CIAO! 2009, EOMAS 2009: Advances in Enterprise Engineering III pp 85-99 | Cite as

An Information Model Capturing the Managed Evolution of Application Landscapes

  • Sabine Buckl
  • Alexander M. Ernst
  • Florian Matthes
  • Christian M. Schweda
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 34)

Abstract

Projects are the executors of organizational change and hence in charge of the managed evolution of the application landscape in the context of enterprise architecture (EA) management. Although the aforementioned fact is widely agreed upon, no generally accepted information model addressing the challenges arising in the context of future planning and historization of management decisions concerning projects yet exists. This paper addresses this challenge by identifying requirements regarding an information model for linking projects and application landscape management concepts from an extensive survey, during which the demands from practitioners and the existing tool support for EA management were analyzed. Furthermore, we discuss the shortcomings of existing approaches to temporal landscape management in literature and propose an information model capable of addressing the identified requirements by taking related modeling techniques from nearby disciplines into account.

Keywords

Enterprise Architecture Management Project Portfolio Management Temporal Modeling 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aier, S., Riege, C., Winter, R.: Unternehmensarchitektur – Literaturüberblick Stand der Praxis. Wirtschaftsinformatik 50(4), 292–304 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aier, S., Schönherr, M.: Enterprise Application Integration – Flexibilisierung komplexer Unternehmensarchitekturen, Gito, Berlin (2007) (in German)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aier, S., Schönherr, M.: Flexibilisierung von Organisations- und IT-Architekturen durch EAI. In: Enterprise Application Integration – Flexibilisierung komplexer Unternehmensarchitekturen Band I, Berlin, Gito (2007) (in German)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun, C., Winter, R.: A comprehensive Enterprise Architecture Metamodel. In: Desel, J., Frank, U. (eds.) Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures 2005. LNI, vol. 75, pp. 64–79. GI (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A., Kopper, H., Marliani, R., Matthes, F., Petschownik, P., Schweda, C.M.: EAM Pattern for Consolidations after Mergers. In: SE 2009 – Workshopband, Kaiserslautern (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: An Information Model for Landscape Management – Discussing temporality Aspects. In: Johnson, P., Schelp, J., Aier, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research, Sydney, Australia (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Lankes, J., Matthes, F.: Enterprise Architecture Management Pattern Catalog, Version 1.0. Technical report, Chair for Informatics 19 (sebis), Technische Universität München, Munich (February 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Lankes, J., Matthes, F., Schweda, C., Wittenburg, A.: Generating Visualizations of Enterprise Architectures using Model Transformation (Extended Version). Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures – An International Journal 2(2) (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlson, A., Estepp, S., Fowler, M.: Temporal patterns. In: Pattern Languages of Program Design. Addison Wesley, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deming, E.W.: Out of the crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Department of Defense (DoD) USA. DoD Architecture Framework Version 1.5: Volume I: Definitions and Guidelines (cited 2008-03-19) (2008), http://www.defenselink.mil/cio-nii/docs/DoDAF_Volume_I.pdf
  12. 12.
    Engels, G., Hess, A., Humm, B., Juwig, O., Lohmann, M., Richter, J.-P.: Quasar Enterprise – Anwendungslandschaften serviceorientiert gestalten. dpunkt.verlag, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective Enterprise Modeling (MEMO) – Conceptual Framework and Modeling Languages. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 35, pp. 1258–1267 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garg, A., Kazman, R., Chen, H.-M.: Interface Descriptions for Enterprise Architecture. Science of Computer Programming 61(1), 4–15 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henderson, J.C., Venkatraman, N.: Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations. IBM Systems Journal 38(2-3), 472–484 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    IEEE. IEEE Std 1471-2000 for recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-intensive Systems (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jonkers, H., Goenewegen, L., Bonsangue, M., van Buuren, R.: A Language for Enterprise Modelling. In: Lankhorst, M. (ed.) Enterprise Architecture at Work. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirchner, L.: Eine Methode zur Unterstützung des IT-Managements im Rahmen der Unternehmensmodellierung. PhD thesis, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Logos, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Le, L.-S., Wegmann, A.: Definition of an Object-oriented Modeling Language for Enterprise Architecture. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2005. HICSS 2005, p. 179c (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matthes, F., Buckl, S., Leitel, J., Schweda, C.M.: Enterprise Architecture Management Tool Survey 2008. Chair for Informatics 19 (sebis), Technische Universität München, Munich (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Niemann, K.D.: From Enterprise Architecture to IT Governance – Elements of Effective IT Management. Vieweg+Teubner (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, Version 2.0, formal/05-07-04 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pulkkinen, M.: Systemic Management of Architectural Decisions in Enterprise Architecture Planning. Four Dimensions and three Abstraction Levels. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006. HICSS 2006, vol. 8, p. 179c (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shewart, W.A.: Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control. Dover Publication, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Open Group. TOFAF Enterprise Edition Version 9 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Torre, L.W.N., Lankhorst, M.M., ter Doest, H.W.L., Campschroer, J.T.P., Arbab, F.: Landscape Maps for Enterprise Architectures. Technical report, Information Centre of Telematica Instituut, Enschede, Netherlands (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der Torre, L.W.N., Lankhorst, M.M., ter Doest, H.W.L., Campschroer, J.T.P., Arbab, F.: Landscape Maps for Enterprise Architectures. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 351–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wittenburg, A.: Softwarekartographie: Modelle und Methoden zur systematischen Visualisierung von Anwendungslandschaften. PhD thesis, Fakultät für Informatik, Technische Universität München (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine Buckl
    • 1
  • Alexander M. Ernst
    • 1
  • Florian Matthes
    • 1
  • Christian M. Schweda
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations