The AMAS adequacy studied at the global level for the ETTO application gives the following result:
 
  Adequacy at the global level

The answers that are given to the different questions can be justified like this:
 
1. The algorithm for the global task is a priori unknown 18
Building up a time-tabling consists in doing our best to satisfy the constraints of the different participants. The aimed result is then known but the means and the solutions to adopt to realise this are not necessarily known; there is no a priori well-known algorithmic solution to solve the whole set of constraints.
2. The correlated activity of several components is needed to resolve the problem 02
Given the posed problem, it is too early to know how the system entities will interact. Indeed, they will probably interact but we cannot say if they will have a "correlated activity".
3. The solution is usually obtained by repeating tests 20
The "ideal" solution for the time-tabling problem does not really exist, some constraints won't probably be taken into account and some participants (in a broad sense) will be able to relax one ou several constriants. The solution is usually reached by proceeding by trial and error.
4. The studied system's environment is evolutionary, dynamical 20
The third variation of the specification expresses the need to add or modify some constraints in real time. The environment of the studied system is then clearly dynamic.
5. The studied system is physically or functionally distributed 0
Even if the stakeholders in the time-tabling problem are physically distributed, finding a solution does not imply the distribution of the data or of the functions.
6. A great number of components are involved in the system 10
The number of components that are involved in this problem solving does only depend on the personal vision of the engineer who builds the system or on the problem itself (regarding teachers, students and rooms). A priori, this number cannot be decided.
7. The system is potentially non-linear 15
Taking into account the constraints of some participant may have an impact on the fact that the constraints of another one will be maintained or relaxed. Stakeholders are then bound and what is done for one can have an influence on the treatment chosen for another one.
8. The system is open, evolutionary 15
The fourth variant of the time-tabling problem specification requires the system to be opened. However, it is not the main characteristic of this system. The answer is then positive but not too much.


 

The result of the graphical tool can be expressed with these words:
 

Some sights of the application are justifying development with AMAS. ADELFE will help you to identity them.