers in an optimized way. What are the job profiles? What are relevant skills for your team? What are the corresponding

information and training needs?Generally, skills to understand the interoperable business, its problems, its business impact and

the cross organizational processes are rated as very important. This goes hand in hand with the observation that technology experts are required to understand the business processes they need to develop. Topics like agent technologies, web services or semantic annotations are much less addressing a broader audience but could be of high interest for technical specialists. Practical oriented skills are desperately needed for the success of interoperability projects. Although information about web services, semantic annotation etc. is already available in the web (e.g. http://www.cbdiforum or http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com), there still seems to be a demand for practical case studies and successfully used tool recommendations on these topics in the industry space. Therefore these topics are not rated very high so far but could play a major role in the future. This also stresses the


http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/

http://www.cbdiforum/


conclusion that we have drawn concerning the required bridging of business and IT knowledge.Skills on the methodology to bridge the gap between process definitions and how to mirror them in

available tools and system implementations (e.g. how to use BPM tools) are rated as very important. In analogy to the term “killer-application” in software development one might speak of the term “killer-skill”. It is clear that combining both skills in one person’s know-how could have a tremendous impact on the success of a project. In other words as a demand there should be no clear separation between business process conceptualization and customizing of the system but rather an integrated way of teaching process- and system engineering. What kind of training will be appropriate (company policy, availability, budget per employee,

certification)?

The best way to address the requirements as stated by the interviewed industry representatives seems to be blended learning, which means to apply a mix of delivery methods (e.g. Web Based Training, Virtual Classrooms, Classrooms, etc.). Whereas basic knowledge should be rather taught in classroom training, very specific knowledge (e.g. data exchange standards) could be offered in e-learning sessions. The ad-hoc availability of e-learning is seen as a big advantage. Classroom training is rated superior compared to e-learning with regards to team building effects. Also it reduces the fear to step into a new topic all alone.

ATHENA training should follow a blended learning approach.

Inhouse Training is even more welcome as it provides a familiar environment and the expectation is certainly that Inhouse Training could provide a more tailor made training agenda.

ATHENA training should also offer Inhouse training on request.

Training material will be best developed in a modular way that allows reusability in different contexts depending on the target group of individual courses. For example a learning unit on interoperability problems could be separated in a generic part and into a specific part focussing on industry examples. This also stresses the conclusion that we have already drawn.

With regards to budget, certification etc. no clear view could be obtained. For most interviewees it was difficult to state a strategy of their company in this respect. What is the basic knowledge we can assume?

Depending on who is to be addressed even basics can be of importance. As stated above, basic training on interoperable business is of high importance for technology people. If possible the training should be tailor made to address the context of the project team correctly (industry, scenario, addressed networked organizations etc.). Vice versa basic training on information technologies to be used is also of importance for business people (e.g. XML).

Finally the survey included a rating sheet, in which the interviewed persons had to mark the relevance of current topics that have been drafted in the ATHENA Curriculum (to the extent available at the time of the interview). The results gave a clear indication that the ATHENA consortium is on the right track and that there are no road blocks to get customers for the proposed training and training programmes.

3.3.4 Didactical ImplicationsThe focussing on learners with an industry background and their pre-existing knowledge in

interoperability leads to certain conclusions about the way the content has to be prepared and delivered. While in an academic context classroom oriented education is still the most popular way of offering training, in industry learners prefer more flexible ways of education due to time pressure and limited availability. This means that forms of e-learning become more important than focussing on academia since this kind of education can be applied in a more flexible way and even in separate steps.

However, the implications even go beyond the delivery method. Also the contents have to be adapted to the respective audience. In particular this means that more practical aspects, e.g., including examples from industry scenarios, must be included. Besides, the direct applicability of the course contents must be ensured. The courses must impart a clear know-how about the implementation of interoperability tools and methodologies and abstain from deep theoretical investigations. Of course



this does not mean that theoretical considerations are completely omitted but only that the focus is placed on the practical side.

