Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 1059–1083 | Cite as

From enterprise architecture to business models and back

  • M. E. IacobEmail author
  • L. O. Meertens
  • H. Jonkers
  • D. A. C. Quartel
  • L. J. M. Nieuwenhuis
  • M. J. van Sinderen
Theme Section Paper


In this study, we argue that important IT change processes affecting an organization’s enterprise architecture are also mirrored by a change in the organization’s business model. An analysis of the business model may establish whether the architecture change has value for the business. Therefore, in order to facilitate such analyses, we propose an approach to relate enterprise models specified in ArchiMate to business models, modeled using Osterwalder’s Business Model Canvas. Our approach is accompanied by a method that supports business model-driven migration from a baseline architecture to a target architecture and is demonstrated by means of a case study.


Business modeling Enterprise architecture Business Model Canvas ArchiMate  Business Model Ontology   Cost/revenue analysis 



This work is part of the IOP GenCom U-CARE project financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. We also thank the reviewers for their valuable contribution in the significant improvement of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Al-Debei, M.M., Avison, A.: Developing a unified framework of the business model concept. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 19, 359–376 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Matthes, F., Ramacher, R., Schweda, C.M.:Using enterprise architecture management patterns to complement TOGAF. In: Proceedings of the 13th International EDOC conference (EDOC 2009), Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 34–41 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckl, S., Franke, U., Holschke, O., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M., Sommestad, T., Ullberg, J.: A pattern-based approach to quantitative enterprise architecture analysis. In: 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), San Francisco, USA Paper 318 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Buuren, R., Jonkers, H., Iacob, M.-E., Strating, P.: Composition of relations in enterprise architecture models. In: Ehrig, H., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Graph Transformations. LNCS, vol. 3256, pp. 39–53. Rome, Italy (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Constantin, J.A., Lusch, R.F.: Understanding Resource Management. The Planning Forum, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demil, B., Lecocq, X.: Business model evolution: in search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Plan. 43, 227–246 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engelsman, W., Quartel, D., Jonkers, H., van Sinderen, M.: Extending enterprise architecture modeling with business goals and requirements. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 5, 9–36 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ettema, R., Dietz, J.L.G.: ArchiMate and DEMO—mates to date? In: Albani, A., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) Advances in Enterprise Engineering III, 5th International Workshop, CIAO! 2009, and 5th International Workshop, EOMAS 2009, held at CAiSE 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 8–9. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 34(Part 4), 172–186. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foster, W., Kim, P., Christiansen, B.: Ten Nonprofit funding models, Stanford Social Innovation Review. 2009-03-05. (2009)
  11. 11.
    Freeman, R.E.: Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston (1984)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fritscher, B., Pigneur, Y.: Business IT alignment from Business model to enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on BUSiness/IT ALignment and Interoperability. London (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gordijn, J.: Value-based requirements engineering: exploring Iinnovative e-Commerce ideas. PhD thesis. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H.: Value based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce idea. Requir. Eng. J. 8(2), 114–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gordijn, J., Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Comparing two business model ontologies for designing e-Business models and value constellations. In: Proceedings of the 18th Bled eConference: eIntegration in Action. 18th Bled eConference eIntegration in Action. Bled, Slovenia (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graves, T.: Why business-model to enterprise-architecture? Tetradian 27 Jul 2011. (2011). Accessed 6 Sep 2011
  17. 17.
    Hedman, J., Kalling, T.: The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 12(1), 49–59 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iacob, M.E., Jonkers, H.: Quantitative analysis of service-oriented architectures. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 3(1), 42–60 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iacob, M.E., Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., Proper, H.: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iacob, M.E., Quartel, D., Jonkers, H.: Capturing business strategy and value in enterprise architecture to support portfolio Valuation. In: Proceedings of the 16th International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2012), 10–14 September. Beijing, China (2012) (Accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission: ISO/IEC 42010:2007 systems and software engineering—recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Janssen, W., van Buuren, R., Gordijn, J.: Business case modelling for e-services. In: Proceedings 18th Bled eConference eIntegration in Action. Bled, Slovenia (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jonkers, H., van Buuren, R., Arbab, F., de Boer, F., Bonsangue, M., Bosma, H., ter Doest, H., Groenewegen, L., Guillen Scholten, J., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Iacob, M.-E., Janssen, W., Lankhorst, M., van Leeuwen, D., Proper, E., Stam, A., van der Torre, L., Veldhuijzen van Zanten, G.: Towards a language for coherent enterprise architecture descriptions. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing, 16–19 Sept 2003, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 28–39 (ISBN 0-7695-1994-6) (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jonkers, H., Iacob, M.: Performance and cost analysis of service-oriented enterprise architectures, In: Angappa Gunasekaran (ed.) Global Implications of Modern Enterprise Information Systems: Technologies and Applications, pp. 49–73. Information science reference, Hershey (ISBN 978-1-60566-146-9) (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 70(1), 71–79 (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R.: Knowing a winning business idea when you see one. Harv. Bus. Rev. 78(5), 129–138 (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lambert S.: A conceptual framework for business model research. In: Proceedings of the 21st Bled eConference: eIntegration in Action. 21st Bled eConference eCollaboration: Overcoming Boundaries through Multi-Channel Interaction, pp. 227–289. Bled, Slovenia (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lankhorst, M.: ArchiMate Language Primer, Telematica Institute. Technical report (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lumpkin, G.T., Dess, G.G.: E-business strategies and Internet business models: how the Internet adds value. Organ. Dyn. 33(2), 161–173 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meertens, L.O., Iacob, M.E., Jonkers, H., Quartel, D., van Sinderen, M., Nieuwenhuis, L.J.M.: Mapping the business model canvas to ArchiMate. In: Proceedings of the of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Riva del Garda (Trento), Italy, March 26–30, pp. 1694–1701 (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Allen, J.: The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective. J. Bus. Res. 58(6), 726–735 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Op ’t Land, M.: Applying architecture and ontology to the splitting and allying of enterprises. PhD thesis, TU Delft (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Osterwalder, A.: The business model ontology—a proposition in a design science approach. PhD thesis, Universite de Lausanne (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Business model generation. Wiley, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C.L.: Clarifying business models: origins, present, and future of the concept. Commun. AIS 15(May), 2–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pateli, A.G., Giaglis, G.M.: A research framework for analysing eBusiness models. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 13(4), 302–314 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Porter, M.E.: Competitive Advantage. Free Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    The Open Group: Technical standard risk taxonomy. Doc. no. C08 (ISBN: 1-931624-77-1) (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    The Open Group: TOGAF® Version 9.1. Van Haren Publishing (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark. 68, 1–17 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weill, P., Broadbent, M.: Leveraging the new infrastructure: how market leaders capitalize on information technology. Harvard Business Press, Harvard (1998)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Weill, P., Vitale, M.: What IT infrastructure capabilities are needed to implement e-business models. MIS Q. Executive 1(1), 17–34 (2002)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wirtz, B.W., Schilke, O., Ullrich, S.: Strategic development of business models. Implications of the Web 2.0 for creating value on the Internet. Long Range Plan. 43, 272–290 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L.: Building social business models: lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Plan. 43, 308–325 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zott, C., Amit, R.: Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long Range Plan. 43, 216–226 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zott, B., Amit, R., Massa, L.: The business model: recent developments and future research. J. Manag. 37(4), 1019–1042 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. E. Iacob
    • 1
    Email author
  • L. O. Meertens
    • 1
  • H. Jonkers
    • 2
  • D. A. C. Quartel
    • 2
  • L. J. M. Nieuwenhuis
    • 1
  • M. J. van Sinderen
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Telematics and Information Technology University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.BizzdesignEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations