Optimierung von Unternehmensarchitekturen unter Berücksichtigung von Transitionskosten

Optimizing Enterprise Architectures Considering Transition Costs

Zusammenfassung

Unternehmensarchitekturen, die sich üblicherweise von der Geschäftsschicht über die Anwendungsschicht bis zur Infrastrukturschicht erstrecken, bieten eine Möglichkeit, die Geschäftsstrategie innerhalb der IT umzusetzen. Um dies erreichen zu können, werden Unternehmensarchitekturen kontinuierlich gepflegt. Dazu gehört unter anderem, dass unnötige Elemente aus der Unternehmensarchitektur entfernt werden und diese somit optimiert wird.

In einem vorangegangenen Artikel haben wir bereits untersucht, wie auf Basis der Repräsentation einer Unternehmensarchitektur als Graph eine Optimierung ermittelt werden kann. Dieser Ansatz unterscheidet allerdings nicht, ob die Elemente dem Ist-Zustand zuzurechnen sind oder ihr Einsatz bisher nur geplant ist. Dementsprechend werden auch die notwendigen Transitionskosten, um vom Ist-Zustand zum optimalen Zustand zu gelangen, nicht berücksichtigt. Dies kann zu unwirtschaftlichen Ergebnissen führen. In dieser Arbeit stellen wir deswegen eine Erweiterung unseres Ansatzes vor, der notwendige Transitionskosten berücksichtigt. Dafür betrachten wir den aktuellen Stand der Unternehmensarchitektur und weisen jeder Änderung daran die zugehörigen Transitionskosten zu. Diese werden gegen die Betriebskosten aufgewogen, was zu wirtschaftlicheren Optimierungslösungen führt.

Abstract

IT becomes more and more important for business in the last decades. Simultaneous, the IT pervades the business more and more and becomes ubiquitous. This raises also the complexity of the information systems and their interrelations. With rising complexity of the information systems it becomes harder to ensure the IT/business alignment. One way to achieve the IT/business alignment is EA (Enterprise Architecture). One goal of EA is, for example, to consolidate the IT landscape.

In our previous research, we developed an approach to optimize an EA with the means of linear programming, which can be applied to consolidate the IT landscape. However, this approach does not consider transition costs and, therefore, might produce uneconomical results. Within this paper, we suggest an extension of our previous work introducing transition costs. To do so, we take the as-is EA into account and apply transition costs to changes which are outweighed against operation costs. This leads to more economical optimization results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://lpsolve.sourceforge.net/5.5/.

Literatur

  1. Aier S, Winter R (2009) Virtual decoupling for IT/business alignment – conceptual foundations, architecture design and implementation example. Bus Inf Syst Eng 1:150–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boh WF, Yellin D (2006) Using enterprise architecture standards in managing information technology. J Manag Inf Syst 23:163–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Buhalis D, Law R (2008) Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the internet; the state of eTourism research. Tour Manag 29:609–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Franke U, Holschke O, Buschle M, Rake-Revelant J, Närman P (2010) IT consolidation: an optimization approach. 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Geoffrion AM (1968) Proper efficiency and the theory of vector maximization. J Math Anal Appl 22:618–630

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Giakoumakis V, Krob D, Liberti L, Roda F (2012) Technological architecture evolutions of information systems: trade-off and optimization. Concurr Eng 20:127–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hacks S, Lichter H (2017) Optimizing enterprise architectures using linear integer programming techniques. In: Eibl M, Gaedke M (Hrsg) INFORMATIK 2017. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn, S 623–636

    Google Scholar 

  8. ISO/IEC/IEEE (2011) 42010-2011 - ISO/IEC/IEEE systems and software engineering -‑ architecture description (01.12.2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kotusev S (2016) The history of enterprise architecture; an evidence-based review. J Enterp Archit 12:31–37

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lagerström R, Johnson P, Ekstedt M (2010) Architecture analysis of enterprise systems modifiability; a metamodel for software change cost estimation. Softw Qual J 18:437–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Landsbergen D Jr., Wolken G Jr. (2001) Realizing the promise: government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Public Adm Rev 61:206–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Levchuk GM, Levchuk YN, Luo J, Pattipati KR, Kleinman DL (2002) Normative design of organizations. II. Organizational structure. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 32:360–375. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Oliner SD, Sichel DE (2000) The resurgence of growth in the late 1990s: Is information technology the story? FEDS working paper

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pereira CM, Sousa P (2004) A method to define an enterprise architecture using the Zachman framework. 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, New York, S 1366–1371

    Google Scholar 

  15. Plazaola L, Flores J, Silva E, Vargas N, Ekstedt M (2007) An approach to associate strategic business-IT alignment assessment to enterprise architecture. Fifth Conference on Systems Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rood MA (1994) Enterprise architecture: definition, content, and utility. Third Workshop on Enabling Technologies. Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises. IEEE, New York, S 106–111

    Google Scholar 

  17. Saint-Louis P, Lapalme J (2016) Investigation of the lack of common understanding in the discipline of enterprise architecture; a systematic mapping study. In: Franke U, Lapalme J, Johnson P (Hrsg) 20th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sanchez R, Mahoney JT (1996) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strateg Manage J 17:63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Simon D, Fischbach K, Schoder D (2013) An exploration of enterprise architecture research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 32:1–72

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sundarraj RP, Talluri S (2003) A multi-period optimization model for the procurement of component-based enterprise information technologies. Eur J Oper Res 146:339–351

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Vodanovich S, Sundaram D, Myers M (2010) Research commentary—digital natives and ubiquitous information systems. Inf Syst Res 21:711–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Winter R, Fischer R (2006) Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops. IEEE, New York, S 30–38

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Hacks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hacks, S., Lichter, H. Optimierung von Unternehmensarchitekturen unter Berücksichtigung von Transitionskosten. HMD 55, 928–941 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-018-00442-0

Download citation

Schlüsselwörter

  • Unternehmensarchitektur
  • Unternehmensarchitekturmanagement
  • Lineare Ganzzahlige Programmierung
  • Optimierung
  • Transitionskosten

Keywords

  • Enterprise architecture
  • Enterprise architecture management
  • Linear integer programming
  • Optimizing
  • Transition costs