Advertisement

Dynamic Capabilities Indicators Estimation of Information Technology Usage in Technological Systems

  • Alexander GeydaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 199)

Abstract

The article outlines conceptual and corresponding formal models that provide means for estimation of information technology usage operational properties. Dynamic capability defined as the operational property of a system that describe its ability to adapt to changes of the system’s environment. Operational properties indicators of IT usage defined as a kind of system operational properties indicators under conditions of changing environment in such a way that it is possible to estimate their values analytically. Such estimation fulfilled through plotting the dependences of predicted values of operational properties of IT usage against variables and options of problems solved. To develop this type of models, the use of information technologies during system functioning analyzed through an example of a technological system. General concepts and principles of modeling of information technology usage during operation of such systems defined. An exemplary modeling of effects of technological information and related technological material (non-information) operations of technological systems operation provided. Based on concept models of operation of technological systems with regard to information technologies usage, set-theoretical models followed by functional models of technological systems operation using information technologies introduced. An example of operational properties indicators estimation considered based on ARIS diagramming tools usage.

Keywords

Information technology Efficiency Efficacy Effectiveness Capabilities Dynamic capabilities Potential Potentiality 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Performed under support of the RFBR grant No. 16-08-00953.

References

  1. 1.
    Teece, D., Pisano, G., Shuen, A.: Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 18(7), 509–533 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang, C., Ahmed, P.: Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 9(1), 31–51 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Teece, D.: Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 28(13), 1319–1350 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geyda, A., Lysenko, I.: Tasks of study of the potential of socio-economic systems. In: SPIIRAN Proceedings, vol. 10, pp. 63–84 (2009). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geyda, A., Lysenko, I.: Operational properties of agile systems and their functioning investigation problems: conceptual aspects. J. Appl. Inform. 12, 93–106 (2017). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geyda, A., Lysenko, I.: Schemas for the analytical estimation of the operational properties of agile systems. In: SHS Web Conference, vol. 35 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geyda, A., Lysenko, I., Yusupov, R.: Main concepts and principles for information technologies operational properties research. In: SPIIRAN Proceedings, vol. 42, pp. 5–36 (2015). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geyda, A., Ismailova, Z., Klitny, I., Lysenko, I.: Research problems in operating and exchange properties of systems. In: SPIIRAN Proceedings, vol. 35, pp. 136–160 (2014). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor, J.: Decision Management Systems: A Practical Guide to Using Business Rules and Predictive Analytics, 312 p. IBM Press, Indianapolis (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kendrick, T.: How to Manage Complex Programs. AMACOM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dinsmore, T.: Disruptive Analytics: Charting Your Strategy for Next-Generation Business Analytics, 276 p. Apress, New York (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Downey, A.: Think Complexity: Complexity Science and Computational Modeling. O’Reilly Media, Newton (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cokins, G.: Performance Management: Myth or Reality? Performance Management: Integrating Strategy Execution, Methodologies, Risk, and Analytics, 274 p. Wiley, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cokins, G.: Why is modeling foundational to performance management? Dashboard Inside Newsletter, March 2009Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hood, C., Wiedemann, S., Fichtinger, S., Pautz, U.: Requirements Management. The Interface Between Requirements Development and All Other Systems Engineering Processes, 275 p. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hybertson, D.: Model-Oriented Systems Engineering Science: A Unifying Framework for Traditional and Complex Systems, 379 p. AUERBACH, Boca Raton (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aslaksen, E.: The system concept and its application to engineering, 266 p. (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aslaksen, E.: Designing Complex Systems. Foundations of Design in the Functional Domain. Complex and Enterprise Systems Engineering Series, 176 p. CRC Press/AUERBACH, Boca Raton (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., Maisano, D.: Management by Measurement: Designing Key Indicators and Performance Measurement Systems, 242 p. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roedler, G., Schimmoller, R., Rhodes, D., Jones, C. (eds.): Systems engineering leading indicators guide. INCOSE Technical Product, INCOSE-TP-2005-001-03. Version 2.0, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, INCOSE, PSM, 146 p. (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tanaka, G.: Digital Deflation: The Productivity Revolution and How It will Ignite the Economy, 418 p. McGraw-Hill, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guide to the System Engineering Body of Knowledge, SEBoK v. 1.3.1. INCOSE (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simpson, J.J., Simpson M.J. Formal Systems Concepts. Formal, Theoretical Aspects of Systems Engineering. Comments on “Principles of Complex Systems for Systems Engineering”, Systems Engineering. vol. 13, no 2, pp. 204–207 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elm, J., Goldenson, D., Emam, Kh., Donatelli, N., Neisa, A.: A survey of systems engineering effectiveness—initial results (with detailed survey response data). NDIA SE Effectiveness Committee, Special report CMU/SEI-2008-SR-034, Acquisition Support Program, 288 p. Carnegie-Mellon University, NDIA (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patel, N.: Organization and Systems Design. Theory of Deferred Action, 288 p. Palgrave McMillan, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stevens, R.: Engineering Mega-systems: The Challenge of Systems Engineering in the Information Age. Complex and Enterprise Systems Engineering Series, 256 p. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mikalef, P., Pateli, A.: Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Bus. Res. 70(C), 1–16 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taticchi, P.: Business Performance Measurement and Management: New Contexts, Themes and Challenges, 376 p. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zio, E., Pedroni, N.: Literature review of methods for representing uncertainty, 61 p. FONCSI, Toulouse (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee, E.: The past, present and future of cyber-physical systems: a focus on models. Sensors 15, 4837–4869 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: On the Mathematics of Modelling, Metamodelling, Ontologies and Modelling Languages. Springer Briefs in Computer Science, 118 p. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kendrick, T.: How to Manage Complex Programs, 336 p. AMACOM, USA (2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Debevoise, T., Taylor, J.: The MicroGuide to Process and Decision Modeling in BPMN/DMN: Building More Effective Processes by Integrating Process Modeling with Decision Modeling, 252 p. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. The Enterprise Engineering Series, 352 p. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kleppe, A.: Software Language Engineering: Creating Domain-Specific Languages Using Metamodels, 240 p. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St.-Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation of the Russian Academy of SciencesSt.-PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations