CE-SIB: A Modelling Method Plug-in for Managing Standards in Enterprise Architectures

  • Christoph Moser
  • Robert Andrei Buchmann
  • Wilfrid Utz
  • Dimitris Karagiannis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10650)

Abstract

In Enterprise Architecture (EA) Management, adoption of standards brings essential benefits pertaining to compatibility and repeatability but also raises governance challenges. EA frameworks recommend placing architecture artifacts under strict governance to control technological diversity towards reduced costs of operation or business-IT alignment; however, they do not provide methodological guidance on how to support decision-making for standards management. Business process management, model-driven software engineering or IT service management do address such challenges, but fall short in covering all relevant architectural layers. Driven by industry experience, this paper proposes a modelling method plug-in (“function block”) to support a model-based integration of practices for standards compliance management and their relevant model bases. It also aims for generality, as the proposal is pluggable through “semantic docking points” to arbitrary EA frameworks. A prototypical implementation in the form of a modelling tool is discussed as an expository instantiation, as well as basis for evaluation and learned lessons.

Keywords

TOGAF standards information base Enterprise architecture management Standardization Compliance evaluation Metamodelling 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The work of Dr. Robert Buchmann is supported by the Romanian National Research Authority through UEFISCDI, under grant agreement PN-III-P2-2.1-PED-2016-1140.

References

  1. 1.
    Accenture: Architecture frameworks for client/server and netcentric computing. In: Myerson, J.M. (eds.) Enterprise Systems Integration, pp. 39–78 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anaby-Tavor, A., et al.: An empirical study of enterprise conceptual modeling. In: Laender, A.H.F., Castano, S., Dayal, U., Casati, F., de Oliveira, J.P.M. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5829, pp. 55–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04840-1_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armstrong, C., et al.: Using the ArchiMate Language with UML (2013). http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/183807/file-1805596253-pdf/site/media/downloads/W134.pdf?t=1418385713847
  4. 4.
    Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Informationstechnik (BfIT): SAGA-Modul Grundlagen Version de.bund 5.1.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernard, S.A.: An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture. AuthorHouse, Bloomington (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_37 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boh, W.F., Yellin, D.: Using enterprise architecture standards in managing information technology. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23(3), 163–207 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brückmann, M., et al.: Evaluating enterprise architecture management initiatives-how to measure and control the degree of standardization of an IT landscape. In: Mendling, J., Rinderle-Ma, S., Esswein, W. (eds.) EMISA, pp. 155–168 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buckl, S., et al.: A pattern based approach for constructing enterprise architecture management information models. In: Wirtschaftinformatik Proceedings 2007, p. 65 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colombo, A., et al.: The use of a meta-model to support multi-project process measurement. In: 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC 2008, pp. 503–510. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Correia, A., e Abreu, F.B.: Integrating IT service management within the enterprise architecture. In: Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, ICSEA 2009, pp. 553–558. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    CIO Council: A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    CIO Council: Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 1.0 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ernst, A.M.: Enterprise architecture management patterns. In: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, pp. 7:1–7:20. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisher, A., et al.: 3.1. 1 model lifecycle management for MBSE. In: INCOSE International Symposium, pp. 207–229. Wiley Online Library (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gartner: Thirteen worst enterprise architecture practices, Report No. G00164424 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., Seigerroth, U.: Method integration: the need for a learning perspective. IEE Proc.-Softw. 145(4), 113–118 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goodhue, D.L., et al.: The impact of data integration on the costs and benefits of information systems. MIS Q. 16(3), 293–311 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grossmann, W.: A conceptual approach for data integration in business analytics. Int. J Softw. Inform. 4, 53–67 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grossmann, W., Moser, C.: Big data—integration and cleansing environment for business analytics with DICE. In: Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, pp. 103–123. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39417-6_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hanschke, I.: Strategic IT Management: A Toolkit for Enterprise Architecture Management. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-05034-3 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karagiannis, D.: Agile modeling method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 19th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, pp. 5–10. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karagiannis, D., Moser, C., Mostashari, A.: Compliance evaluation featuring heat maps (CE-HM): a meta-modeling-based approach. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 414–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31095-9_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karagiannis, D., Buchmann, R.A., Burzynski, P., Reimer, U., Walch, M.: Fundamental conceptual modeling languages in OMiLAB. In: Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, pp. 3–30. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39417-6_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karagiannis, D., Kühn, H.: Metamodelling platforms. In: EC-Web, p. 182 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lara, P., Sánchez, M., Villalobos, J.: Bridging the IT and OT worlds using an extensible modeling language. In: Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song, I.-Y., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9974, pp. 122–129. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46397-1_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lichka, C., et al.: IT-based balanced scorecard. In: WISU Wirtschaftinformatik, p. 31 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oracle: Oracle Lifetime Support Policy: Oracle and Sun System Software (2012). http://www.oracle.com/us/support/library/lifetime-support-hardware.pdf
  29. 29.
    Peterson, R.: Crafting information technology governance. Inf. Syst. Manag. 21(4), 7–22 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pragmatic EA Ltd.: Pragmatic EA Framework Version 2.0 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prat, N., et al.: Artifact evaluation in information systems design-science research-a holistic view. In: PACIS 2014 Proceedings - Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, p. 23 (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shneiderman, B.: The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pp. 336–343. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16132-2_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 3.0 Specification (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9.1 (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Varnus, J., Panaich, N.: TOGAF 9 enterprise architecture survey results. In: 23rd Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zivkovic, S., et al.: Facilitate modelling using method integration: an approach using mappings and integration rules. In: ECIS 2007 Proceedings, pp. 2038–2049 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Moser
    • 1
  • Robert Andrei Buchmann
    • 2
  • Wilfrid Utz
    • 1
  • Dimitris Karagiannis
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Engineering Research GroupUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Business Informatics Research CenterBabeş-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations