IT Landscape Management Using Network Analysis

  • Daniel Simon
  • Kai Fischbach
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 139)

Abstract

Dependency analyses have become crucial in today’s enterprise architecture practices, which usually face complex IT landscapes with highly interdependent applications. In such environments, a deep understanding of the application’s context is essential to determine its qualities and project its further evolution. However, method support for making this context a tangible IT landscape management part and thus facilitating quantitative decision making still seems expandable. Based on the representation as a network of applications and their relations of data exchange, this paper therefore suggests ways to support the IT landscape’s examination through network analysis. We develop this approach based on a combination of theoretical explanations, past empirical findings, and experiences taken from the architecture practices of four sample organizations. We illustrate and evaluate our approach with a short case study. Our approach, developed and illustrated in close alignment with insights from actual practice, thus offers ideas and advice for researchers and practitioners alike.

Keywords

IT landscape management enterprise architecture management dependency analysis network analysis network centrality 

References

  1. 1.
    The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9. Van Haren Publishing, Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gharajedaghi, J.: Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity, A Platform for Designing Business Architecture. Morgan Kaufmann, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernus, P., Schmidt, G.: Architectures of information systems. In: Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmidt, G. (eds.) Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering – Architecture description, http://www.iso-architecture.org/42010/
  5. 5.
    Niemann, K.D.: From enterprise architecture to IT governance. Vieweg, Wiesbaden (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aier, S., Riege, C., Winter, R.: Unternehmensarchitektur – Literaturüberblick und Stand der Praxis. Wirtschaftsinformatik 50(4), 292–304 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Otte, E., Rousseau, R.: Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. J. Inf. Sci. 28(6), 441–453 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dreyfus, D., Iyer, B.: Architectural control and emergent architecture: a network perspective. Boston University Working Paper (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dreyfus, D., Iyer, B.: Enterprise Architecture: A Social Network Perspective. In: 39th HICSS (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iyer, B., Dreyfus, D., Gyllstrom, P.: A Network-based View of Enterprise Architecture. In: Saha, P. (ed.) Handbook of Enterprise Systems Architecture in Practice. IGI Global (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dreyfus, D., Wyner, G.M.: Digital Cement: Software Portfolio Architecture, Complexity, and Flexibility. In: 17th AMCIS (2011) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aier, S., Schönherr, M.: Integrating an enterprise architecture using domain clustering. In: Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research 2007, pp. 23–30 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simon, D., Fischbach, K., Schoder, D.: Application Portfolio Management – An Integrated Framework and a Software Tool Evaluation Approach. CAIS 26, 35–56 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mocker, M.: What is complex about 273 applications? Untangling application architecture complexity in a case of European Investment Banking. In: 42nd HICSS (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social Network Analysis: Methods & Applications. CUP (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freeman, L.C.: Centrality in Social Networks. Soc. Netw. 1, 215–239 (1978/1979)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonacich, P.: Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Soc. Netw. 29, 555–564 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newman, M.E.J.: Modularity and community structure in networks. Natl. Academy Sci. 103(23), 8577–8582 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uzzi, B., Spiro, J.: Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem. American J. Sociology 111(2), 447–504 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future. MIS Q 26 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Teddlie, C., Yu, F.: Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology with Examples. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1, 77–100 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Marco, T.: Controlling software projects. Yourdon Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Lankes, J., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: State of the Art in Enterprise Architecture Management. TU Munich, Chair for Informatics 19, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Lankes, J., Matthes, F.: Enterprise Architecture Management Pattern Catalog. TU Munich, Chair for Informatics 19, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bruls, W.A.G., van Steenbergen, M., Foorthuis, R.M., Bos, R., Brinkkemper, S.: Domain Architectures as an Instrument to Refine Enterprise Architecture. CAIS 27, 517–540 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vasconcelos, A., Sousa, P., Tribolet, J.: Information System Architecture Evaluation: From Software to Enterprise Level Approaches. In: 12th Eur. Conf. on IT Evaluation (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hanschke, I.: Strategic IT Management. Springer, Berlin (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vasconcelos, A., Sousa, P., Tribolet, J.: Information System Architecture Metrics: an Enterprise Engineering Evaluation approach. Electron J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 10(1), 91–122 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    OGC: Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE 2. The Stationery Office Ltd. (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sherer, S.A., Alter, S.: Information Systems Risks and Risk Factors: Are They Mostly about Information Systems? CAIS 14, 29–64 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    BSI, Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, https://www.bsi.bund.de
  32. 32.
    Jordan, E., Silcock, L.: Beating IT Risks. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maizlish, B., Handler, R.: IT Portfolio Management Step-by-Step. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quartel, D., Steen, M.W.A., Lankhorst, M.: Application and project portfolio valuation using EA and business requirements modelling. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 6(2), 189–213 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saat, J.: Zeitbezogene Abhängigkeitsanalysen der Unternehmensarchitektur. In: MKWI 2010, pp. 119–130 (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jönsson, P.: The Anatomy – An Instrument for Managing Software Evolution and Evolvability. In: 2nd Int. Workshop on Softw. Evolvability, pp. 31–37 (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Matthes, F., Schulz, C., Schweda, C.M.: Constructing an Enterprise-specific Radar System for Assisted Project Surveillance. In: MSI 2009, pp. 33–47 (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zimmermann, T., Nagappan, N.: Predicting defects using network analysis on dependency graphs. In: 30th Int. Conf. on Softw. Engineering, pp. 531–540 (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schelp, J., Stutz, M.: A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Measure the Value of Enterprise Architecture. In: Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research 2007, pp. 5–11 (2007)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bastian, M., Heymann, S., Jacomy, M.: Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks. In: Int. Conf. on Weblogs & Social Media, pp. 361–362 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Simon
    • 1
  • Kai Fischbach
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and Information ManagementUniversity of CologneGermany
  2. 2.Chair in Information Systems and Social NetworksUniversity of BambergGermany

Personalised recommendations