<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Modeling Strategy Maps and Balanced Scorecards using iStar</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Constantinos Giannoulis</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Jelena Zdravkovic</string-name>
          <email>jelenaz@dsv.su.se</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Department of Computer and Systems Sciences (DSV), Stockholm University Forum 100</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>SE-164 40 Kista</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="SE">Sweden</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2011</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>90</fpage>
      <lpage>95</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Aligning business strategy to enterprise models requires explicit models from both areas, mapped to each other. Mapping existing business strategy definition approaches to requirement engineering practices improves strategy dissemination towards development. In this paper we present an illustration of such a mapping using the Strategy Maps and Balanced Scorecards as a business strategy approach and iStar (i*) as a requirements engineering practice exemplified using a case scenario.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>business strategy</kwd>
        <kwd>strategy maps</kwd>
        <kwd>balanced scorecards</kwd>
        <kwd>iStar</kwd>
        <kwd>requirements</kwd>
        <kwd>SMBSC</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Organizations aim at enabling the communication of business strategy by
linking decision makers to practitioners, to align people, products and services with
long-term visions, and help in ensuring the strategy’s successful
implementation. Various alignment efforts have addressed the alignment between business
strategy and requirements for system development in accordance to stakeholders
needs and intentions [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2 ref3 ref4">1–4</xref>
        ]. However, there still exists an understanding gap
between the business world and the IT world, which constitutes business strategy
unknown, thus hindering business-IT alignment [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3 ref5 ref6">3, 5, 6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        To address this gap, in a previous study [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ], we have developed a
metamodel of Strategy Maps &amp; Balanced Scorecards [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] (named SMBSC onwards).
Consequently, we aim to explore how can our meta-model influence the
application of business-IT alignment methods, which requires defining mappings of
our meta-model towards distinct requirement languages to complement
alignment methods. Therefore, in this paper we extend our meta-model by providing
mappings to i* [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ], a goal modeling technique used in requirements engineering,
and particularly to the unified meta-model proposed by Lucena et al [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. In
contrast to Babar et al [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ], where mappings were provided based on the original
form of SMBSC and constructs of i* [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ], we have chosen sources with a formal
basis.
Section 2 presents our proposed mappings, section 3 illustrates how the
mappings have been used in a case scenario and section 4 provides our conclusions
and sets the steps forward.
2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Mapping of SMBSC to i*</title>
      <p>In this section we present how concepts of SMBSC can be mapped to i* in
respect to their meta-models.</p>
      <p>The Strategy Map class is used to capture the complete SMBSC including all
causality relationships among all goals across an organization, therefore, using i*
to capture the complete SMBSC requires both the Strategic Dependency model
(SD) as well as the Strategic Rationale Model (SR) 1, which capture respectively,
all the dependencies within the organizational context modeled as well as all the
intentional elements.</p>
      <p>The notion of grouping is present in both meta-models. In SMBSC there
exists a Group class that captures all groupings of goals, where the highest level
of grouping is among the four perspectives expressed through a specialization to
a Perspective class. Other groupings within each perspective are captured by a
recursive association, enhanced by constraints that make sure groups form a tree
structure through nesting. In i* the notion of grouping is not present as such,
however, the abstract notion of an actor is used to include the relevant intentional
elements and there is a distinction between the dependencies among actors (SD)
and the detailed rational of their dependencies (SR). Therefore, the notion of
actor in i* can be related to the group of SMBSC and instead of constructing
actor models, we are constructing group models. The i* actor can facilitate the
Group class of SMBSC by extending its boundaries to facilitate organizational
groupings, hence represent an organizational entity with defined dependencies.
Therefore, for SMBSC, the SD is fixed with four abstract actors which refer
to the organizational perspectives of SMBSC. The dependencies between those
perspectives adhere to the i* meta model (the DependencyRelationship class);
one is a dependee and the other is the depender. Similarly, dependencies may
exist for any subgrouping (various Group Types), across the actors defined within
actors that represent different perspectives.</p>
      <p>In SMBSC the Goal class encompasses all goals defined across the four
perspectives which are not necessarily measurable. Measurable goals extend the
strategy map into balanced scorecards. A measurable goal, which is an
objective in SMBSC, is also a goal in i*, whereas a non-measurable goal, which is
not an objective in SMBSC, is a soft-goal in i*. The Milestone class, as well
as the Target class, are intermediate states of an objective, usually related to
some deadline or some value as mandated by the Measure class, used to
demonstrate an objective’s achievement. Both milestone and target, in conjunction to
measure, are expressed as i* goals. The Initiative class in SMBSC can be
either a Task or a Plan or a Resource (consumed or produced) in i*. In SMBSC,
1 The instantiation of the Dependency class and the InternalElement class indicates
the existence of the SD model the SR model respectively.
the associations linking goals (influences, is influenced by ) adhere to the
InternalElementRelationship of i* in a constraint manner. i* goals originating from
SMBSC objectives are linked to i* goals originating from SMBSC milestones and
targets through MeansEnd, i* goals originating from SMBSC objectives can be
linked to i* soft-goals originating from SMBSC goals (non-measurable) through
MeansEnd, and the opposite, i* tasks or plans (not resources) originating from
SMBSC initiatives can be linked to i* goals originating from SMBSC milestones
and targets, not objectives, through MeansEnd.</p>
      <p>In SMBSC a theme captures a particular selection of goals across the four
perspectives, with significant interest. This can be expressed in i* using the
IntentionalType of the Dependency class (critical, open, committed). Therefore, all
dependencies of type critical constitute a theme. Similarly to classes and
associations, constraints defined for the SMBSC meta-model have also been considered
when defining the mappings. Due to space limitations we present an example of
two constraints for the goal class.</p>
      <p>In SMBSC, every goal included in a theme is also included in the strategy
map for which the theme is defined. In i*, a Theme consists of all the nodes
whose DependencyRelationship is of critical DependencyStrength (SD models),
which when expanded they include InternalElements, such as goals. Therefore,
goals included in actors who are related with critical dependencies belong to a
theme and also belong to the SR and SD model, ergo to the complete Strategy
Map, as mapped earlier. In SMBSC, goal influences are restricted according
to the perspective they belong to, therefore, financial goals can be influenced
by customer goals and other financial goals while they can only influence other
financial goals only. Therefore, financial goals can be dependers to customer goals
and other financial goals while they can be dependees to other financial goals
only. Customer goals can be influenced by internal goals and other customer goals
while they can influence financial goals and other customer goals. Therefore,
customer goals can be dependers to internal goals and other customer goals while
they can be dependees to financial goals and other customer goals. Internal goals
can be influenced by learning and growth goals and other internal goals while
they can influence customer goals and other internal goals. Therefore, internal
goals can be dependers to learning and growth goals and other internal goals
while they can be dependees to customer goals and other internal goals. Learning
and growth goals can be influenced only by other learning and growth goals while
they can influence internal goals and other learning and growth goals. Therefore,
learning and growth goals can be dependers to only other learning and growth
goals while they can be dependees to internal goals and other learning and growth
goals. In i* this is captured by the fixed dependencies among perspectives.
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Example case: ABB’s SMBSC in i*</title>
      <p>
        To illustrate the applicability of our mappings, we use the case of ABB Industrie
AG [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] modeled using the SMBSC meta-model [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] and due to space limitations
we present the Potential perspective (Learning and Growth). The potential
perspective includes two strategic goals. The goal, our employees are competent and
motivated, is measured by the average number of jobs to which an employee can
be assigned, has milestones 5 for the end of 1st year and 7 for the end of 2nd year
and targets at 9 for the end of 3rd year. The goal, we pursue a proactive human
resource management, is measured by the average number of months needed until
free resources are available to fulfill a new task, has milestones 5 for the end of
1st year and 3 for the end of 2nd year and targets at 2 for the end of 3rd year.
      </p>
      <p>Based on the aforementioned mappings, the SD model consists of the four
perspectives of ABB Industrie which are presented as actors along with their
fixed dependencies following the constraints exemplified.</p>
      <p>For the SR model, the SD model is expanded to provide the InternalElements
of each perspective. Milestones and targets of SMBSC are mapped to i* goals
and are linked through mean-end links both between themselves as well as with
i* goals originating from the SMBSC goals. For the potential perspective (figure
1) the goal End of 1st year Avg: 5 jobs to which an employee can be assigned
to originates from the SMBSC milestone End of 1st year: 5, where the SMBSC
measure is the Average number of jobs to which an employee can be assigned.
Therefore, this goal is means to the end expressed by the goal End of 2nd year
Avg: 7 jobs to which an employee can be assigned to, which originates from the
SMBSC milestone End of 2nd year: 7, where the SMBSC measure is the Average
number of jobs to which an employee can be assigned. Consequently, this goal is
the means to the end expressed by the goal End of 3rd year Avg: 9 jobs to which
an employee can be assigned to, which originates from the SMBSC target End
of 3rdd year: 9, where the SMBSC measure is the Average number of jobs to
which an employee can be assigned. Finally, this goal is one of two means to the
end expressed by the goal Competent and motivated employees, which originates
from the SMBSC goal Our employees are competent and motivated, where the
SMBSC measure is the Average number of jobs to which an employee can be
assigned.</p>
      <p>
        Initiatives (named Strategic Programs in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]) are mapped to i* tasks and
are linked through mean-end links only to i* goals originating from SMBSC
milestones and targets. Actions in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]) included in initiatives are mapped to i*
tasks and are linked through decomposition to i* tasks originating from SMBSC
initiatives. For example, in the potential perspective, the task Develop training
programs originates from the SMBSC initiative Development of training
programs. The task is the means to the ends expressed by the goals End of 1st year
Avg: 5 jobs to which an employee can be assigned to, End of 2nd year Avg: 7
jobs to which an employee can be assigned to and End of 3rd year Avg: 9 jobs
to which an employee can be assigned to. Additionally, the task Develop training
programs is linked through decomposition to the tasks Determine the know-how
deficiencies, Develop training programs with regard to recorded deficiencies and
Realize the training programs which respectively originate from the SMBSC
actions originating from the Determination of know-how deficiencies, Development
of training programs with regard to recorded deficiencies and Realization of the
training programs.
4
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Conclusions and future work</title>
      <p>In this paper, despite the different purpose and domains of use of SMBSC and i*,
we have provided concept mappings between the two meta-models exemplified
with an illustrative case scenario for which we have successfully modeled SMBSC
using i* (figure 1).</p>
      <p>Using i* to model SMBSC allows transition to requirements engineering
supporting business-IT alignment methods. When i* is used during the early phase
of requirements engineering, it can be enriched with stakeholders’ intentional
elements from SMBSC. The unified i* meta-model supports OrDecomposition,
which can facilitate SMBSC with alternatives for initiatives. Contribution links
provided by the unified i* meta-model (enough, positive, notenough, negative)
could be used among goals and soft-goals in SMBSC allowing the identification
of possible conflicts or synergies among the goals set, which is currently not
present. By using the i* unified meta-model, our mappings are applicable to two
variants of i*, resulting into greater applicability.</p>
      <p>
        Additionally, the mappings have brought up some unaddressable issues, which
could be used to extend the i* unified meta-model. (a)The class Measure in
SMBSC has not been mapped directly to any notion or construct of the i*
metamodel but it has been used implicitly when expressing i* goals originating from
SMBSC milestones and targets. (b)The links between milestones, targets and
objectives; in SMBSC there is a sequence expressed between these notions and
i* does not support any kind of timeliness. The result is that each task is linked
to every goal originating from SMBSC milestones and targets through means
end links. The introduction of a Precedence link as a construct to address the
issue of sequences and priorities has been proposed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ], which would allow
timely appropriate links between tasks and goals originating from SMBSC
milestones and targets. (c)According to the unified i* meta-model, means-end links
are allowed between goal and goals in both variations of i* described, however,
the i* guide [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] explicitly mentions that means-end links between goals is wrong,
rather only tasks are linked through means-end to goals.
      </p>
      <p>Finally, our future research steps include the evaluation of our mappings
within a case where SMBSC will be the starting point but it will involve the early
phase of requirements engineering, to illustrate the potential for traceability from
strategy to concrete requirements.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Thevenet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Salinesi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Aligning IS to organization's strategy: the INSTAL method</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 19th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CaiSE'07)</source>
          , (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bleistein</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cox</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Verner</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Validating strategic alignment of organizational IT requirements using goal modeling and problem diagrams</article-title>
          .
          <source>J. Systems and Software. 79</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>362</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>378</lpage>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Singh</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Woo</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Investigating business-IT alignment through multi-disciplinary goal concepts</article-title>
          :
          <source>Requirements Engineering</source>
          ,
          <volume>14</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>177</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>207</lpage>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>van der Raadt</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gordijn</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Exploring web services ideas from a business value perspective</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE05)</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>53</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>62</lpage>
          , IEEE CS (
          <year>2005</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Horner</surname>
          </string-name>
          , R.B.:
          <article-title>IT alignment: what have we learned?</article-title>
          <source>Journal of Information Technology</source>
          ,
          <volume>22</volume>
          ,
          <issue>4</issue>
          , pp.
          <volume>297</volume>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Luftman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <string-name>
            <surname>Assessing</surname>
          </string-name>
          business-IT alignment maturity:
          <source>Communications of the Association for Information Systems</source>
          ,
          <volume>4</volume>
          , (
          <year>2000</year>
          )
          <article-title>article 14</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Giannoulis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Petit</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zdravkovic</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Modeling Business Strategy: A Metamodel of Strategy Maps and Balance Scorecards</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 5th IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS2011)</source>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kaplan</surname>
            <given-names>R.S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Norton</surname>
            <given-names>D.P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          : Strategy Maps:
          <article-title>Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes</article-title>
          . Harvard Business School Press, Boston (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Modeling strategic relationships for process reengineering</article-title>
          :
          <source>PhD Thesis</source>
          , Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, (
          <year>1995</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lucena</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Santos</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Silva</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Alencar</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Silva</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Castro</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Towards a unified metamodel for i*</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 2nd International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS</source>
          <year>2008</year>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>237</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>246</lpage>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Babar</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zowghi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chew</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Using Goals to Model Strategy Map for Business IT Alignment</article-title>
          . In: 5th International Workshop on Business/IT Alignment and Interoperability (BUSITAL
          <year>2010</year>
          ), pp.
          <volume>1630</volume>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ahn</surname>
          </string-name>
          , H.:
          <source>Applying the Balanced Scorecard Concept: An Experience Report. Long Range Planning</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>34</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>441</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>461</lpage>
          (
          <year>2001</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Liaskos</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mylopoulos</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>On Temporally Annotating Goal Models</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 4th International i* Workshop (iStar2010)</source>
          ,
          <source>CEUR</source>
          vol
          <volume>586</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>62</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>66</lpage>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14. i* wiki, http: // istar. rwth-aachen. de/ tiki-index.
          <source>php? page_ ref_ id= 271 (last accessed on 05-06-2011)</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>