Enterprise architecture: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1264668644 by 81.101.211.70 (talk) Rv citation to article not otherwise widely cited or by renowned academic - see https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Kp-iDA0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao |
|||
| (88 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Business function methodology}} |
|||
{{about|the technique/methodology|Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect|Enterprise Architect (software)}} |
|||
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2014}} |
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2014}} |
||
'''Enterprise architecture''' ('''EA''') is a business function concerned with the structures and behaviours of a business, especially business roles and processes that create and use business [[data]]. The international definition according to the Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations is "a well-defined practice for conducting [[enterprise (economics)|enterprise]] analysis, design, planning, and implementation, using a comprehensive approach at all times, for the successful development and execution of strategy. Enterprise architecture applies architecture principles and practices to guide organizations through the business, information, process, and [[technology change]]s necessary to execute their strategies. These practices utilize the various aspects of an enterprise to identify, motivate, and achieve these changes."<ref name=feapo>{{cite journal|url=http://feapo.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Common-Perspectives-on-Enterprise-Architecture-Final-1-copy.pdf|title=Common Perspectives on Enterprise Architecture|journal=Architecture and Governance Magazine|volume=9|issue=4|date=November 2013|page=1|access-date=2023-03-04}}</ref> |
|||
{{Refimprove|date=June 2016}} |
|||
{{cleanup reorganize | has too many enumerations and lists.|date=June 2016}} |
|||
The [[United States Government|United States Federal Government]] is an example of an organization that practices EA, in this case with its [[Capital Planning and Investment Control]] processes.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/E-Gov/ea_success.aspx|title=EA-Success|year=2010|publisher=The White House|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100430152712/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/E-Gov/ea_success.aspx|archive-date=2010-04-30}}</ref> Companies such as [[Independence Blue Cross]], [[Intel]], [[Volkswagen AG]],<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://lawaspect.com/volkswagen-america-managing/|title=Volkswagen of America: Managing IT Priorities|last1=Austin|first1=Robert D.|last2=Ritchie|first2=Warren|last3=Garrett|first3=Greggory|journal=Harvard Business Review|date=2005-10-05}}</ref> and [[InterContinental Hotels Group]] also use EA to improve their business architectures as well as to improve [[business efficiency|business performance]] and [[productivity]]. Additionally, the [[Federal Enterprise Architecture]]'s reference guide aids federal agencies in the development of their architectures.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.pdf|title=FEA Practice Guidance Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office OMB|date=November 2007|publisher=The White House|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101016043354/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.pdf|archive-date=2010-10-16}}</ref> |
|||
'''Enterprise architecture''' ('''EA''') is "a well-defined practice for conducting [[enterprise (economics)|enterprise]] analysis, design, planning, and implementation, using a comprehensive approach at all times, for the successful development and execution of strategy. Enterprise architecture applies architecture principles and practices to guide organizations through the business, information, process, and [[technology change]]s necessary to execute their strategies. These practices utilize the various aspects of an enterprise to identify, motivate, and achieve these changes."<ref name="FEAPO">[[Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations|Federation of EA Professional Organizations]], "[http://feapo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Common-Perspectives-on-Enterprise-Architecture-v15.pdf Common Perspectives on Enterprise Architecture] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220084017/http://feapo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Common-Perspectives-on-Enterprise-Architecture-v15.pdf |date=December 20, 2016 }}," ''Architecture and Governance Magazine'', Issue 9-4, November 2013 (2013). Retrieved on November 19, 2013.</ref> |
|||
==Introduction== |
|||
Practitioners of enterprise architecture, ''enterprise architects'', are responsible for performing the analysis of business structure and [[business process|processes]] and are often called upon to draw conclusions from the information collected to address the goals of enterprise architecture: [[effectiveness]], [[efficiency]], [[Business agility|agility]], and [[:wikt:durability|continuity of complex business operations]]. |
|||
As a discipline, EA "proactively and holistically lead[s] enterprise responses to disruptive forces by identifying and analyzing the execution of change" towards organizational goals. EA gives business and IT leaders recommendations for policy adjustments and provides best strategies to support and enable business development and change within the information systems the business depends on. EA provides a guide for [[decision making]] towards these objectives.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/enterprise-architecture-ea/|title=Enterprise Architecture (EA) |publisher=Gartner |access-date=July 29, 2013}}</ref> The [[National Computing Centre]]'s EA best practice guidance states that an EA typically "takes the form of a comprehensive set of cohesive models that describe the structure and functions of an enterprise. The individual models in an EA are arranged in a logical manner that provides an ever-increasing level of detail about the enterprise."<ref>{{cite book|last=Jarvis|first=Bob|title=Enterprise Architecture: Understanding the Bigger Picture – A Best Practice Guide for Decision Makers in IT|publisher=The UK National Computing Centre|location=Manchester, England, United Kingdom|page=9|year=2003}}</ref> |
|||
Important players within EA include enterprise architects and solutions architects. Enterprise architects are at the top level of the architect hierarchy, meaning they have more responsibilities than solutions architects. While solutions architects focus on their own relevant solutions, enterprise architects focus on solutions for and the impact on the whole organization. Enterprise architects oversee many solution architects and business functions. As practitioners of EA, enterprise architects support an organization's strategic vision by acting to align people, process, and technology decisions with actionable goals and objectives that result in quantifiable improvements toward achieving that vision. The practice of EA "analyzes areas of common activity within or between organizations, where information and other resources are exchanged to guide future states from an integrated viewpoint of strategy, business, and technology."<ref>{{cite web |work=Enterprise Architecture Book of Knowledge|title=Planning an EA – Purpose|url=http://www2.mitre.org/public/eabok/planning_an_ea/purpose.html |publisher=Mitre Corporation |access-date=2014-10-03|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131001215616/http://www2.mitre.org/public/eabok/planning_an_ea/purpose.html|archive-date=2013-10-01}}</ref> |
|||
== Overview == |
|||
US Code 44, Section 3601 Definition of Enterprise Architecture: |
|||
(4)“enterprise architecture”— |
|||
(A)means— |
|||
(i)a strategic information asset base, which defines the mission; |
|||
(ii)the information necessary to perform the mission; |
|||
(iii)the technologies necessary to perform the mission; and |
|||
(iv)the transitional processes for implementing new technologies in response to changing mission needs; and |
|||
(B)includes— |
|||
(i)a baseline architecture; |
|||
(ii)a target architecture; and |
|||
(iii)a sequencing plan; |
|||
===Definitions=== |
|||
EA is not just about IT. It's about understanding the mission in sufficient detail that you can make informed purchase decisions across the enterprise, in context and in a timely manner. |
|||
The term ''enterprise'' can be defined as an [[organizational unit]], [[organization]], or collection of organizations that share a set of common goals and collaborate to provide specific products or services to customers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iiba.org/babok-guide.aspx|title=Business Analysis Body of Knowledge|publisher=International Institute of Business Analysis|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170624233443/http://www.iiba.org/babok-guide.aspx|archive-date=2017-06-24}}</ref> In that sense, the term enterprise covers various types of organizations, regardless of their size, ownership model, operational model, or geographical distribution. It includes those organizations' complete [[sociotechnical system]],<ref name="Giachetti">{{cite book|last=Giachett|first=R.E.|title=Design of Enterprise Systems, Theory, Architecture, and Methods|publisher=CRC Press|location=Boca Raton, Florida, USA|year=2010}}</ref> including people, information, processes, and technologies. Enterprise as a sociotechnical system defines the scope of EA. |
|||
“Congress, OMB and the IT community are SO distracted from the underlying plot of the Clinger-Cohen Act — it was NEVER about the technology but rather how you could transform mission and support processes through the thoughtful application of technology,” Brubaker said. “Agencies were to demonstrate how they were thoughtfully applying technology by presenting clear and compelling business cases for investing in technology then holding themselves accountable for producing measurable improvements in mission and operational performance. Sadly, OMB, GSA, agencies and CIOs just couldn’t resist the temptation to over-prescribe compliance and pushing tasks that over-focused on technology and infrastructure which completely missed the point.” Paul Brubaker |
|||
The term ''architecture'' refers to fundamental concepts or properties of a system in its environment; and embodied in its elements, relationships, and in the principles of its design and evolution.<ref name="ISO42010">{{cite web|url=https://www.iso.org/standard/50508.html|title=ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011: Systems and software engineering — Architecture description|date=2011-11-24|publisher=International Organization for Standardization|access-date=2023-03-04}}</ref> A methodology for developing and using architecture to guide the [[Business transformation|transformation of a business]] from a baseline state to a target state, sometimes through several transition states, is usually known as an [[enterprise architecture framework]]. A framework provides a structured collection of processes, techniques, [[Enterprise architecture artifacts|artifact descriptions]], reference models, and guidance for the production and use of an enterprise-specific architecture description.{{citation needed|date=March 2023}} |
|||
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/reporters-notebook-jason-miller/2019/02/dont-exempt-dod-from-the-clinger-cohen-act-modernize-federal-it-management-instead/ |
|||
Paramount to ''changing'' the EA is the identification of a [[:wikt:sponsor|sponsor]]. Their mission, [[vision (business)|vision]], strategy, and the governance framework define all roles, responsibilities, and relationships involved in the anticipated transformation. Changes considered by enterprise architects typically include innovations in the structure or processes of an organization; innovations in the use of information systems or technologies; the integration and/or [[standardization]] of business processes; and improvement of the quality and timeliness of business information.{{citation needed|date=March 2023}} |
|||
The [[Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge]] defines enterprise architecture as a practice, which |
|||
{{quote|''analyzes areas of common activity within or between organizations, where information and other resources are exchanged to guide future states from an integrated viewpoint of strategy, business, and technology.''<ref>Enterprise Architecture Book of Knowledge, Planning an EA - Purpose, [http://www2.mitre.org/public/eabok/planning_an_ea/purpose.html], retrieved on October 3, 2014.</ref>}} |
|||
According to the standard [[ISO/IEC 42010|ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010]],<ref name="ISO42010"/> the product used to describe the architecture of a system is called an ''architectural description''. In practice, an architectural description contains a variety of lists, tables, and diagrams. These are models known as ''[[View model|views]]''. In the case of EA, these models describe the logical business functions or capabilities, [[business process]]es, human roles and actors, the physical organization structure, [[data flow]]s and [[data store]]s, [[business application]]s and platform applications, hardware, and communications infrastructure.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kotusev|first1=Svyatoslav|last2=Kurnia|first2=Sherah|date=2021-09-01|title=The theoretical basis of enterprise architecture: A critical review and taxonomy of relevant theories|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396220977873|journal=Journal of Information Technology|language=en|volume=36|issue=3|pages=275–315|doi=10.1177/0268396220977873|s2cid=230545944 |issn=0268-3962}}</ref> |
|||
IT analysis firm [[Gartner]] defines the term as a discipline where an enterprise is led through change. According to their glossary, |
|||
{{quote|"Enterprise architecture (EA) is a discipline for proactively and holistically leading enterprise responses to disruptive forces by identifying and analyzing the execution of change toward desired business vision and outcomes. EA delivers value by presenting business and IT leaders with signature-ready recommendations for adjusting policies and projects to achieve target business outcomes that capitalize on relevant business disruptions. EA is used to steer [[decision making]] toward the evolution of the future state architecture."<ref>[http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/enterprise-architecture-ea/ Gartner IT Glossary – Enterprise Architecture (EA)]. Gartner.com. Retrieved on July 29, 2013.</ref>}} |
|||
The first use of the term "enterprise architecture" is often incorrectly attributed to [[John Zachman]]'s 1987 ''A framework for information systems architecture''.<ref name=zachman>{{cite journal|last=Zachman|first=John A.|title=A framework for information systems architecture.|journal=IBM Systems Journal|edition=reprint|year=1999|volume=38|issue=2/3|pages=454–470|doi=10.1147/sj.382.0454|s2cid=12191060 }}</ref> The first publication to use it was instead a [[National Institute of Standards and Technology|National Institute of Standards]] (NIST) Special Publication<ref name="NIST SP 500-167">{{cite journal|last=Fong|first=E. N.|author2=Goldfine, E.H.|title=Information management directions: the integration challenge.|journal=SIGMOD Record|date=December 1989|volume= 18|issue= 4|pages=40–43|url=http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/NIST%20SP%20500-167.pdf|doi=10.1145/74120.74125|s2cid=23939840}}</ref> on the challenges of information system integration.{{citation needed|date=March 2023}} The NIST article describes EA as consisting of several levels. [[Business architecture|Business unit architecture]] is the top level and might be a total corporate entity or a sub-unit. It establishes for the whole organization necessary frameworks for "satisfying both internal information needs" as well as the needs of external entities, which include [[Cooperate|cooperating organizations]], [[customers]], and [[Government agency|federal agencies]]. The lower levels of the EA that provide information to higher levels are more attentive to detail on behalf of their superiors. In addition to this structure, business unit architecture establishes [[Technical standard|standards]], [[policies]], and [[procedure (business)|procedure]]s that either enhance or stymie the organization's mission.<ref name="NIST SP 500-167"/> |
|||
Each of the definitions above underplays the historical reality that enterprise architecture emerged from methods for documenting and planning [[information system]]s architectures, and the current reality that most enterprise architecture practitioners report to a CIO or other IT department manager. In a business organization structure today, the enterprise architecture team performs an ongoing business function that helps business and IT managers to figure out the best strategies to support and enable business development and business change – in relation to the business information systems that the business depends on. |
|||
The main difference between these two definitions is that Zachman's concept was the creation of individual information systems optimized for business, while NIST's described the management of all information systems within a business unit. The definitions in both publications, however, agreed that due to the "increasing size and complexity of the [i]mplementations of [i]nformation systems... logical construct[s] (or architecture) for defining and controlling the interfaces and... [i]ntegration of all the components of a system" is necessary. Zachman in particular urged for a "[[strategic planning]] [[methodology]]."<ref name=zachman/> |
|||
== Topics == |
|||
==Overview== |
|||
=== The terms ''enterprise'' and ''architecture'' === |
|||
===Schools of thought=== |
|||
The term ''enterprise'' can be defined as describing an [[organizational unit]], [[organization]], or collection of organizations that share a set of common goals and [[collaboration|collaborate]] to provide specific products or services to customers.<ref>[http://www.iiba.org/IIBA/Professional_Development/Business_Analysis_Body_of_Knowledge/IIBA_Website/Professional_Development/Business_Analysis_Body_of_Knowledge_pages/Business_Analysis_Body_of_Knowledge.aspx ''Business Analysis Body of Knowledge''], from the [[International Institute of Business Analysis]]</ref> |
|||
Within the field of enterprise architecture, there are three overarching schools: Enterprise IT Design, Enterprise Integrating, and Enterprise Ecosystem Adaption. Which school one subscribes to will impact how they see the EA's purpose and scope, as well as the means of achieving it, the skills needed to conduct it, and the locus of responsibility for conducting it.<ref name="Lapalme">{{cite journal|last=Lapalme|first=J.|title=Three Schools of Thought on Enterprise Architecture|journal=IT Professional|volume=14|number=6|pages=37–43|date=November 2012|doi=10.1109/MITP.2011.109|s2cid=206469705 }}</ref> |
|||
Under Enterprise IT Design, the main purpose of EA is to guide the process of planning and designing an enterprise's [[Information technology|IT]]/[[Information science|IS]] capabilities to meet the desired organizational objectives, often by greater alignment between IT/IS and business concerns. Architecture proposals and decisions are limited to the IT/IS aspects of the enterprise and other aspects service only as inputs. The Enterprise Integrating school believes that the purpose of EA is to create a greater coherency between the various concerns of an enterprise (HR, IT, Operations, etc.), including the link between strategy formulation and execution. Architecture proposals and decisions here encompass all aspects of the enterprise. The Enterprise Ecosystem Adaption school states that the purpose of EA is to foster and maintain the learning capabilities of enterprises so they may be sustainable. Consequently, a great deal of emphasis is put on improving the capabilities of the enterprise to improve itself, to innovate, and to coevolve with its environment. Typically, proposals and decisions encompass both the enterprise and its environment. |
|||
In that sense, the term enterprise covers various types of organizations, regardless of their size, ownership model, operational model, or geographical distribution. It includes those organizations' complete socio-technical systems,<ref name="Giachetti">Giachetti, R.E., Design of Enterprise Systems, Theory, Architecture, and Methods, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2010.</ref> including people, information, processes, and technologies. |
|||
===Benefits, challenges, and criticisms=== |
|||
The term ''architecture'' refers to fundamental concepts or properties of a system in its environment, embodied in its elements, relationships, and in the principles of its design and evolution.<ref name="ISO42010">{{cite web|url=http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50508 |title=ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 - Systems and software engineering - Architecture description |publisher=Iso.org |date=November 24, 2011 |accessdate=August 6, 2013}}</ref> |
|||
The benefits of EA are achieved through its direct and indirect contributions to organizational goals.<ref>{{cite report|author1=Vasilis Boucharas|author2=Marlies van Steenbergen|author3=Slinger Jansen|author4=Sjaak Brinkkemper|title=The Contribution of Enterprise Architecture to the Achievement of Organizational Goals: Establishing the Enterprise Architecture Benefits Framework, Technical Report|publisher=Department of Information and Computing Sciences at Utrecht University|location=Utrecht, The Netherlands|url=http://www.cs.uu.nl/research/techreps/repo/CS-2010/2010-014.pdf|access-date=November 29, 2014|archive-date=July 4, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220704121626/http://www.cs.uu.nl/research/techreps/repo/CS-2010/2010-014.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Notable benefits include support in the areas related to design and re-design of the organizational structures during mergers, acquisitions, or general organizational change;<ref>{{cite book|chapter=Effects of an architectural approach to the implementation of shared service centers|author1=Bert Arnold|author2=Martin Op 't Land|author-link2=Martin Op 't Land|author3=Jan Dietz|author-link3=Jan Dietz|title=Financecom05: Second international workshop on Enterprise, applications and services in the finance industry|editor1=Fethi Rabhi|editor2=Daniel Veit|editor3=Christof Weinhardt|year=2005|publisher=Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers|location=Regensburg, Germany}}</ref><ref name=schekkerman>{{cite report|title=Trends in enterprise architecture 2005: How are organizations progressing?|publisher=Institute For Enterprise Architecture Developments|url=https://silo.tips/download/trends-in-enterprise-architecture|last=Schekkerman|first=Jaap|author-link=Jaap Schekkerman|page=33}}</ref><ref name=bucher>{{cite report|title=Enterprise architecture analysis and application: An exploratory study|last1=Bucher|first1=T.|last2=Fischer|first2=R.|last3=Kurpjuweit|first3=S.|last4=Winter|first4=Robert|author-link4=Robert Winter (business theorist)|publisher=EDOC Workshop TEAR|location=Hong Kong, China|year=2006}}</ref><ref name=nilsson>{{cite report|title=Management of technochange in an interorganizational E-government project|publisher=Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences|last=Nilsson|first=Andreas|year=2008|page=209}}</ref> enforcement of discipline and business process standardization, and enablement of process consolidation, reuse, and [[Process integration|integration]];<ref name=varnus>{{cite report|title=TOGAF 9 enterprise architecture survey results|last1=Varnus|first1=J.|last2=Panaich|first2=N.|publisher=23rd Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference|url=http://opengroup.org/public/member/proceedings/q309/q309a/Presentations/pl-varnus-panaich.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.opengroup.org/public/member/proceedings/q309/q309a/Presentations/pl-varnus-panaich.pdf|date=2009-07-20|archive-date=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref name=rossweill>{{cite report|title=Understanding the benefits of enterprise architecture|last1=Ross|first1=J.W.|last2=Weill|first2=P.