An Approach towards Enterprise Interoperability Assessment

  • Mahsa Razavi
  • Fereidoon Shams Aliee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 38)


Enterprise Architecture (EA) as a discipline with numerous and enterprise-wide models, can support decision making on enterprise-wide issues. In order to provide such support, EA models should be amenable to analysis of various utilities and quality attributes. This paper provides a method towards EA interoperability analysis. This approach is based on Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and considers the situation of the enterprise in giving weight to the different criteria and sub criteria of each utility. It proposes a quantitative method of assessing Interoperability achievement of different scenarios using AHP based on the knowledge and experience of EA experts and domain experts, and helps in deciding between them. The applicability of the proposed approach is demonstrated using a practical case study.


Enterprise Architecture Interoperability Quality attribute Assessment 


  1. 1.
    Nightingale, D.J., Rhodes, D.H.: Enterprise Systems Architecting: Emerging Art and Science within Engineering Systems. In: MIT Engineering Systems Symposium (2004) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armour, F.J., Kaisler, S.H., Liu, S.Y.: Building an enterprise architecture step by step. IEEE IT Professional 1(4), 31–39 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bass, L., Klein, M., Bachmann, F.: Quality Attribute Design Primitives and the Attribute Driven Design Method. In: 4th International Workshop on Product Family Engineering (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, D., Vallespir, B., Daclin, N.: An Approach for Enterprise Interoperability Measurement. In: Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    IEEE, IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers): Standard Computer Dictionary- A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    WordNet Browser 2.1, Princeton University Cognitive Science LabGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO 14258, Concepts and Rules for Enterprise Models TC 184/SC5/WG1 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ATHENA Integrated Project, Guidelines and Best Practices for Applying the ATHENA Interoperability Framework to Support SME Participation in Digital Ecosystems, Deliverable DA8.2 (2007) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    EIF, European Interoperability Framework for PAN-European EGovernment services, IDA working document - Version 4.2 (2004) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    INTEROP, Enterprise Interoperability-Framework and knowledge corpus - Final report, INTEROP NoE, FP6 – Contract n° 508011, Deliverable DI.3 (May 21, 2007) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kazman, R., Abowd, G., Bass, L., Clements, P.: Scenario-Based Analysis of Software Architecture. IEEE Software, 47–55 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clements, P., Kazman, R., Klein, M.: Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gacek, C.: Detecting Architectural Mismatch During System Composition. PhD. Thesis, University of Southern California (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allen, R., Douence, R., Garlan, D.: Specifying and Analyzing Dynamic Software Architectures. In: Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Medvidovic, N., Rosenblum, D., Taylor, R.: A Language and Environment for Architecture-Based Software Development and Evolution. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Svahnberg, M., Wohlin, C., Lundberg, L., Mattsson, M.: A quality-driven decision-support method for identifying software architecture candidates. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 13(5), 547–573 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Al-Naeem, T., Gorton, I., Babar, M.A., Rabhi, F., Benatallah, B.: A quality-driven systematic approach for architecting distributed software applications. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), St. Louis, USA, pp. 244–253 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Svahnberg, M., Wohlin, C., Lundberg, L., Mattsson, M.: A method for understanding quality attributes in software architecture structures. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE), pp. 819–826 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davidsson, P., Johansson, S., Svahnberg, M.: Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Evaluating Multi-Agent System Architecture Candidates. In: 6th International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE), pp. 205–217 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buyukozkan, G., Ruan, D.: Evaluation of software development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 77(5-6), 464–475 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mikhailov, L., Tsvetinov, P.: Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl. Soft Comput. 5, 23–33 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee, K., Choi, H., Lee, D., Kang, S.: Quantitative Measurement of Quality Attribute Preferences Using Conjoint Analysis. In: Gilroy, S.W., Harrison, M.D. (eds.) DSV-IS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3941, pp. 213–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhu, L., Aurum, A., Gorton, I., Jeffery, D.: Tradeoff and Sensitivity Analysis in Software Architecture Evaluation Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Software Quality Journal 13(4), 357–375 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reddy, A., Naidu, M., Govindarajulu, P.: An Integrated approach of Analytical Hierarchy Process Model and Goal Model (AHP-GP Model) for Selection of Software Architecture. International journal of Computer Science and Network Security 7(10), 108–117 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson, P., Lagerström, R., Närman, P., Simonsson, M.: Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams. Information Systems Frontiers 9(2-3), 163–180 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Närman, P., Johnson, P., Nordström, L.: Enterprise Architecture: A Framework Supporting System Quality Analysis. In: 11th IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 130–141 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson, P., Lagerström, R., Närman, P., Simonsson, M.: Extended Influence Diagrams for Enterprise Architecture Analysis. In: 10th IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 3–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson, P., Lagerström, R., Närman, P., Simonsson, M.: Extended Influence Diagrams for System Quality Analysis. Journal Of Software (JSW) 2(3), 30–42 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lagerström, R.: Analyzing System Maintainability Using Enterprise Architecture Models. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2007), St Gallen, Switzerland, pp. 31–39 (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johnson, P., Johansson, E., Sommestad, T., Ullberg, J.: A Tool for Enterprise Architecture Analysis. In: 11th IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 142–156 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lagerström, R., Johnson, P.: Using Architectural Models to Predict the Maintainability of Enterprise Systems. In: 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pp. 248–252 (2008) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ullberg, J., Lagerström, R., Johnson, P.: Johnson P.: Enterprise Architecture: A Service Interoperability Analysis Framework. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Interoperability for Enterprise Software and Applications Conference (I-ESA 2008), pp. 611–623. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., Regnell, B.: An Evaluation of Methods for Prioritizing Software Requirements. Information and Software Technology 39(14-15), 938–947 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York (1980)MATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G.: Models, Methods, Concepts &Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Buyukyazici, M., Sucu, M.: The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes. Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics 32, 65–73 (2003)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council: Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF). Version 1.1 (1999)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Spewak, S.H.: Enterprise Architecture Planning, Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications and Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sowa, J.F., Zachman, J.A.: Extending and Formalizing the Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Journal 31(3), 914–945 (1992) IBM Publication G321-5488. 914-945-3836Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Razavi, M., Shams Aliee, F.: A New AHP-based Approach towards Enterprise Architecture Quality Attribute Analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, pp. 333–342 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahsa Razavi
    • 1
  • Fereidoon Shams Aliee
    • 2
  1. 1.Central Tehran BranchIslamic Azad UniversityPoonak, TehranIran
  2. 2.Shahid Beheshti University, G.C.TehranIran

Personalised recommendations