Motivation Behind Enterprise Architecture

8/13/2019 Motivation Behind Enterprise Architecture

1/20

Motivation behind EnterpriseArchitecture

T-86.5171 / Essay 1 / 14.2.2012

Elisabete Patricio ([email protected], 253909) Anton Panhelainen ([email protected], 39925H)

Antti Savolainen ([email protected], 83720H)Samsher Chahar ([email protected], 84918J)

Cristian Micliuc ([email protected], 244976)

1. IntroductionPast scenarios have relied on Enterprise Architecture (EA) delivering automatic business andtechnical value per si. However, the outcomes have been a unsuccessful due to lack of previousunderstanding of what business value is in the first place for a certain organization. Some of thereasons pointed for this failure lay in rigid standards, tedious and time-consuming complyingprocesses, changes which take too long and amazingly the fact that after implementation EAimplementers are no longer following the standards implemented. When embracing the creationof an EA, it is necessary to understand that EA is only a precondition for creating architecturevalue. It is not a guarantee of long-term reward (Boster, Liu and Thomas 2000, p. 43). Butwhat is then the business value of EA? Why should companies invest time, money and otherresources in EA? What are their resources of reference, planning, motivation, and agreements

toward the same goals. In addition, how do companies measure the EA business value forfurther monitoring of the agreed in the strategic and planning phase? These are some of thequestions which this section aims to address.

On the one hand academics argue that business owners have a vague idea of why an EAshould be built, leading to planning which lacks purpose. One reason is the unsystematic wayto analyse and define value where the EA planning could be based on for realistic expectations(Boster, Liu and Thomas 2000).

On the other hand, practitioners of EA point other reasons such as how to link the EA effortsinto the overall enterprise processes and how to leverage them as assets used regularly bya variety of stakeholders. Assets or advantages of EA have been recognized and are usedas a strong argument for the business value creation. Some of the advantages are linked tobusiness benefits , such as agility of enterprise, product time to market, flexible sourcing of valuechain components, improved and consistent information exchange and risk reduction. Otheradvantages are linked to financial benefits , such as alignment of IT business case to value ofstrategic initiatives, reuse, time savings, lower support cost, lower acquisition cost and technicaladaptability; and to other corporate benefits , such as increased flexibility of staffing and scale ofskill pools (Aziz, Obitz, Modi and Sarkar 2005, pp. 1-3).


2/20

2. What is EA?The concept of enterprise architecture has been changing and evolving on a regular basis.In the 1970s and 1980s the concept was commonly referred to as Information Systems

Architecture. As time passed, a number of architectural frameworks, methodologies, andtechniques have been developed. The image below shows some of these.

Figure 1. Enterprise Architecture Framework timeline. [Jaap Schekkerman, 2006, p89] Since the concept of Enterpise Architecture has constantly been evolving, there are numerousdefinitions of Enterprise Architecture but not one commonly accepted. One could argue that

Zachmans definition of Enterprise Architecture could the one which is commonly acceptedconsidering the fact that Zachman is one of the few who has conducted extensive research onthe subject matter. Below is a list of some of the definitions of Enterprise Architecture. John Zachman"Architecture is a set of descriptive representations that are relevant for describing somethingyou intend to create and that constitute the baseline for changing an instance of that thing onceyou have created it. Therefore, Enterprise Architecture is the set of descriptive representationsrelevant for describing an Enterprise and that constitutes the baseline for changing the


3/20

Enterprise once it is created." EACommunity (www.eacommunity.com)Enterprise Architecture is a framework or blueprint for how the organization achieves thecurrent and future business objectives. It examines the key business, information, application,and technology strategies and their impact on business functions. Each of these strategies is aseparate architectural discipline and Enterprise Architecture is the glue that integrates each ofthese disciplines into a cohesive framework. United States Government, Government Accountability Office, 2003"...providing to people at all organizational levels an explicit, common and meaningful structuralframe of reference that allows an understanding of what the enterprise does, when, where, howand why it does it and what it uses to do it" United States Government, Government Accountability Office, 2008An enterprise architecture (EA) is a blueprint that describes an organizations or a functionalareas current and desired state in both logical and technical terms, as well as a plan fortransitioning between the two states. As such, it is a recognized tenet of organizationaltransformation and IT management in public and private organizations. Without an EA, it isunlikely that an organization will be able to transform business processes and modernizesupporting systems to minimize overlap and maximize interoperability. Kaisler et al., 2005"Enterprise architecture (EA) identifies the main components of the organization, its informationsystems, the ways in which these components work together in order to achieve definedbusiness objectives, and the way in which the information systems support the businessprocesses of the organization. The components include staff, business processes, technology,information, financial and other resources, etc. Enterprise architecting is the set of processes,tools, and structures necessary to implement an enterprise-wide coherent and consistent ITarchitecture for supporting the enterprise's business operations. It takes a holistic view of the

enterprise's IT resources rather than an application-by-application view." ArchiMate foundationA coherent whole of principles, methods, and models that are used in the design and realiza-tion of an enterprises organizational structure, business processes, information systems, andinfrastructure. Gartner GroupEnterprise architecture (EA) is the process of translating business vision and strategy intoeffective enterprise change by creating, communicating, and improving the key principles andmodels that describe the enterprises future state and enable its evolution.

Gartner Group, Philip AllegaEnterprise architecture is the process that interweaves business and IT together ANSI/IEEE Std 1471-2000The fundamental organization of a system, embodied in its components, their relationships toeach other and the environment, and the principles governing its design and evolution. Cap GeminiEnterprise Architecture is the description and visualization of the structure of a given area of


4/20

contemplation, its elements and their collaborations and interrelations links vision, strategy andfeasibility, focusing on usability durability and effectiveness. Architecture enables construction,defining principles, rules, standards and guidelines, expressing and communicating a vision Forrester, Gene Leganza, 2001Enterprise architecture consists of the vision, principles and standards that guide the purchaseand deployment of technology within an enterprise Institute for Enterprise Architecture DevelopmentEnterprise Architecture is about understanding all of the different elements that go to make upthe enterprise and how those elements interrelate MIT Center for Information Systems Research:Enterprise Architecture is the organizing logic for key business processes and IT capabilitiesreflecting the integration and standardization requirements of the firms operating model. The ArchiMate Foundation:A coherent whole of principles, methods, and models that are used in the design andrealization of an enterprises organizational structure, business processes, information systems,and infrastructure The Open GroupBy being inclusive with all other management frameworks, EA is a discipline that helps theEnterprise define, develop and exploit the boundary less information flow (BIF) capabilities inorder to achieve the Enterprises Strategic Intent. US Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF)Enterprise architecture is a management practice to maximize the contribution of an agencysresources, IT investments, and system development activities to achieve its performancegoals. Architecture describes clear relationships from strategic goals and objectives through

investments to measurable performance improvements for the entire enterprise or a portion (orsegment) of the enterprise Microsoft's Michael PlattOffers a view of enterprise architecture as containing four points-of-view, called the businessperspective, the application perspective, the information perspective, and the technologyperspective. The business perspective defines the processes and standards by which the business operateson a day-to-day basis. The application perspective defines the interactions among the processes and standards usedby the organization. The information perspective defines and classifies the raw data (such as document files,databases, images, presentations, and spreadsheets) that the organization requires in order toefficiently operate. The technology perspective defines the hardware, operating systems, programming, andnetworking solutions used by the organization.


5/20

The Open Group, TOGAF Version 9 Enterprise Edition OverviewTOGAF defines "enterprise" as any collection of organizations that has a common set of goals.For example, an enterprise could be a government agency, a whole corporation, a division ofa corporation, a single department, or a chain of geographically distant organizations linkedtogether by common ownership. The term "enterprise" in the context of "enterprise architecture" can be used to denote bothan entire enterprise - encompassing all of its information and technology services, processes,and infrastructure - and a specific domain within the enterprise. In both cases, the architecturecrosses multiple systems, and multiple functional groups within the enterprise. Mark Lankhorst et alEnterprise architecture: a coherent whole of principles, methods, and models that are usedin the design and realization of an enterprises organizational structure, business processes,information systems, and infrastructure.


6/20


7/20

3. Motivation for EA?

Most EA framework focus on modelling EA structure and behaviour while neglectingmotivational dimension. For example, current EA practice uses conceptual models to expressas-is and to-be architectures, while the reasons behind the choices of to-be architectures,and the exploration of alternatives are recorded outside the models, if documented at all.Reason and intention behind EA are hard to find and trace.(Yu, Strohmaier. & Deng, 2006) . Understanding those ends and means behind EA is vital to business success. Thats whyObject Management Group(OMG) have developed Business Motivation Model(BMM). It focuseson Business Process, Workflows and Business Vocabulary.(OMG BMM, 2010 and Antunes etall, 2011) EA enables the capture and presentation of information in a rigorous, coherent andcomprehensive way that aids the understanding of complex issues in organizations.(Jonkers etal., 2006) EA practise provides a way to each stakeholder to express their concerns and add theircontribution to resulting architecture (Antunes et al., 2011 and TOGAF 9.1, 2011) Zachmanframework emphasizes in its 6x6 matrix that each audience perspective row should haveone column in which motivation intentions of that audience is described.(Zachmann, 2011)Influencers are the key of understanding EA for BMM. Those views derive from businessperspective. (OMG BMM, 2010 and Antunes et all, 2011). In Togaf framework motivation consists three motivation extensions, which are Driver, Goal andObjective. Driver parts emphasizes idea why is a issue and it addresses the goal. The Goal isthen realized. Objective is materialized and tracked through Measure extension. That extensionis governance, which reminds that Goal and Objectives should be measured in order to see, ifmovement from as-is to-be state is going on.(TOGAF 9.1, 2011) EA also supports change management activities (MoDAF, 2010). A well-defined EA is animportant asset for new developments within the context of the existing processes, IT systems,and other business assets of an enterprise, It helps in identifying necessary changes. It shouldnot be considered something statical or innovation blocker(Jonkers et al., 2006). EA can beseen as a means of strategy alignment in changing business environment. It provides flexibility,when business and processes are changing. (Kang, Lee & Kim, 2010) Good architecturalpractice help an enterprise to innovate and change business and/or IT processes while

providing stability and flexibility during change (Jonkers et al., 2006).

While the use of EA standards can potentially help organizations to solve coordination problemsacross business units, standardization involves trade-offs. Standardization promises increasein overall efficiency, but there is trade offs. These trade offs are: EA restricts the options ofbusiness units, thus resulting in a less optimal local solutions (Hite,2003).


8/20


9/20

The confusion can be made between the complexity of the problems that EA tries to solve andthe complexity of the solution. Roger Sessions argues that the simplicity has to be taken ascore value when building EA and even to have superior priority than all the other values suchas agility, security, performance and reliability of IT systems, as simplicity is in many ways

the ultimate enabler. Simplicity is viewed as a business asset.

Eg: Kevin Drinkwater threw out $13 million JD Edwards ERP implementation at a companypurchased by Mainfreight New Zeeland and replaced it with a $25.000 with a home grownERP. Mathematics of complexity In order to have results reproductively and verifiable there is a need of having either amathematical or logical model to asses complexity. Otherwise every time the EA professionalswill rely on experience, gut feeling, luck, intuition or other intangibles. A mathematical model forunderstanding complexity will deliver the results promised by the rational world: reproducibleand verifiable results.

As per Session findings the number of system states is a good measure of complexity and canbe calculated with a formula:C is complexity measureV is the number of variablesS is the number of significant states, on average for each of the variables C = S^V Similar for business processes the complexity can be calculated using the formulaC is the complexity measureD is the number of decision pointsP is the number of paths, on average for each decision point C = P^D There are three strategies to reduce complexity: partitioning, simplification and iteration.Partitioning deals with the split of large collections into independent subsets. Simplification isabout reducing the complexity of subsets further by removing items from subset or eliminatingan entire subset. Iteration promotes the manage of subsets one by one rather than working withall the entire collection at once (Sessions 2008). In the iteration process some rules stand out based on the observation of John Boyd whowas a Air Force Colonel interested in dogfights. He found that the key to winning consecutivedogfights was observe, orient, plan, act (OOPA). Also he suggested that the speed of iterationbeats the quality of iteration. This can be applied in implementation of complex systems as wellmeaning that it is better to act quickly rather than perfectly. This doesnt mean that the iterationshould be carelessly, but should for example iterate through the partitions quickly rather thandelivering all partitions in a big-bang way. Besides the complexity, there are also interactions between software systems that usuallydont appear in the business processes. It is important to balance the need for interoperability


10/20

between the software systems (for example when using partitioning as reducing the complexity)and the complexity inside the software systems. It is estimated that adding 25% more functionality to a software system generates an increase of100% in the complexity of the software system itself (Rattig 2007). Following this logic a systemwith 300 functions will be 32 times more complex then a system with 100 functions. But if onemanage to partition the 300 functions system in 3 systems of 100 functions the total complexitywill be 3/32 or ~9,4% of the original one. (Sessions 2008)

3.2 What is the Business value of EA?

Although organisations largely agree that EA is able to create business value for the enterprise,there is much confusion in the field how this value is created, and what kind of returns anorganization embarking on a big enterprise architecture implementation project (or program)can expect (Boucharas et al, 2010). To research these questions, Tamm et al conducted a large

literature survey in which they looked at the academic research and practitioner white papersto arrive at a holistic view of the expected business value of EA and the drivers behind them(Tamm et al, 2011). They concluded that there are four benefit enablers that drive businessvalue creation out of EA: organisational alignment, information availability, resource portfoliooptimization and resource complementarity.

Organisational alignment means how the enterprise is able to align each organisational subunitto achieve the whole corporations goals. This is achieved by the increased dialogue that shouldbe ignited by the EA planning activity in enterprises. The outcome of this dialogue should bethe identification of duplicate effort in enterprises (e.g. multiple different information systems,processes dealing with the same business problem or multiple technology platforms). This

should lead to reduction of duplicate work that in turn could potentially increase total return oninvestment in the enterprise. One output of the EA activity should be the creation of models and documents that depictthe working of the enterprise. This information is then made available to the decision makersthat can take advantage of the new information to make better decisions. Another benefit isachieved by establishing common, enterprise-wide data definitions and structures. Theseensure that the whole enterprise uses same definitions all around and that the same informationcan be used in different systems with minimum integration costs. Better information for decisionmakers is also brought by the simplified processes and data that can be extracted from thedata stores of the enterprise. Tamm et al hypothesize that the ultimate outcome of information

availability are better targeted product development, marketing and sales campaigns.

Optimizing the entire resource portfolio of an enterprise is one of the key tasks of EA. Keyresources are people, software, hardware and information. EA tries to identify resource gapsand duplicate effort from the view of the whole enterprise. The goal is to simplify the portfolio bye.g. building a standardized technology platform and reducing the needed interfaces betweendifferent systems. This should lead to reduced costs, higher efficiencies and improved quality (inproducts and service delivery).


11/20

Resource complementarity deals with ensuring that the different parts of the enterprisework synergistically towards common goals. Its about how the organizational capabilitiesand competences are orchestrated. According to Tamm et al the benefits of resourcecomplementarity are dependant on the operating model of the organization - e.g. an enterprise

that is striving for customer intimacy can benefit by having a single view of the customer acrossthe enterprise. In another similar literature survey that was conducted by Boucharas et al, the researchersended up with a more detailed list of different business benefits of EA. Their Enterprise

Architecture Benefits Map (EABM) describes the different viewpoints that are thought to bethe benefits of EA. The approach is similar to the Balanced Scorecard method. There are thefinancial perspective, the customer perspective, the internal perspective and the learning &growth perspective. They argue that limiting the benefits evaluation to only financial aspectsdoes not offer a comprehensive view on the overall benefits of EA.

Also individual IT systems projects can benefit from the EA effort, though the ultimate goal of

EA is to create value for the enterprise as a whole. Examples from practice have shown that theexistence of an EA is likely to reduce project costs and schedule duration, reduce project risks,manage project complexity and speed up project initialization (Foorthuis et al, 2011). All of thesebenefits rise from the fact that EA provides better visibility and long-term goals that steer theprojects forward. Visibility in terms that the enterprise knows what other project are ongoing andwhat kind of interdependencies they have. Long-term goals help establish boundaries in whichthe project should operate. In a way the goals set a standardized platform on top of which theprojects can build their foundation. It is important to note that business value does not mean the same thing for every business.Instead the expected benefits are linked to the operating model of the enterprise. Ross etal recommends that the enterprise architecture effort should be started by debating the

operating model at the top management level. The operating model is decided based on twoaxes: whether business process integration needs are high or low and/or business processstandardization needs are high or low. They categorize four different typical operating modelsfor businesses based on this mapping: coordination, unification, diversification and replication.In an environment, in which there are high business process integration requirementsthere are needs to have common data set i.e. a single view of the customer and the entireproduct portfolio. In this kind of the situation the enterprise can expect benefits from acentralized database design and centrally managed IT infrastructure. High business processstandardization requirements are typical in an environment where the customer-base can bequite heterogeneous and business units are independent, but there are clear benefits of sharingbest practices in business processes.


12/20

Fig. 3. Enterprise operating model matrix (Ross et al. 2006)

As mentioned the operating model has clear implications on the business value and benefitsan enterprise can expect from EA. For example a global bank that serves normal householdsdoes not benefit from having a central customer database, because their services are providedfor customers from national branch offices and there are very few same customers betweendifferent national branches.

3.4 Why and how to measure the value of EA?Three value contexts or dimensions are presented as the main importance when consideringthe value of EA, they are the architect , the process to build the EA and t he architecture and itsfinal products (e.g. architectural drawings and models). Each dimension includes critical aspectsof both business (what we want) and technical (how we do it) perspectives. However,normally the expectations of the value of EA are higher than reality due to greater focus on thetechnical perspective (Boster, Liu and Thomas 2000, p. 44). In Figure 4 it is depicted a higherexpectation-reality gap on the business dimension.


13/20

Fig. 4. Measuring the value of an EA, (Boster, Liu and Thomas 2000, p. 44) Therefore, a starting point into measuring the value of EA consists of including businessperspectives as well, which should be in alignment with the business value of EA initially defined

before implementation. This includes beside technical measurements of the EA value formonitoring its achievement, as well as political, governmental, organizational communicationcompetencies and business aspects. Why is this important? To ensure that everyone in theorganization understands, believes and accepts the EA (Boster et al. 2000; Ross 2003).

Another interesting question when observing the expectation-reality gap is related to what hasbeen decided to achieve, it could be that the goals are unrealistic or unfeasible. Therefore, it isimportant to analyse the what we want and how to do it close together and not in separatesilos. How can you measure this? It might be easy to develop a goal but then how to you evaluate itsachievement? Where do you start? Do you start by having the measures before or after the EA

implementation? According to the Balanced Scored Card (BSC), a set of measures or KPIs (key performanceindicators), which enables a fast comprehensive view of the business to managers,organizations can track or have control points to measure the achievement of the EA goals.The identification of the metrics should be developed together with the people involved in theimplementation. The BSC lays emphasises on four dimensions with both quantitative andqualitative measures. The dimensions focus are Financial, services towards the Customers,processes at the Internal Business Perspective, and assets at the Innovation and Learningdimension. The goal is to enable the strategic goals to be translated into action through anholistic view at the EA value, without limiting those to a single indicator.

Nevertheless, how do you develop the metrics? Schelp & Stutz (2007, p. 8-9) developed anEA scorecard framework (Fig. 5) based on the enterprise resource allocations. In their view thefour dimensions of the BSC are classified according to the IT architecture, the context of IT, theenterprise, and finally cross-company. They conclude as well that these are linked together fromthe internal to the external or cross-company level.


14/20

Fig 5. EA scorecard framework (Schelp & Stutz 2007, p. 9)

Some examples of measurements were proposed to help understand better the presentedframework. If the business value of EA is to increase efficiency and effectiveness to reducecosts of operations (standardization) and to increase rapid change to market needs (agility),here were some of the measures which could be a good indicator:

Agility - companies % of revenue generated from new products Standardization - of technology platforms and business processes, which increases in

throughput and efficiencyHowever, as previously pointed out, it could be that the initial defined goals and expectationsare not feasible. Thus, if the goals where not reached, the next questions are why, whathappened, and what to do next? Even if an organization is using measurements, those are notenough if the organization does not use them to alter the strategy, the goals, and in the end themetrics themselves. A Plan, Manage, Monitor and Adjust approach is proposed by Schelp &Stutz (2007) as a constant iterative process when it comes to measuring the value of EA.

Another interesting approach to measuring the value of EA is the one considered by TOGAF9 Content Metamodel (Fig. 6). Here the measurements are seen as a Governance Extension ,which focus mostly on supporting in-depth, operation governance. This measures set

performance criteria to ensure correct delivery of the agreed in the goals , enabling the bondbetween the objectives and business services. TOGAF 9 proposes that the use of governanceextension is relevant when in the presence of IT change due to transformations in existing

operational governance models (it includes change in policies, contracts, metrics, ownershipand management of systems), and to trace that the service levels are in accordance withthe business goals . The benefits pointed are service levels defined in a more structured wayenabling better trace through diagrams of system and data ownership and additional diagramsof system operation and dependencies on operations processes (OpenGroup 2011a).


15/20

Fig. 6 (OpenGroup 2011a) TOGAF 9 has as well the Architecture Development Method (ADM), displaying an holisticiterative method where the relationships between the requirements and the needed elementscan be seen for a successful achievement of the business goals initially established (Fig. 7)(Open Group 2011b). The content meta model is a more formal structure indicating the differentdimensions and their subsets, whereas the ADM is a process of iterations indicating a directionor to provide a process life cycle to create and manage architectures within an enterprise(Open Group 2011a).

Fig 7. TOGAF 9 ADM (Open Group 2011b)


16/20

It is the Implementation Governance phase of the ADM where the Governance extension previously mentioned is included. Furthermore, one can see measurements under theMotivation dimension in the TOGAF 9 Content Meta model, which is under the Business

Architecture, again emphasizing the link between of the business drivers, goals and objectives

with measures as means of achieving evaluation, control points, and further improvementaccording to those. Another observation is the fact that the measurements are under themotivation for adopting EA, which can indicate a need to develop measures of how to evaluateEA As-Is to To-Be before undergoing implementation (Open Group 2011b).

The goal of this paper is not to focus the analysis in TOGAF 9. However, as mentioned in themotivation part, TOGAF 9, Zachman and MoDAF are the most widely used EA frameworks bypractitioners. Hence, the need to observe how the frameworks tackle the usefulness of EA fromorganization motivations point of view, and their understanding of the benefits of EA, towardsplanning and development, implementation, monitoring and improvement.

According to the findings in this paper, a successful use of EA departures from identifyingthe motivation behind it, which once the business values are identified, these might still notbe realistic. Therefore, the possible success factors for the use of EA is the interaction andrepetition of the process on an ongoing phase, for continuous improvement between thedifferent objectives, phases, and specially the business and IT people involved. Hence, havingmeasurement of the value of EA is of most importance to enable improvement.

Whittle & Myrick (2004) present a similar argument:

the building of integrated EA from the customer centric perspective enablescorporate leaders to view the enterprise holistically.[...] The models illustrate[strategic model] the alignment and formal links between the strategy , vision andcorporate objectives, with the strategic initiative roadmap . Finally, it establishes themetrics, measures, and expectations for success from this customer centric view"(Whittle & Myrick 2004, p.3)

The focus here in on the value created towards the customer as the final goal within mostorganizations and as a highly motivating factor to build an EA. Therefore, ensuring the linkbetween the strategy and the results measurements is needed.

4. ConclusionThere is no one common definition of enterprise architecture. The discipline is young andimmature, thus explaining the heterogeneous views practitioners and academics have onEA. On the one hand, some frameworks and definitions focus on the technical side of EA,i.e. they see EA as a way to rationalize and simplify existing technical architectures. While onthe other hand, some frameworks and definitions view EA more as a business development,management and leadership tool, taking into account the whole enterprise as an organism,which consists of, among other things people, processes, governance practices and of course


17/20

technology. As acknowledged in a recent paper by J. Lapalme, technological aspects areclearly couple of the benefits EA is able to offer, but the future of EA calls for a holistic approachthat looks past the technological modelling domain.

Understanding the business motives behind EA is key to success. That provides traceability for

measurements. Those measurements provide understanding how goals have been reached. Inan enterprise there are different viewpoints for EA and all those have take account to succeedin EA practise. Those viewpoints have to be described from stakeholders view not with oneontology. The business benefits of EA presented in this paper, suggest an enterprise to weigh in onthe possible returns an EA implementation program can offer. The benefits an enterprise canexpect are dependant on the operating model of the enterprise and are often customer centric.The realization of these benefits must be based on a set of measurements, for which couple ofexamples were given. These measurements are once again tied with the operating model of thebusiness and are designed according to the strategy goals.

The established metrics are not static and are part of a continuous interactive process or loopto enable improvement. The relevance is linked to analysing the As-is to To-be position andto evaluate the needed changes of the initial objectives proposed, which can be unrealistic, andneeded adjustments when no longer on track.

The most common EA frameworks (TOGAF 9, Zachman and MoDAF) used emphasize theneed for measurements as a important factor to enable the realization of the initial motivationfor embracing EA. This again emphasizes the link between of the business drivers, goals andobjectives with measures as means of achieving evaluation, control points, to provide further

improvement accordingly. An interesting observation in this paper is the use of governancemodels to provide these points of control or metrics. The so called Governance Extensionfrom TOGAF 9 is placed under the business architecture and motivation dimension, whichdisplays the formal structure of the EA. In addition, the Implementation of Governance isincluded in the iterative process of the Architecture Development Model in TOGAF 9, as oneof the requirements of the process life cycle. TOGAF 9 proposes that the use of governanceextension is relevant when in the presence of IT change due to transformations in existingoperational governance models, and to trace that the service levels are in accordance with thebusiness goals. The complexity of both business processes and software systems can be assessed usingmathematical models. Having a mathematical model in place for managing complexity willensure that the EA results can be replicated and verified. So in order to fight complexity,simplicity should be seen as a core value when designing an EA.There are existing techniquesfor reducing complexity such as partitioning, simplification and iteration. Furthermore theexecutives should be more aware about technology as now IT departments manage hugenumbers of legacy systems and any feature request may result in a dramatic increase ofcomplexity that triggers a budget drain.


18/20

5. Further research

Several questions in this paper were still left answered. They are a result of the various groupmeeting discussions. Therefore, concerning the topic Motivation behind EA, next is presented alist of possible questions for further research.

How to manage change linked to changes in the business environment? Who should come with the measurements? Business people? IT people? All together? Should measures come before EA implementation or vice versa More examples of measurements, what measurements, according to what EA business

value? Could EA be considered as a living organism instead of a linear one? Where is the line where IT Governance is beneficial within the context of EA practice?

( IT Governance most often brings higher bureaucracy, slower decision-making and

escalation processes) what is more suitable concerning EA, an mechanist or agility approach? Complexity of organizations are not linked solely to its size, what other reasons?

How does the 3 schools of EA differ in terms of motivation, business value,measurements and interpretation of complexity?

6. References Jaap Schekkerman(2006) How to survive in the jungle of enterprise architecture frameworks,

2006, p89The Department of Defence Architecture Framework v2.02, 2010, DoDAF, [online] Available at: [accessed 17.1.2012]

The Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework V1.2.004, 2010, MoDAF, [online] Availableat: [accessed 17.1.2012]

Antunes G, Barateiro J, Becker C, Borbinha J, Vieira R., 2011,Modeling Contextual Concernsin Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops(EDOCW), 15th IEEE International, ISSN: 1-4577-0869-8 Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture 3.0, 2011, Zachman , [online] Available at: [accessed 17.1.2012] The Business Motivation Model V1.1,2010, OMG BMM, Object [online] Available at: [accessed 17.1.2012]

Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M. M., ter Doest, H. W. L., Arbab, F., Bosma, H., & Wieringa, R.J. (2006). Enterprise architecture: Management tool and blueprint for the organisation.Information Systems Frontiers, 8(2), 63-66. [online] Available at:


19/20

courses/AIS_SITE/files/3/Enterprise architecture- Management tool and blueprint for theorganisation.pdf> [accessed 19.1.2012], doi:10.1007/s10796-006-7970-2 Hite, R., 2003, Information technology: A framework for assessing and improving enterprisearchitecture management (version 1.1). White Paper, United States General Accounting Office,

Washington, DC [online] Available at: [accessed25.1.2012]

Lapalme, J., 2011, 3 Schools of Enterprise Architecture. IT Professional . doi:10.1109/MITP.2011.109

Kang, D., Lee, J., & Kim, K. 2010, Alignment of Business Enterprise Architectures usingfact-based ontologies. Expert Systems with Applications , 37 (4), 3274-3283. Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.09.052

Yu, E., & Strohmaier, M. & Deng, X., 2006, Exploring intentional modeling and analysisfor enterprise architecture. Enterprise Distributed Object . [online] Available at: [accessed 5.2.2012] Boster, M. Liu, S. and Thomas, R. 2000, Getting the most from your Enterprise Architecture,Journal IT Professional , vol. 2, issue 4, IEEE Educational Activities Department Piscataway, NJ,USA, Doi: 10.1109/6294.869382

Aziz, S. Obitz, T. Modi, R. and Sarkar, S. 2005, Enterprise Architecture: A GovernanceFramework, Part I: Embedding Architecture into the Organization, White paper, InfosysTechnologies Knowledge Sharing Series web seminars.

Ross, J.W. 2003, Creating a Strategic IT Architecture Competency: Learning in Stages, MISQuarterly Executive , Working papers 4314-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),Sloan School of Management.

The Open Group 2011a, TOGAF 9.1 > Part IV: Architecture Content Framework > ContentMetamodel, viewed 17, 27.1.2012, Schelp, J. & Stutz, M. 2007, A Balanced Scorecard approach to measure the value of enterprisearchitecture, M. M. Lankhorst & P. Johnson, Architecture, vol. 3, issue 1, pp. 5-12

The Open Group 2011b, Module 3 Introduction to the Architecture Development Method,viewed 10.2.2012, Whittle, R. & Myrick, C.B. 2004, Enterprise Business Architecture: The Formal Link betweenStrategy and Results , 1.ed., CRC Press, USA Tamm, T., Seddon, P.B., Shanks, G., and Reynolds, P. 2011, How Does Enterprise Architecture
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/6294.869382http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/index.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc-pt4.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc-pt4.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc-pt4.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc-pt4.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc-pt4.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc-pt4.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc-pt4.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc-pt4.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc-pt4.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/toc-pt4.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/index.htmlhttp://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/index.htmlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1109/6294.869382


20/20

Add Value to Organisations?, Communications of the Association for Information Systems , vol.28, article 10. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol28/iss1/10 Boucharas, V., van Steenbergen, M., Jansen, S., and Brinkkemper, S., 2010, The Contributionof Enterprise Architecture to the Achievement of Organizational Goals: A Review of theEvidence, Proceedings of Trends in Enterprise Architecture, pp. 1-15

Ross, J. W., Weill, P., and Robertson, D. C., 2006, Enterprise Architecture as Strategy Creatinga Foundation for Business Execution, Harvard Business School Press, viewed 9.2.2012, < http://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.png > Op t Land, M., Proper, E., Waage, M., Cloo, J., Steghuis, J. 2009, Enterprise Architecture -Creating Value by Informed Governance, Springer-Verlag

Foorthuis R., van Steenbergen M., Mushkudiani N., Bruls W., Brinkkemper S., Bos R. 2011, OnCourse But Not There Yet: Enterprise architecture conformance and benefits in systemsdevelopment, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek

Sessions, R. 2008, Simple architectures for complex enterprises, Microsoft Press Cynthia Rettig, The Trouble With Enterprise Software, 2007, MIT Sloan Management Review
http://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.pnghttp://cisr.mit.edu/files/2009/12/Topic-EA_slide1_lg.png

Motivation Behind Enterprise Architecture

Documents

Transcript of Motivation Behind Enterprise Architecture