Our Aim is to make CompLeap Framework Architecture suitable across EU in other words CompLeap Framework Architecture should be able to integrate and “work together” with other reference architecture in this sector.
The piloting and deployment of the framework architecture is implemented through a series of evaluations, which in turn are carried out through interviews.
Compleap Framework architecture: https://wiki.eduuni.fi/display/csccompleap/Framework+architecture+design
Responsibility: Shared CSC and EDUFI Ari Rouvari and Sami Mäkinen
Piloting EU countries are Finland, Netherlands and Germany ?.
Contact persons: Erik (NL),
Related Architectures in Finland
- AMOS reference architecture, not published (Coordinator: Ministry of Education and Culture)
- KOHVI reference architecture (Coordinator: Ministry of Education and Culture)
- OPI Higher education institutions reference architecture, in progress (Coordinator KOOtuki)
- EDU.FI enterprise architecture
- KAPA service architecture
The order of the interviews with the key informants and actors is the following:
- Reference Group members:
- Ministry of Education and culture of Finland: Tomi Kytölä with his collagues
- Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland: Kari Rintanen and Teija Felt
- Partners:
- EDUFI: Erja Nokkanen, Annika Grönholm, Ulla Kauppi, Raakel Hiltunen, Minna Taivassalo, Paula Borkowski, Pauli Sutelainen and Laila Puranen
- University of Oulu: Hanni Muukkonen and Egle Gedrimiene
- Gradia: Jaana Virtanen, Hanna Rajala and Rauni Gyldén
- Associated partners representing education providers in Finland (14.3. Helsinki):
- The Oulu Region Joint Authority for Education OSAO
- Rovaniemi Municipal federation of Education Redu
- Associated partners in other EU-countries
- Die EU-Geschäftsstelle der Bezirksregierung Köln, Germany
- the Cooperation Organisation for Vocational Education, Training and the Labour Market (SBB), the Netherlands
- other countries via innoVET network (via Gradia) – meeting in March 2019
- Reference Group members:
| Themes | Subjects (Topics) of Discussion | Descriptions and Definitions |
|---|---|---|
1. Strategic Level | ||
1.1. Related architectures | Can you identify and name architectures which have or should have |
|
1.2. Drivers | Are the identified drives valid and can you identify some not yet named drivers? | A driver represents an external or internal condition that motivates an organization to define its goals and implement the changes necessary to achieve them. |
1.3. Capabilities | How should we gain or acquire these identified capabilities? | A capability represents an ability that an active structure element, such as an organization, person, or system, possesses.
|
1.4. Requirements | Can you identify other requirements beside these? | A requirement represents a statement of need that must be met by the architecture. |
1.5. Leading and steering | How should we lead this kind of EU-level development based on common framework architecture? |
|
1.6. Architecture principles | Have we paid enough attention to the architecture principles? | A principle represents a qualitative statement of intent that should be met by the architecture.
|
2. Learner’s path (Business architecture level) | ||
| 2.1. Learner’s path | Validation of the Learner’s path | Aim: Common understanding of the EU level learner’s path |
| 2.2. (Business) Services | How should we gain these services? | A business service represents an explicitly defined exposed business behavior. |
Have we focused on right selection of development targets? Are we missing any other important development targets? | ||
| 3. Information | ||
| 3.1. Conceptual model and information flows | Discussion about the conceptual model and information flows | Aim of the discussion: common and shared understanding |
| 4. Implementation/realisation solutions of the services | ||
| 4.1. Initiatives and Projects | Do you already have some initiatives or projects for deploying and improving these kind of services in your country or area? | |
| 4.2. Implementation solutions, models and … | Discussion on the implementation models of services and their principles and interoperability. Which one models should be integrated into the CompLeap mapping service? | Will the implementation of mapping services be purely EDUFI's responsibility, or will e.g. private third party actors be involved? |
| Are enough methods disclosed from a guidance point of view? | ||
| 5. Learning analytics | ||
| 5.1 risk management | Can you identify any risks in this kind of use of learning analytics as an guidance tool for learners? | |
| 5.2 risk management | How to prepare and control the risks? | |