Requirements Engineering for Model-Based Enterprise Architecture Management with ArchiMate

  • Dominik BorkEmail author
  • Aurona Gerber
  • Elena-Teodora Miron
  • Phil van Deventer
  • Alta Van der Merwe
  • Dimitris Karagiannis
  • Sunet Eybers
  • Anna Sumereder
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 332)


The role of information systems (IS) evolved from supporting basic business functions to complex integrated enterprise platforms and ecosystems. As a result, enterprises increasingly adopt enterprise architecture (EA) as a means to manage complexity and support the ability to change. We initiated a study that investigates the pivotal role of enterprise architecture management (EAM) as an essential strategy to manage enterprise change and within this larger context, specifically how the ArchiMate modeling language can be enhanced with capabilities that support EAM. This paper reports on the evaluation of an EA modeling tool (TEAM) which has been enhanced with EAM capabilities. The evaluation was performed by a focus group of enterprise architects that attended a workshop and applied the tool to an EAM case study. The evaluation results, requirements as well as a conceptualization for further development are presented and are of value for both, enterprise architecture researchers and enterprise architects.


Enterprise architecture management ArchiMate Requirements engineering Focus group 



Part of this research has been funded through the South Africa/Austria Joint Scientific and Technological Cooperation program with the project number ZA 11/2017.


  1. 1.
    Zimmermann, A., Jugel, D., Sandkuhl, K., Schmidt, R., Schweda, C., Moehring, M.: Architectural decision management for digital transformation of products and services. CSIMQ (6), 31–53 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., Bush, A.A.: Research commentary - platform evolution: coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Inf. Syst. Res. 21(4), 675–687 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V.: Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 18(3), 5–14 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mont, O.K.: Clarifying the concept of product-service system. J. Clean. Prod. 10(3), 237–245 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matt, C., Hess, T., Benlian, A.: Digital transformation strategies. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 57(5), 339–343 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahlemann, F., Stettiner, E., Messerschmidt, M., Legner, C. (eds.): Strategic Enterprise Architecture Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Open Group: The open group: ArchiMate 3.0.1 specification (2017). 07 Nov 2017Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pittl, B., Bork, D.: Modeling digital enterprise ecosystems with ArchiMate: a mobility provision case study. Serviceology for Services. LNCS, vol. 10371, pp. 178–189. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35(1), 37–56 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zachman, J.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26, 276–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zachman, J.A.: The Concise Definition of The Zachman Framework by: John A. Zachman (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    IFIP-IFAC Task Force: GERAM: Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology, Version 1.6.3. Technical report March, Integration, IFIPIFAC Task Force on Architectures for Enterprise (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simon, D., Fischbach, K., Schoder, D.: An exploration of enterprise architecture research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 32 (2013). Article 1Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The Open Group: TOGAF, an Open Group standard (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Vries, M., van der Merwe, A., Gerber, A.: Towards an enterprise evolution contextualisation model. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Enterprise Systems, Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 1–12. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lapalme, J.: Three schools of thought on enterprise architecture. IT Prof. 14(6), 37–43 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ross, J.W., Weill, P., Robertson, D.: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business Press, Brighton (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG: ArchiMate 3.0.1 Specification. The Open Group, June 2016.
  19. 19.
    Lankhorst, M. (ed.): Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication, and Analysis. Springer, Berlin/ New York (2005). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vicente, M., Gama, N., da Silva, M.M.: Using ArchiMate and TOGAF to understand the enterprise architecture and ITIL relationship. In: Franch, X., Soffer, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNBIP, vol. 148, pp. 134–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karagiannis, D., Kühn, H.: Metamodelling platforms. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) EC-Web 2002. LNCS, vol. 2455, p. 182. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual modelling and Telos. In: Loucopoulos, P., Zicari, R. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling, Databases, and CASE: an Integrated View of Information System Development, pp. 49–68. Wiley, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bork, D., Fill, H.G.: Formal aspects of enterprise modeling methods: a comparison framework. In: 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 3400–3409. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bork, D., Miron, E.T.: OMiLAB - an open innovation community for modeling method engineering. In: Niculescu, A., Negoita, O.D., Tiganoaia, B. (eds.) 8th International Conference of Management and Industrial Engineering (ICMIE 2017), pp. 64–77 (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J.: Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bock, A., Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling—conceptual foundation and implementation with ADOxx. In: Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, pp. 241–267. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ferstl, O.K., Sinz, E.J., Bork, D.: Tool support for the semantic object model. In: Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, pp. 291–310. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freitas, H., Oliveira, M., Jenkins, M., Popjoy, O.: The focus group, a qualitative research method. J. Educ. 1(1), 1–22 (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Benaben, F., et al.: A conceptual framework and a suite of tools to support crisis management. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rejeb, O., Bastide, R., Lamine, E., Marmier, F., Pingaud, H.: A model driven engineering approach for business continuity management in e-health systems. In: 2012 6th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems Technologies (DEST), pp. 1–7. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31. ADOxx Metamodelling Platform (2018), Accessed 11 Mar 2018
  32. 32.
    Efendioglu, N., Woitsch, R., Utz, W.: A toolbox supporting agile modelling method engineering: modelling method conceptualization environment. In: Horkoff, J., Jeusfeld, M.A., Persson, A. (eds.) PoEM 2016. LNBIP, vol. 267, pp. 317–325. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bork, D., Sinz, E.J.: Design of a SOM business process modelling tool based on the ADOxx meta-modelling platform. In: Pre-proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Graph-Based Tools. University of Twente, Enschede, pp. 90–101 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gerber, A., der Merwe, A.V., Kotze, P.: Towards the formalisation of the TOGAF contenet metamodel using ontlogies. In: The 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Buchmann, R.A., Karagiannis, D.: Enriching linked data with semantics from domain-specific diagrammatic models. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 58(5), 341–353 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Awadid, A., Bork, D., Karagiannis, D., Nurcan, S.: Toward generic consistency patterns in multi-view enterprise modelling. In: Twenty-Sixth European Conference on Information Systems (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bork, D., Buchmann, R., Karagiannis, D.: Preserving multi-view consistency in diagrammatic knowledge representation. In: Zhang, S., Wirsing, M., Zhang, Z. (eds.) KSEM 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9403, pp. 177–182. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  38. 38.
    Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, R.A., Bork, D.: Managing consistency in multi-view enterprise models: an approach based on semantic queries. In: Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (2016). Research Paper 53Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominik Bork
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aurona Gerber
    • 2
    • 3
  • Elena-Teodora Miron
    • 1
  • Phil van Deventer
    • 2
  • Alta Van der Merwe
    • 2
  • Dimitris Karagiannis
    • 1
  • Sunet Eybers
    • 2
  • Anna Sumereder
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group Knowledge EngineeringUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  3. 3.CSIR Center for AI Research (CAIR)PretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations