Advertisement

Simplicity is not Simple: How Business Architecture in One of Belgium’s Biggest Companies Can Be Simple and Easy-to-Use

  • Dave De Clercq
  • Maxime Bernaert
  • Ben RoelensEmail author
  • Geert Poels
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 235)

Abstract

As organizations are becoming more complex, Enterprise Architecture (EA) serves as an important means to align the strategy with the operations and to achieve business/IT (i.e., Information Technology) alignment. Although numerous approaches have been designed for large enterprises, little EA research was oriented towards small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, both organizational types are fundamentally different and require a tailored approach. Therefore, CHOOSE was designed as an EA approach that is in accordance with the needs of SMEs. By performing a case study in the department of a large enterprise, this paper aims to investigate how CHOOSE can be used outside its original context. More specifically, it will be examined how the metamodel and modeling method could be extended to deliver an overview and valuable insights about a complex business reality. To realize this, potential solutions for the encountered issues are formulated and evaluated by the involved business stakeholders.

Keywords

Enterprise architecture Small- and medium-sized enterprise CHOOSE approach Case study 

References

  1. 1.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., ter Doest, H., Arbab, F., Bosma, H., Wieringa, R.: Enterprise architecture: management tool and blueprint for the organisation. Inf. Syst. Front. 8(2), 63–66 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maes, R.: An Integrative perspective on information management. In: Huizing, A., De Vries, E. (eds.) Information Management: Setting the Scene, pp. 11–28. Elsevier Science, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Bhagwat, R., Sharma, M.: Information system architecture: a framework for a cluster of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Prod. Plann. Control 18(4), 283–296 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balabko, P., Wegmann, A.: Systemic classification of concern-based design methods in the context of enterprise architecture. Inf. Syst. Front. 8(2), 115–131 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bernaert, M., Poels, G.: The quest for know-how, know-why, know-what and know-who: using KAOS for enterprise modelling. In: Salinesi, C., Pastor, O. (eds.) CAiSE Workshops 2011. LNBIP, vol. 83, pp. 29–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bernaert, M., Poels, G., Snoeck, M., De Backer, M.: CHOOSE: towards a metamodel for enterprise architecture in small and medium-sized enterprises. Inf. Syst. Front. 1–38 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kroon, B., Van De Voorde, K., Timmers, J.: High performance work practices in small firms: a resource-poverty and strategic decision-making perspective. Small Bus. Econ. 41(1), 71–91 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernaert, M., Poels, G., Snoeck, M., De Backer, M.: Enterprise architecture for small and medium-sized enterprises: a starting point for bringing EA to SMEs, based on adoption models. In: Devos, J., van Landeghem, H., Deschoolmeester, D. (eds.) State of Art of IS Research in SMEs, pp. 67–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wagter, R., Van Den Berg, M., Luijpers, J., van Steenbergen, M.: Dynamic Enterprise Architecture: How to Make It Work. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Callaert, M.: Business Architectuur Modellering in KMO’s: Case Study Onderzoek ter Verfijning en Validatie van de CHOOSE Methode en Metamodel. UGent, Gent, Belgium (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaplan, R., Norton, D.: The balanced scorecard - measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 71–79 (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Porter, M.: Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. The Free Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bernaert, M., Maes, J., Poels, G.: An android tablet tool for enterprise architecture modeling in small and medium-sized enterprises. In: Grabis, J., Kirikova, M., Zdravkovic, J., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2013. LNBIP, vol. 165, pp. 145–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dumeez, J., Bernaert, M., Poels, G.: Development of software tool support for enterprise architecture in small and medium-sized enterprises. In: Franch, X., Soffer, P. (eds.) CAiSE Workshops 2013. LNBIP, vol. 148, pp. 87–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ingelbeen, D., Bernaert, M., Poels, G.: Enterprise architecture software tool support for small and medium-sized enterprises: EASE. In: AMCIS 2013, Chicago, Illinois (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berndtsson, M., Hansson, J., Olsson, B., Lundell, B.: Thesis Projects: a Guide for Students in Computer Science and Information Systems. Springer, London (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yin, R.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage publications Inc., London (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walsham, G.: Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 4(2), 74–81 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saaty, T.: How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 48(1), 9–26 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paige, R., Ostroff, J., Brooke, P.: Principles for modeling language design. Inf. Softw. Technol. 42(10), 665–675 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    European Commission: The New SME Definition: User Guide and Model Declaration (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moody, D.: The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory. Learn. Difficulty Instr. Des. Learn. Instr. 4(4), 295–312 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dardenne, A., Van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Program. 20(1–2), 3–50 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate® 2.1 Specification (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects, and future research challenges. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 941–962 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) (version 2.0) (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boone, S., Bernaert, M., Roelens, B., Mertens, S., Poels, G.: Evaluating and improving the visualisation of CHOOSE, an enterprise architecture approach for SMEs. In: Frank, U., Loucopoulos, P., Pastor, Ó., Petrounias, I. (eds.) PoEM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 197, pp. 87–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boland, R., Tankasi, R.: Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organ. Sci. 6(4), 350–372 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave De Clercq
    • 1
  • Maxime Bernaert
    • 1
  • Ben Roelens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Geert Poels
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business Informatics and Operations Management, Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations