Formalizing and Modeling Enterprise Architecture (EA) Principles with Goal-Oriented Requirements Language (GRL)

  • Diana MarosinEmail author
  • Marc van Zee
  • Sepideh Ghanavati
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9694)


Enterprise Architecture (EA) principles are normally written in natural language which makes them informal, hard to evaluate and complicates tracing them to the actual goals of the organization. In this paper, we present a set of requirements for improving the clarity of definitions and develop a framework to formalize EA principles with a semi-formal language, namely the Goal-oriented Requirements Language (GRL). We introduce an extension of the language with the required constructs and establish modeling rules and constraints. This allows us to automatically reason about the soundness, completeness and consistency of a set of EA principles. We demonstrate our methodology with a case study from a governmental organization. Moreover, we extend an Eclipse-based tool.


Enterprise architecture principles Goal-oriented requirements language OCL rules Formalism Analysis 



The authors would like to thank Michiel Borgers and Saco Bekius, for providing fruitful insights on their work.


  1. 1.
    Akhigbe, O., Amyot, D., Richards, G.: A framework for a business intelligence-enabled adaptive enterprise architecture. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 393–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amyot, D., et al.: Evaluating goal models within the goal-oriented requirement language. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25, 841–877 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amyot, D., et al.: Towards advanced goal model analysis with jUCMNav. In: Castano, S., Vassiliadis, P., Lakshmanan, L.V.S., Lee, M.L. (eds.) ER 2012 Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7518, pp. 201–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armour, F.J., Kaisler, S.H., Liu, S.Y.: A big-picture look at enterprise architectures. IT Prof. 1(1), 35–42 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azevedo, C., et al.: An ontology-based semantics for the motivation extension to ArchiMate. In: EDOC 2011Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chorus, G., Janse, Y., Nellen, C., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H.A.: Formalizing architecture principles using object-role modelling. Via Nova Architectura (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engelsman, W., Wieringa, R.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering and enterprise architecture: two case studies and some lessons learned. In: Regnell, B., Damian, D. (eds.) REFSQ 2011. LNCS, vol. 7195, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer, C., Winter, R., Aier, S.: What is an enterprise architecture principle? - towards a consolidated definition. In: Lee, R. (ed.) Computer and Information Science 2010. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 317, pp. 193–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Rifaut, A.: Legal goal-oriented requirement language (Legal-GRL) for modeling regulations. In: MiSE @ICSE (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greefhorst, D., Proper, H.: Architecture Principles - The Cornerstones of Enterprise Architecture. EE Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greefhorst, D., Proper, H.A., Plataniotis, G.: The dutch state of the practice of architecture principles. J. EA 4, 20–25 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haki, M.K., Legner, C.: New avenues for theoretical contributions in enterprise architecture principles - a literature review. In: Aier, S., Ekstedt, M., Matthes, F., Proper, E., Sanz, J.L. (eds.) PRET 2012 and TEAR 2012. LNBIP, vol. 131, pp. 182–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haki, M.K., Legner, C.: Enterprise architecture principles in research and practice: insights from an exploratory analysis. In: ECIS, p. 204 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoogervorst, J.A.P.: Enterprise architecture: enabling integration, agility and change. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 13(3), 213–233 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ingolfo, S., Jureta, I., Siena, A., Perini, A., Susi, A.: Nomos 3: legal compliance of roles and requirements. In: ER 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ITU-T. Recommendation Z.151 (11/08): User Requirements Notation (URN)-Language Definition (2008).
  18. 18.
    Lankhorst, M., et al.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindström, Å.: On the syntax and semantics of architectural principles. In: Proceedings of HICSS-39, 4–7 January 2006, Kauai, HI, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marosin, D., Ghanavati, S.: Measuring and managing the design restriction of enterprise architecture (EA) principles on EA models. In: Proceedings of 8th RELAW Workshop, 24–28 August 2015, Ottawa, Canada (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marosin, D., Ghanavati, S., van der Linden, D.: A principle-based goal-oriented requirements language (GRL) for enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of the 7th International i* Workshop, Thessaloniki, Greece (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Op ’t Land, M., Proper, H.A.: Impact of principles on enterprise engineering. In: Österle, H., Schelp, J., Winter, R. (eds.) The 15th European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1965–1976. University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland, June 2007Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Plataniotis, G., De Kinderen, S., Ma, Q., Proper. E., A conceptual model for compliance checking support of enterprise architecture decisions. In: Proceedings of IEEE 17th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), vol. 1, pp. 191–198, July 2015Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richardson, G.L., Jackson, B.M., Dickson, G.W.: A principles-based enterprise architecture: lessons from texaco and star enterprise. MIS Q. 14(4), 385–403 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stelzer, D.: Enterprise architecture principles: literature review and research directions. In: Dan, A., Gittler, F., Toumani, F. (eds.) ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009. LNCS, vol. 6275, pp. 12–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Open Group. The Open Group - TOGAF Version 9. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Bommel, P., et al.: Architecture principles - a regulative perspective on enterprise architecture. In: EMISA (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A.E., van der Weide, T.P.: Giving meaning to enterprise architectures: architecture principles with ORM and ORC. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1138–1147. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Zee, M., Plataniotis, G., Marosin, D., van der Linden, D.: Formalizing enterprise architecture decision models using integrity constraints. In: 16h IEEE Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), May 2014Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wieringa, R.: Design science methodology: principles and practice. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2010, vol. 2, pp. 493–494. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilkinson, M.: Designing an ‘adaptive’ enterprise architecture. BT Technol. J. 24(4), 81–92 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Winter, R., Aier, S.: How are enterprise architecture design principles used? In: EDOCW, pp. 314–321. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Marosin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marc van Zee
    • 3
  • Sepideh Ghanavati
    • 2
  1. 1.Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST)Esch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of LuxembourgLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations