Hi all,
When doing transitions of Operational Process (defined at Operational Analysis) with the Activity Explorer help, it is done the transition of any created Operational Process, but only if the Operational Process remains under Root Operational Activity.
However, if an Operational Process is moved under an Operational Capability, the Activity Explorer does not transition the owned Operational Process. A simple example captured below:
As the Operational Process is owned by the Operational Capability, shouldn’t the Capella Activity Explorer transition all model elements owned by the Operational Capability?
Same analysis can be done for Functional Chains at any level.
Thanks,
HĂ©lder Castro
Indeed, I am wondering if this is a bug or if this is due to the fact that generally speaking, Activities/Functions are transitioned when triggering the Activities/Function transitions and not the Capabilities transitions. The reason may be that:
- If you trigger the Activities/Functions transition, but a Functional Chain is under a Capability, then this Capability may not have been transitioned to the next level, causing a problem
- The other way around, if you transition the Capabilities, and this transitions also the Functional Chains, then it may be missing Functions if they were not transitioned before…
Anyway, there is a workaround that you can do this transition by manually selecting the Operational Process.
Thanks @StephaneLacrampe, I do agree with the proposals, however, I do feel when an Operational Process is moved under an Operational Capability that describes it, it should be transitioned with it as the Operational Capability does own it.
Operational Processes then Functional Chains at lower layers are quite valuable to ensure traceability between layers, helping and supporting analysis of Capabilities and ensuring completeness and correctness as functions are refined.
Using the workarounds, there may be the need to use the Activity Explorer and manual transitions, which seems to drop on the Arcadia/Capella spirit using a guided method.
Unless there are other reasons or concepts, maybe it needs to be considered to consider in future updates to include transitions of Operational Process(es) when owned by an Operational Capability?
Same for Functional Chains.
Thanks,
HĂ©lder Castro
I agree.
Nevertheless, what I have heard from the field is that in “larger projects”, the activity explorer “global transition” is rarely used beyond sometimes a first initialization. Once you have a model of significant size, a team of several people working on a daily basis on the model, team members have certain (functional) responsibilities. And when adding or changing something at the OA level for example, users would carefully use the manual transition of their modified objects, rather than launching the “global transition” and then trying to find out which model element they can create in the next layer (because they own the responsibility) and which model element is not theirs.
Stephane
@StephaneLacrampe I do agree work the approach. That’s what I do recommend, iterations should be done more carefully thank the one done first time.
I do also actively recommend to validate the model work with the relevant rules against the novel maturity.
However, for this topic, an Operational Activity Interaction Blank (OAIB) diagram can be created from the project explorer (not activity explorer) to describe the Operational Capability (OC) . The OAIB is created under the as expected.
Then it can be done the following:
- insert or create new Operational Activities in the OAIB.
- Create a new Operational Process. This new Operational Process will be created under the same OC and not root Operational Activity.
Hence, when doing a “first” transition to the System Analisis using the Activity Expert, the Operational Process will not be transitioned. Which is not coherent if created under root Operatinal Activity and transitioned with the Activity Explorer.
It can be seen in the project explorer, with the correct filters applied, the Capability Realisation between Operational Process and the Operational Capability, but still Operational Process is not Transitioned.
If the links are available, why the tool does not transition the Operatinal Process?
Thanks,
HĂ©lder Castro
Yes I agree, as I said in my first response, this could probably be considered as a bug. Or maybe as an improvement.
Stephane
1 Like
When doing the “Perform an automated transition of Logical Architecture Capabilities” the Capability Transition and under Synthesis is showing empty.
Shouldn’t it show the OperationalCapability 1 captured at Logical Architecture? Capture below:
Capture of Functional Chain Abstract Capability Involvement link mentioned in previous message:
Investigating further this topic and to transition both Operational Capability and Operational Process involved by the Capability. It can be used a manual transition, I think this is what @StephaneLacrampe mentioned in previous post.
Captures of the Operational Capability and Operational Process steps:
Functional Transition window showing both Operational Capability and Process being transitioned:
Thanks,
HĂ©lder Castro
