![](bg6.png)
5 CONCLUSIONS
At the end of the case study’s modelling process we
believe the proposed approach produces a good
representation of the EIS to be computerized and a
concrete image of subsystems to be automated. It is
important to remark we achieved this firm belief in
close collaboration with several stakeholders
involved in various aspects into the project, mainly
measurements experts, decision makers, IT-business
analysts and software engineers. Therefore, in our
opinion, the usage of this methodological approach,
broadly integrated with the usage of BADs (mainly
to represents business decision-making patterns)
permits to improve the communications’ quality
between the various stakeholders involved in
modelling and designing a measurement-intensive
software system. Starting from the business
modeling activity, the increase in the information’s
quality may help to reach a more effective system
analysis and, at the end of the process, to build a
software system as close as possible to business
reality and fully able to reveal its decision-making
patterns.
Finally, we believe this approach may become a
first step in reducing the informative gap
(concerning the correct usage and interpretation of
measurements) between business management,
software engineers and measurement experts, giving
some preliminary solutions deriving from the fact
that in the best of our knowledge, measurements are
not correctly used into automated decision making
processes as often the typical concepts of
measurement (uncertainty, level of confidence, ...)
are lost while being processed and made accessible
to end-users. A change is needed in the usage of
measurements in decision making processes
modelling and computerization and the proposed
top-down approach may be a first step in this
change. Of course, to completely clarify how
measurements need to be correctly used and
interpreted within an automated decision-making
process, requires that many aspects are further
studied with reference to the business modelling, to
the type of approach (top-down, bottom-up, mixed),
to the procedures of in field transfer of the results,
etc.)
REFERENCES
Beretta, F., De Carlo, F., Introna V., Saccardi D., 2012.
Progettare e gestire l’efficienza energetica. McGraw-
Hill.
Carbone, P., Buglione, L., Mari, L., Petri, D., 2008. A
Comparison Between Foundations of Metrology and
Software Measurement. IEEE Transactions on
Instrumentation and Measurement, 235-241.
D’Emilia, G., Di Rosso, G., Gaspari, A., Massimo, A.,
2014a, Metrological interpretation of a six sigma
action for improving on line optical measurement of
turbocharger dimensions in the automotive industry, to
appear on Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineering: Part D, Jnl. of Automotive Engineering
D’Emilia G., Gaspari A., Natale E., 2014b. Uncertainty
evaluation of energy flow in industrial applications as
a key factor in setting improvement actions. Proposed
for publication to Applied Energy.
Duan, J., 2009. An approach for modelling business
application using refined use case. ISECS
International Colloquium on Computing,
Communication, Control, and Management (2009).
Johnston S., 2004. Rational UML Profile for business
modelling. IBM Rational (www.ibm.com).
Kruchten, P., 2003. Rational Unified Process, An
Introduction (2
nd
Edition). UK, Addison Wesley.
Paolone, G., Clementini, E., Liguori, G., 2008a. A
methodology for building enterprise Web 2.0
Applications. The Modern Information Technology in
the Innovation Processes of the Industrial Enterprises
Prague Czech Republic, 12-14 November 2008.
Paolone, G., Clementini, E., Liguori, G., 2008b. Design
and Development of web 2.0 Applications. ITAIS 2008
Paris France, 13-14 December 2008.
Paolone, G., Clementini, E., Liguori, G., Cestra, G., 2009.
Web 2.0 Applications: model-driven tools and design.
ITAIS 2009 Costa Smeralda (Italy) October 2-3, 2009.
Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.,
Wohed, P., 2006. On the suitability of UML 2.0
activity diagrams for business process modeling. 3rd
Asia-Pacific Conf. on Conceptual modeling.
Conferences in Research and Practice in Information
Technology, Vol. 53. M. Stumptner, S. Hartmann and
Y. Kiyoki, Eds.
Sukaviriya, N., Mani, S., Vibha Sinha, V., 2009.
Reflection of a Year Long Model-Driven Business and
UI Modelling Development. INTERACT 2009, Part II,
LNCS 5727, pp. 749–762.
UML, Unified Modeling Language, 2012. Version 2.4.1,
http://www.uml.org/
Zelinka, L., Vrani´, V., 2009. A Configurable UML Based
Use Case Modeling Metamodel. First IEEE Eastern
European Conference on the Engineering of Computer
Based Systems.
Wen B., Zhang L., 2009. Mapping Enterprise Process
Measure into Information Model. First International
Workshop on Education and Computer Science, pp.
612-615.
Zhao, X., Zou, Y., Hawkins, J., Madapusi, B., 2007. A
Business Process Driven Approach for Generating E-
Commerce User Interfaces. Model Conference 2007
Nashville TN September 30 – October 5 2007, pp.
256-270.
ICSOFT-EA2014-9thInternationalConferenceonSoftwareEngineeringandApplications
142