Advertisement

Enterprise Architecture: A Framework Based on Human Behavior Using the Theory of Structuration

  • Dominic M. MezzanotteSr.
  • Josh Dehlinger
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 430)

Abstract

Organizational knowledge provides the requirements necessary for effective Enterprise Architecture (EA) design. The usefulness of EA processes depend on the quality of both functional and non-functional requirements elicited during the EA design process. Existing EA frameworks consider EA design solely from a techno-centric perspective focusing on the interaction of business goals, strategies, and technology. However, many organizations fail to achieve the business goals established for the EA because of miscommunication of stakeholder requirements. Though modeling functional and non-functional design requirements from a technical perspective better ensures delivery of EA, a more complete approach would fully take into account human behavior as a vital factor in EA design. The contribution of this paper is an EA design guideline based on human behavior and socio-communicative aspects of both stakeholders and the organization using socio-oriented approaches to EA design and modeling schemes.

Keywords

Design Requirement Enterprise Architecture Chief Information Officer Requirement Collection Enterprise Architecture Management 
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.
    The DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0 DoD Deputy Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense (April 2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chief Information Officers Council, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, CIO Council, Version 1.1 (August 5, 1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bakan, I., Tasliyan, M., Eraslan, I.H., Coskun, M.: The Effect of Technology on Organizational Behavior and the Nature of Word. In: IAMOT Conference, Washington, D.C. (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beer, M.: Organizational Behavior and Development. Harvard Business Review, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boudreau, M.-C., Robey, D.: Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective. Organization Science 16(1), 3–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B.A., Yu, E., Mylopoulous, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davidson, E.: Technological Frames perspective on Information Technology and Organizational Change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42, 23 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edwards, C.: Is Lack of Enterprise Architecture Partly to Blame for the Finance Industry Collapsing So Spectacularly Version 0.01 (February 29, 2009), http://www.AgileEA.com
  9. 9.
    Ferreira, C., Cohen, J.: Agile Systems Development and Stakeholder Satisfaction: A South African Empirical Study. In: Proceedings 2008 Conference of South African Institute Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries, pp. 48–55 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fowler, M.: Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. Addison-Wesley, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gauld, R.: Public Sector Information System Failures: Lessons from a New Zealand Hospital Organization. Government Information Quarterly 24(1), 102–114 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giddens, A.: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press (1984)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanza, H.M.: Separation of Concerns for Evolving Systems: A Stability-Driven Approach. In: Workshop on Modeling and Analysis of Concerns in Software, MACS 2005, St. Louis, MO (May 2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Bloch Synderman, B.: The Motivation to Work. Wiley Johns & Sons, Inc. (January 1959)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaur, R., Sengupta, J.: Software Process Models and Analysis on Failure of Software development Projects. Internation. Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research 2(2) (February 2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kepner, C., Tregoe, B.: The New Rational Manager. Princeton Research Press (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lankhorst, M., von Drunen, H.: Enterprise Architecture Development and Modeling, Via Nova Architecture (March 2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lankhorst, M., et al.: Enterprise Architecture at Work:Modeling, Communication and Analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lawhorn, B.: More Software Project Failure, CAI (March 31, 2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lewin, R., Regine, B.: Enterprise Architecture, People, Process, Business, Technology, Institute for Enterprise Architecture Developments (Online), http://www.enterprise-architecture.info/Images/Extended%20Enterprise/Extended%20Enterprise%20Architecture3.html
  21. 21.
    Lynne Markus, M., Robey, D.: Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Research in Theory and Research. Management Science 34(5) (May 1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maslov, A.: Motivation and Personality. Harper Collins (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McGregor, D.: The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill (1960)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mezzanotte Sr., D.M., Dehlinger, J., Chakraborty, S.: Applying the Theory of Structuration to Enterprise Architecture Design. In: IEEE/WorldComp 2011, SERP 2011 (July 2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mezzanotte Sr., D.M., Dehlinger, J., Chakraborty, S.: On Applying the Theory f Structuration in Enterprise Architecture Design. In: IEEE/ACIS (August 2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Minoli, D.: Enterprise Architecture A to Z. CRC Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orlikowski, W.: The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organization. Organization Science 3(3), 398–427 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pressman, R.S.: Software Engineering: A Practioner’s Approach, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill Series in Computer Science, New York, NY (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    The Open Group, TOGAF Version 9, The Open Group (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roeleven, S., Sven, Broer, J.: Why Two Thirds of Enterprise Architecture Projects Fail, ARIS Expert Paper (Online) , http://www.ids-scheer.com/set/6473/EA_-_Roeleven_Broer_-_Enterprise_Architecture_Projects_Fail_-_AEP_en.pdf
  31. 31.
    Scacchi, W.: Process Models in Software Engineering, Final Version in Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sessions, R.: A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies. MSDN Library (May 2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 8th edn. Addison-Wesley Publishers, Harlow (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Summerville, I., Sawyer, P.: Requirements engineering: A Good Practice Guide. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Baffins Lane (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yu, E., Strohmaier, M., Deng, X.: Exploring International Modeling and Analysis for Enterprise Architecture, University of Toronto, Information SciencesGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zachman, J.: Concepts of the Framework for Enterprise Architecture, Information Engineering Services, Pty, Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceTowson UniversityTowsonUSA

Personalised recommendations