Advertisement

A Continuous Delivery Pipeline for EA Model Evolution

  • Simon HacksEmail author
  • Andreas Steffens
  • Peter Hansen
  • Nikhitha Rajashekar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 352)

Abstract

The pace of changing structures and complexity within enterprise architecture (EA) models is expected to increase. This will challenge existing maintenance processes of EA models. To tackle this challenge, we propose to adapt the well-known concept of continuous delivery (CD) from the agile software development domain. We propose to automate the necessary steps to ensure EA model quality by applying multiple validation and analysis steps. Therefore, this results shorter feedback loops and helps to uncover possible conflict as early as possible.

Keywords

EA model evolution Continuous delivery EA model maintenance 

References

  1. 1.
    Bass, L., Weber, I., Zhu, L.: DevOps: A Software Architect’s Perspective, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, J., Probandt, W., Vering, O.: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Modellierung: Konzeption und Praxisbeispiel für ein effizientes Prozessmanagement. BPM kompetent. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burnstein, I.: Practical Software Testing: A Process-Oriented Approach. Springer, New York (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/b97392CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buschle, M., Ekstedt, M., Grunow, S., Hauder, M., Matthes, F., Roth, S.: Automating enterprise architecture documentation using an enterprise service bus. In: 18th Americas Conference on Information Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, L.: Continuous delivery: overcoming adoption challenges. J. Syst. Softw. 128, 72–86 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Debois, P.: Agile infrastructure and operations: how infra-gile are you? In: Agile 2008 Conference, pp. 202–207 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duvall, P., Matyas, S.M., Glover, A.: Continuous Integration: Improving Software Quality and Reducing Risk (The Addison-Wesley Signature Series). Addison-Wesley Professional (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farwick, M., Agreiter, B., Breu, R., Ryll, S., Voges, K., Hanschke, I.: Requirements for automated enterprise architecture model maintenance - a requirements analysis based on a literature review and an exploratory survey, In: ICEIS (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farwick, M., Schweda, C.M., Breu, R., Voges, K., Hanschke, I.: On enterprise architecture change events. In: Aier, S., Ekstedt, M., Matthes, F., Proper, E., Sanz, J.L. (eds.) PRET/TEAR -2012. LNBIP, vol. 131, pp. 129–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34163-2_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer, R., Aier, S., Winter, R.: A federated approach to enterprise architecture model maintenance, In: EMISA (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fowler, M.: Continous integration (2006). http://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html
  12. 12.
    Guild, B.A.: A Guide to the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge (BIZBOK Guide), vol. V04 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hacks, S., Lichter, H.: Towards an enterprise architecture model evolution. In: Czarnecki, C., Sultanow, E., Brockmann, C. (eds.) Workshops der Informatik 2018. Lecture Notes in Informatics, Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V, Bonn (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hanssen, G.K., Smite, D., Moe, N.B.: Signs of agile trends in global software engineering research: a tertiary study. In: 2011 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Global Software Engineering Workshop, pp. 17–23, August 2011Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hauder, M., Matthes, F., Roth, S.: Challenges for automated enterprise architecture documentation. In: TEAR/PRET (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Highsmith, J., Cockburn, A.: Agile software development: the business of innovation. IEEE Comput. 34, 120–122 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holm, H., Buschle, M., Lagerström, R., Ekstedt, M.: Automatic data collection for enterprise architecture models. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(2), 825–841 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Humble, J., Farley, D.: Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Upper Saddle River (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO, IEC, IEEE: Systems and software engineering - Architecture description (01122011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO/IEC 25010: Systems and software engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and software quality models, ISO/IEC, vol. 25010. ISO, Geneva (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M., Lagerström, R.: Automatic probabilistic enterprise IT architecture modeling: a dynamic bayesian networks approach. In: Franke, U., Lapalme, J., Johnson, P. (eds.) 20th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW), pp. 123–129 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aleatrati Khosroshahi, P., Aier, S., Hauder, M., Roth, S., Matthes, F., Winter, R.: Success factors for federated enterprise architecture model management. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNBIP, vol. 215, pp. 413–425. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19243-7_38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kirschner, B., Roth, S.: Federated enterprise architecture model management: collaborative model merging for repositories with loosely coupled schema and data. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kotusev, S.: The history of enterprise architecture: an evidence-based review. J. Enterp. Archit. 12(1), 31–37 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laukkanen, E., Itkonen, J., Lassenius, C.: Problems, causes and solutions when adopting continuous delivery-a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 82, 55–79 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lim, N., Lee, T.G., Park, S.G.: A comparative analysis of enterprise architecture frameworks based on EA quality attributes. In: 2009 10th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligences, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing, pp. 283–288 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marín, P.R., et al.: Continuous deployment of software intensive products and services: a systematic mapping study. J. Syst. Softw. 123, 263–291 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matthes, F., Monahov, I., Schneider, A.W., Schulz, C.: EAM KPI Catalog v1.0. Garching (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Niemi, E., Pekkola, S.: Enterprise architecture quality attributes: a case study. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 3878–3887. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saint-Louis, P., Lapalme, J.: Investigation of the lack of common understanding in the discipline of enterprise architecture: a systematic mapping study. In: Franke, U., Lapalme, J., Johnson, P. (eds.) 20th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW) (2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling. TEES. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43725-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Simon, D., Fischbach, K., Schoder, D.: An exploration of enterprise architecture research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 32(1), 1–72 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Steffens, A., Lichter, H., Doring, J.S.: Designing a next-generation continuous software delivery system: concepts and architecture. In: 2018 IEEE/ACM 4th International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering (RCoSE), pp. 1–7, May 2018Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 3.0.1 Specification (2017)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Välja, M., Korman, M., Lagerström, R., Franke, U., Ekstedt, M.: Automated architecture modeling for enterprise technology management using principles from data fusion: a security analysis case. In: Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (2016)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Välja, M., Lagerström, R., Ekstedt, M., Korman, M.: A requirements based approach for automating enterprise IT architecture modeling using multiple data sources. In: 19th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (2015)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    White, S.A.: BPMN Modeling and Reference Guide: Understanding and Using BPMN. Future Strategies Inc., Lighthouse Point (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Winter, K., Buckl, S., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: Investigating the state-of-the-art in enterprise architecture management method in literature and practice. In: 5th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, AIS (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks and London and New Delhi (2013)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ylimäki, T.: Potential critical success factors for enterprise architecture. J. Enterp. Architect. 2(4), 29–40 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Hacks
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Steffens
    • 1
  • Peter Hansen
    • 2
  • Nikhitha Rajashekar
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Group Software ConstructionRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations