Download Integrated Modelling Methodology - Version 2.0

D 1.6 – Integrated Modelling Methodology - Version 2.0
8 Appendix 2: Statements in the
Evaluation questionnaires of P2 and P3
8.1 Phase 0. Scope and Boundaries
8.1.1.1 Feedback on the IMM for P2
General
o
“A 2-day workshop is necessary in this phase”: 1 Coach (SAP)
Objectives & Explanations
o
“The objectives of the phase were clear”: 3 KE (CCI, EADS, ISN), 1 Coach (SAP)
o
“The objectives were not clear” 1 KE (CNM)
o
“The explanations were clear” 1 KE: ISN
o
“There was a lack of clear understanding how APOSDLE works”: 1 KE (CCI)
o
“There was a lack of good examples how a model should look like”: 2 KE (CCI, EADS)
o
“There was a lack of good examples of what is an adequate domain”: 1 KE (ISN)
o
“We had no clear criteria which domain is suitable for APOSDLE”: 1 Coach (KC)
o
After the models for P2 were finished there was a better understanding of what is an
appropriate APOSDLE domain: 1 KE (ISN)
Collection of documents
o
“We had difficulties in finding crucial documents” 1 KE (ISN)
o
“The collection of documents is time-consuming because documents are not centrally
stored”: 2 KE (CCI, EADS)
o
“The knowledge about the domain is not documented”: 1 KE (EADS)
o
“There is no explicit teaching and learning material available”: 1 KE (CCI)
o
“There are no workflow descriptions available”: 1 KE (CCI)
o
“In the end, knowledge engineers found more resources than they had expected”: 1 Coach
(KC)
Knowledge elicitation techniques
o
“The knowledge elicitation techniques were adequate”: 1 Coach (SAP)
o
“The process and domain scribble were useful”: 1 KE (ISN)
© APOSDLE consortium: all rights reserved
page
63