Definition and validation of a business it alignment method for enterprise governance improvement in the context of processes based organizations
Report
Share
Report
Share
1 of 14
Download to read offline
More Related Content
Similar to Definition and validation of a business it alignment method for enterprise governance improvement in the context of processes based organizations
Methodology to align business and it policies use case from an it companychristophefeltus
This document proposes a methodology for aligning business and IT policies using a responsibility model. The methodology is a five-step approach consisting of collecting information, defining capabilities, accountabilities and commitments, linking responsibilities to processes, validating the model, and defining policies. It is illustrated with a case study from an IT company where they define an access control policy using this methodology and responsibility model. The responsibility model defines three components - capabilities, accountabilities, and commitments - to clarify roles and responsibilities for policy definition.
Strengthening employee’s responsibility to enhance governance of it – cobit r...christophefeltus
This document presents a study that aims to develop and validate a responsibility model to improve IT governance. The researchers analyzed existing responsibility concepts from literature and frameworks like COBIT. They developed a UML model of responsibility with key concepts like obligation, accountability, right, and commitment. The researchers then compared their model to COBIT's representation of responsibility. They propose enhancements to COBIT based on responsibility concepts from their model, aiming to provide a common understanding of responsibility across frameworks to benefit IT governance. The paper illustrates proposed changes to COBIT's process for identifying system owners.
Building a responsibility model using modal logicchristophefeltus
This document discusses building a responsibility model using modal logic concepts of accountability, capability, and commitment. It begins with a literature review of existing policy and access control models. The review finds that while concepts like rights, roles, and obligations are addressed, existing models do not fully cover all three responsibility concepts. The document then proposes a preliminary responsibility model and definitions for its components. It suggests a formalization of key concepts using deontic logic adapted from alethic logic. The goal is to provide a framework to define concepts, verify organizational structures, and detect policy issues.
This document proposes a responsibility modeling language (ReMoLa) to align access rights with business process requirements. ReMoLa is a responsibility-centered meta-model that integrates concepts from the business and technical layers, with the concept of employee responsibility bridging the two. It incorporates four types of obligations from the COBIT framework to refine employee responsibilities and better assign access rights. ReMoLa maps responsibilities to roles in the RBAC model to leverage its advantages for access right management while ensuring responsibilities align with business tasks and employee commitment.
Re mola responsibility model language to align access rights with business pr...christophefeltus
This document proposes a responsibility modeling language (ReMoLa) to align access rights with business process requirements. ReMoLa is a responsibility-centered meta-model that integrates both business and technical perspectives to bridge the gap between them. It uses the concept of employee responsibilities to link business obligations to the technical capabilities and access rights needed to fulfill those obligations. The meta-model includes concepts like responsibilities, obligations, accountabilities, capabilities, and rights. It also maps these concepts to the four types of obligations from the COBIT framework to better define employee responsibilities and access rights assignments based on real needs.
The document presents a responsibility model that includes accountability, capability, and commitment. The objectives of the model are to help organizations verify their structure and detect policy problems. It also provides a conceptual framework to define corporate, security, and access control policies. The paper reviews previous research and proposes a UML model of responsibility integrating its main concepts and relationships. It also selects a formal system to formally represent the model.
Building a responsibility model including accountability capability and commi...christophefeltus
The document presents a responsibility model that includes accountability, capability, and commitment. It aims to help organizations verify their structure and detect policy problems. The model provides a literature review on responsibility concepts in access control models and engineering methods. It then proposes a formal representation of the responsibility model using UML and a formal logic system. The analysis shows that an important variable is whether responsibility is perceived at the user or company level.
This document discusses challenges with access rights management for information systems due to growing complexity from distributed systems and dynamic environments. It proposes an agent-based framework called SIM that focuses on aligning access policies with business objectives by linking them to processes and responsibilities defined in the ISO/IEC 15504 standard. The goals are to define policies based on business needs and automatically deploy them through IT infrastructure using a multi-agent system architecture.
An agent based framework for identity management the unsuspected relation wit...christophefeltus
The document discusses access rights management in information systems and proposes an innovative approach. It aims to better align access policies with business objectives by linking them to organizational processes and responsibilities. The approach uses concepts from the ISO/IEC 15504 process assessment standard to define policies based on processes, outcomes, roles and responsibilities. It then proposes a multi-agent system to automate deployment of access policies across IT systems and devices in a flexible way. The approach seeks to improve on existing identity management solutions which can be rigid and difficult to integrate across organizations.
Preliminary literature review of policy engineering methodschristophefeltus
This document provides a preliminary literature review of policy engineering methods related to the concept of responsibility. It begins by discussing Camerer's observations that policy research often lacks agreed upon definitions, testing of theories against alternatives, and building upon previous work. It then reviews how responsibility is addressed in access control models like MAC, DAC, RBAC and UCON, noting they focus primarily on rights. Finally, it introduces the author's intention to propose a new policy model and engineering method that incorporates responsibility by considering stakeholders' capabilities, accountability and commitments, and uses requirements engineering principles while accounting for business processes.
This document provides a preliminary literature review of policy engineering methods related to the concept of responsibility. It summarizes key access control models and discusses how they address concepts like capability, accountability, and commitment. The document also reviews engineering methods and how they incorporate responsibility considerations. The overall goal is to orient further research towards a new policy model and engineering method that more fully addresses stakeholder responsibility.
Enhancement of business it alignment by including responsibility components i...christophefeltus
This document proposes enhancements to the Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) model by integrating the concept of responsibility. It summarizes the existing RBAC model and user/permission assignment processes. It then presents a responsibility model built around three concepts: an employee's obligations derived from responsibilities, the rights required to fulfill obligations, and the employee's commitment to fulfill obligations. The paper argues RBAC could be improved by incorporating acceptance of responsibility within the role assignment process. It proposes integrating the responsibility model with RBAC to address identified weaknesses and modeling the integrated model using the OWL ontology language.
State of the art of agile governance a systematic reviewijcsit
This document summarizes a systematic literature review on the state of agile governance. The review identified over 1,900 studies from 10 databases, of which 167 provided evidence to answer the research questions. The studies were organized into four major groups: software engineering, enterprise, manufacturing, and multidisciplinary. The review provides a definition of agile governance, six meta-principles, and a map of findings organized by topic and classified by relevance and convergence. The evidence suggests agile governance is a new, wide, and multidisciplinary area focused on organizational performance that requires more intensive study.
This document proposes an innovative approach called SIM (Secure Identity Management) that aims to make access management policies closer aligned with business objectives. It does this in two ways:
1) By focusing the policy engineering process on business goals and responsibilities defined in processes, using concepts from the ISO/IEC 15504 standard. This links capabilities and accountabilities to process outcomes and work products.
2) By defining a multi-agent system architecture to automate the deployment of policies across heterogeneous IT components and devices. The agents provide autonomy and ability to adapt rapidly according to context.
The approach was prototyped using open source components and aims to improve how access rights are defined according to business needs and deployed across an organization
Sim an innovative business oriented approach for a distributed access managementchristophefeltus
This document proposes an innovative approach called SIM (Secure Identity Management) that aims to define access control policies in a way that is closely aligned with business objectives. It does this by linking concepts from the ISO/IEC 15504 process-based model for organizing work to concepts of responsibility. The approach also defines a multi-agent system architecture to automate the deployment of access policies across an organization's heterogeneous IT components and devices. This provides autonomy and adaptability. The goal is to improve how access rights are defined according to business needs and how those rights are deployed throughout the IT infrastructure.
Aligning the business operations with the appropriate IT infrastructure is a challenging and critical activity. Without efficient business/IT alignment, the companies face the risk not to be able to deliver their business services satisfactorily and that their image is seriously altered and jeopardized. Among the many challenges of business/IT alignment is the access rights management which should be conducted considering the rising governance needs, such as taking into account the business actors' responsibility. Unfortunately, in this domain, we have observed that no solution, model and method, fully considers and integrates the new needs yet. Therefore, the paper proposes firstly to define an expressive Responsibility metamodel, named ReMMo, which allows representing the existing responsibilities at the business layer and, thereby, allows engineering the access rights required to perform these responsibilities, at the application layer. Secondly, the Responsibility metamodel has been integrated with ArchiMate® to enhance its usability and benefits from the enterprise architecture formalism. Finally, a method has been proposed to define the access rights more accurately, considering the alignment of ReMMo and RBAC. The research was realized following a design science and action design based research method and the results have been evaluated through an extended case study at the Hospital Center in Luxembourg.
Alignment of remmo with rbac to manage access rights in the frame of enterpri...christophefeltus
The document proposes aligning a Responsibility metamodel (ReMMo) with the Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) model to better manage access rights based on employee responsibilities within an enterprise architecture. It first defines the ReMMo to represent business responsibilities and related access rights. ReMMo is then integrated with the ArchiMate enterprise architecture framework. Finally, the paper proposes aligning ReMMo and RBAC and provides a reference model for engineering access rights based on aligning business roles, responsibilities, and RBAC roles. This approach uses responsibility as a pivot to integrate business and application layer access rights requirements.
This document provides a literature review of research on the corporate governance bundle. It begins with background on the evolution of the concept of a corporate governance bundle and key related theories. It then summarizes several studies that have applied the bundle concept, finding evidence that multiple governance mechanisms can act as complements or substitutes to limit manager opportunism. The research also indicates there are multiple bundles of practices that can lead to high firm performance within models of corporate governance. Overall, the literature review examines perspectives on and applications of the corporate governance bundle concept.
Similar to Definition and validation of a business it alignment method for enterprise governance improvement in the context of processes based organizations (20)
Multi-Agent System (MAS) monitoring solutions are designed for a plethora of usage topics. Existing approach mostly used cloned back-end architectures while front-end monitoring interface tends to constitute the real specificity of the solution. These interfaces are recurrently structured around three dimensions: access to informed knowledge, agent’s behavioural rules, and restitution of real-time states of specific system sector. In this paper, we propose prototyping a sector-agnostic MAS platform (Smart-X) which gathers in an integrated and independent platform all the functionalities required to monitor and to govern a wide range of sector specific environments. For illustration and validation purposes, the use of Smart-X is introduced and explained with a smart-mobility case study.
This document provides an agenda and overview for a joint workshop on security modeling hosted by the ArchiMate Forum and Security Forum. The workshop aims to identify opportunities to improve the conceptual and visual modeling of enterprise information security using TOGAF and ArchiMate. The agenda includes introductions, a research spotlight on strengthening role-based access control with responsibility modeling, an open discussion on complementing TOGAF and ArchiMate with enhanced security modeling, and identifying next steps. The workshop purpose is to enable better security architecture decisions and drive usage of TOGAF and ArchiMate for security architecture.
This document proposes an innovative systemic approach to risk management across interconnected sectors. It suggests using enterprise architecture models to manage cross-sector risks in Luxembourg's complex ICT ecosystem. The approach would provide regulators an overview of all players and systems, as well as models of different sectors to analyze collected data and risks at a national level, fostering accurate and reactive risk mitigation across economic domains.
This document proposes extending the HL7 standard with a responsibility perspective to better manage access rights to patient health records. It presents the ReMMo responsibility metamodel, which defines actors' responsibilities and associated access rights. The paper aims to align ReMMo with the HL7-based eSanté healthcare platform model in Luxembourg to semantically enhance access controls based on users' real responsibilities rather than just roles. It will first map concepts between the two models, then evaluate the alignment through a prototype applying inference rules.
This document proposes a methodological approach for specifying services and analyzing service compliance considering the responsibility dimension of stakeholders. The approach includes a product model and process model. The product model has three layers: an informational layer describing service context and concepts, an organizational layer describing business rules and roles, and a responsibility dimension layer linking the two. The process model outlines steps for service architects to identify context, define concepts and rules, specify services, and analyze compliance. The approach is illustrated with an example of managing access rights for sensitive healthcare data exchange between organizations.
This document discusses integrating responsibility aspects into service engineering for e-government. It proposes a multi-layered approach including an ontological layer defining legal concepts, an organizational layer describing roles and stakeholders, an informational layer representing data structures and integrity constraints, and a technical layer representing IT components. A responsibility meta-model is also introduced to align responsibilities across these layers and facilitate interoperability between services that share data. The approach aims to ensure service compliance and manage risks associated with e-government services.
1) The document proposes a dynamic approach for assigning functions and responsibilities to agents in a multi-agent system for critical infrastructure management.
2) The approach uses an agent's reputation, which is based on past performance, to determine which agents receive which responsibilities as crisis situations change over time.
3) Assigning responsibilities dynamically based on reputation allows the system to continue operating effectively if an agent becomes isolated or has reduced capabilities during a crisis.
The document describes the NOEMI assessment methodology, which was developed as part of a research project to help very small enterprises (VSEs) improve their IT practices. The methodology aims to assess VSEs' IT capabilities in order to facilitate collaborative IT management across organizations. It was designed to be aligned with common IT standards like ISO/IEC 15504 and ITIL, but adapted specifically for VSEs. The methodology has been tested through several case studies with VSEs in Luxembourg, with promising results.
This document proposes an extension of the ArchiMate enterprise architecture framework to model multi-agent systems for critical infrastructure governance. The authors develop a responsibility-driven policy concept and metamodel layers to represent agent behavior and organizational policies across technical, application, and organizational layers. The approach is illustrated through a case study of a financial transaction processing system.
This document summarizes an experimental prototype of the OpenSST protocol for secured electronic transactions. OpenSST was developed to achieve high security, simplicity in software engineering, and compatibility with existing standards. The prototype uses OpenSST for the authorization portion of electronic payments in an e-business clearing solution. It describes the OpenSST message format and types, and discusses how OpenSST is implemented in the prototype's three-element architecture of an OpenSST proxy, reverse proxy, and server.
This document proposes an automatic reaction strategy for critical infrastructure SCADA systems. It defines a three-layer metamodel for modeling SCADA components and two types of policies (cognitive and permissive) that govern component behavior. It then presents a two-phase method for identifying these policies from the SCADA architecture and formalizing them to support an automatic reaction strategy. This strategy is modeled as an integral part of the SCADA architecture using the defined metamodel and policy identification method. It includes organizational and application layers with main actors, strategies, and components that realize the reaction policies based on expected automation levels.
This document discusses the NOEMI model, a collaborative management model for ICT processes in SMEs. The model was developed by the Centre Henri Tudor and tested with a cluster of 8 partner SMEs. Key aspects of the model include defining ICT activities across 5 domains, assessing each SME's capabilities, and having an operational team manage activities for the cluster under a coordination committee. The experiment showed improved cost control, management, and partner satisfaction compared to alternatives like outsourcing or hiring individual IT staff. The research is now ready for market transfer as the successful model is adopted long-term by participating SMEs.
The document proposes an agent-based architecture for multi-level security incident reaction in distributed telecommunication networks. The architecture has three levels: a low level interface with the infrastructure, an intermediate level using multi-agent systems to correlate alerts and deploy reactions across domains, and a high level for global supervision and policy management. The architecture was designed based on requirements like scalability, availability, autonomy, and robust reaction and alert management across distributed systems. It was successfully tested for implementing data access control policies.
This document proposes a multi-agent architecture for incident reaction in information system security. The architecture has three layers - low level interacts directly with the infrastructure, intermediate level correlates alerts and deploys reaction actions using multi-agent systems, and high level provides supervision and manages business policies. The architecture was tested for data access control and aims to quickly and efficiently react to attacks while ensuring policy compliance. The document discusses requirements like scalability, autonomy, and global supervision. It also describes the key components of alert management, reaction decision making, and policy definition/deployment to implement the architecture using a multi-agent approach.
This document proposes a metamodel for modeling reputation-based multi-agent systems using an adaptation of the ArchiMate enterprise architecture modeling framework. It describes a case study applying this metamodel to model an electrical distribution critical infrastructure system. Key elements of the metamodel include:
- Representing agents and their behaviors through policies that integrate both behavior and trust components
- Modeling trust relationships between agents using a reputation-based trust model
- Illustrating the metamodel layers and components on a system that detects weather alerts and broadcasts messages to the public through various channels like SMS or social media
The document discusses information security concerns of industry managers. A survey found that information security is the top concern of managers, even more than risks from the economy or natural disasters. While industries invest heavily in information security, most managers still trust their current security systems despite few having organizations well-adapted to new information risks. The complexity of assessing security risks is growing due to new IT capabilities, critical infrastructure developments, cloud services, and increasing cybercrime. Industries and academics must collaborate further on information security research to address these challenges.
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
just download it to see!
ScieNCE grade 08 Lesson 1 and 2 NLC.pptxJoanaBanasen1
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it................
just download it..............
Probing the northern Kaapvaal craton root with mantle-derived xenocrysts from...James AH Campbell
"Probing the northern Kaapvaal craton root with mantle-derived xenocrysts from the Marsfontein orangeite diatreme, South Africa".
N.S. Ngwenya, S. Tappe, K.A. Smart, D.C. Hezel, J.A.H. Campbell, K.S. Viljoen
SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS – THE IMPORTANCE OF FAIR TESTING.pptxJoanaBanasen1
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
download it
Search for Dark Matter Ionization on the Night Side of Jupiter with CassiniSérgio Sacani
We present a new search for dark matter (DM) using planetary atmospheres. We point out that
annihilating DM in planets can produce ionizing radiation, which can lead to excess production of
ionospheric Hþ
3 . We apply this search strategy to the night side of Jupiter near the equator. The night side
has zero solar irradiation, and low latitudes are sufficiently far from ionizing auroras, leading to a lowbackground search. We use Cassini data on ionospheric Hþ
3 emission collected three hours either side of
Jovian midnight, during its flyby in 2000, and set novel constraints on the DM-nucleon scattering cross
section down to about 10−38 cm2. We also highlight that DM atmospheric ionization may be detected in
Jovian exoplanets using future high-precision measurements of planetary spectra.
The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis: A case for scientific openness to a conceal...Sérgio Sacani
Recent years have seen increasing public attention and indeed concern regarding Unidentified
Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Hypotheses for such phenomena tend to fall into two classes: a
conventional terrestrial explanation (e.g., human-made technology), or an extraterrestrial explanation
(i.e., advanced civilizations from elsewhere in the cosmos). However, there is also a third minority
class of hypothesis: an unconventional terrestrial explanation, outside the prevailing consensus view of
the universe. This is the ultraterrestrial hypothesis, which includes as a subset the “cryptoterrestrial”
hypothesis, namely the notion that UAP may reflect activities of intelligent beings concealed in stealth
here on Earth (e.g., underground), and/or its near environs (e.g., the moon), and/or even “walking
among us” (e.g., passing as humans). Although this idea is likely to be regarded sceptically by most
scientists, such is the nature of some UAP that we argue this possibility should not be summarily
dismissed, and instead deserves genuine consideration in a spirit of epistemic humility and openness.
Possible Anthropogenic Contributions to the LAMP-observed Surficial Icy Regol...Sérgio Sacani
This work assesses the potential of midsized and large human landing systems to deliver water from their exhaust
plumes to cold traps within lunar polar craters. It has been estimated that a total of between 2 and 60 T of surficial
water was sensed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Lyman Alpha Mapping Project on the floors of the larger
permanently shadowed south polar craters. This intrinsic surficial water sensed in the far-ultraviolet is thought to be
in the form of a 0.3%–2% icy regolith in the top few hundred nanometers of the surface. We find that the six past
Apollo Lunar Module midlatitude landings could contribute no more than 0.36 T of water mass to this existing,
intrinsic surficial water in permanently shadowed regions (PSRs). However, we find that the Starship landing
plume has the potential, in some cases, to deliver over 10 T of water to the PSRs, which is a substantial fraction
(possibly >20%) of the existing intrinsic surficial water mass. This anthropogenic contribution could possibly
overlay and mix with the naturally occurring icy regolith at the uppermost surface. A possible consequence is that
the origin of the intrinsic surficial icy regolith, which is still undetermined, could be lost as it mixes with the
extrinsic anthropogenic contribution. We suggest that existing and future orbital and landed assets be used to
examine the effect of polar landers on the cold traps within PSRs
Possible Anthropogenic Contributions to the LAMP-observed Surficial Icy Regol...
Definition and validation of a business it alignment method for enterprise governance improvement in the context of processes based organizations
1. Definition and Validation of a Business IT
Alignment Method for Enterprise
Governance Improvement in the Context of
Processes Based Organizations
Christophe FELTUS
Center for IT Innovation
Public Research Centre Henri Tudor Luxembourg
christophe.feltus@tudor.lu
Michaël PETIT
Computer Science Department,
University of Namur Belgium
mpe@info.fundp.ac.be
Georges ATAYA
Solvay Business School
Université Libre de Bruxelles Belgium
gataya@ulb.ac.be
Abstract
These days, it is remarkable to note the growing of interest in
professional responsibility. Specifically, the responsibility a person
commits to when he or she performs a task. Based on a review of
research currently performed in the field of policy (from corporate to
technical ones), we observe that the perception of responsibility has
often been limited to a combination of rights and obligations. In
addition, we are seeing a re-emergence in business (for example, in the
financial sector) of a belief that business ethics foundation can be
improved and that a renewed focus in this area would help to prevent
future breakdowns in the system. With regard to improving
business/IT alignment and corporate ICT governance, it becomes
increasingly important to define a commonly accepted personal
responsibility model that embodies important and well-known
concepts like accountability, capability and commitment. Moreover,
because responsibility constitutes a fundamental notion of
management theory, it is likewise identified as a meaningful bridge
toward organizational artifacts. Exploiting process-based approach to
define policy seems to offer new research opportunities since process-
based organization becomes a continuous widely spread structure.
2. Key Words: ICT Governance, Responsibility model, Capability, Accountability, Commitment.
1. INTRODUCTION
ccounting scandals of 2002 and more recently ongoing market crisis highlight the importance
of the Corporate Governance and by consequence: Governance of IT. Following those scandals,
a lot of laws and standards were published in order on one hand to guarantee the stability of the
financial sector and, by extension, to all sectors of the industrial economy and in the other hand,
to enhance the governance all of these public and private companies. Sarbanes-Oxley Act
(Sarbanes et al., 2002) Basel II (Basel II, 2006) and EU Directive 95/46 (Directive 95/46/EC,
1995) are some of these laws that aim at providing guarantees over the company’s
accountability. The ISO/EIC 38500:2008 (ISO/IEC 38500, 2008) is one standard that provides a
framework for effective governance of IT. One of the main constraints imposed by these laws
and standards is to have responsibilities clearly established and accepted internally by the
collaborators and externally by the stakeholders as well. Unfortunately, by depicting the
responsibility in a large range of IT oriented frameworks, we come to the conclusion that no
global consensus over a responsibility model exists. The scope of our review as targeted
organizational models from the realm of IT security, from access control models such as RBAC
(Ferraiola et al., 2001), UCON (Park et al., 2002) and OrBAC (Abou El Kalam et al., 2003) up
to framework for ICT governance like Cobit and its RACI chart (Cobit 4.1) or the service
management like ITIL (ITIL, 2001). We have also investigated the area of requirement
engineering, through the analyses of role engineering methods like (Bertino et al., 2005), (Yu et
al., 2001), (Antòn, 1996) and (Crook et al., 2002) and through EAM (Enterprise Architecture
Model) frameworks like CIMOSA (Vernadat, 2005) or Togaf (Togaf, 2007). The importance of
the finding regarding the miss of a common understanding over responsibility has oriented our
research and as a consequence, we propose in this paper firstly to introduce our innovative
responsibility model that has been elaborated following the review and based on a global
comprehension of the concepts. This model has already been largely commented in (Feltus et al.,
2007) and (Rifaut et al., 2006). It has been designed to be a structured representation of the
responsibility necessary to achieve a finite set of activities (like in a process). The three main
components of the responsibility model are Capability, Accountability and Commitment. The
capability describes the quality of having the required qualities or resources to achieve a task, the
accountability describes the state of being answerable about the achievement of a task, and the
commitment is the engagement of a stakeholder to fulfil a task and the assurance he will do it.
Hence, the usage of our model is twofold: Firstly, it may be associated with another model and
when we use them together, the organizational model is enhanced with responsibility concept
and is as a consequence closer to governance requirements (see Fig. 1.)
Fig. 1. Model aggregation
A
3. In Fig. 1., Governance requirements are those dictated by newly arising laws and standards like
the need for more ethics, more commitment or more accountability. The engineering of these
requirements has been performed in (Rifaut et al., 2006). The responsibility model represents
the model of responsibility that has been designed based on these requirements. The
organizational model is the model to be enhanced with the responsibility components and could
be for example the ITIL framework, the CIMOSA framework or a process based enterprise
architecture.
Secondly the paper proposes a usage of the model for depicting and enhancing frameworks
regarding the definition of policies. This will be illustrated later in the paper with an analysis of a
governance principle according to the actors that are responsible for it.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: the next section introduces our innovative
responsibility model, Section II to IV explain and illustrate how the model may be used in
different context. Section II link the responsibility model and the ISO 15504 framework to
define policies from the ISO IEC 15504 Framework, Section III links the model and the
CIMOSA Enterprise Architecture Model to enhance its elicitation language and finally Section
IV explain how the model permits to improve the statement from ISO 38500 that argues,
"Director should direct the preparation and use of plans and policies". Moreover, I will illustrate
how CobiT and ITIL could provide information to instantiate the model (and by the way,
translating the principle in an operational mode).
2. RESPONSIBILITY MODEL
2.1 Components Of The Model
The model of responsibility in Fig. 2 has been initially designed based on an exhaustive review
of the scientific literature dealing with that matter and is continuously refined according to newly
arising governance requirements. This model is basically designed to be generic enough to be
applied to all kinds of organisations, at each abstraction layers and all domains of the
organisation. In short, the organisation represents a structure that pursues collective goals. This
structure encompasses employees (agent) playing roles and that are responsible to perform
processes’ activities. In this model, the notion of sequence (the workflow) between the different
responsibilities is not represented. Indeed, these transitions are already defined in the other
organizational models defining the process model like ISO/IEC 15504.
Fig. 2. UML Diagram Responsibility Model
The notion of responsibility is widely used, but no unique definition exists. According to the
literature, we may however state that commonly accepted definitions of responsibility
encompass the idea of having the obligation to ensure that something happens. Our previous
work (Gateau et al., 2008) shows that responsibility can be described as a set of three elements
that are Capability, Accountability and Commitment. The relation between responsibility and the
three other concepts is of the form 0..* to 1. That means that being responsible involves that the
possibility to dispose of many Capacities, Accountabilities and Commitments.
4. Agent: is a person external or internal to an organization, a system or using a software
component. Agent has to achieve the activities he is responsible for. In other models, this
concept is also called subject, actor or user. For easing their management, those agents are often
grouped together based on their common properties and attributes. As previously explained in
the literature overview, the most famous type of classification is based on the concept of role but
variations exist such as for example the team, the hierarchy, or some geographical constraints.
Responsibility: It also exists a lot of definitions of responsibility. We may however state that
commonly accepted responsibility’s definitions encompass the idea of “having the obligation to
ensure that something happens”. Moreover, the literature review (Feltus, 2008) highlights that
being responsible involves that it is possible to dispose of many capacities, accountabilities and
commitments. But at the opposite, one commitment and one accountability are linked to one
responsibility whether one capability may serve many responsibilities.
Activity: is an operation performed by the agent. Those operations allow him to fulfill its
responsibilities This concept doesn’t exist in the realm of access control models that describe
right or/and obligation needed to perform an operation. E.g.: the right to read a document or the
obligation to satisfy conditions before executing an operation. By contrast, “activity” is a main
concept in requirement engineering. E.g., in Tropos, a goal may be achieved by fulfilling an
activity. The relation between agent, responsibility and activity can be read as: “there is one and
only one agent responsible for one activity, and one agent may have many responsibilities and
one responsibility may correspond to many activities”.
Accountability: is a concept that exists mainly in engineering methods and that appears through
the obligation to achieve an activity or to perform an action. This concept describes the state of
being answerable about the achievement of an activity. For instance, a strategic accountability
for a given responsibility could be: “A project leader must achieve the financial Key
Performance Indicators defined for the project”. An operational accountability could be: “An IT
administrator must give access rights to specific resources of the organisation to members of the
project team”. Recent laws, like the Public Company Reform and Investor Protection Act of
2002, known under Sarbanes-Oxley and the Basel II requirements for the financial institutions,
have put forward the need of more obligation in the hands of agents and more precisely the CEO
and CFO. E.g. obligation to be kept informed of whether or not accounts of the enterprise are
valid. This accountability is declined under the concept of obligation of result for the operational
responsible. ITIL add that only one Agent can be accountable for each task.
Commitment: is the moral engagement of an agent to fulfill an activity and the assurance that he
will do it in respect of an ethical code. Commitment is the most infrequent concept. For instance,
a strategic commitment for a responsibility could be:” The Chief Financial Officer accepts to
manage the accounting department and not commit insider dealing”. An operational commitment
could be: “An employee of the procurement staff accepts not to use the system for his personal
use”. Commitment may be declined under different perspectives, such as the willingness of
social actors to give their energy and loyalty to social systems or an affective attachment to an
organization apart from the purely instrumental worth of the relationship. For James G. March
and Johan P. Olsen (March et al., 1995) rules that manage a system exist because they work well
and provide better solutions than their alternative. They also observe that peoples’ moral
commitment is a condition for the existence of a common interpretation of rules. According to
that statement and by extrapolating “rules” to stakeholders’ capabilities and accountabilities,
commitment seems to be an unavoidable component.
Capability: which describes the require qualities skills or resources to perform an activity.
Capability is a component that is part of all security models and methods, and is most frequently
declined through definitions of access rights, authorizations or permissions.
In the field of access control, traditional policy model such as RBAC do not address this
concept. In requirement engineering i* partly introduces it (e.g. when defining dependency as an
“agreement” between two agents). Whatever, it is not clear to distinguish if it is a moral concept
5. or an obligation. For instance, a strategic capability for a given responsibility could be: “A
resource must know the strategic objectives of the organisation”. An operational capability could
be: “The coach of the resources must have write access to the HR software”.
The consistency between concepts may also be examined based upon the assumption that the
capability needed for assuming a responsibility corresponds to the accountability of another
responsibility (belonging to another user or role). Both responsibilities’ components capability
and accountability are strongly linked to each other (Aubert et al., 2008) An accountability of a
role or a person can permit to deduce capability of another role or person and conversely a
capability stems from accountability (e.g.: The capability “The coach of the resources must have
write access to the HR software” stems from the accountability “An IT administrator must give
access rights to specific resources (HR software) of the organization to the coach”).
2.2 Advantages Of The Model
The advantages the responsibility model (Fig. 2) are important for four reasons:
1. It permits to improve the business/IT alignment and brings material to answer to the
principle 1 of the ISO/IEC 38500:2008 standard: Establish clearly understood
responsibilities for IT.
2. The accountability is bound to the agent rather than to a group of agents (like in others
models (Abou El Kalam et al., 2003) This makes the agent personally more involved
and more concerned by the activity to achieve because he does not shared the result with
anyone.
3. It addresses the commitment aspect of the responsibility and consequently increases the
ethics of the business in general.
4. It guarantees that the right capability is affected to the right agent. This advantage
guarantees that the agents receive the minimum privileges necessary for achieving their
activities and consequently, it decreases the vulnerability of the system.
3. POLICY ELICITATION BASED ON ISO/IEC 15504
That section three focuses on defining responsibility and access control policies from a
process based organizational structure. To perform this policy engineering activity, we have
oriented our research toward a particular type of company where process-based approaches are
in use. Other frameworks also have been chosen such as the matrix approach or the pyramidal
one. Future extension of this work could be done for those alternative approaches (Rifaut et al.,
2006) Even if process based approaches for formalizing the company’s activity exists for a long
time, a number of literature texts and norms deal with it. For example, in (Savén, 2002) Ruth
Sara Savén describes a Business Process as a combination of a set of activities within an
enterprise with a structure describing their logical order and dependence whose objective is to
produce a desired result. In CEN/ENV 12204 (CEN/ENV 12204, 1996) a business process is
defined as a partially ordered set of enterprise activities which can be executed to realize a given
objective of an enterprise or a part of an enterprise to achieve some desired end-result. Among
existing process formalisms, the standard ISO 9000 (ISO 9000, 2005) presents interesting
perspectives in that it considers a process as a set of interrelated or interacting activities, which
transforms inputs into outputs.
ISO/IEC 15504 (ISO/IEC 15504-1,2 et 5, 2004, 2003 et 2006) confers a structural framework
for describing a process and a maturity model to evaluate them. A process, according to ISO/IEC
15504, is described based on the following components:
- Purposes, which describes a process;
- Outcome, which is an observable result of a process. It is an artifact, a significant change
6. of state or the meeting of specified constraints,
- Base practice, which is an activity that, when consistently performed, contributes to
achieving a specific process outcome;
- Work product, which is an artifact associated with the execution of a process. It can be
input (required for outcome achievement) or output (result from outcome achievement).
Processes are observable through different outcomes and are achieved by using resources,
base practices and work products.
ISO/IEC 15504 does not specifically addresses the responsibility nor the capability and
accountability. However, the maturity model that permits to measure the maturity level of the
process states that having responsibility defined is needed to be in Level 2,.
Defining policies from business processes are obtained, in our research, by combining
responsibility concepts and ISO/IEC 15504 components. We observe quite naturally that first,
the Input Work product is a right for a agent to perform an activity; it is by the way combined
with the capability. Secondly, the Output Work product is an agent’s obligation at the issue of
the activity. We combine it with accountability. Fig.2 illustrates that junction of both models.
Both responsibilities’ components capability and accountability are strongly linked to each other
(Aubert et al., 2008) in that accountability of a role or a person permits to deduce capability of
another role or person and conversely a capability stems from accountability (e.g.: The
capability “An engineer has access to a specific file” stems from the accountability “An engineer
has to share a specific file with another engineer”).
Fig.3 shows at a more global point of view this conceptual connection between ISO/IEC
15504 component and responsibility concepts.
Fig. 3.: Relationship between accountability and capability responsibilities
The possibilities offered by this connection are illustrated with the definition of policies in the
field of identity management and access control. Identity management models are composed of
responsibilities associated to role, which are given to specific persons. Role should not be
confused with the function, for example an engineer (function) can be project manager and
developer (roles). However, a person can be linked to one or more roles. The role of a person
permits us to define the access policy for that person. For example: to grant access permission to
the project management folder on the organization’s fileserver. The advantage of that mapping is
that it permits to define policies (right and obligation regarding responsibilities) based on the
ISO IEC 15504 framework as illustrated in Fig. 4.
7. Fig. 4.: ISO/IEC 15504 and Identity management models
4. CIMOSA ENHANCEMENT WITH GOVENRANCE REQUIREMENT
4.1 Analysis Of CIMOSA Basic Responsibility Concepts
The CIMOSA model encompasses (Vernadat, 1995) :
1. A Modeling Framework that provides semantic unification of the concepts. It contains
three axes (CIMOSA Cube):
the GENERATION (with 4 views : Function, Information, Resources and
Organization),
the INSTANTATION,
the DERIVATION.
2. An Integrating Infrastructure that supports model execution and acts as a common IT
execution platform.
3. The System Life Cycle that describes the major phases in the engineering of a CIMOSA
system.
The responsibility concepts of our model (section 2) are mainly addressed in the Modeling
Framework. By analyzing it, we see that an Agent is a Functional Entity (i.e. an active resource),
is represented in the Resource View and appears when resources are derived from the
requirements definition to the implementation description. The responsibility is represented in
the Organizational View. Indeed, this view is composed with Organization Units that are low
level decision centers or work position assigned with responsibilities and authorities, and
Organization Cell that are higher level decision centers with a manager, responsibilities and
authorities. Those cells are consequently structuring the organizational units into larger entities
at different responsibility levels. This information is completed in (Mauchan, 2007) that presents
a class diagram of CIMOSA model and highlights how the Organizational Unit is responsible
for the process and how this process is composed of activities (or task) that need capability.
Additionally to the responsibility element, the CIMOSA Modeling Framework introduces the
concept of Authority.
8. Capability in the current CIMOSA framework is defined as a resource element of the Resource
View. This element is linked and needed to the activity concept of the Function View (required
capabilities/competencies) and is linked and provided by the agent concept of the Resource
View (provided capabilities/competencies). In (Vernadat, 2004) (Kosanke et al., 1999)
Capability set is defined as a set of capabilities (i.e. technical characteristics) for technical agents
or a set of competencies (i.e. skills) for human agents.
The Commitment is not explicitly taken into account in CIMOSA.
The Accountability of an agent regarding an activity is the obligation to perform that activity and
to obtain the expected results. Although both define that activity: the results (control outputs,
function outputs and resources outputs) and the agent that perform it (input resource), no explicit
link exists between the accountability of that agent and the activity.
Fig. 5 summarizes the CIMOSA’s responsibility concepts at a requirement level.
Fig. 5. Basic CIMOSA responsibility model UML Diagram
4.2 Enhancement Of The CIMOSA Framework
The current representation of the responsibility in the CIMOSA model explained in section 4.1
can be improved by incorporating it with our responsibility model presented in section 2. Fig. 2.
illustrates that and represents the integration of that concepts at a requirement level:
The responsibility concept is explicitly introduced in the Organization view. It is linked to the
activity to be performed and to the agent responsible for it. By doing so, we provide the
possibility to distinguish the agent that has the required capabilities/competencies to perform the
task and the agent that will be accountable of it. This modification will provide facilities to
manage the delegation of activities or the possibility to easier replace an agent by another. It
introduces as consequence the notion of role (Ferraiolo et al., 2001) in the CIMOSA Framework.
The capability, while remaining an element from the Resource View, is no more linked to the
activity but it is linked to responsibility. With that modification and in the perspective of being at
the requirement level, the agent is responsible if and only if he has the capabilities to perform the
activity.
The commitment concept will be introduced in the organizational view as a component that
compose the responsibility
The accountability will exist formally as a component that composes the responsibility. With
that concept, it is possible to identify which agent is accountable of which activity.
9. Fig. 6. Improved Responsibility Model UML Diagram
The junction of the CIMOSA model with the Responsibility model is integrated in the CIMOSA
language with a new responsibility component that defines the responsibility’s elements of the
ResourceInput (agent) that perform the activity (Fig. 7)
ResourceInput: Name of ressource
Responsibility:
Accoutable : list of accountabilities
Capability : list of capabilities
Commitment :list of commitments
Fig 7. CIMOSA updated language
In parallel to the enhancement of the CIMOSA model, the analysis also permits to understand a
new concept: the Authority. The Authority will be introduced in the responsibility model as an
instance of the Capability. Indeed, the definition of this concept is “the power to command and
control others agents”. That means, according to our definition of section 2, a well precise type
of a right.
5. IMPROVING RESPONSIBILITY IN ISO/IEC 38500:2008
Lot of norms and standards introduce, explicitly or implicitly, responsibility elements. It is the
case of standards like ISO 9000, ISO 27000, ISO 14000, and the new standard for ICT
governance ISO/IEC 38500:2008. All of theses standards mainly argue that their principles and
statements have to be achieved under the responsibility of someone and precise more or less
deeply the function or role that has to assume the responsibility. They generally precise what
obligations are, but they rarely mention what the awaited commitment is or what the rights
accorded to the responsible are.
ISO/IEC 38500 provides limited and synthetic information over its six principle’s responsibility.
It is justify by the objective of the standard that aims to give guiding principles. However, more
information is needed if we want firstly to translate the standard in implementation guides, and
secondly if we want that this description of the responsibility answers good governance
principles.
According to that analysis, we propose in that last section to explain how the standard is
improvable with the responsibility model introduced in section 2. To achieve that, we explain
that it based on a requirement extracted form the Principle 2 of ISO/IEC 38500:2008 standard:
Directors should direct the preparation and use of plans and policies that ensure the
organization does benefit from the developments in IT. Based on the description of that
requirement in the standard, it is possible to illustrate the responsibility for the activity to be
achieved by the Director following the structure of the responsibility model. This is illustrated in
Fig 8.
10. Fig 8: Responsibility in ISO/IEC 38500:2008
When we model the responsibility of the director as illustrated in Fig. 8., it appears that some
components of the responsibility (mainly capability and commitment) are not addressed. To
complete the missing information, we depict Cobit and ITIL frameworks. Cobit provides more
information in its process PO1, Plan and Organise : Define a Strategic IT Plan whereas ITIL
provides information among others through the IT Planner role and responsibility.
It is to note that this paper doesn’t provide a finite and rigorous way to define the responsibility
but a structuring representation of its component. As consequence, the missing information
furnished by Cobit and ITIL is not a unique solution but a portfolio of possibilities to be used to
compose the model.
5.1. Instantiation Of The Model According To CobiT Material
The Cobit process that corresponds to that example is the process PO1, Plan and Organise :
Define a Strategic IT Plan. This process is spited into 5 activities that are : Link business goals
to IT goals, Identify critical dependencies and current performance, Built an IT strategic plan,
Built IT tactical plans, analyse programme portfolios and manage project and service portfolios.
Each of these activities owns its own RACI chart and consequently, the statement of the
ISO/IEC 38500:2008 framework that affirms that Director is responsible for that activity can be
refined when the principle is implemented in the company. To perform that refinement, we
consequently need to spit the responsibility of the Director over the set of activities that compose
that process. In the case of the activity Built an IT strategic Plan, CEO is accountable, CIO is
responsible, Business process owner and PMO are consulted and CEO and all others functions
are informed. Following CobiT, this activity is achieved by :
- Engaging with business and senior management in aligning IT strategic planning with
current and future business needs
- Understanding current IT capabilities
- Providing for a prioritization scheme for the business objectives that quantifies the
business requirements
Output of the process is :
- Strategic IT plan
This output is, in fact, the accountability of the person that is responsible for it.
Inputs of the process are the following:
11. - Cost-benefits reports
- Risk assessment
- Business strategy and priorities
- Report on IT governance status; enterprise strategic direction for IT
These inputs may correspond to Capabilities needed to perform the task.
Another Cobit Capability is :
- Understanding current IT capabilities
5.2 Instantiation Of The Model According To ITIL Material
ITIL also provides information about that activity. By depicting the IT planner role’s objectives,
it is possible to get more information to instantiate responsibility components of the above
model. The IT Planner is responsible for the production and coordination of IT plans. ITIL
provides a generic description of the responsibilities that corresponds to 2 generic sub-activities
that are “the production of IT plan” and “ the coordination of IT plan”. The description of that
responsibility also encompasses a disparate enumeration of responsibility artifacts. To fulfill our
model, we focus our analysis on the sub-responsibility “product IT plan”. This sub-responsibility
argues that :
The IT Planner is Accountable for :
- Develop IT plans that meet and continue to meet the IT requirements of the business
- Coordinate, measure and review the implementation progress of all IT strategies and
plans.
- Develop the initial plans for the implementation of authorized new IT services,
applications and infrastructure support, identifying budgetary, technical and staffing
constraints, and clearly listing costs and expected benefits..
- (Obtain and)1
evaluate proposals from suppliers of equipment, software, transmission
services and others services, ensuring that all business and IT requirements are satisfied
The IT planner is Committed to:
- Work with senior management and other senior specialists and planners […]
- Sponsor and monitor research, development and long term planning for the provision and
use of IT architectures, products and services
The IT planner need following Capabilities :
- Obtain (and evaluate) proposals from suppliers of equipment, software, transmission
services and others services, ensuring that all business and IT requirements are satisfied
1
Some statements of the role and responsibility description fulfill at the same time Accountability and
Capability. The unjustified part of the sentence is strikethrough.
12. The information form CobiT and ITIL is summarized in Fig. 9. In green the information from
Cobit and in Blue, the information coming from ITIL.
Fig. 9. Instantiated governance principle
Based upon the analysis of CobiT and ITIL, we are consequently able to instantiate one
particular principle of ISO/IEC 38500:2008 standard. The responsibility model permit to
structure all the components that are requested to design the responsibility according to
governance principles whereas Cobit and ITIL permit to provide realistic and pragmatic
information to translate that principle in an operational mode.
The model permits also to refine the Cobit process in that it defines more precisely the
responsibility for all its the activities. It permits, as consequences, to precise what are the
capability, accountability and commitment needed for those activities and not regarding the
process in a whole.
The model refines finally the ITIL framework in that it structures in deep its role and
responsibility description of functions. For instance, the sentences used to illustrate the
responsibility components in section IV.2 are introduced in ITIL without distinguishing
upon which activities they are linked (“the production of IT plan” or “ the coordination
of IT plan”) and for what purpose they are necessary (for clarifying the obligation and
the commitment necessary for the responsibility or for refining its needed capability).
6. CONCLUSION
Current economic context advocates for a deeper and more global adoption of the
governance of ICT principle. One of those principles is to have responsibility clearly
defined and aligned with the business goals.
The analysis of the literature in the field of IT security, requirement engineering, or
enterprise architecture modelling has permitted to define an innovative responsibility
model. This model is very simple and generic enough to offer the possibility of being
used for a large range of activities. It is constructed upon the concepts of Capability,
Accountability and Commitment.
This paper presents three possibilities of using the model:
13. The first exploitation of the model is for the creation of policies (business, IT or
security). This exploitation is made possible by joining the model with the
ISO/IEC 15504 standard and by mapping responsibility component and element
of the process framework.
The second exploitation is the enhancement of the CIMOSA enterprise
architecture model with a more structured representation of the responsibility.
The junction of the responsibility model and the CIMOSA framework leads to an
enhancement of the CIMOSA language that directs the instantiation of all IT
components.
The third exploitation is the extension of the description of responsibility in
corporate governance principles. This deeper description permits to bring a first
contribution to the translation of corporate governance principles to an
implementation guide of those principles
7. REFERENCES
Abou El Kalam, A., El Baida, R., Balbiani, P., Benferhat, S., Cuppens, F., Deswarte, Y., Miège,
A., Saurel, C., Trouessin, G. (2003), Organization-Based Access Control, IEEE 4th
International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (Policy’03), 4-6
juin 2003, Côme, Italie, pp 120-131.
Antón, A. (1996), Goal-Based Requirements Analysis. Second ICRE’96, Colorado Springs,
USA.
Aubert, J., Gateau, B., Incoul, C., Feltus, C. (2008), SIM : An Innovative Business-Oriented
Approach for a Distributed Access Management, International Conference on Information
& Communication Technologies: from Theory to Applications (IEEE ICTTA2008),
Damascus, Syria.
Basel II (2006), Bank for International Settlements BIS: International Convergence of Capital
Measurement and Capital Standards: Revised Framework – Comprehensive Version.
Bertino, E., Mileo, A., and Provetti, A. 2005. PDL with Preferences. IEEE international
Workshop on Policies For Distributed Systems and Networks, Policy 2005 – Vol. 00,
IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 213-222.
CEN/ENV 12204 (1996): Advanced manufacturing technology – Systems architecture -
Constructs for enterprise modelling, CEN TC 310/WG1.
CobiT 4.1, Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology, Information Systems
Audit and Control Association,
http://www.isaca.org/Template.cfm?Section=COBIT6&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPa
geDisplay.cfm&TPLID=55&ContentID=7981
Crook, R., Ince, D., Nuseibeh, B., (2002) Towards an Analytical Role Modelling Framework for
Security Requirements, Security Requirements Group, Departement of Computing, The
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK.
Directive 95/46/EC (1995), European Union: Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Communities, pp. 28-31.
Feltus, C. and Rifaut, A. (2007), An Ontology for Requirements Analysis of Managers’ Policies
in Financial Institutions, I-ESA2007, Madeira, Portugal.
Feltus, C. (2008), Preliminary Literature Review of Policy Engineering Methods - Toward
Responsibility Concept, ICTTA2008, Damascus, Syria.
Ferraiolo, D. F., Sandhu, R., Gavrila, S., D. Kuhn, R., Chandramouli, R. (2001), Proposed NIST
Standard for Role-Based Access Control, ACM Transactions on Information and System
Security, 4 (3), 224-274.
14. Gateau, B., Feltus, C., Aubert J., Incoul, C. (2008), An Agent-based Framework for Identity
Management: The Unsuspected Relation with ISO/IEC 15504, RCIS 2008, Morocco.
ISO/IEC 38500 (2008), International Standard for Corporate Governance of IT (IT Governance)
ISO 9000:2005 (2005), Quality management systems - Fundamentals and vocabulary.
ISO/IEC 15504-1 (2004): Information technology - Process assessment - Part 1: Concepts and
vocabulary.
ISO/IEC 15504-2 (2003): Information technology - Process assessment - Part 2: Performing an
assessment.
ISO/IEC 15504-5 (2006): Information technology - Software Process Assessment - Part 5: An
exemplar process assessment model.
ITIL (2001), IT Infrastructure Library – Service Delivery, The Stationery Office Edition, ISBN
011 3308930.
Kosanke, K., Vernadat, F.B. and Zelm, M. (1999) CIMOSA: enterprise engineering and
integration Computers in Industry, Volume 40, Issues 2-3, Pages 83-97.
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1995) Democratic Governance, New York, The Free Press, 1995,
292 pp.
Mauchan, M. (2007), thèse « Modélisation pour la simulation de chaines de production de
valeur en entreprise industrielle comme outil d’aide à la décision en phase de conception /
Industrialisation »
Park, J., Sandhu, R., (2002) Originator Control in Usage Control, Policy 2002, Monterey,
California, U.S.A.
Rifaut, A. and Feltus, C. (2006), Improving Operational Risk Management Systems by
Formalizing the Basel II Regulation with Goal Models and the ISO/IEC 15504 Approach,
REMO2V’2006, Luxembourg
Sarbanes, P. S. and Oxley, M. (2002) “Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”.
Savén, R. S. (2002), Process modelling for enterprise integration: review and framework, 13th
International Working Seminar on Production Economics, Igls/Innsbruck, Austria,
February 18-22.
Togaf (2007), The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF 8.1.1 'The Book'), 2007
Edition , Van Haren Publishing
Vernadat F. B. (1995), Enterprise Modelling and Integration, Chapman & Hall, London , ISBN
0-412-60550-3
Vernadat, F.B. (2004), Enterprise Modelling: Objectives, constructs & ontologies, Tutorail
EMOI-CaiSE Workshop, Latvia.
Yu, E. S. and Liu, L. (2001). Modelling Trust for System Design Using the i* Strategic Actors
Framework. Workshop on Deception, Fraud, and Trust in Agent Societies Held During the
Autonomous, Eds. Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol. 2246. Springer-Verlag,
London, 175-194