Advertisement

Something Is Missing: Enterprise Architecture from a Systems Theory Perspective

  • Sebastian Kloeckner
  • Dominik Birkmeier
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6275)

Abstract

Enterprise modeling has been an area of significant research in the information systems discipline throughout the last decade. Mainly developed by IT-practitioners, enterprise architectures (EA) became a promising and comprehensive approach to model either the current or desired state of enterprises. Existing approaches are, however, often criticized for paying too little attention to the business side of enterprises. In this paper, we interpret an enterprise as socio-technical system and analyze from a systems theory perspective which features are necessary for a comprehensive model. From there, we deduce if, why and how additional aspects of enterprises should be included into EA. Amongst others, it becomes obvious that especially human actors, as most flexible and agile elements of enterprises, are not adequately included in current architectures. We therefore present first ideas for integrating this important aspect into EA, the corresponding implications of such an inclusion, as well as several areas of further research.

Keywords

enterprise architecture systems theory socio-technical systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Arbab, F., Boer, F.d., Bonsangue, M., Lankhorst, M., Proper, E., Torre, L.v.d.: Integrating Architectural Models - Symbolic, Semantic and Subjective Models in Enterprise Architecture. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures 2 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective Enterprise Modeling (MEMO) - Conceptual Framework and Modeling Languages. In: HICSS 2002, vol. 3, p. 72. IEEE Computer Society, Hawaii (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaertner, W.: Ansatz für eine erfolgreiche Enterprise Architecture im Bereich Global Banking Division/Global Transaction Banking IT and Operations der Deutschen Bank. Wirtschaftsinformatik 46, 311–313 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sinz, E.: Unternehmensarchitekturen in der Praxis – Architekturdesign am Reißbrett vs. situationsbedingte Realisierung von Informationssystemen. Wirtschaftsinformatik 46, 315–316 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scheer, A.-W., Schneider, K.: ARIS — Architecture of Integrated Information Systems. In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, pp. 605–623. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M.: Enterprise Architecture: Models and Analyses for Information Systems Decision Making. Studentlitteratur, Pozkal (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferstl, O.K., Sinz, E.J.: Modeling of Business Systems Using SOM. In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, pp. 347–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26, 277–293 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Open Group: TOGAF "Enterprise Edition" Version 8.1 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    United States Office of Management and Budget: FEA Consolidated Reference Model Document Version 2.3 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winter, R., Fischer, R.: Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    IFIPIFAC Task Force: GERAM: Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology Version 1.6.3 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Picot, A., Baumann, O.: The Relevance of Organisation Theory to the Field of Business and Information Systems Engineering. Business & Information Systems Engineering 1 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dietz, J.L.G., Hoogervorst, J.A.P.: Enterprise ontology in enterprise engineering. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, Fortaleza (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ropohl, G.: Allgemeine Technologie. Eine Systemtheorie der Technik, Hanser, München/Wien (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Noran, O.: An analysis of the Zachman framework for enterprise architecture from the GERAM perspective. Annual Reviews in Control 27, 163–183 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leist, S., Zellner, G.: Evaluation of current architecture frameworks. In: 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing, Dijon, France, pp. 1546–1553 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernus, P., Nemes, L., Schmidt, G. (eds.): Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schekkerman, J.: How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework, Trafford, Victoria, BC (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noran, O.: A Meta-Methodology for Collaborative Networked Organisations. Griffith University, Brisbane (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aier, S., Riege, C., Winter, R.: Unternehmensarchitektur – Literaturüberblick und Stand der Praxis. Wirtschaftsinformatik 50, 292–304 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bieberstein, N., Bose, S., Walker, L., Lynch, A.: Impact of service-oriented architecture on enterprise systems, organizational structures, and individuals. IBM Systems Journal 44, 691–708 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schroth, C.: The Service-Oriented Enterprise. In: TEAR 2007, St. Gallen, Switzerland (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    IEEE Computer Society: Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems. IEEE Std 1471-2000, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schelp, J., Aier, S.: SOA and EA - Sustainable Contributions for Increasing Corporate Agility. In: HICSS 2009. IEEE Computer Society, Waikoloa (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bertalanffy, K.L.v.: General System theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. George Braziller, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith, A.: An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (1776)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heinrich, B., Bewernik, M.-A., Henneberger, M., Krammer, A., Lautenbacher, F.: SEMPA – Ein Ansatz des Semantischen Prozessmanagements zur Planung von Prozessmodellen. Wirtschaftsinformatik 50, 445–460 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Albani, A., Overhage, S., Birkmeier, D.: Towards a Systematic Method for Identifying Business Components. In: Chaudron, M.R.V., Szyperski, C., Reussner, R. (eds.) CBSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5282, pp. 262–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aier, S., Winter, R.: Virtuelle Entkopplung von fachlichen und IT-Strukturen für das IT/Business Alignment – Grundlagen, Architekturgestaltung und Umsetzung am Beispiel der Domänenbildung. Wirtschaftsinformatik 51 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Müller-Merbach, H.: OR-Ansätze zur optimalen Abteilungsgliederung in Institutionen. In: Kirsch, W. (ed.) Unternehmensführung und Organisation, Wiesbaden, pp. 93–124 (1973)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kieser, A.: Abteilungsbildung. In: Frese, E. (ed.) Handwörterbuch der Organisation, Poeschel, Stuttgart, vol. 3, pp. 57–72 (1992)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peacock, E., Tanniru, M.: Activity-based justification of IT investments. Information and Management 42, 415–424 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Kloeckner
    • 1
  • Dominik Birkmeier
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations