deanbrandon.com - Dean Brandon

November 23, 2007

UML State transition diagrams

Filed under: Business Analyst — brandon @ 5:59 am

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) state diagram can describe a lot of things, from computer programs to business processes. State diagrams are used to describe the behavior of a system.  State diagrams describe all of the possible states of an object as events occur.  Each diagram usually represents objects of a single class and track the different states of its objects through the system. The following are the basic notational elements that can be used to make up a diagram:

  • Filled circle, pointing to the initial state
  • Hollow circle containing a smaller filled circle, indicating the final state (if any)
  • Rounded rectangle, denoting a state. Top of the rectangle contains a name of the state. Can contain a horizontal line in the middle, below which the activities that are done in that state are indicated
  • Arrow, denoting transition. The name of the event (if any) causing this transition labels the arrow body. A guard expression may be added, enclosed in brackets( [] ) denoting that this expression must be true for the transition to take place. If an action is performed during this transition, it is added to the label following a “/”. eventName[guardExpression]/action
  • Thick horizontal line with either x>1 lines entering and 1 line leaving or 1 line entering and x>1 lines leaving. These denote join/fork, respectively.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_diagram

Tutorial: http://atlas.kennesaw.edu/~dbraun/csis4650/A&D/UML_tutorial/state.htm

November 20, 2007

MTBF - Mean time between failure

Filed under: Business Analyst — brandon @ 9:15 pm

Mean time between failures (MTBF) is the mean (average) time between failures of a system, and is often attributed to the “useful life” of the device. Calculations of MTBF assume that a system is “renewed”, i.e. fixed, after each failure, and then returned to service immediately after failure. The average time between failing and being returned to service is termed mean down time (MDT) or mean time to repair (MTTR).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBF

Tutorial: http://www.evaluationengineering.com/archive/articles/0500analyz.htm

November 14, 2007

Swim Lanes - Process map diagrams

Filed under: Business Analyst — brandon @ 6:31 am

A swim lane (or swimlane) is a type of process flow diagram that depicts what or who is working on a particular subset of a process.

The swim lane flowchart differs from other flowcharts in that processes and decisions are grouped visually by placing them in lanes. Parallel lines divide the chart into lanes, with one lane for each person, group or subprocess. Lanes are arranged either horizontally or vertically, and labeled to show how the chart is organized.

The longitudinal direction represents the sequence of events in the overall process, while the lateral divisions depict what subprocess is performing that step. Arrows between the lanes represent how information or material is passed between the subprocesses.

When used to diagram a business process that involves more than one department, it can clarify not only the steps and who is responsible for each one, but how delays, mistakes or cheating are most likely to occur.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swim_lane

Tutorial: http://www.infomanagementcenter.com/enewsletter/200603/fourth.html

November 9, 2007

Sarbanes-Oxley - SOX

Filed under: Business Analyst — brandon @ 7:54 am

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law signed into law on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals resulted in a decline of public trust in accounting and reporting practices. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt.”

The legislation is wide-ranging and establishes new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management, and public accounting firms. The Act contains 11 titles, or sections, ranging from additional Corporate Board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the new law. Supporters of these reforms believe the legislation was necessary and useful while critics believe it does more economic damage than it prevents.

The Act establishes a new quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, which is charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting, and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The Act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure.

The most contentious aspect of SOX is Section 404, which requires management and the external auditor to report on the adequacy of the company’s internal control over financial reporting (ICFR). This is the most costly aspect of the legislation for companies to implement, as documenting and testing important financial manual and automated controls requires enormous effort.

Both management and the external auditor are responsible for performing their assessment in the context of a top-down risk assessment, which requires management to base both the scope of its assessment and evidence gathered on risk. Both the PCAOB and SEC recently issued guidance on this topic to help alleviate the significant costs of compliance and better focus the assessment on the most critical risk areas.

The recently released Auditing Standard No. 5 of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which superseded Auditing Standard No 2., has the following key requirements for the external auditor:

  • Assess both the design and operating effectiveness of selected internal controls related to significant accounts and relevant assertions, in the context of material misstatement risks;
  • Understand the flow of transactions, including IT aspects, sufficiently to identify points at which a misstatement could arise;
  • Evaluate company-level (entity-level) controls, which correspond to the components of the COSO framework;
    Perform a fraud risk assessment;
  • Evaluate controls designed to prevent or detect fraud, including management override of controls;
  • Evaluate controls over the period-end financial reporting process;
  • Scale the assessment based on the size and complexity of the company;
  • Rely on management’s work based on factors such as competency, objectivity, and risk;
  • Evaluate controls over the safeguarding of assets; and
  • Conclude on the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting.

 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

Powered by WordPress