Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Enterprise Engineering Working Conference

EEWC 2018: Advances in Enterprise Engineering XII pp 18–38Cite as

Systems Approaches in the Enterprise Architecture Field of Research: A Systematic Literature Review

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 334))

Abstract

This study explores the use of the systems approaches (systems thinking and systems theories) as the theoretical underpinnings for Enterprise Architecture (EA) research. Both the academic and the practitioner communities have maintained an interest in EA due to its potential benefits, promising for the recent technological and business advances. EA as a research area is, however, characterized by diversified views depicted in different definitions of the concept, and no acknowledged common theoretical foundation. A number of prior studies have noticed this gap in the EA field of research, and called for a strengthening of the theory of EA. Variegated systems approaches have been suggested as a theory base. The aim of this study is to examine if, and to what extent the systems approaches could provide a common theoretical foundation. We contribute with a systematic literature review on the state-of-art of systems approaches in EA research. We find that the systems approaches are, indeed, frequently referred to in the EA studies. However, as of yet, the application of these theories appears to be fragmented, and the approaches are rarely systematically used in empirical studies. We discuss the findings, reflecting to the types of theory and the use of theory in our area of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Academy of Management Review: Theme issue: general systems theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 15(4), (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold, R.D., Wade, J.P.: A definition of systems thinking: a systems approach. Procedia Comput. Sci. 44, 669–678 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ashmos, D.P., Huber, G.P.: The systems paradigm in organization theory: correcting the record and suggesting the future. Acad. Manag. Rev. 12(4), 607–621 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beer, S.: What has cybernetics to do with operational research? J. Oper. Res. Soc. 10(1), 1–21 (1959)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernus, P., et al.: Enterprise engineering and management at the crossroads. Comput. Ind. 79, 87–102 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernus, P., Nemes, L., Schmidt, G. (eds.): Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24744-9

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Bernus, P., Noran, O., Molina, A.: Enterprise architecture: twenty years of the GERAM framework. Annu. Rev. Control 39, 83–93 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bjeković, M., Proper, H.A., Sottet, J.S.: Embracing pragmatics. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 431–444. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Boulding, K.E.: General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Manag. Sci. 2(3), 197–208 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bunge, M.: Mechanism and explanation. Philos. Soc. Sci. 27(4), 410–465 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cabrera, D., Colosi, L., Lobdell, C.: Systems thinking. Eval. Program Plan. 31(3), 299–310 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Checkland, P.B.: Soft systems methodology. Hum. Syst. Manag. 8(4), 273–289 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Daft, R.L., Weick, K.E.: Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Acad. Manag. Rev. 9(2), 284–295 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dietz, J.L., et al.: The discipline of enterprise engineering. Int. J. Organ. Des. Eng. 3(1), 86–114 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Forrester, J.W.: System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 10(2–3), 245–256 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fu, J., Luo, A., Luo, X., Liu, J.: Charting the landscape of enterprise architecture complexity cybernetics: a systematic literature analysis. In: 2016 12th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation (WCICA), pp. 1393–1397. IEEE, June 2016

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gorod, A., Sauser, B., Boardman, J.: System-of-systems (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30(3), 611–642 (2006). University of Minnesota. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25148742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harmon, K.: The “systems” nature of enterprise architecture. In: 2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 1, pp. 78–85. IEEE, October 2005

    Google Scholar 

  20. Holland, J.H.: Complex adaptive systems, pp. 17–30. Daedalus, Sawtry (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hoyland, C.A.: An analysis of enterprise architectures using general systems theory. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 340–344. IEEE, October 2011

    Google Scholar 

  22. ISO/IEC 38500:2015(en) Information technology—Governance of IT for the organization (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jackson, M.C.: Fifty years of systems thinking for management. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 60(1), S24–S32 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Janssen, M., Kuk, G.: A complex adaptive system perspective of enterprise architecture in electronic government. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2006, vol. 4, pp. 71b-71b. IEEE, January 2006

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kandjani, H., Bernus, P.: The enterprise architecture body of knowledge as an evolving discipline. In: Cordeiro, J., Maciaszek, L.A., Filipe, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 141, pp. 452–470. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40654-6_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Kandjani, H., Bernus, P., Nielsen, S.: Enterprise architecture cybernetics and the edge of chaos: sustaining enterprises as complex systems in complex business environments. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 3858–3867. IEEE, January 2013

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kalpic, B., Pandza, K., Bernus, P.: Strategy as a creation of corporate future. In: Bernus, P., Nemes, L., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Enterprise Architecture, pp. 213–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24744-9_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Kappelman, L.A., Zachman, J.A.: The enterprise and its architecture: ontology & challenges. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 53(4), 87–95 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kappelman, L., McGinnis, T., Pettite, A., Sidorova, A.: Enterprise architecture: charting the territory for academic research. In: AMCIS 2008 Proceedings, p. 162 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Katz, D., Kahn, R.L.: The Social Psychology of Organizations, vol. 2, p. 528. Wiley, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Korhonen, J.J., Lapalme, J., McDavid, D., Gill, A.Q.: Adaptive enterprise architecture for the future: Towards a reconceptualization of EA. In: 2016 IEEE 18th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), vol. 1, pp. 272–281. IEEE, August 2016

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lapalme, J.: Three schools of thought on enterprise architecture. IT Prof. 14(6), 37–43 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lapalme, J., Gerber, A., Van der Merwe, A., Zachman, J., De Vries, M., Hinkelmann, K.: Exploring the future of enterprise architecture: a Zachman perspective. Comput. Ind. 79, 103–113 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Luftman, J., Ben-Zvi, T.: Key issues for IT executives 2010: judicious IT investments continue post-recession. MIS Q. Exec. 9(4), 263–273 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mesarovic, M.D., Macko, D., Takahara, Y.: Theory of Hierarchical, Multilevel, Systems, vol. 68. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Meschke, M., Baumoel, U.: Architecture concepts for value networks in the service industry. In: ICIS, p. 266 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mingers, J., White, L.: A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207(3), 1147–1161 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Miller, J.G.: Living Systems. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Niemi, E., Pekkola, S.: Using enterprise architecture artefacts in an organisation. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 11(3), 313–338 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Noran, O., Romero, D.: A pluralistic approach towards sustainable eco-industrial networking. IFAC Proc. Vol. 47(3), 4292–4297 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Proper, H., Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise architecture – towards essential sensemaking. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Arch. – Int. J. Concept. Model. 9(1), 5–21 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rahimi, F., Gøtze, J., Møller, C.: Enterprise architecture management: toward a taxonomy of applications. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 40(1), 7 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Romero, D., Vernadat, F.: Enterprise information systems state of the art: past, present and future trends. Comput. Ind. 79, 3–13 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ross, J.W., Weill, P., Robertson, D.: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business Press, Brighton (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Saint-Louis, P., Morency, M.C., Lapalme, J.: Defining enterprise architecture: a systematic literature review. In: 2017 IEEE 21st International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW), pp. 41–49. IEEE October 2017

    Google Scholar 

  46. Santana, A., Fischbach, K., Moura, H.: Enterprise architecture analysis and network thinking: a literature review. In: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 4566–4575. IEEE, January 2016

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schelp, J., Winter, R.: Language communities in enterprise architecture research. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, p. 23. ACM, May 2009

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schöenherr, M.: Towards a common terminology in the discipline of enterprise architecture. In: Feuerlicht, G., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) ICSOC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5472, pp. 400–413. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01247-1_40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Shanks, G., Gloet, M., Someh, I.A., Frampton, K., Tamm, T.: Achieving benefits with enterprise architecture. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 27, 139–156 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Senge, P.M.: The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization. Perform. Improv. 30(5), 37 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Spewak, S.H., Hill, S.C.: Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications and Technology. QED Information Sciences, Inc., Wellesley (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Stamper, R.K.: Informatics without the computer. In: Proceedings of the CAFRAD Conference, Algiers (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stamper, R.K.: Organizational semiotics: Informatics without the computer? In: Liu, K., Clarke, R.J., Andersen, P.B., Stamper, R.K. (eds.) Information, Organisation and Technology, pp. 115–171. Springer, Boston (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1655-2_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Syynimaa, N.: The quest for underpinning theory of enterprise architecture: general systems theory. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS 2017, vol. 3. SCITEPRESS (2017). ISBN 978-989-758-249-3

    Google Scholar 

  55. Tamm, T., Seddon, P.B., Shanks, G.G., Reynolds, P.: How does enterprise architecture add value to organisations? CAIS 28, 10 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Templier, M., Paré, G.: A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 37 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Von Bertalanffy, L.: The History and Status of General Systems Theory (1950)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26, xiii–xxiii (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wegmann, A.: The systemic enterprise architecture methodology (SEAM). Business and IT alignment for competitiveness (No. LAMS-REPORT-2002-009) (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wegmann, A., Preiss, O.: MDA in enterprise architecture? The living system theory to the rescue. In: 2003 Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 2–13. IEEE, September 2003

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wiener, N.: Cybernetics. Sci. Am. 179(5), 14–19 (1948)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Zachman, J.A.: Business systems planning and business information control study: a comparison. IBM Syst. J. 21(1), 31–53 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Zadeh, M.E., Lewis, E., Millar, G., Yang, Y., Thorne, C.: The use of Viable System Model to develop guidelines for generating Enterprise Architecture Principles. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 1020–1026. IEEE October 2014

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyvaskyla, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Jarkko Nurmi, Mirja Pulkkinen, Ville Seppänen & Katja Penttinen

Authors
  1. Jarkko Nurmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mirja Pulkkinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ville Seppänen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katja Penttinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mirja Pulkkinen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Madeira and Madeira Interactive Technologies Institute, Funchal, Portugal

    David Aveiro

  2. Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano , Brazil

    Giancarlo Guizzardi

  3. Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Sérgio Guerreiro

  4. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Wided Guédria

A Appendix

A Appendix

Included articles

ID

Wegmann, A. (2002). The systemic enterprise architecture methodology (SEAM). Business and IT alignment for competitiveness (No. LAMS-REPORT-2002-009)

#1

Wegmann, A., & Preiss, O. (2003, September). MDA in enterprise architecture? The living system theory to the rescue. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2003. Proceedings. Seventh IEEE International (pp. 2–13). IEEE

#2

Harmon, K. (2005, October). The “systems” nature of enterprise architecture. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2005 IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 78–85). IEEE

#3

Le, L. S., & Wegmann, A. (2005, January). Definition of an object-oriented modeling language for enterprise architecture. In System Sciences, 2005. HICSS’05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 222a–222a). IEEE

#4

Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2006, January). A complex adaptive system perspective of enterprise architecture in electronic government. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on(Vol. 4, pp. 71b–71b). IEEE

#5

Lê, L. S., & Wegmann, A. (2006, January). SeamCAD: object-oriented modeling tool for hierarchical systems in enterprise architecture. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 8, pp. 179c–179c). IEEE

#6

Pulkkinen, M. (2006, January). Systemic management of architectural decisions in enterprise architecture planning. four dimensions and three abstraction levels. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 8, pp. 179a–179a). IEEE

#7

Winter, R., & Fischer, R. (2006, October). Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, 2006. EDOCW’06. 10th IEEE International (pp. 30–30). IEEE

#8

Wegmann, A., Regev, G., Rychkova, I., Lê, L. S., & Julia, P. (2007, October). Business and IT alignment with SEAM for enterprise architecture. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2007. EDOC 2007. 11th IEEE International (pp. 111–111). IEEE

#9

Wegmann, A., Kotsalainen, A., Matthey, L., Regev, G., & Giannattasio, A. (2008, September). Augmenting the Zachman enterprise architecture framework with a systemic conceptualization. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2008. EDOC’08. 12th International IEEE (pp. 3–13). IEEE

#10

Buckl, S., Matthes, F., & Schweda, C. M. (2009, October). A viable system perspective on enterprise architecture management. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2009. SMC 2009. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1483–1488). IEEE

#11

Sousa, P., Lima, J., Sampaio, A., & Pereira, C. (2009). An approach for creating and managing enterprise blueprints: A case for IT blueprints. In Advances in enterprise engineering III (pp. 70–84). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

#12

Buckl, S., Matthes, F., & Schweda, C. M. (2010). Towards a method framework for enterprise architecture management–a literature analysis from a viable system perspective. In 5th International Workshop on Business/IT Alignment and Interoperability (BUSITAL 2010) (pp. 46–60)

#13

Kloeckner, S., & Birkmeier, D. (2010). Something is missing: Enterprise architecture from a systems theory perspective. In Service-Oriented Computing. ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009 Workshops (pp. 22–34). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

#14

Kotzé, P., & Neaga, I. (2010). Towards an enterprise interoperability framework

#15

Meschke, M., & Baumoel, U. (2010). Architecture Concepts for Value Networks in the Service Industry. In ICIS (p. 266)

#16

Bider, I., Bellinger, G., & Perjons, E. (2011, November). Modeling an agile enterprise: reconciling systems and process thinking. In IFIP Working Conference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling (pp. 238–252). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

#17

Dietz, J. L., & Hoogervorst, J. A. (2011, May). A critical investigation of TOGAF-based on the enterprise engineering theory and practice. In Enterprise Engineering Working Conference (pp. 76–90). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

#18

Hoyland, C. A. (2011, October). An analysis of enterprise architectures using general systems theory. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 340–344). IEEE

#19

Wang, S., Xu, L., Li, L., Wang, K., & Choi, J. (2011, October). Features of enterprise information systems integration: A systemic analysis. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 333–339). IEEE

#20

Kandjani, H., & Bernus, P. (2012, June). The enterprise architecture body of knowledge as an evolving discipline. In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (pp. 452–470) Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

#21

Kandjani, H., Wen, L., & Bernus, P. (2012). Enterprise Architecture Cybernetics for Collaborative Networks: Reducing the Structural Complexity and Transaction Cost via Virtual Brokerage. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 45(6), 1233-1239

#22

Lapalme, J. (2012). Three schools of thought on enterprise architecture. IT professional, 14(6), 37–43

#23

Wan, H., & Carlsson, S. (2012, September). Towards an understanding of enterprise architecture analysis activities. In European Conference on Information Management and Evaluation (p. 334). Academic Conferences International Limited

#24

Wang, S., Li, L., Wang, K., & Jones, J. D. (2012). e-Business systems integration: a systems perspective. Information Technology and Management, 13(4), 233–249

#25

Zadeh, M. E., Millar, G., & Lewis, E. (2012a). Reinterpreting the TOGAF® enterprise architecture principles using a cybernetic lens. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 8(2), 9–17

#26

Zadeh, M. E., Millar, G., & Lewis, E. (2012b, January). Mapping the enterprise architecture principles in TOGAF to the cybernetic concepts–An exploratory study. In System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 4270–4276). IEEE

#27

Abraham, R., Tribolet, J., & Winter, R. (2013, May). Transformation of multi-level systems–theoretical grounding and consequences for enterprise architecture management. In Enterprise Engineering Working Conference (pp. 73–87). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

#28

Kandjani, H., Bernus, P., & Nielsen, S. (2013, January). Enterprise architecture cybernetics and the edge of chaos: Sustaining enterprises as complex systems in complex business environments. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3858–3867). IEEE

#29

Kappelman, L. A., & Zachman, J. A. (2013). The enterprise and its architecture: ontology & challenges. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(4), 87–95

#30

Korhonen, J. J., & Poutanen, J. (2013). Tripartite approach to enterprise architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 9(1), 28–38

#31

Schuetz, A., Widjaja, T., & Kaiser, J. (2013). Complexity in enterprise architectures-conceptualization and introduction of a measure from a system theoretic perspective. In 21st European Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht (pp. 1–12)

#32

Bernus, P., Noran, O., & Molina, A. (2014). Enterprise architecture: twenty years of the GERAM framework. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 47(3), 3300–3308

#33

du Preez, J., van der Merwe, A., & Matthee, M. (2014, September). Enterprise architecture schools of thought: An exploratory study. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops and Demonstrations (EDOCW), 2014 IEEE 18th International (pp. 3–12). IEEE

#34

Hoyland, C. A., M. Adams, K., Tolk, A., & D. Xu, L. (2014). The RQ-Tech methodology: a new paradigm for conceptualizing strategic enterprise architectures. Journal of Management Analytics, 1(1), 55–77

#35

Kandjani, H., Tavana, M., Bernus, P., & Nielsen, S. (2014). Co-Evolution Path Model (CePM): Sustaining Enterprises as Complex Systems on the Edge of Chaos. Cybernetics and Systems, 45(7), 547–567

#36

Noran, O., & Romero, D. (2014). A Pluralistic Approach towards Sustainable Eco-Industrial Networking. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 47(3), 4292–4297

#37

Schneider, A. W., & Matthes, F. (2014). Using Orientor Theory for Coherent Decision Making for Application Landscape Design. In CSDM (Posters) (pp. 161–172)

#38

Syynimaa, N. (2013). Theoretical perspectives of enterprise architecture

#39

Zadeh, M. E., Lewis, E., Millar, G., Yang, Y., & Thorne, C. (2014, October). The use of Viable System Model to develop guidelines for generating Enterprise Architecture Principles. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1020–1026). IEEE

#40

Bernus, P., Goranson, T., Gøtze, J., Jensen-Waud, A., Kandjani, H., Molina, A., … & Turner, P. (2016). Enterprise engineering and management at the crossroads. Computers in Industry, 79, 87–102

#41

Korhonen, J. J., Lapalme, J., McDavid, D., & Gill, A. Q. (2016, August). Adaptive enterprise architecture for the future: Towards a reconceptualization of EA. In Business Informatics (CBI), 2016 IEEE 18th Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 272–281). IEEE

#42

Lapalme, J., Gerber, A., Van der Merwe, A., Zachman, J., De Vries, M., & Hinkelmann, K. (2016). Exploring the future of enterprise architecture: A Zachman perspective. Computers in Industry, 79, 103–113

#43

Santana, A., Fischbach, K., & Moura, H. (2016, January). Enterprise architecture analysis and network thinking: A literature review. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 4566–4575). IEEE

#44

da Silva, N. M. C., & da Silva, M. L. B. M. (2017a, July). Modelling the evolution of enterprise architectures using ontologies. In Business Informatics (CBI), 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 79–88). IEEE

#45

da Silva, N. M. C., Da Silva, M. L. B. M., & De Sousa, P. M. V. A. (2017b, October). A Viewpoint for Analyzing Enterprise Architecture Evolution. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), 2017 IEEE 21st International (pp. 20–29). IEEE

#46

Syynimaa, N. (2017). The Quest for Underpinning Theory of Enterprise Architecture: General Systems Theory. In ICEIS 2017: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. Volume 3, ISBN 978-989-758-249-3. SCITEPRESS

#47

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Nurmi, J., Pulkkinen, M., Seppänen, V., Penttinen, K. (2019). Systems Approaches in the Enterprise Architecture Field of Research: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Aveiro, D., Guizzardi, G., Guerreiro, S., Guédria, W. (eds) Advances in Enterprise Engineering XII. EEWC 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 334. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06097-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06097-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06096-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06097-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation