Business Architecture Quantified: How to Measure Business Complexity

  • Christian SchmidtEmail author
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)


Complexity of both business and IT is one of the most frequently discussed topics in strategic management and enterprise architecture today. For many business leaders, complexity is of central concern due to its assumed impacts on operating costs, organizational agility, and operational risks. In fact, complexity growth may be considered one of the major drivers for misalignment. As a consequence, organizations are increasingly forced to manage the complexity of their business and IT actively. However, existing qualitative methods fall short of supporting this on a larger scale. Quantitative measures may be considered a promising means to assess and manage the complexity of business and IT architectures in a systematic and universal way. This chapter presents a generic framework for conceptualizing and measuring enterprise architecture complexity and applies it to the domain of business architecture. Using this book’s business architecture framework as a reference, it is shown how business complexity can be operationalized and quantified using well-defined and practice-proven measures.


Business Model Complexity Measure Distribution Channel Enterprise Architecture Entropy Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aier S, Schönherr M (2007) Integrating an enterprise architecture using domain clustering. In: Lankhorst M, Johnson P (eds) Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2007), St. Gallen, Switzerland, 6 June 2007, pp 23–30Google Scholar
  2. Drucker PF (1974) Management: tasks, responsibilities, practices. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Gottfredson M, Aspinall K (2005) Innovation versus complexity. What is too much of a good thing? Harv Bus Rev 83(11):62–71Google Scholar
  4. Lagerström R, Baldwin CY, Maccormack AD, Aier S (2013) Visualizing and measuring enterprise application architecture: an exploratory telecom case. School working paper 13-103. Harvard Business, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Lapalme J (2012) Three schools of thought on enterprise architecture. ITPro, November/December 2012, IEEE Computer Society, pp 37–43Google Scholar
  6. Lehmann MM (1997) Laws of software evolution revisited. In: Montangero C (ed) Software process technology—proceedings of the 5th European workshop on software process technology, Nancy, Oct 1996 (Lecture notes in computer science), vol 1149. Springer, Berlin, pp 108–124Google Scholar
  7. Mocker M (2009) What is complex about 273 applications? Untangling application architecture complexity in a case of European investment banking. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Mocker M, Ross JW (2012) USAA: capturing value from complexity. CISR working paper No. 389, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Mocker M, Ross JW (2013) Rethinking business complexity. CISR Research Briefing XIII(2), MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Newman MEJ (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(23):8577–8582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rutz U (2012) IT complexity management @ Commerzbank—overview on Commerzbank initiative. Presentation at EAMKON conference, Stuttgart, Apr 2012Google Scholar
  12. Schmidt C (2013) How to measure enterprise architecture complexity: a generic approach, practical applications and lessons learned. Presentation at The Open Group conference, London, Oct 2013. Accessed 25 Oct 2014
  13. Schmidt C, Buxmann P (2011) Outcomes and success factors of enterprise IT architecture management: empirical insight from the international financial services industry. Eur J Inf Syst 20(2):168–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schmidt C, Widjaja T, Schütz A (2013) Messung der Komplexität von IT-Landschaften auf der Basis von Architektur-Metamodellen: Ein generischer Ansatz und dessen Anwendung im Rahmen der Architektur-Transformation. In: Horbach M (ed) INFORMATIK 2013, GI-Edition (Lecture notes in informatics (LNI) P-220). Köllen Verlag, Bonn, pp 1261–1275Google Scholar
  15. Schneberger SL, McLean ER (2003) The complexity cross: implications for practice. Commun ACM 46(9):216–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schneider AW, Zec M, Matthes F (2014a) Adopting notions of complexity for enterprise architecture management. In: Proceedings of the 20th Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS), Savannah, GAGoogle Scholar
  17. Schneider AW, Reschenhofer T, Schütz A, Matthes F (2014b) Empirical results for application landscape complexity measures. In: Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii international conference on system science (HICSS), Kauai, HIGoogle Scholar
  18. Schütz A, Widjaja T, Kaiser J (2013) Complexity in enterprise architectures—conceptualization and introduction of a measure from a system theoretic perspective. In: Proceedings of the 21st European conference on information systems (ECIS), Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  19. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423, pp 623–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simon D, Fischbach K (2013) IT landscape management using network analysis. In: Poels G (ed) Enterprise information systems of the future, CONFENIS 2012, Ghent, Belgium. LNBIP, vol 139. Springer, Berlin, pp 18–34Google Scholar
  21. The Open Group (2013) ArchiMate 2.1 specification. Van Haren Publishing, ZaltbommelGoogle Scholar
  22. Widjaja T, Kaiser J, Tepel D, Buxmann P (2012) Heterogeneity in IT landscapes and monopoly power of firms: a model to quantify heterogeneity. In: Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on information systems (ICIS), Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scape Consulting GmbHFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations