Advertisement

A Meta-language for Enterprise Architecture Analysis

  • Sabine Buckl
  • Markus Buschle
  • Pontus Johnson
  • Florian Matthes
  • Christian M. Schweda
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 81)

Abstract

Enterprise Architecture (EA) management is a commonly accepted instrument to support strategic decision making. The objective of EA management is to improve business IT alignment by making the impact of planned changes explicit. The increasing interconnectivity of applications with other applications and with business processes however makes it difficult to get a complete view on change impacts and dependency structures. This information is nevertheless required to support decision makers. Current meta-languages proposed for the context of EA management provide only limited support for modelling qualitative and quantitative dependencies.

In this paper we propose a meta-language, which builds on the Meta Object Facility (MOF). This meta-language specifically accounts for the requirements of EA analysis. We discuss existing meta-languages from the field of EA management and related areas against these requirements. Building on the standard of the OMG, we present an extension of MOF designed to support EA analysis. The theoretic exposition of the extension is complemented by an example illustrating the applicability of the presented meta-language.

Keywords

Business Process Enterprise Architecture Object Management Group Business Application Information System Architecture 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Buschle, M., Ullberg, J., Franke, U., Lagerström, R., Sommestad, T.: A tool for enterprise architecture analysis using the PRM formalism. In: CAiSE 2010 Forum PostProceedings (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Lankes, J., Matthes, F.: Enterprise Architecture Management Pattern Catalog (Version 1.0, February 2008). Technical report, Chair for Informatics 19 (sebis), Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling (memo) – conceptual framework and modeling languages. In: 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2002), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 1258–1267 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dern, G.: Management von IT-Architekturen (Edition CIO). Vieweg, Wiesbaden (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Niemann, K.D.: From Enterprise Architecture to IT Governance – Elements of Effective IT Management. Vieweg+Teubner, Wiesbaden, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Open Group: TOGAF “Enterprise Edition” Version 9 (2009), http://www.togaf.org (cited 2010-02-25)
  8. 8.
    Department of Defense (DoD) USA: DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0: Volume 1: Introduction, Overview, and Concepts – Manager’s Guide (2009), http://www.defenselink.mil/cio-nii/docs/DoDAF%20V2%20-%20Volume%201.pdf (cited 2010-02-25)
  9. 9.
    Matthes, F., Buckl, S., Leitel, J., Schweda, C.M.: Enterprise Architecture Management Tool Survey 2008. Chair for Informatics 19 (sebis), Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murer, S., Worms, C., Furrer, F.J.: Managed evolution. Informatik Spektrum 31(6), 537–547 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Lankes, J., Schneider, K., Schweda, C.M.: A pattern based approach for constructing enterprise architecture management information models. In: Oberweis, A., Weinhardt, C., Gimpel, H., Koschmider, A., Pankratius, V. (eds.) Wirtschaftsinformatik 2007, Karlsruhe, Germany, pp. 145–162. Universitätsverlag, Karlsruhe (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurpjuweit, S., Winter, R.: Viewpoint-based meta model engineering. In: Reichert, M., Strecker, S., Turowski, K. (eds.) 2nd International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2007), Bonn, Germany. LNI, pp. 143–161. Gesellschaft für Informatik (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Omg unified modeling languageTM(omg uml), superstructure – version 2.3 (formal/2010-05-05) (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Meta object facility (mof) core specification, version 2.0 (formal/06-01-01) (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buckl, S., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: A meta-language for EA information modeling – state-of-the-art and requirements elicitation. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2010 and EMMSAD 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 50, pp. 169–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buckl, S., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: A meta-language for EA information modeling – state-of-the-art and requirements elicitation. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2010 and EMMSAD 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 50, pp. 169–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson, P., Lagerström, R., Närman, P., Simonsson, M.: Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams. Information Systems Frontiers 9(2), 163–180 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aier, S., Buckl, S., Franke, U., Gleichauf, B., Johnson, P., Närman, P., Schweda, C., Ullberg, J.: A survival analysis of application life spans based on enterprise architecture models. In: 3rd International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, Ulm, Germany, pp. 141–154 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Becker, S., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: The Palladio component model for model-driven performance prediction. Journal of Systems and Software 82(1), 3–22 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Närman, P., Buschle, M., König, J., Johnson, P.: Hybrid Probabilistic Relational Models for System Quality Analysis. In: 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp. 57–66. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friedman, N., Getoor, L., Koller, D., Pfeffer, A.: Learning probabilistic relational models. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, Sweden, vol. 16, pp. 1300–1309. Citeseer (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sommestad, T., Ekstedt, M., Johnson, P.: A probabilistic relational model for security risk analysis. Computers & Security 29(6), 659–679 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    König, J., Nordstrom, L., Ekstedt, M.: Probabilistic Relational Models for assessment of reliability of active distribution management systems. In: 2010 IEEE 11th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS), pp. 454–459. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buckl, S., Franke, U., Holschke, O., Matthes, F., Schweda, C., Sommestad, T., Ullberg, J.: A pattern-based approach to quantitative enterprise architecture analysis. In: 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lankhorst, M.M.: Introduction to enterprise architecture. In: Lankhorst, M. (ed.) Enterprise Architecture at Work, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jonkers, H., van den Berg, H., Iacob, M.E., Quartel, D.: Archimate extension for modeling togaf’s implementation and migration phases (2010), http://www.bizzdesign.com/index.php/component/docman/doc_download/18-archimate-extension-for-modeling-togafs-implementation-and-migration-phases
  27. 27.
    Halpin, T.: Object-role modeling (ORM/NIAM). In: Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, pp. 81–103 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kirchner, L.: Eine Methode zur Unterstützung des IT-Managements im Rahmen der Unternehmensmodellierung. PhD thesis, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Berlin, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frank, U.: The memo meta modelling language (mml) and language architecture (icb-research report). Technical report, Institut für Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik, Duisburg-Essen, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Atkinson,Colin, Kühne,Tomas: Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Software and Systems Modeling, 345–359 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frank, U., Heise, D., Kattenstroth, H., Schauer, H.: Designing and utilising business indicator systems within enterprise models – outline of a method. In: Modellierung betrieblicher Informationssysteme (MobIS 2008) – Modellierung zwischen SOA und Compliance Management, Saarbrücken, Germany, November 27-28 (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jensen, F.V., Nielsen, T.D.: Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Meta object facility (mof) specification, version 2.0 (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Omg unified modeling languageTM(omg uml), infrastructure – version 2.3 (formal/2010-05-03) (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lankes, J.: Metrics for Application Landscapes – Status Quo, Development, and a Case Study. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München, Fakultät für Informatik, Munich, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Buckl, S., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: 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 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine Buckl
    • 1
  • Markus Buschle
    • 2
  • Pontus Johnson
    • 2
  • Florian Matthes
    • 1
  • Christian M. Schweda
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair for Software Engineering of Business Information Systems (sebis)Technische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany
  2. 2.Industrial Information and Control SystemsKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations