A Framework for Visualization of Changes of Enterprise Architecture

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 275)

Abstract

An innovation that is substantial enough to change the enterprise architecture poses a problem for a system architect. Enterprise architecture modeling methods and tools do not support the distinction between the As-Is architecture and the To-Be architecture in one view model. Recognizing the changes becomes similar to a game of “finding changes in two drawings”. As the size of architectures and number of architectural view pairs grows, the changes can be overlooked. In order to support the recognizing of changes by the implementation teams, the changes need specific visualization means.

In this paper, we use the modern cases of transformation of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems to the Best of Breed solutions and an architecture modeling language ArchiMate to propose a framework for visualization of changes. The framework includes a new abstraction called “Gap of Changes”, artifacts, principles and means for visualization. The new abstraction is defined on a metamodel that makes it reusable in different enterprise and software architecture description languages. The framework is tested with real cases of changes of ERP using the Best of Breed strategy.

Keywords

Breed Strategy Enterprise Architecture Order Management External Communication Implementation Team 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Chichester (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardoso, J., Bostrom, R.P., Sheth, A., Sheth, C.I.A.: Workflow management systems and ERP systems: differences, commonalities, and applications. Inf. Technol. Manage. 5, 319–338 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fritscher, B., Pigneur, Y.: Business IT alignment from business model to enterprise architecture. In: Salinesi, C., Pastor, O. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 83, pp. 4–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Institute of Educational Cybernetics, Archi 2.4 (2012). http://archi.cetis.ac.uk/
  5. 5.
    Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Jonkers, H.: The architecture of the archimate language. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 29, pp. 367–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Jonkers, H.: The anatomy of the ArchiMate language. IJISMD 1(1), 1–32 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Light, B., Holland, C.P., Wills, K.: ERP and best of breed: a comparative analysis. Bus. Process Manag. J. 7(3), 216–224 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mckeown, I., Philip, G.: Business transformation, information technology and competitive strategies: learning to fly. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 23(1), 3–24 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG, Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure version 2.1.1 formal/2007-02-03 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Open Group. ArchiMate 2.1 Specification (2013). http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/chap03.html
  11. 11.
    The Open Group. TOGAF, The Open Group Architecture Framework, Version 9.1, an Open Group Standard (2016). http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Vopak, Global ITRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations