Visual Representation of the TOGAF Requirements Management Process

  • Elena KornyshovaEmail author
  • Judith Barrios
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11158)


TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM) covers different aspects of Enterprise Architecture (EA) management as well as it provides textual guidelines to adapt and perform EA processes including the requirements management (RM) process. We observed that adopting ADM following these guidelines is an intricate task because the effort required to define a sequential interaction between related activities is meticulous and hard. During a real case experience we have formalized the ADM-TOGAF Requirements Management textual guidelines with the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) to facilitate its comprehension and usage. Afterwards, the usefulness of the proposed process models has been qualified with a group of engineering and master students.


Requirements management ADM-TOGAF Process model Visual notation Industrial experience 


  1. 1.
    James, G.A., Handler, R.A., Lapkin, A., Gall, N.: Gartner Architecture Framework Evolution (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lapkin, A., et al.: Gartner clarifies the definition of the term “enterprise architecture”. Gartner Research (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    TOGAF 9.1. The OpenGroup Architecture Framework (2011).
  4. 4.
    Zachman, J.A.: About Zachman framework for enterprise architecture. Zachman International Enterprise Architecture Framework (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Executive Office of the President of the United States (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2.02. Department of Defense (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies. ObjectWatch, Inc. Microsoft Development Network (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cameron, B., McMillan, E.: Analyzing the Current Trends in Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (2013).
  9. 9.
    Figl, K.: Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models: A Literature Review. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59(1), 41–67 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Open Group working within the Architecture Forum (
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    The Open Group TOGAF-SABSA Integration Working Group, White paper, October 2015Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Open Group EA Standard Notation. Archimate 3.0. (
  14. 14.
    Lapalme, J., Gerber, A., Van der Melwer, A., Zachman, J., De Vries, M., HinKelmann, K.: Exploring the future of enterprise architecture: a Zachman perspective. Comput. Ind. 79, 110–113 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model. Softw. Syst. Model 14, 1055–1080 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ericksson, H.-E., Penker, M.: Business Modeling with UML: Business Patterns at Work. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Business process model and notation (BPMN), version 2.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moreno Montes de Oca, I., Snoeck, M.: Pragmatic Guidelines for Business Process Modeling. Technical Report. KU Leuven – FEB - Management Information Systems Group (2015).
  19. 19.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process management: A Comprehensive Survey.
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group (OMG). Unified Modeling Language (UML) Version 2.5. OMG Document Number ptc./2013-09-05 (

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEDRIC, Conservatoire National des Arts et MétiersParisFrance
  2. 2.GIDyC, Systems Engineering SchoolUniversity of Los AndesMéridaVenezuela

Personalised recommendations