It should be possible to change the search approach midstream and employ
the bottom-up pattern. This can enable a great deal of search flexibility, inasmuch as one is not
constrained to a particular path.
Exhibit 4.8 depicts this combined approach, in which the attribution model nodes are
traversed to reflect attribution analysis preferences. The search path then employs the top-down
pattern, moving from node 1 to node 3, whereas the bottom-up search method navigates upward
to node 4. This mechanism makes it possible to horizontally reach nodes that would have been
inaccessible had only one search method been used. For example, node 1 would never have led
to node 4 if these methods had not been combined.
ATTRIBUTE SELECTION
The attribution stage is about to conclude, but not before finalizing the search for the right
attributes for the service identification and categorization process that is depicted in Chapter 5.
How can a final version of the preferred attribution set be established? Which node will it be? Is
there any prioritization process to follow to make such decisions? Or is there a set of attributes
that is perceived to be the best unit of analysis for the upcoming conceptual services identification
practices? These questions hint that the process is not quite finished. The attribute analysis activity
outlined in the previous section must continue. But at the present time, the aim should not be
only to identify the final node that can best serve any future conceptualization process; a number
of search iterations to ensure proper selection decisions should be pursued.
Pages:
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162