The Simple Enterprise Architecture Framework: Giving Alignment to IT Decisions

  • Giovanni GiachettiEmail author
  • Beatriz Marín
  • Estefanía Serral
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11158)


Context: Enterprise Architecture seeks to align organizational objectives with decisions associated to people, processes, information and technology. Different frameworks have been proposed for designing an enterprise architecture, such as TOGAF or Zachman. However, defining an enterprise architecture following these frameworks is not an easy task since it requires the alignment of organizational needs with technological decisions. Goal: This paper presents a methodological framework, called Simple Enterprise Architecture (SEA), that eases the definition of an enterprise architecture and provides concrete proof of the alignment between IT decisions and organizational needs. Method: The SEA framework has been developed by integrating components from existing ones in order to generate a concrete process that guides analysts in the correct definition of an enterprise architecture. Results: This framework has been used in teaching system architecture master courses for 5 years with positive results.


Enterprise architecture Information technology Framework Teaching Lessons learned IT decisions 


  1. 1.
    Basili, V., Caldeira, G., Rombach, H.D.: The Goal Question Metric Approach. Wiley, Hoboken (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckl, S., Schweda, C.M.: On the State-of-the-Art in Enterprise Architecture Management Literature. Technische Universität München, Munich (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goethals, F.: An overview of enterprise architecture framework deliverables (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Group, D.o.D.A.F.W.: Department of Defense Architecture Framework, January 2003Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Group, T.O.: The Open Group, ArchiMate 2.0 Specification, Berkshire, UK (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haren, V.: TOGAF Version 9.1. Van Haren Publishing (2011). ISBN: 9087536798Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hinkelmann, K., Gerber, A., Karagiannis, D., Thoenssen, B., Van der Merwe, A., Woitsch, R.: A new paradigm for the continuous alignment of business and IT: combining enterprise architecture modelling and enterprise ontology. Comput. Ind. 79, 77–86 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 9126-1. In: Software engineering – Product quality – Part 1: Quality Model. ISO (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jallow, A.K., Demian, P., Anumba, C.J., Baldwin, A.N.: An enterprise architecture framework for electronic requirements information management. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37(5), 455–472 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ji, W.-L., Xia, A.-B.: Federal enterprise architecture framework. Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst. Beijing 13(1), 57 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kazman, R., Klein, M., Clements, P.: ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lapkin, A., et al.: Gartner clarifies the definition of the term ‘enterprise architecture’. Gartner Res. (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matthes, D.: Enterprise Architecture Frameworks Kompendium: Über 50 Rahmenwerke für das IT-Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muhamad-Firmansyah, C., Bandung, Y.: Designing an enterprise architecture government organization based on TOGAF ADM and SONA. In: 2016 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pereira, C.M., Sousa, P.: A method to define an Enterprise Architecture using the Zachman Framework. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1366–1371. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Romero, D., Vernadat, F.: Enterprise information systems state of the art: past, present and future trends. Comput. Ind. 79, 3–13 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rouhani, B.D., Mahrin, M.N.R., Nikpay, F., Najafabadi, M.K., Nikfard, P.: A framework for evaluation of enterprise architecture implementation methodologies. Int. J. Soc. Behav. Educ. Econ. Bus. Ind. Eng. 9(1) (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M.: ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management. In: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 376–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schekkerman, J.: How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework. Trafford Publishing, Bloomington (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spewak, S.H., Tiemann, M.: Updating the enterprise architecture planning model. J. Enterp. Architect. 2(2), 11–19 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Urbaczewski, L., Mrdalj, S.: A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues Inf. Syst. 7(2), 18–23 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van’t Wout, J., Waage, M., Hartman, H., Stahlecker, M., Hofman, A.: The Integrated Architecture Framework Explained: Why, What, How. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wojcik, R., et al.: Attribute-driven design (ADD), version 2.0. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zachman, J.A.: Concepts of the framework for enterprise architecture (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zarvić, N., Wieringa, R.: An integrated enterprise architecture framework for business-IT alignment. Des. Enterp. Architect. Framew. Integr. Bus. Process. IT Infrastruct. 63, 9 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Giachetti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Beatriz Marín
    • 2
  • Estefanía Serral
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidad Tecnológica de Chile INACAPSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Facultad de Ingeniería y CienciasUniversidad Diego PortalesSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Faculty of Economics and BusinessKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations