Glossary covering key terms used in the FIN-DM
- Counterfactual fairness – AI decision is fair towards an individual if it is the same in (a) the actual world and (b) a counterfactual world where the individual belonged to a different demographic group 
- CI/CD  – collection of software engineering practices enabling delivery of software in Agile manner characterised by high-frequency deployments of changes to systems and strong focus on automating aspects of delivery. The key phases include:
- Continuous integration – An approach to integrating, building, and testing code within the software development environment.
- Continuous delivery – An approach to software development in which software can be released to production at any time. Frequent deployments are possible, but deployment decisions are taken case by case, usually because organizations prefer a slower rate of deployment.
- Continuous deployment – An approach to software development in which changes go through the pipeline and are automatically put into the production environment, enabling multiple production deployments per day. Continuous deployment relies on continuous delivery.
- COBIT (Control Objectives for Information Technologies) – high-level IT governance and control framework established by ISACA professional organization. Has been developed as an open standard and is now increasingly adopted globally as the control and management framework for effective IT governance 
- CRISP-DM (Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining) – structured process/methodology to execute data mining projects , released in 1999 and now the most widely used data mining model
- GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) – a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA), in force from 25 May 2018
- Data biases – inherentbiases in the datasets which may lead to discriminatory or other undesired modelling outcomes. There are two common types of data biases:
- Selection bias – occurs when the data used to produce the model are not fully representative of the actual data or environment that the model may receive or function in, e.g. omission bias (omission of certain characteristics from the dataset) or stereotype bias (attributing certain characteristics from the dataset to wider population)
- Measurement bias – data is systematically skewed in a particular direction, for example, could be caused by data collection method or device.
- [Data] ‘processing’ – means any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether by automated means (GDPR, Art. 4)
- De-biasing – reduction, mitigation of bias
- Fairness (in data mining and machine learning context)  – can be defined in terms of the two conditions that have to be met concurrently:
- Condition 1 (relates to direct discrimination) – people that are similar in terms of non-protected characteristics should receive similar predictions, and
- Condition 2 (relates to indirect discrimination) – differences in predictions across groups of people can only be as large as justified by their non-protected characteristics
Example to satisfy Condition 1 (twin test illustration from ): Gender is the protected attribute, and there are two identical twins who share all the characteristics except gender. Test is passed if both receive identical predictions.
Example to satisfy Condition 2 (so-called ‘red-lining’ practice from ): Banks denied loans for residents of selected neighbourhoods (non-white dominated) more compared to other neighbourhoods. Thus, even though race was not used as a decision criterion and people of different races ("twins") from the same neighbourhood were treated equally, groups of similar people (non-white) were treated differently. In particular, non-white population on overall level was negatively affected by lower positive decision rates in the non-white-dominated neighbourhoods
10. ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) – best practices framework for IT service management . Initially published by the UK government, now have become the most widely adopted IT Service Management (ITSM) framework and is regarded as de-facto standard in private and public sectors around the world 
11. Model explainability – achieved by explaining how deployed AI models’ algorithms function and/or how the decision-making process incorporates model predictions 
12. Model repeatability – model’s ability to consistently perform an action or make a decision, given the same scenario 
13. Output (as per CRISP-DM) – The tangible result of performing a task 
14. (Pseudo)anonymization – means the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information (GDPR, Art. 4). In case of pseudoanonymization (re)identification is still possible, while in case of full anonymization data cannot be re-identified
15. Phase (as per CRISP-DM) – A term for the high-level part of the CRISP-DM process model; consists of related tasks 
16. Reference model (as per CRISP-DM) – Decomposition of data mining projects into phases, tasks, and outputs 
17. Requirements – a specification of what should be implemented, in particular, descriptions of how he system should behave, or of a system property or attribute
18. Requirements Engineering – the process of discovering, documenting, and managing the requirements for a computer-based system. The goal of RE is to produce a set of system requirements which, as far as possible, is complete, consistent, relevant and reflects what the customer actually wants
19. Requirement Engineering activities - include:
- Requirements development subdivided into elicitation (needs discovery), analysis, specification (documenting), and validation; NB! These activities are underpinned with stakeholders’ negotiation
- Requirements management involves controlling requirements changes (tracing, documenting, validating, etc.)
20. Robustness – ability of a computer (AI-based) system to cope with errors during execution and erroneous input 
21. Software Engineering (Development) life-cycle – framework defining tasks performed at each step in the software development process and followed by a development team within the software organization.
22. Task (as per CRISP-DM) – A series of activities to produce one or more outputs; part of a phase 
- Chapman P, Clinton J, Kerber R, Khabaza T, Reinartz T, Shearer C, Wirth R. “Crisp-dm 1.0 step-by-step data mining guide”. Chicago: SPSS Inc., 2000.
- ITIL®4: Create, Deliver and Support, Axelos, TSO, London, 2020.
- Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J., Russell, C., and Silva, R., “Counterfactual fairness”. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pp. 4066-4076, 2017
- Marban, O., Mariscal, G., Segovia, J. “A data mining and knowledge discovery process model. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery in Real Life Applications”, edited by P. Julio and K. Adem, pp. 438-453, Paris, I-Tech, Vienna, Austria, 2009
- Singapore’s Info-communications Media Development Authority (“IMDA”) and Personal Data Protection Commission (“PDPC”), “Model AI Governance Framework”, 2nd Edition, Jan 2020.
- Sommerville, Ian. “Integrated requirements engineering: A tutorial.” IEEE software 22.1 (2005): 16-23
- Sommerville, I., and Sawyer, P. “Requirements engineering: a good practice guide.” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997
- Wiegers, Karl. ”More about software requirements: thorny issues and practical advice”. Microsoft Press, 2005
- Bourque, P., and Fairley, R. E. Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK (R)): Version 3.0. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2014.
- Žliobaitė, I., “Measuring discrimination in algorithmic decision making”, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 31(4), pp.1060-1089, 2017.
- Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., Zemel, R.S.”Fairness through awareness”. In: Proc. of Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 214-226, 2012.
- Sam Corbett-Davies, Emma Pierson, Avi Feller, Sharad Goel, Aziz Huq, “Algorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness”. KDD 2017: 797-806
- Pessach, Dana, and Erez Shmueli. “Algorithmic fairness.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09784 (2020).
- Guldentops, Erik, Tony Betts, and Gary Hodgkiss. “Aligning COBIT, ITIL and ISO 17799 for Business Benefit.” Office of Government Commerce, Norwich, UK2000 (2007).
- Arraj, Valerie. “ITIL®: the basics.” Buckinghampshire, UK (2010).
 Information Systems Audit and Control Association
 Both these conditions are commonly used to define fairness and are known as Lipschitz condition and statistical parity respectively  (discussed in  and originally presented in  in the context of classification). These two measures relate to assessing fairness of the decisions. There also other measures that focus to assess fairness of the assigned scores/predictions, see for example . Also, multiple notions of fairness sometimes are not possible to satisfy (for more guidance please see for example )
Application Guidance, which provides description of the FIN-DM and its goals, and guides users in applying the model.
This is Application Guidance to FIN-DM (Financial service data mining process model) and should be used in conjunctions with FIN-DM components documentation. Application Guidance describes to potential FIN-DM users its components and guides users in applying the model.
- FIN-DM Background
FIN-DM is an adaptation and extension of CRISP-DM (Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining); it retains key CRISP-DM terminology and elements structure.
CRISP-DM is a hierarchical process model with four levels of abstraction (general to specific) consisting of phases, generic tasks, specialized tasks, and process instances respectively. At the top level, process is structured into six phases, each phase consisting of several second-level generic tasks with respective outputs (reproduced in Figure 1 below). These two abstraction levels constitute CRISP-DM Reference Model. There are also third-level specialized tasks, which are particular to data mining problem or situation or project specific as well as tool specific. They are further complemented by fourth-level process instance with account of actual activities within concrete data mining projects. CRISP-DM itself focuses on generic phases and tasks level (first and second), while detailing specialized level tasks and instances (third and fourth) are left to Reference Model users . Likewise, FIN-DM covers phases and generic tasks based on CRISP-DM definitions while its application and scoping at specialized level is left to users.
Figure 1 CRISP-DM Hierarchical View with second-level generic tasks and outputs (as in )
FIN-DM extends CRISP-DM at the three levels with increasing abstraction – starting from adding second-level tasks, and then phases. Lastly, frameworks or elements thereof originated from other domains are also introduced, they are positioned as specialized domain extensions relevant and applicable to whole FIN-DM life cycle, and thus, placed on the same hierarchical level as process itself.
The purpose of these extensions is to cover number of ‘gaps’ discovered in original CRISP-DM and listed in the Table 1 below.
|G1 – Requirements management and elicitation||Lack of tasks for validation and modification of existing requirements, elicitation of new ones|
|G2 – Interdependencies||Lack of iterations between different phases of CRISP-DM|
|G3 – Universality||Lack of support for various analytical outcomes, unsupervised and specialized techniques, deployment formats|
|G4 – Regulatory Compliance||Lack of tasks to address regulatory compliance (in particular, GDPR)|
|G5 – Validation||Lack of support for piloting models in real-life settings|
|G6 – Actionability||Lack of support for piloting models in real-life settings|
|G7 – Process||Lack of data mining process controls, quality assurance mechanisms, Critical process enablers (data, code, tools, infrastructure, and organizational factors), required for the effective execution of data mining projects are not taken into consideration|
Table 1 Consolidated catalogue of CRISP-DM ‘gaps’ (as in )
2. FIN-DM Components
FIN-DM consists of 5 components Grouped into representation Layers:
- FIN-DM Conceptual View – Layer 1
- FIN-DM Hierarchical View and Key Enablers list – Layer 2
- Accompanying Checklists (4 in total) – Layer 3
- Glossary – key terms used in the FIN-DM
- Application Guidance (this document) – description of the FIN-DM and its goals, FIN-DM intended usage and user categories
As noted, FIN-DM is based on original CRISP-DM process model for data mining projects execution and retains its elements. The new FIN-DM elements (additions or modifications) are marked in colours and constructed according to CRISP-DM original taxonomy:
- As additional individual generic tasks,
- As additional phases (with specified set of generic tasks and outputs),
- Additional frameworks and their elements (background note in section 5 below).
FIN-DM phases, tasks, and other frameworks elements are to be evaluated in the context of the data mining projects. Only relevant elements are to be picked up while irrelevant can be freely omitted. Also, FIN-DM is accompanied by the four checklists which can be evaluated, and relevant items used (entirely or some parts). FIN-DM allows to iterate between all phases in any sequence. Further, users are not prescribed to start with Business Understanding, but encouraged to evaluate depending on the project which phase to start with, e.g. with Data Understanding or combining Data and Business Understanding.
3. FIN-DM User Groups
Potential users are divided into the three broad user groups depending on the overall role, responsibilities, primary activities on the data mining project and RACI mapping (as presented in the Table 2 below).
|User Group 1||User Group 2||User Group 3||User Group 3|
|Role||(Top) Management stakeholders||Project members with business domain knowledge||Project members with project management role||Project members with development role|
|Profile||Functional Managers (business and tech domain)||Business users, business domain experts||Project manager(s)||Technical project delivery team – data mining experts, data /business analysts, data scientists, data engineers, software developers, etc.|
|Primary Activity||Overall oversight||Busines input (domain knowledge, validation, etc.)||Project management||Technical Development and Deployment end-to-end|
|RACI designation||I, C, R||C, R||R, A||R, A|
Table 2 FIN-DM User Groups (as in )
Three user categories are differentiated as follows:
(1) User Group 1 – management stakeholders,
(2) User Group 2 – domain business users and experts, and
(3) Users Group 3 – technical delivery team (data mining experts, data analysts, data scientists, data engineers, etc.).
FIN-DM representation is mapped to match the respective Users Group as follows:
- Layer 1 representation – intended for all Users Groups, contains model Conceptual View,
- Layer 2 representation – intended for User Group 2 and 3, in additional to Conceptual View contains model Hierarchical Process View and detailed Enablers lists,
- Layer 3 representation – primarily intended for User Group 3, contains all supplementary checklists (4) in addition to Conceptual View and Hierarchical Process View
- Application Guidance and Glossary are intended for User Group 3 as reference material. They will support the data mining project manager in navigating the framework. Occasionally, it could serve as support for data mining project development team (especially, data scientists) as regards common terminology
FIN-DM Layer 1 is applicable and relevant for all user groups. It provides ‘helicopter’ view and assists with hands-on understanding on key phases of any data mining project. Also, it provides concise view on key pre-requisites required for such project’s execution. Especially, it would assist project managers in explaining data mining project(s) execution to the strategic leaders and functional managers. For the latter, it gives concise overview of the key pre-requisites/enabler required to manage and execute portfolio of data mining projects and initiatives and perform data mining at scale.
FIN-DM Hierarchical View (Layer 2) is intended for User Group 2 and 3. It equips data mining project participants with the detailed understanding of each data mining project phase, the sequence of activities within each phases and outputs. Moreover, such process view also would assists project managers to explain business and domain experts’ key activities where their engagement will be required.
Lastly, FIN-DM Layer 3 intended for User Group 3 provides hands-on support in concrete tasks execution based on checklists. It will be of use for project managers and team members providing useful input to execute the project based on structured approach, keep track of its progress, scope and deliverables (manage backlog of the tasks effectively).
Example: determine the most applicable FIN-DM representation User might migrate and/or be involved in more than one primary group and assume additional activities beyond primary. For instance, business users (User Group 2) might get involved into testing activities and be closely related to technical development activities at certain stages of data mining project, thus, being involved into User Group 3 too. However, they are likely not to be required to use FIN-DM most specific Layer 3 checklists in these activities. Therefore, in this example, Layer 2 representation will remain most suitable and adequate for User Group 3 given their primary role.
4. Note on Additional Frameworks in FIN-DM
FIN-DM combines elements of ITIL and COBIT frameworks and they are present at the highest abstraction level in the Conceptual View (Layer 1). Further, the key enablers list is derived based on relevant element of these frameworks and is presented in conjunction with Hierarchical View (Layer 2). Apart from definitions in Glossary, we provide background and context of their usage below.
ITIL and COBIT Background
ITIL framework covers the whole life cycle of IT services , and focuses on defining comprehensive set of best practice processes for IT service management and support . The key components of ITIL 4 framework are the ITIL Service Value System (SVS) and the four-dimensional model (as presented in reference box to the right). In ITIL paradigm, IT service management functions best when organized as a system. Hence, ITIL SVS describes the inputs to this system, its elements, the outputs, and details how the various components and activities of the organization work together to facilitate value creation through IT-enabled services. To support a holistic approach to service management, ITIL defines four dimensions that collectively are critical to the effective and efficient value delivery. They represent perspectives which are relevant to the whole SVS (-).
 Information Technology Infrastructure Library, hereinafter, we refer to the latest version – ITIL 4
 Control Objectives for Information Technologies
COBIT is a framework for the governance and management of enterprise information and technology, aimed at the whole enterprise. This is achieved by COBIT :
(1) Defining the components to build and sustain a governance system
(2) Defining the design factors that should be considered to build a best-fit governance system, and
(3) Grouping relevant components into governance and management objectives.
COBIT is based on a set of key governance principles translated into COBIT Core Model. It consists of 40 high-level governance and control objectives grouped into five domains. To satisfy governance and management objectives, each enterprise needs to establish, tailor, and sustain a governance system built from several components proposed by COBIT. It is complemented by design factors which can influence the governance framework. Finally, goals cascade supports alignment and prioritization between enterprise goals and management goals. Also, COBIT includes guidance on performance management with focus on improving capabilities and attaining higher maturity levels.
COBIT is a comprehensive control and management framework aimed to ensure holistic IT governance and management throughout organization. COBIT does not include process steps and tasks. Due to such broad scope, COBIT is referred as ‘integrator’ establishing link between various IT practices and business requirements . COBIT operates from viewpoint of entire enterprise while ITIL focuses entirely on IT and associated service management practices. ITIL can be adapted and used in conjunction with other practices and extensively with COBIT, and both practices are viewed as complementary .
Using Key Enablers List derived from ITIL and COBIT frameworks
Number of Foundational capabilities and prerequisites are selected from the ITIL framework as part of Key Enablers list. ITIL pre-requisites are complemented by COBIT elements related to quality management. The suggested ITIL-derived enablers and COBIT elements are intended to address CRISP-DM process ‘gaps’ (G7 in Table 1).
Based on ITIL typology, the following attributes across four ITIL dimensions are presented:
- Organization and People – stakeholders management and data mining competencies (via knowledge management and codification systems)
- Information and Technology – data management, model development, deployment and self-service technologies encompassing the whole data mining life cycle including sharing the results with users
- Partners and Suppliers – planning of resources and internal coordination
- Value Stream and Processes – delivery models (horizontal vs. virtual cross-functional teams) and the design of service, delivery, and improvement processes
The relevant dimensions and attributes are complemented by sets of selected ITIL Management practices covering general management (portfolio, project, relationships, etc.), service (primarily related to implemented data mining models service management), technical (deployment and software development practices), and delivery approaches (including delivery models, and continuous integration, delivery and deployment practices).
COBIT elements refer to quality management at overall organizational level (data mining process quality principles, policy, and quality management practices of data mining models), and individual data mining projects level, i.e. quality management plans for respective data mining projects based on stakeholders’ quality requirements.
Example: considering Key Enablers in the context of data mining model to be integrated into customer-facing application In case of such projects, availability of model results on continuous basis to customers becomes of critical importance. That implies that in case of model failure, fallback process needs to be followed. In this context, by reviewing Key enablers, incidence management practices are the most relevant and need to be picked-up. By adopting such practices from the rest of organization towards the given model or establishing such practices anew, organization will ensure required model service level consistently.
For the users’ guidance and convenience, ITIL and COBIT elements are also mapped and inherently integrated where applicable into the FIN-DM hierarchical process via respective sub-components and tasks. For COBIT elements, these are data mining project quality management tasks reflected in the Risk Management and Quality Assurance sub-component of the Compliance phase. For ITIL elements, these are data mining requirements reflected in the Requirements phase
5. Note on Project Management Aspects
FIN-DM primary focus is adapting data mining process towards needs of financial services industry. Therefore, some aspects are left for the users to specify more in the context of existing governance and management practices and frameworks adopted in their specific organizations. One of such aspects is project management where FIN-DM is less centred beyond Requirements elicitation and management. Typically, project management practices are governed within organization and guided by respective paradigms (e.g. Agile, SAFE, etc.). Therefore, we propose for users to rely on them in conducting data mining projects. Such practices typically specify well the division of responsibilities between various groups of stakeholders in organization when projects are conducted.
At the same time, we include defining and sign-off of Roles and Responsibilities into the Business Understanding phase. Furthermore, we recommend relying on RACI framework (mentioned above) with the tentative categorization of project participants as in BABOK Guide  as:
- Responsible (R) – person(s) who will be performing the work on the task,
- Accountable (A) – person(s) who is ultimately held accountable for successful completion of the task and is the decision maker,
- Consulted (C) – the stakeholder or stakeholder group who will be asked to provide an opinion or information about the task (often the subject matter experts (SMEs) are falling into these category),
- Informed (I) – a stakeholder or stakeholder group that is kept up to date on the task and notified of its outcome. In case of Informed the communication is one-direction (business analyst to stakeholder) and with Consulted the communication is two-way.
Roles and Responsibilities (as part of Checklist 1) can be detailed for each phase of the data mining projects, emphasizing type of involvement in key process phases of the respective specialists based on their core competences and functions (as in Example).
Example: dedicated SMEs and End Users can be heavily involved in formulating, review and approval of initial data mining requirements.They also are required to be involved and perform validation and business testing of the final data mining model or outcome, as well as validate significant intermediate results of the project from business point of view. Data Scientists and Software/AI Engineers are responsible for technical development and implementation, but with different participation degree: in key FIN-DM phases of Data Understanding and Preparation, Modelling, Testing, Data Scientists lead and perform the work, while in Implementation phase, AI/ML Engineers are responsible to execute key software development and integration associated tasks.
Lastly, we also recommend for the users to consult widely accepted standards and best practice guides in project management field. The closest related, but not exhaustive list of such practice guides as points of initial reference could be PMBOK body of knowledge , PRINCE 2 methodology , BABOK body of knowledge , and similar.
6. FIN-DM Application Principles and Recommendations
Adaptable and Extendable FIN-DMis highly adaptable – users are encouraged to contextualize process model to specifics of their concrete data mining project and omit any elements which are not applicable or relevant. As well, any modifications (including extensions) can be introduced by users too.
Unlimited iterations and accounting for interdependencies FIN-DM promotes and allows for any number of iterations across all phases and elements as deemed necessary and beneficial by data mining project management and project experts team. Further, users are free and encouraged when using Hierarchical Process Model, to merge, closely integrate or parallelize phases at their discretion. Based on evaluation with users, we also provided indications of potential parallelization/merger of phases on the diagram. FIN-DM also supports discovering, and ongoing tracking and calibration of interdependencies throughout the whole data mining life cycle .
Compatible, Easy to integrate with other frameworks, practices and methods Given FIN-DM adaptiveness, flexibility and its concentration on data mining life-cycle, it is fully compatible and can be easily embedded, integrated with other popular product development and delivery frameworks, practices, methods and patterns used across different organizations. For example, it can be fit into Adaptive Software Development/XP programming with focus on software development, or alternatively Agile, Scaled Agile (SAFE), Scrum and its variations focusing on comprehensive flow of work management for complex systems, products and projects, etc.
Dynamic FIN-DM follows open architecture principles and is not prescriptive. Therefore, adding, changing, and modifying existing complements and elements in response to external disruptions, technological changes and emerging organizational needs can be implemented by users without impacting framework structure, other components, and content. FIN-DM is referenced and supports periodic realignment with other IT frameworks (ITIL, COBIT) which in turn are upgraded in due course and reflect latest organizational and technological developments in IT/technology domain.
Specific application recommendations
Practical adoption To practically adapt FIN-DM, we suggest considering two general application patterns – ‘light-weight’ mode and ‘full’ mode. This is especially relevant for two elements – Requirements phase and AI & Ethics subcomponent. Suggested application modes primarily correlate with size and complexity of company operations and its business model. Also, complexity of the data mining project, type of data mining problem and relevance of AI ethics and compliance concerns are key drivers.
For instance, if the company operates in limited geographical scale, is of small size in industry terms and is not delivering full universal banking services, the data mining project scope and data used will be naturally constrained. Therefore, many of Requirements can be simplified and/or omitted which also decreases number of the relevant tasks as well as necessity for many Requirements management and iterations activities.
In the similar way, if due to data mining use case context and data used, there are no triggers for AI ethics and compliance concerns, AI Ethics tasks and Checklist 2 can be approached in ‘light-weight’ mode, i.e. it is sufficient to use them as checkpoints in the beginning and end of the data mining projects.
Tools support Assigning and tracking FIN-DM phases, tasks, and checkpoints progress is best realized with support of respective technologies, such as collaborative issue tracking, project management, and workflow tools.
 Chapman, P., Clinton, J., Kerber, R., Khabaza, T., Reinartz, T., Shearer, C., and Wirth, R. 2000. CRISP-DM 1.0 Step-by-step data mining guide, SPSS Inc.
 Plotnikova V., Dumas M., Nolte A., Milani F. ‘Designing a Data Mining Process for the Financial Services Domain’ (submitted).
 Wirth, R. and J. Hipp (2000). “CRISP-DM: Towards a standard process model for data mining.” In: In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on the practical applications of knowledge discovery and data mining, London UK. Springer–Verlag, pp. 29–39.
 Wiegers, Karl. ”More about software requirements: thorny issues and practical advice”. Microsoft Press, 2005.
 Spalek, S. (2018). Data analytics in project management. CRC Press.
 Guldentops, E., Hardy, G., Heschl, J.G. and Taylor, S., 2010. Aligning Cobit, ITIL and ISO 17799 for Business Benefit: A Management Briefing from ITGI und OGC.
 Almeida, Rafael, Paloma Andrade Gonçalves, Inês Percheiro, Miguel Mira da Silva, and César Pardo. “Integrating COBIT 5 PAM and TIPA for ITIL Using an Ontology Matching System.” International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals (IJHCITP) 11, no. 3 (2020): 74-93.
 AXELOS (2020), ITIL® 4: Create, Deliver and Support. TSO, London.
 AXELOS (2020) ITIL ®: Foundation ITIL 4 Edition. TSO, London.
 ISACA, COBIT 2019: Introduction and Methodology. Schaumburg: ISACA, 2018.
 Project Management Institute (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge: PMBOK® GUIDE, Sixth edition, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, US.
 AXELOS (2017), Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2®. TSO, London.
 International Institute of Business Analysis (2015): BABOK®, version 3, A GUIDE TO THE BUSINESS ANALYSIS BODY OF KNOWLEDGE®, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
 RACI – Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed 
 Information Technology Infrastructure Library, hereinafter, we refer to the latest version – ITIL 4
 Control Objectives for Information Technologies
 BABOK – the globally recognized standard for the practice of business analysis
 PMBOK – project management body of knowledge generally recognized as best practice , widely accepted and used across the world
 PRINCE 2 – widely considered as the leading project management method