## 5 Case Study Analysis
### Ideal Solution Definition
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Past** & **Present** & **Future** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Supersystem**} & Dynamic portfolio, implying a lot of changes in their services over time. & Portfolio restructuring process, leading to the re-design of services and their constituent processes. & Dynamic portfolio, in order to respond to an increasingly competitive market, implying the alteration of its services. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**System**} & Some resistance from the management layer in adopting new tools or working methods to services already in operation. & Too much resistance from the management layer to adopt new tools or work methods in methods in services already in operation. & Little resistance at the management layer to adopt new tools or working methods in services already in operation, as long as they are well-argued and improve their efficiency. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Subsystem**} & The need to disrupt the operation of work teams in order to test work methodologies or new tools. & The need to disrupt the operation of work teams in order to test work methodologies or new tools. & No need to interrupt the work teams to test new work tools or methods. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The results of the application of the Nine windows creativity technique. * Allocated Time of a Running Team--Harmful Side Effects (Reduction):  
It is considered a risk, from a management perspective, that elements of a given project are allocated to a function of which the outputs are uncertain, so this time is referred to as a detrimental side effect. A reduction of this parameter is desired. * Required tool maintenance level--Automation level (increase):  
The level of automation in the context under consideration refers specifically to the need for a human actor to use or keep the tool up to date. It is desired that it is necessary to allocate the minimum human resources for this purpose, allowing their use in operational tasks that generate value for the company. As such, it is desired that this parameter be increased. * Ability to test different configurations--Adaptability (increase):  
Adaptability refers to the ability of the solution to be applied in different contexts. It was then considered to associate this parameter with the testability requirement of different configurations. The more versatile the tool, the better its ability to fit the needs of the business. It is then defined that an increase in this parameter is beneficial to the organization. Having the engineering parameters defined, it is then possible to apply them in the construction of the system ideality matrix (Table 4), to detect the type of interactions that occur between them. An interaction can be classified as positive (+), negative (-) or non-existent, and these are identified from the question of \"if one parameter improves, what happens to the other?\" for each possible combination. After identifying negative interactions, it is then possible to approach them through the matrix of contradictions, in order to formulate a solution that does not contain these negative interactions:  
* Reliability--Harmful Side Effects:  
To increase the reliability of the method employed, it is necessary to better control the usability case variables and/or more repetitions of the method in order to give consistency and statistical validity to the data extracted from them. This implies a longer duration of interruption of the operating teams. * Reliability--Adaptability:  
As mentioned above, in order to increase the reliability of the employed method, greater control of the usability case variables and/or more repetitions of the method is necessary to give consistency and statistical validity to the data extracted from them. However, this rigor in the usability case implementation method reduces the probability of changes to the tested proposal, without reducing the reliability of the results.