Advertisement

Rational Enterprise Architecture

  • Leendert van der TorreEmail author
  • Marc van Zee
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10350)

Abstract

We are interested in formal foundations for enterprise decision support. In this perspective, enterprise architecture is characterised by highly uncertain plans in a changing environment, and translates strategic goals into an IT strategy. Typically there are a large number of stakeholders with conflicting views, communicating plans of action, and explaining decisions instead of making them. An enterprise architecture considers qualitative before quantitative data, has stronger business focus than other disciplines, and politics, emotions, and soft skills play a bigger role than in other areas. We view a plan abstractly as a sequence of commitments in time, and each commitment in the plan may come with a number of underlying assumptions. If these underlying assumptions change, then parts of the plan may require revision, which in turn may invalidate other parts of the plan, and so on. Therefore, assumptions have an inherently non-monotonic character: they are assumed to be true, unless it becomes clear they are false. This is related to the resource-boundedness of enterprise architecture: an enterprise architect cannot always know all of the assumptions, especially for long term plans.

Keywords

Enterprise Architecture Soft Skill Store Commitment City Planner Enterprise Architect 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourrön, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contractions and revision functions. J. Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernus, P., Nemes, L., Schmidt, G. (eds.): Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artif. Intell. 42(2–3), 213–261 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietz, J.: Architecture - Building Strategy into Design. Netherlands Architecture Forum. Academic Service - SDU, The Hague (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giachetti, R.: Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Architecture, and Methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greefhorst, D., Proper, E.: Architecture Principles: The Cornerstones of Enterprise Architecture, 1st edn. Springer Publishing Company Incorporated, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoogervorst, J.: Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iacob, M.-E., Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., Proper, H.: ArchiMate 1.0 Specification. The Open Group (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iacob, M.-E., Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., Proper, H.: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. The Open Group (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lankhorst, M. (ed.): Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Op ’t Land, M., Proper, H., Waage, M., Cloo, J., Steghuis, C.: Enterprise Architecture - Creating Value by Informed Governance. Enterprise Engineering Series, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Plataniotis, G., Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A.: Capturing decision making strategies in enterprise architecture – a viewpoint. In: Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Soffer, P., Krogstie, J., Schmidt, R., Halpin, T., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2013. LNBIP, vol. 147, pp. 339–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38484-4_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plataniotis, G., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A.: Relating decisions in enterprise architecture using decision design graphs. In: 2013 17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp. 139–146. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Plataniotis, G., De Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A.: Ea anamnesis: an approach for decision making analysis in enterprise architecture. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. (IJISMD) 5(3), 75–95 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: KR (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ross, J., Weill, P., Robertson, D.: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shoham, Y.: Logical theories of intention and the database perspective. J. Philos. Logic 38, 633–647 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shoham, Y.: Why knowledge representation matters. Commun. ACM 59(1), 47–49 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spewak, S.H., Hill, S.C.: Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications and Technology. QED Information Sciences Inc. (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    The Architecture Working Group of the Software Engineering Committee. Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software Intensive Systems. Technical report IEEE P1471: 2000, ISO/IEC 42010: 2007, Standards Department, IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, September 2000Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Open Group. TOGAF Version 9. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Linden, D., van Zee, M.: Insights from a study on decision making in enterprise architecture. In: PoEM (Short Papers), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1497, pp. 21–30 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Zee, M.: Rational architecture = architecture from a recommender perspective. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Zee, M.: Rational Architecture: Reasoning about Enterprise Dynamics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Luxembourg (2017, to appear). 5Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Zee, M., Dastani, M., Doder, D., van der Torre, L.: Consistency conditions for beliefs and intentions. In: Twelfth International Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Zee, M., Dastani, M., Shoham, Y., van der Torre, L.: Collective intention revision from a database perspective. In: Collective Intentionality Conference, July 2014Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Zee, M., Doder, D.: AGM-style revision of beliefs and intentions. In: Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2016), September 2016Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Zee, M., Doder, D., Dastani, M., van der Torre, L.: AGM revision of beliefs about action and time. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Veldhuijzen van Zanten, G., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H.: System development as a rational communicative process. J. Systemics Cybern. Inform. 2(4), 47–51 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilson, C., Short, J.: Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture Tools. Technical Report ID Number: G00207406, Gartner, October 2010Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zachman, J.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LuxembourgLuxembourg CityLuxembourg
  2. 2.Google ResearchZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations