Contextual Criteria to Select a Framework for Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise Architecture is considered to be an efficient tool to overcome on managerial problems, especially those which come from information technology environment of the enterprise. One of the steps must to be taken to have an Enterprise Architecture is to select an appropriate Framework. Frameworks are the most important components in any Enterprise Architecture. Those are essentially needed to create an integrated Enterprise Architecture. There are many frameworks proposed for specific use in certain enterprises. However there are some more general frameworks which are applied in different situations. These general frameworks are FEAF, TEAF and C4ISR. In this paper some criteria to select a framework are introduced. These criteria are based on the context for Enterprise, Architecture and Framework. Although all of the examples here, include only these three frameworks, the provided criteria are applicable on other frameworks in the area of Enterprise Archietcure

Situational Architecture Engineering (SAE) - Improving Strategic Change Through Architecture Methods

Market and environmental requirements call for constant changes in enterprises. To be able to record these changes in a structured way and to manage them it is helpful to use enterprise architectures as stable regulation frameworks. To support the development and the adaptation of the enterprise architectures there are numerous architecture methods (e.g. Zachman Framework, ARIS (Architecture of Integrated Information Systems), TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework), DoDAF (Department of Defense Architecture Framework), BEN (Business Engineering Navigator), Semantic Object Model (SOM)), however, they often lack the necessary flexibility to enable a construction process adaptable to the given situation. This article presents a first approach towards making architecture methods flexible: meta models of the architecture frameworks of selected methods are generated and integrated into a joint meta model. The latter supports the situational adaptability of the enterprise architecture as the architecture method applied has been adapted

An enterprise engineering approach for the alignment of business and information technology strategy

Information systems and information technology (IS/IT, hereafter just IT) strategies usually depend on a business strategy. The alignment of both strategies improves their strategic plans. From an external perspective, business and IT alignment is the extent to which the IT strategy enables and drives the business strategy. This article reviews strategic alignment between business and IT, and proposes the use of enterprise engineering (EE) to achieve this alignment. The EE approach facilitates the definition of a formal dialog in the alignment design. In relation to this, new building blocks and life-cycle phases have been defined for their use in an enterprise architecture context. This proposal has been adopted in a critical process of a ceramic tile company for the purpose of aligning a strategic business plan and IT strategy, which are essential to support this process. © 2011 Taylor & Francis.Cuenca, L.; Boza, A.; Ortiz, A. (2011). An enterprise engineering approach for the alignment of business and information technology strategy. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 24(11):974-992. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2011.579172S9749922411(1993). CIMOSA: Open System Architecture for CIM. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-58064-2Ang, J., Shaw, N., & Pavri, F. (1995). Identifying strategic management information systems planning parameters using case studies. International Journal of Information Management, 15(6), 463-474. doi:10.1016/0268-4012(95)00049-dAvison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P., & Wilson, D. (2004). Using and validating the strategic alignment model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(3), 223-246. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2004.08.002Avgerou, & McGrath. (2007). Power, Rationality, and the Art of Living through Socio-Technical Change. MIS Quarterly, 31(2), 295. doi:10.2307/25148792Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., & Rivard, S. (2004). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance. Information & Management, 41(8), 1003-1020. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.10.004Bernus, P., Nemes, L., & Schmidt, G. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24744-9Bleistein, S. J., Cox, K., Verner, J., & Phalp, K. T. (2006). B-SCP: A requirements analysis framework for validating strategic alignment of organizational IT based on strategy, context, and process. Information and Software Technology, 48(9), 846-868. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2005.12.001Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (1998). The information audit: An integrated strategic approach. International Journal of Information Management, 18(1), 29-47. doi:10.1016/s0268-4012(97)00038-8Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (2007). The information audit: Role and scope. International Journal of Information Management, 27(3), 159-172. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.01.002Chen, D., & Vernadat, F. (2004). Standards on enterprise integration and engineering—state of the art. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 17(3), 235-253. doi:10.1080/09511920310001607087Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., & Vernadat, F. (2008). Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: Past, present and future. Computers in Industry, 59(7), 647-659. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.016Chen, H.-M., Kazman, R., & Garg, A. (2005). BITAM: An engineering-principled method for managing misalignments between business and IT architectures. Science of Computer Programming, 57(1), 5-26. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2004.10.002Cuenca, L., Ortiz, A., & Vernadat, F. (2006). From UML or DFD models to CIMOSA partial models and enterprise components. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 19(3), 248-263. doi:10.1080/03081070500065841Davis, G. B. (2000). Information Systems Conceptual Foundations: Looking Backward and Forward. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 61-82. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35505-4_5Gindy, N., Morcos, M., Cerit, B., & Hodgson, A. (2008). Strategic technology alignment roadmapping STAR® aligning R&D investments with business needs. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 21(8), 957-970. doi:10.1080/09511920801927148Goethals, F. G., Lemahieu, W., Snoeck, M., & Vandenbulcke, J. A. (2007). The data building blocks of the enterprise architect. Future Generation Computer Systems, 23(2), 269-274. doi:10.1016/j.future.2006.05.004Greefhorst, D., Koning, H., & Vliet, H. van. (2006). The many faces of architectural descriptions. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(2), 103-113. doi:10.1007/s10796-006-7975-xGregor, S., Hart, D., & Martin, N. (2007). Enterprise architectures: enablers of business strategy and IS/IT alignment in government. Information Technology & People, 20(2), 96-120. doi:10.1108/09593840710758031Hartono, E., Lederer, A. L., Sethi, V., & Zhuang, Y. (2003). Key predictors of the implementation of strategic information systems plans. ACM SIGMIS Database, 34(3), 41-53. doi:10.1145/937742.937747Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 472-484. doi:10.1147/sj.382.0472Hirschheim, R., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Detours in the Path toward Strategic Information Systems Alignment. California Management Review, 44(1), 87-108. doi:10.2307/41166112Hoogervorst, J. A. P. (2009). Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92671-9Johnson, A. M., & Lederer, A. L. (2010). CEO/CIO mutual understanding, strategic alignment, and the contribution of IS to the organization. Information & Management, 47(3), 138-149. doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.01.002JONKERS, H., LANKHORST, M., VAN BUUREN, R., HOPPENBROUWERS, S., BONSANGUE, M., & VAN DER TORRE, L. (2004). CONCEPTS FOR MODELING ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURES. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13(03), 257-287. doi:10.1142/s0218843004000985King, W. R. (1978). Strategic Planning for Management Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 2(1), 27. doi:10.2307/249104Leonard, J. (2007). Sharing a Vision: comparing business and IS managers’ perceptions of strategic alignment issues. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 15(1). doi:10.3127/ajis.v15i1.299Luftman, J. N., Lewis, P. R., & Oldach, S. H. (1993). Transforming the enterprise: The alignment of business and information technology strategies. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 198-221. doi:10.1147/sj.321.0198Luftman, J., Ben-Zvi, T., Dwivedi, R., & Rigoni, E. H. (2010). IT Governance. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 1(2), 13-25. doi:10.4018/jitbag.2010040102Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani. (2004). Review: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283. doi:10.2307/25148636Newkirk, H. E., & Lederer, A. L. (2006). Incremental and Comprehensive Strategic Information Systems Planning in an Uncertain Environment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(3), 380-394. doi:10.1109/tem.2006.877446Noran, O. (2003). An analysis of the Zachman framework for enterprise architecture from the GERAM perspective. Annual Reviews in Control, 27(2), 163-183. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2003.09.002Noran, O. (2005). A systematic evaluation of the C4ISR AF using ISO15704 Annex A (GERAM). Computers in Industry, 56(5), 407-427. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2004.12.005Ortiz, A., Lario, F., & Ros, L. (1999). Enterprise Integration—Business Processes Integrated Management: a proposal for a methodology to develop Enterprise Integration Programs. Computers in Industry, 40(2-3), 155-171. doi:10.1016/s0166-3615(99)00021-4Panetto, H., Baïna, S., & Morel, G. (2007). Mapping the IEC 62264 models onto the Zachman framework for analysing products information traceability: a case study. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18(6), 679-698. doi:10.1007/s10845-007-0040-xPapp, R. (Ed.). (2001). Strategic Information Technology. doi:10.4018/978-1-87828-987-2Peñaranda, N., Mejía, R., Romero, D., & Molina, A. (2010). Implementation of product lifecycle management tools using enterprise integration engineering and action-research. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 23(10), 853-875. doi:10.1080/0951192x.2010.495136Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Factors That Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81. doi:10.2307/3250980Sledgianowski, D., & Luftman, J. (2005). IT-Business Strategic Alignment Maturity. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 7(2), 102-120. doi:10.4018/jcit.2005040107Sowa, J. F., & Zachman, J. A. (1992). Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 31(3), 590-616. doi:10.1147/sj.313.0590Van Grembergen, W., & De Haes, S. (2010). A Research Journey into Enterprise Governance of IT, Business/IT Alignment and Value Creation. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 1(1), 1-13. doi:10.4018/jitbag.2010120401Xueying Wang, Xiongwei Zhou, & Longbin Jiang. (2008). A method of business and IT alignment based on Enterprise Architecture. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics. doi:10.1109/soli.2008.468649

How Does Enterprise Architecture Add Value to Organisations?

Enterprise architecture (EA) is the definition and representation of a high-level view of an enterprise’s business processes and IT systems, their interrelationships, and the extent to which these processes and systems are shared by different parts of the enterprise. EA aims to define a suitable operating platform to support an organisation’s future goals and the roadmap for moving towards this vision. Despite significant practitioner interest in the domain, understanding the value of EA remains a challenge. Although many studies make EA benefit claims, the explanations of why and how EA leads to these benefits are fragmented, incomplete, and not grounded in theory. This article aims to address this knowledge gap by focusing on the question: How does EA lead to organisational benefits? Through a careful review of EA literature, the paper consolidates the fragmented knowledge on EA benefits and presents the EA Benefits Model (EABM). The EABM proposes that EA leads to organisational benefits through its impact on four benefit enablers: Organisational Alignment, Information Availability, Resource Portfolio Optimisation, and Resource Complementarity. The article concludes with a discussion of a number of potential avenues for future research, which could build on the findings of this study

Įmonės metaduomenų modelio formavimas remiantis veiklos modeliu

Straipsnyje nagrinėjami įmonės metaduomenų modelio formavimo pagal veiklos modelį principai. Analizuojami veiklos modeliavimo metodai, lyginamos žinomos veiklos modelių notacijos jų perteikiamų metaduomenų požiūriu. Nagrinėjamos veiklos valdymo modelio, kuris sudaromas remiantis elementariu valdymo ciklu (EMC), savybės metaduomenų aspektu. Atliktas tokio veiklos valdymo modelio savybių įvertinimas metaduomenų požiūriu rodo, kad EMC pagrindu sudarytas veiklos modelis perteikia daugiau metaduomenų, formaliai yra turtingesnis už kitus veiklos modeliavimo metodus. Pateikta metaduomenų gavimo iš veiklos modelio schema, aprašyti metaduomenų gavimo iš veiklos modelio proceso etapai.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: informacijos sistemos, veiklos modeliavimas, įmonės metaduomenys, veiklos valdymo modelis, elementarus valdymo ciklas (EMC), metaduomenų modelio formavimas.Modeling the Enterprise Metadata Model Based on the Business ModelSaulius Gudas, Gražina Kalibataitė SummaryThe article analyzes the principles of enterprise metadata modeling and the modeling methods in metadata terms. The business models and their notation-conveyed formalized description of metadata are proposed. The relative performance management model, which follows the elementary management cycle (EMC), is analyzed. The operational manage ment of the properties of the metadata model shows that the EMC-based business model reflects more metadata than any other business modeling technique. A conceptual scheme of metadata extraction from the operational model by the process steps is described. 18px;">&nbsp

Enterprise Modeling to Support ICT-Enabled Process Change. Context for and consequences of enterprise modeling in initiatives that combine process change and information and communication technology

This thesis presents findings from a multiple case study of enterprise modeling use in initiatives that combine process change and information and communication technology. The study covers initiatives where models are made and used by people as part of a process change process, and an initiative where models are made as input to a business support environment enabling process change in the long run. The research project was motivated by lack of empirical research on enterprise modeling practice and a wish to examine the relevance of the conceptualizations of the Process Modeling Practice model by Eikebrokk, Iden, Olsen and Opdahl (2006) into the wider enterprise modeling setting. The overall research question was formulated as: “How is enterprise modeling used and how can it be used to support information and communication enabled process change in Norwegian companies? Context for and consequences of enterprise modeling”. To help focus the research project, the enterprise modeling practice model was developed. The model was built-up by categories from the Process Modeling Practice model (Eikebrokk et al, 2006) and findings from a pilot and a literature study. To make clear the study objective, an explicit research goal was set: “to validate and elaborate the Enterprise Modeling Practice research model”. Cases were compared by looking for patterns of relationships among constructs within and across cases. The main multiple case research outcomes were: (1) The identification of five different types of modeling initiatives by analyzing how each case combined use of information technology, process change main focus and the main objectives of modeling (Karlsen and Opdahl, 2012a), (2) The identification of a broad variety of enterprise modeling benefits (Karlsen and Opdahl, 2012a), (3) The identification of barriers to modeling, and findings indicating that the distribution of modeling maturity between project stakeholders affects how the modeling activities are carried out (Karlsen, 2011), (4)A broadly validated and elaborated Enterprise Modeling Practice model (Karlsen, 2008; Karlsen and Opdahl, 2012b). One of the cases was additionally investigated as a single-case study from a longitudinal perspective. This led to the additional research outcomes: (5)A variety of modeling experiences and recommendations contributing to increased understanding of modeling practice. (6) Description of how change happened, at an overarching level, in three stages: (1) Change maturation, (2) Change decision and (3) Process change, where the last stage constituted four steps of modeling supported process change: (1) Increased business understanding by providing a generic model, (2) Identification of TO-BE by process modeling, (3) Process categorization by sorting models into risk zones and (4) Implementation of prioritized change consistent with model artifacts. (7) Identification of Readiness as a precondition both for change and for modeling.Avhandlingen presenterer funn fra en multippel case-studie av virksomhetsmodelleringspraksis. Fokus er initiativer som kombinerer prosessendring med informasjons- og kommunikasjonsteknologi. Både initiativ hvor modellene er laget og brukt av folk som del av en prosessendringsprosess og et initiativ hvor modellene er laget som input til et forretningsstøttesystem for prosessendring i det lange løp, inngår i studien. Motivasjonen for forskningsprosjektet var manglende forskning på modelleringspraksis. I tillegg var studien motivert ut i fra et ønske om å få undersøkt og utviklet konseptualiseringene fra the Process Modeling Practice model, utviklet av Eikebrokk, Iden, Olsen og Opdahl (2006), i en annen setting. Det overordnede forskningsspørsmålet ble formulert som: "Hvordan brukes virksomhetsmodellering og hvordan kan virksomhetsmodellering brukes som støtte i initiativer som kombinerer prosessendring med informasjons- og kommunikasjonsteknologi i norske bedrifter? Kontekst og konsekvenser av virksomhetsmodellering". For å fokusere forskningsprosjektet ble en forskningsmodell utviklet. Modellen bygde på kategoriene fra prosessmodelleringspraksismodellen, the Process Modeling Practice model (Eikebrokk et al, 2006) og funn fra en pilot og en litteraturstudie. For å klargjøre målet med prosjektet, ble et eksplisitt forskningsmål formulert: "å validere og utvikle den initielle forskningsmodellen". Casene ble sammenliknet ved å se etter mønster i sammenhenger mellom konstrukt innen og imellom case. Forskningens hovedresultat knyttet til den multiple case studien er: (1) Identifiseringen av fem forskjellige typer modelleringsinitiativ gjennom å ha analysert hvordan hvert case kombinerte informasjons- og kommunikasjonsteknologi, hovedfokus for prosessending og hovedhensikt med modelleringen (Karlsen and Opdahl, 2012a), (2) Identifiseringen av en rekke fordeler knyttet til det å virksomhetsmodellere (Karlsen and Opdahl, 2012a) (3) Identifiseringen av modelleringsbarrierer sammen med funn som indikerer at distribusjonen av modelleringsmodenhet mellom prosjektdeltakere påvirker hvordan modelleringsaktivitetene utføres (Karlsen, 2011) (4) En validert og utviklet model av virksomhetsmodelleringspraksis, the Enterprise Modeling Practice model (Karlsen, 2008; Karlsen and Opdahl, 2012b). I tillegg ble ett av casene studert for seg, ut i fra et longitudinelt perspektiv. Dette førte til følgende tilleggsresultat: (5) En rekke modelleringserfaringer og modelleringsanbefalinger for økt forståelse av modelleringspraksis. (6) Beskrivelse av endring som tre stadier: (1) Endringsmodning, (2) Endringsbeslutning og (3) Prosess endring, hvor det siste stadiet bestod av fire trinn som var støttet av modelleringsarbeid: (1) Økt forretningsforståelse gjennom bruk av en generisk modell, (2) Identifisering av TO-BE gjennom prosessmodellering, (3) Prosesskategorisering ved å sortere modeller inn i risikosoner og (4) Implementering av prioriterte endringer konsistent med modellutformingene. (7) Identifisering av Readiness som en forutsetning både for endring og for modelleringsarbeid