Capturing Design Rationales in Enterprise Architecture: A Case Study

  • Georgios Plataniotis
  • Sybren de Kinderen
  • Henderik A. Proper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 197)


We aim for rationalizing Enterprise Architecture, supplementing models that express EA designs with models that express the decision making behind the designs. In our previous work we introduced the EA Anamnesis approach for architectural rationalization, and illustrated it with a fictitious case study.

In this paper we evaluate our approach in terms of its ability to capture design rationales in the context of a real life case study. Together with stakeholders from the business and IT domains of a Luxembourgish Research and Technology Organization, we captured the design rationales behind the introduction of a new budget forecast business process. Our case study shows that EA Anamnesis can reflect the design rationales of the stakeholders, also linking business and IT concerns. Furthermore our study shows that, for this particular case, the stakeholders often used heuristics (commonsensical “short cuts”) to make their decision, or even made decisions without considering alternative choices. Finally, we discuss what the lessons learned from this case imply for further research.


Enterprise Architecture Design Rationale Design Decisions Case Study 


  1. 1.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise architecture at work: Modelling, communication and analysis. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. Van Haren Publishing (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG: Unified profile for DoDAF and MoDAF (UPDM), version 2.1 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Linden, D., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Lartseva, A., Molnar, W.: Beyond terminologies: Using psychometrics to validate shared ontologies. Applied Ontology 7, 471–487 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jansen, A., Bosch, J.: Software architecture as a set of architectural design decisions. In: 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA 2005, pp. 109–120. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tang, A., Jin, Y., Han, J.: A rationale-based architecture model for design traceability and reasoning. Journal of Systems and Software 80, 918–934 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Plataniotis, G., de Kinderen, S., van der Linden, D., Greefhorst, D., Proper, H.A.: An empirical evaluation of design decision concepts in enterprise architecture. In: Grabis, J., Kirikova, M., Zdravkovic, J., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2013. LNBIP, vol. 165, pp. 24–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Plataniotis, G., de 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 2013 and EMMSAD 2013. LNBIP, vol. 147, pp. 339–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plataniotis, G., der Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A.: Relating decisions in enterprise architecture using decision design graphs. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC)(2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plataniotis, G., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A.: Ea anamnesis: An approach for decision making analysis in enterprise architecture. In: International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (IJISMD) (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plataniotis, G., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A.: Ea anamnesis: towards an approach for enterprise architecture rationalization. In: Proceedings of the 2012 workshop on Domain-specific modeling, DSM 2012, pp. 27–32. ACM, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eilon, S.: What is a decision? Management Science 16, B–172-B–189 (1969)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harmsen, F., Proper, E., Schalkwijk, F., Barjis, J., Overbeek, S. (eds.): PRET 2010. LNBIP, vol. 69. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tyree, J., Akerman, A.: Architecture decisions: Demystifying architecture. IEEE Software 22, 19–27 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., Theoret, A.: The structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 246–275 (1976)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kruchten, P.: An ontology of architectural design decisions in software intensive systems. In: 2nd Groningen Workshop on Software Variability, pp. 54–61 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kruchten, P., Lago, P., van Vliet, H.: Building up and reasoning about architectural knowledge. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnković, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Op’t Land, M., Proper, H.A.: Impact of principles on enterprise engineering. In: ECIS 2007 Proceedings (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Runeson, P., Host, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 14, 131–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios Plataniotis
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Sybren de Kinderen
    • 3
    • 4
  • Henderik A. Proper
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Public Research Centre Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of LuxembourgLuxembourg
  4. 4.EE-TeamLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations