Comparing and contrasting models of business

• US 20060229926A1
• Filed: 03/31/2005
• Published: 10/12/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 03/31/2005
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (Microsoft Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
• Inventors: Homann, Ulrich, Isaacs, Scott M., Levy, Marc, Merrifield, Eric Sabbaton Jr., Davidson, Elizabeth L., Appel, David Benjamin
• Application Number:
  US11/094,926
• Publication Number:
  US 20060229926A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/9
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0637 Strategic management or analysis, e.g. setting a goal or target of an organisation; Planning actions based on goals; Analysis or evaluation of effectiveness of goals
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0639 Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management

Abstract

The present invention extends to comparing and contrasting models of business. Model processing modules implement formal operators that can be used to manipulate models of business. A compare operator can be used to compare similarly typed models of business. A contrast operator can be used to contrast differ types of business models. A constraint operator can be used to check business models for compliance with constraints. A refinement operator can be used to refine business models based on industry (or otherwise more) specific data. A compose operator can be used to compose new business models from portions of other business models.

Claims

1. At a computer system, a method of comparing similarly typed business:

models, the method comprising;

an act of accessing a first instance of a structured business model representing an existing business architecture, the first structured business model being structured in accordance with a data model;

an act of accessing a second instance of the structured business model representing a second business architecture, the second structured business model being structured in accordance with the data model;

an act of comparing the first instance of the structured business model to the second instance of the structured business model;

an act of identifying any differences between the existing business architecture and the second business architecture; and

an act of evaluating the sufficiency of the existing business architecture based on identified differences between the existing business architecture and the second business architecture.

2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the act of accessing a first instance of a structured business model representing an existing business architecture comprises an act of accessing a first instance of a business capability model.

3. The method as recited in claim 2, wherein the act of accessing a second instance of the structured business model representing an existing business architecture comprises an act of accessing a second instance of the business capability model.

4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the act of comparing the first instance of the structured business model to the second instance of the structured business model comprises an act of comparing an existing structured business model to a best practices structured business model.

5. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the act of comparing the first instance of the structured business model to the second instance of the structured business model comprises an act of comparing an existing structured business model to a structured business model of a proposed acquisition.

6. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the act of evaluating the sufficiency of the existing business architecture based on identified differences between the existing business architecture and the second business architecture comprises an act of determining if the existing business architecture satisfies industry best practices.

7. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the act of evaluating the sufficiency of the existing business architecture based on identified differences between the existing business architecture and the second business architecture comprises an act of determining if the second business architecture would provide the existing business architecture with any different, new, or increased business capabilities.

8. At a computer system, a method of contrasting different types of business models representing corresponding different layers of a business architecture, the method comprising:

an act of accessing a structured business model representing a first business layer of a business architecture, the structured business model modeling one or more first business layer components of the first business layer in accordance with a structured data model;

an act of accessing a second structured model representing a second business layer, the second structured model modeling one or more second business layer components of the second different business layer; and

an act of mapping relationships between the one or more first business layer components and the one or more second business layer components such that it can be determined how changes in the configuration of the first business layer impact the second business layer and how changes in the configuration of the second business layer impact the first business layer;

an act of utilizing the mapped relationships to contrast the structured business model to the second structured model.

9. The method as recited in claim 8, wherein the act of accessing a structured business model representing a first business layer of a business architecture comprises an act of accessing a structured business model of a business capability layer.

10. The method as recited in claim 8, wherein the act of accessing a structured business model of a business capability layer comprises an act of accessing a business capability model structured in accordance with a capability schema

11. The method as recited in claim 9, wherein the act of accessing a second structured model representing a second business layer comprises an act of accessing a structured business model of a service network layer.

12. The method as recited in claim 8, where the act of an act of mapping relationships between the one or more first business layer components and the one or more second business layer components comprises an act of mapping between business capability layer components and network service layer components.

13. The method as recited in claim 8, wherein the act of utilizing the mapped relationships to contrast the structured business model to the second structured model comprises an act of utilizing the mapped relationships to identify how a business capability layer interacts with a network service layer.

14. At a computer system, a method for validating that a business model complies with one or more constraints, the method comprising:

an act of accessing a structured business model of first business components representing a valid business architecture, the first business components having corresponding first property values that indicate compliance with one or more constraints, the structured business model being structured in accordance with a data model;

an act of accessing a second structured business model of second business components representing an existing business architecture, the second business components having second property values;

an act of comparing at least a subset of the compliant first property values with a corresponding at least a subset of the second property values to check the second property values for compliance with the one or more constraints; and

an act of determining if the second structured business model is valid based on the comparison.

15. The method as recited in claim 14, wherein the act of accessing a structured business model of first business components representing a valid business architecture comprises an act of accessing a business capability model that complies with one or more constraints.

16. The method as recited in claim 15, wherein the act of accessing a business capability model that complies with one or more constraints comprise an act of accessing a business capability model structured in accordance with a capability schema.

17. The method as recited in claim 15, wherein the act of accessing a business capability model that complies with one or more constraints comprises an act of accessing a one or more name/value pairs.

18. The method as recited in claim 14, wherein the act of accessing a second structured business model of second business components representing an existing business architecture comprises an act of accessing a second business capability model of an existing business architecture.

19. The method as recited in claim 14, wherein the act of determining if the second structured business model is valid based on the comparison comprises an act of determining that one or more of the first property values and a corresponding one or more of the second property values have equal values.

20. The method as recited in claim 14, wherein the act of determining if the second structured business model is valid based on the comparison comprises an act of determining that one or more of the first property values are within a specified threshold of a corresponding one or more of the second property values.