These considerations also concern the second focus on the research part of ATHENA. Due to the nature of research its theoretical pronunciation might be more explicit than its practicability. This means that we will probably need a refinement of the presentation of research results that directly come form the ATHENA research projects to give them more reference to practice, e.g., by inclusion of corresponding practical examples. That this transformation takes place is a clear task for the B6 partners that deal with the authoring of training contents. Here it might be even necessary to include industry partners which can fill such gaps concerning practice.

Focussing on the research results of ATHENA means that there will not be an explicit education on the fundamentals of interoperability which might be rather broad. Although there is an introductory course on interoperability this course will no provide a full education that on the basics of interoperability that provides the necessary previous knowledge for the other ATHENA training courses. On the contrary, this course shall only provide an overview of the spectrum of interoperability issues that are covered by ATHENA.

Nevertheless a basic education in interoperability as basis for the ATHENA training courses is required and must be acquired in training provided by universities or other training providers. Here a coordination with these providers would be helpful or at least an adjustment of the curriculum to require knowledge that is already offered on the training market. It should be paid attention to the fact that knowledge gaps between existing external training and ATHENA training must be avoided.

A conclusion that was already mentioned in the results section 3.3.3 was that the ATHENA training services will have to deal with a rather heterogeneous customer side. This makes appropriate modularization of the contents highly desirable. Moreover, we need a structuring of the contents according to didactical categorizations, e.g., overview parts, theoretical part, business examples etc. Such a structuring is fully supported by the SAP Learning Solution Platform (LSO) and we should make extensive use of this feature.

ATHENA training contents should be classified according to didactical considerations.

The requirements of the different groups, e.g., manager and IT experts, are rather different. Multiple generations of course material are rather expensive so that the opportunity to simply use different learning strategies as offered by the LSO is rather attractive. In particular this requires an extensive use of the possibility to specify didactical metadata for the course units, e.g., learning objectives.

Making use of these features the ATHENA training services can offer rather attractive e-learning contents ensuring ad hoc availability, learning on demand and at an individual pace. Our interviews indicate that a corresponding offering would be gratefully acknowledged by the industry although there is certain scepticism towards e-learning and its quality. This means e-learning content will be accepted as long as it fulfils the expectations regarding its quality.

Therefore the identification of the previous knowledge of potential trainees is important. Here the interviews could give valuable hints about the situation. Since the composition of teams in typical interoperability projects is rather diffuse since it depends on the particular situation of the organization, it is difficult to find a generally valid profile. The approach that this target group analysis has taken to distinguish the addressees roughly according to their organizational role, i.e., with a more domain oriented or a more IT oriented background, seems to be the most feasible approach. Going further would end up in mere speculation.



4 Ongoing Activities

The target group analysis is not yet finished with the identification of the initial target group to be addressed. It is rather necessary to create a continuous awareness for this issue. This means that the target groups have to be updated continuously according to upcoming demands or changes in the strategic focus.

It is necessary to reach the goal feedback related to the training activities as a main source of information that shows how well the initial target group analysis has met the intended aim. In this respect a number of methods has been developed that support this process of adaptation (Bhola 1990). In particular the formative evaluation should answer the following questions: Have the training needs of the target groups been correctly identified? Have other areas been identified which need attention? Are there indications that the training objectives for the different target groups are met? Do the target groups need to be revised? Are the training methods appropriate to the specific target group or do they need to be adjusted?

Before the first training courses take place these questions can only be answered on the basis of expectations resulting from interviews and meetings. They must be confirmed by learners’ feedback from the training courses and external requests.

4.1 Formative EvaluationFormative evaluation is a method of judging the worth of a target group analysis while the training

activities are forming or happening. In particular formative evaluation is focussing on the process of training activities. This is an attendant process that takes place in connection with the execution of the training courses and is mainly performed by the people involved in the training activities.

This kind of evaluation is realized as a kind of monitoring that takes place in connection with the execution of training. The methods used for this evaluation are mainly qualitative. It is mainly based on trainees’ feedback that is used to continuously improve the contents and goal orientation of training.

It is to be remarked that the SAP Learning Solution that is used as platform offers the opportunity to perform assessments and to request feedback from learners. This information can also be used to continuously check the fitting of the target groups to the actual course participants. The questions to be asked can be similar to the questions used in the survey, reduced to a more compact form.

4.2 Summative EvaluationSummative evaluation provides information on the training efficacy. In contrast to formative

evaluation the summative evaluation is focussing on the outcome of training activities. This means the evaluation checks to which extent the planned goals have been achieved or not. To this end external criteria have to be defined that can be reassessed after some period of time. Thus one tries to come to a recapitulatory assessment of the effects of the program.

The summative evaluation possesses a more quantitative orientation. This can be done by the quantitative formulation of goals the accomplishment of which can be checked after a certain period of time. This can also be applied to the target group analysis. For example, it can be proved whether a sufficient number of participants for every specific target group have attended the training that had been designed for them. If this is not the case a redesign of courses or the entire curriculum might be necessary.



5 Conclusions

The aim of the target group analysis has been to identify those target groups that are to be addressed by the ATHENA training services. These target groups are a sub-group of all training addressees who are potentially interested in interoperability, focussing on those groups that are really relevant for ATHENA. Starting from a Knowledge Café to get an idea of the group of people who might be interested in interoperability, we additionally drew on strategic considerations to identify exactly those groups which promise the most impact for the goals of ATHENA. This lead to the following consequences:1) ATHENA training services have a clear focus on industry.1) ATHENA training contents have a focus on the ATHENA research results.2) ATHENA training does not address absolute beginners.

The interoperability business application space is very widespread. At the same time tailor made training is highly required. Business experts and IT experts should be enabled to speak on common language. Interoperable business and related IT should be taught in an integrated manner. Blended learning seems to be the way to go with some preference for Inhouse Training that offers a familiar environment and allows for tailor made contents. On the other hand the ad hoc availability of e-learning is probably the most important aspect of developing web based, virtual classroom or computer based training material. In particular we have found that the contents of the training course curriculum were well appreciated but that the focus is clearly placed on the practical aspect of training. The principle insights concerning the training contents and their preparation that we can take home are described as follows:3) ATHENA training content has to be modularized and adaptable to different focuses.4) ATHENA training has to bridge the gap between business know-how and IT know-how regarding

the interoperability problem.5) ATHENA training should follow a blended learning approach.6) ATHENA training should also offer Inhouse training on request.7) ATHENA training contents should be classified according to didactical considerations to make

them adaptable to different interests.It is not the case that all is said and done in this target group analysis. This means that this

analysis only provides a starting point for the development of training contents. It is rather necessary to start ongoing reviewing activities to correct and adapt this analysis. The reason for this is not only the natural incompleteness of this study but also the changing conditions that have to be taken into account. This leads to the last insight:8) ATHENA target group analysis is an ongoing activity that is part of the execution of training

services.



6 Summary

The present analysis has lead to the following target groups that are relevant for the ATHENA training services

Industry Focus IT Domain

ExpertsNeed fundamental insight in the business and deep comprehension the IT aspects of interoperability

Need fundamental insight in the IT and deep comprehension the business aspects of interoperability

Managers Need decision supporting insight in both IT and domain knowledge of interoperability based on their particular background

Table 6. ATHENA target groups

The detailed investigation for these target groups has lead to the following conclusions concerning the conception of ATHENA training courses:1) The main insight is that interoperability problem require the provision of IT and business

knowledge to the same degree. ATHENA training services must build this bridge.2) The training courses should have a focus in practice that leads to results that can be fast applied

in interoperability projects.3) The contents of the ATHENA training courses must focus on the ATHENA research results.4) The ATHENA training services should address learners with distinct work experience.5) The training contents should be modularized in such a way that they can be rearranged for

courses with different focus regarding learners’ background and interest.6) The ATHENA training services should be flexible concerning the delivery methods, i.e., blended

learning is mandatory.7) The training services should also consider the offering of special inhouse training on demand to

take individual project situations into consideration.8) Training contents should be classified properly in order to allow for efficient reuse of existing

training material for different purposes.9) The target group analysis is an ongoing task and requires continuous review of the

appropriateness of contents and the learner groups to be addressed.



7 References

1) ATHENA – Advanced Technologies for Interoperability of Heterogeneous Enterprise Networks and their Applications, [online], http://www.athena-ip.org/ .

9) Bhola, H. S. 1990.Evaluating "Literacy for development" projects, programs and campaigns: Evaluation planning, design and implementation, and utilization of evaluation results. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Education; DSE [German Foundation for International Developement]. xii, 306 pages.

10) EIC – Enterprise Interoperability Centre, [online], http://www.eu-eic.org/ .11) Interoperability Research for Networked Enterprises Applications and Software - INTEROP,

[online], http://www.interop-noe.org/. 12) SAP Learning Solution, [online], http://www.sap.com/education/e-learning/


http://www.sap.com/education/e-learning/

http://www.interop-noe.org/

http://www.eu-eic.org/

http://www.athena-ip.org/


8 Annexes

8.1 Target Group ModelThe chosen tool was Metis, from COMPUTAS. One of the main reasons for the adoption of this

tool is that it belongs to a partner directly involved in the target-group analysis. This allowed a fast and precise development. The model describes the target groups for EIC training, their profiles in terms of their areas of interest, their knowledge areas, their motivations, their background, their expectations, and their objectives.

The B6 Target Groups Metamodel is based on the ITM BPM Template, which is a modelling language for Enterprise Architecture and Business Process Modelling. Specific object and relationship types have been added to the ITM BPM Metamodel to facilitate the modelling of Target Groups in ATHENA B6.

The Model tree for the B6 Target Groups Metamodel is shown in Figure 1. The following domains will be used for modelling: Target Groups domain

o Target groupso Knowledge Areao Focus of Interest

Organization domaino Role

Strategy domaino Objective (Expectation)

Competence domaino Competence (Background)

Figure 1. Model Tree View Metamodel for ATHENA B6 Target Groups

The Model tree view for the domain Target Groups is shown in Figure 2.



Figure 2. Model Tree view for Target Groups Domain

The target-groups model has a Web Interface available for browsing at:

http://isg.uninova.pt/athena/B6/target-groups/

On the ATHENA Collaboration Platform (ACP), the model is available for download at the following link:

https://www2.mycomputas.com/TEAM/Repository/Settings/generic.kms?url=/Team/Repository/Projects/Project_220/Upload/Attachments/Models/BLine-Models/target_groups.kmv.

This is a large model with several relationships, and for this reason the relationships between objects are hidden, Figure 3. A possible query is to see what are the characteristics associated with a particular target group. Figure 4 shows a view of the model where is possible to see all the characteristics associated with the target group of Academic Teacher of Computer Science (the relationships are also hidden, being shown only three). Another example of a view is all the target-groups interested in Decision Making Support, Figure 5 (relationships hidden).

Figure 3. Target-groups model


https://www2.mycomputas.com/TEAM/Repository/Settings/generic.kms?url=/Team/Repository/Projects/Project_220/Upload/Attachments/Models/BLine-Models/target_groups.kmv

https://www2.mycomputas.com/TEAM/Repository/Settings/generic.kms?url=/Team/Repository/Projects/Project_220/Upload/Attachments/Models/BLine-Models/target_groups.kmv

http://isg.uninova.pt/athena/B6/target-groups/


Figure 4. Academic Teacher of Computer Science

Figure 5. Objective of Decision Making Support

8.2 Survey ContentsThe following section describes the survey that has been used to obtain detailed information about

the focus target group. The goal of the survey was to gain information about the specific training requirements and conditions of the stakeholders in order to optimize the training offering.

Question 1. This question is to clarify the domain in which interoperability problems occur. On the basis of this information it is possible to obtain an overview of the most important fields of interoperability. Examples in the courses should be preferably taken from these most relevant areas.

Question 2. This question describes the different roles that are involved in interoperability problems. This information gives us a first profile of possible training participants.

Question 3. This question is to determine the specific skills required by participants who are involved in interoperability projects. This information helps us to determine which training areas are relevant and what the particular contents might be.

Question 4. This question is related to the previous questions but aims at the actual needs. Differences in the answers to question 3 and 4 give us a hint which training courses must be offered and which basic knowledge can already be assumed.



Question 5. This question aims at the organizational preconditions of training, independent of the particular training contents. Here we want to get an idea to which extent employees are expected to participate in interoperability courses and which delivery method they prefer. In particular the latter aspect gives us valuable information how to build up the curriculum and to decide to which degree we will offer e-learning or classroom courses. Nevertheless question 5 is rather difficult to answer for interviewees and we expect only a rough idea of the actual needs.

Question 6. This question directly asks for the existing training requirements. It can be seen as supplement for questions 3 and 4. However, this question can generally only be answered by employees who were already involved in interoperability projects. In this case we would obtain more direct and therefore clearer information as provided by questions 3 and 4.

Question 7. This question directly refers to the ATHENA training course curriculum. The aim of this question is to get a first feedback about the selection of the courses and their relevance for the stakeholder. Since only the course titles are given, it is not quite simple for the interviewee to estimate the course. However, since it would be too tedious for them to read the entire curriculum before they start with the survey, we assumed that the interviewees are experienced enough to get an idea of the course contents on the basis of the title. Nevertheless, the answer to question 7 provides important information with respect to the relevance of different courses for the different groups of stakeholders which were interviewed.



1. Are there current or planned projects, targeted to facilitate/automate the co-operation of your company with its business partners?

Please find listed a few examples, add your specific ones:

Business Partner Project

Suppliers Supply chain management

Suppliers Product development management

Suppliers Product Data Management in a Virtual Networked Enterprise

Suppliers Collaborative Product Development

Suppliers e-procurement

Customer Product Portfolio Management

Dealer Dealer Management

…



2. What is the typical set up of a project team?

Project member Business unit/ Department Role in Project Why is she/he a stakeholder/ job

profile Business Manager

Project Manager

IT Manager

Business consultants

IT consultants

Business Process owner

IT System AdministratorSystem Developer/Software EngineersEnd-User (Task-Owner)

Others…

a. Who of the above mentioned has specialised in supporting similar projects, how many of those are external consultants?



3. What are relevant skills for your team?

Please make a cross (give 1 for not important and 5 for very important)

Skill Rating 0-5

Interoperability problems and their business impact 1 2 3 4 5

Cross organizational business processes 1 2 3 4 5

Design and development of Enterprise Architectures 1 2 3 4 5

Design and development of solutions and applications 1 2 3 4 5

Business Process Modelling (BPM) 1 2 3 4 5

Model driven architectures (MDA) 1 2 3 4 5

(Web) Services 1 2 3 4 5

Service oriented architectures (SOA) 1 2 3 4 5

Object-oriented modelling including UML 1 2 3 4 5

Data exchange standards (XML, CORBA, EDI, SOAP etc.) 1 2 3 4 5

Taxonomies and Ontologies (OWL, tools, …) 1 2 3 4 5

Workflow modelling languages (XPDL, PSL,…) 1 2 3 4 5

Semantic web 1 2 3 4 5

Semantic annotations 1 2 3 4 5

Agent technologies 1 2 3 4 5

… 1 2 3 4 5



4. What are the corresponding information and training needs?

Interoperability problems and their business impact Cross organizational business processes Design and development of Enterprise Architectures Design and development of solutions and applications Business Process Modelling (BPM) Model driven architectures (MDA) (Web) Services Service oriented architectures (SOA) Object-oriented modelling including UML Data exchange standards (XML, CORBA, EDI, SOAP etc.) Taxonomies and Ontologies (OWL, tools, …) Workflow modelling languages (XPDL, PSL,…) Semantic web Semantic annotations Agent technologies …

5. What kind of training will be appropriate?

a. What are the preferred delivery methods for which topics

Web Based Training (online) Computer Based Training (offline) Classroom training Virtual Classrooms Inhouse training …

b. What is your training policy

Budget per employeeIf, yes __ca.___________ €

Amount of training per employee per year Certification Travel restrictions …

6. What is the basic knowledge we can assume? e.g. Does every developer know about XML?Does every business manager know about interoperability problems?



7. Please rate the following two example Programmes: Enterprise knowledge modelling, for managers and service-oriented Architectures, for IT Experts and the proposed course catalogue.

Please make a cross (give 1 for not important and 5 for very important)

Course catalog

Area Title Rating

Enterprise Modelling

EM1 Business and Value Models 1 2 3 4 5

EM2 Model-Driven Development of Interoperable Software Systems 1 2 3 4 5

EM3 Enterprise Platforms & Infrastructures 1 2 3 4 5

EM4 Enterprise Knowledge Modelling 1 2 3 4 5

EM5 Global Production Management (GPM) 1 2 3 4 5

EM6 Information Systems Modelling: Enterprise Modelling in a Quality Perspective 1 2 3 4 5

EM7 Business Process Modelling Tools 1 2 3 4 5

EM8 Business Process Enactment Architecture 1 2 3 4 5

EM9 UEML 1 2 3 4 5

EM10 Enterprise Modelling for Interoperability 1 2 3 4 5

EM11 Integrating enterprise modelling and Systems modelling 1 2 3 4 5

EM12 Enterprise modelling and enterprise architecture 1 2 3 4 5

EM13 Introduction to Enterprise Modelling 1 2 3 4 5

Architectures & Platforms 1 2 3 4 5

AP1 Applying Service-oriented Architectures in Interoperability 1 2 3 4 5

AP2 Introduction to Service-Oriented Architectures 1 2 3 4 5

AP3 Agent Technologies for Model-Driven Development in Service – Oriented Architectures 1 2 3 4 5

AP4 Model-Driven Development of Interoperable Software Systems 1 2 3 4 5

AP5 Integrated Execution Infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5

AP6 Autonomous and Adaptive Technologies 1 2 3 4 5

AP7 Comparison of the present architectures (J2EE, Corba, Net, ebXML, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5

AP8 Data Quality in Cooperative Information Systems 1 2 3 4 5

AP9 Patterns Enterprise Application Integration 1 2 3 4 5

AP10 Information Systems Architectures 1 2 3 4 5

Product data exchange

PDE1 Product data exchange, sharing and retention standards –comparison of the different standardised techn. framework 1 2 3 4 5

PDE2 Standards for Product data exchange, sharing and retention standards to support interoperability for 1 2 3 4 5

PDE3 Urbanism of Technical Enterprise Information System supporting 1 2 3 4 5



Area Title Rating

Interoperability Strategy for PLM process – introduction

PDE4 Frameworks for Interoperability of product data 1 2 3 4 5

Ontologies

ONT1 Documentation in the context of integration projects 1 2 3 4 5

ONT2 Methodologies for Ontology building 1 2 3 4 5

ONT3 Usages of Ontologies for Interoperability 1 2 3 4 5

ONT4 Semantic Annotations 1 2 3 4 5

ONT5 Document management and text mining 1 2 3 4 5

ONT6 Semantic web 1 2 3 4 5

ONT7 Ontology languages and methodologies 1 2 3 4 5

ONT8 Ontology based information integration 1 2 3 4 5

Concepts of Interoperability

CI1 Reasons for Lack of Interoperability 1 2 3 4 5

CI2 Development for Interoperability 1 2 3 4 5

CI3 Fundamentals in Interoperability 1 2 3 4 5

Business Interoperability

BI1 Networked Organisations 1 2 3 4 5

BI2 Methodologies for Impact Assessment 1 2 3 4 5

BI3 Introduction to Business Interoperability 1 2 3 4 5


Programme - asd-ssg.org … · Web view3.2.1 Starting Point Knowledge Café 4. 3.2.2 Strategic...

Documents

Transcript of Programme - asd-ssg.org … · Web view3.2.1 Starting Point Knowledge Café 4. 3.2.2 Strategic...