|year=2005|publisher=CISR Research Briefings|volume=V|number=2B}}</ref> support for investment decision-making and work prioritization;<ref name=schekkerman/><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Quartel |first1=Dick |last2=Steen |first2=Maarten W.A. |last3=Lankhorst |first3=Marc M. |date=2012-05-01 |title=Application and project portfolio valuation using enterprise architecture and business requirements modelling |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2011.625571 |journal=Enterprise Information Systems |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=189–213 |doi=10.1080/17517575.2011.625571 |bibcode=2012EntIS...6..189Q |s2cid=28199240 |issn=1751-7575}}</ref><ref name=bucher/> enhancement of collaboration and communication between [[project stakeholder]]s and contribution to efficient [[Scope (project management)|project scoping]] and to defining more complete and consistent project [[deliverables]]s;<ref name=nilsson/><ref name=varnus/> and an increase in the timeliness of [[requirements elicitation]] and the accuracy of requirement definitions through publishing of the EA documentation.<ref>{{cite report|chapter=Architecture-driven requirements engineering|last1=Engelsman|first1=W.|last2=Iacob|first2=M.E.|last3=Franken|first3=H.M.|last4=Jonkers|first4=J.|title=Advances in Enterprise Engineering II |series=Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing |publisher=Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing|location=Honolulu, Hawaii, USA|year=2009|volume=28 |pages=285–286|doi=10.1007/978-3-642-01859-6_8|isbn=978-3-642-01858-9 }}</ref> |
|||
Other benefits include contribution to [[Optimal design|optimal system designs]] and efficient resource allocation during system development and testing;<ref name=schekkerman/><ref name=bucher/> enforcement of discipline and standardization of IT planning activities and contribution to a reduction in time for technology-related decision making;<ref name=bucher/><ref name=rossweill/> reduction of the system's implementation and operational costs, and minimization of replicate infrastructure services across business units;<ref name=rossweill/><ref name=kappelman>{{cite report|title=Enterprise Architecture: Charting the Territory for Academic Research|last1=Kappelman|first1=Leon|last2=McGinnis|first2=Tom|last3=Pettite|first3=Alex|last4=Sidorova|first4=Anna|year=2008|publisher=AMCIS 2008 Proceedings|url=https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2008/162/}}</ref> reduction in IT complexity, consolidation of data and applications, and improvement of [[interoperability]] of the systems;<ref name=varnus/><ref name=rossweill/><ref name=kappelman/> more [[open-closed principle|open]] and [[responsiveness|responsive]] IT as reflected through increased accessibility of data for [[regulatory compliance]], and increased transparency of infrastructure changes;<ref name=rossweill/><ref>{{cite journal|title=Managing information security in a business network of machinery maintenance services business - Enterprise architecture as a coordination tool|last1=Pulkkinen|first1=M.|last2=Luostarinen|first2=K.|last3=Naumenko|first3=A.|journal=Journal of Systems and Software|volume=80|issue=10|pages=1607–1620|year=2007|doi=10.1016/j.jss.2007.01.044}}</ref> and a reduction of [[business risks]] from system failures and security breaches. EA also helps reduce risks of project delivery.<ref name=rossweill/><ref>{{cite report|title=Enterprise architecture expands its role in strategic business transformation: Infosys enterprise architecture survey 2008/2009|last1=Obitz|first1=T.|last2=Babu|first2=M.K.|publisher=Infosys|year=2009}}</ref> Establishing EA as an accepted, recognized, functionally integrated and fully involved concept at operational and tactical levels is one of the biggest challenges facing Enterprise Architects today and one of the main reasons why many EA initiatives fail.<ref>{{cite journal|title=FEAMI: A Methodology to include and to integrate Enterprise Architecture Processes into Existing Organizational Processes|last=Dedic|first=N.|year=2020|journal=IEEE Engineering Management Review|volume=48|issue=4|pages=160–166 |doi=10.1109/EMR.2020.3031968|s2cid=226351029 }}</ref> |
|||
Understood as a socio-technical system, the term enterprise defines the scope of the enterprise architecture. |
|||
A key concern about EA has been the difficulty in arriving at [[Performance indicator|metrics of success]] because of the broad-brush and often opaque nature of EA projects.<ref>{{cite thesis|title=Measuring Enterprise Architecture Effectiveness: A Focus on Key Performance Indicators|last=Günther|first=Wendy Arianne|date=August 2014|url=http://liacs.leidenuniv.nl/assets/Masterscripties/ICTiB/Gunther-Wendy-non-confidential.pdf|type=Master's thesis|publisher=Universiteit Leiden|access-date=2023-03-04}}</ref> Additionally, there have been a number of reports, including those written by [[Ivar Jacobson]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.ivarjacobson.com/ea-failed-big-way/|title=EA Failed Big Way!|last=Jacobson|first=Ivar|author-link=Ivar Jacobson|date=2007-10-18|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160401150639/http://blog.ivarjacobson.com/ea-failed-big-way/|archive-date=2016-04-01}}</ref> [[Gartner]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=498188&tab=overview|title=Gartner Enterprise Architecture Summit: Architecting the Agile Organization, 26 – 27 September 2007|publisher=Gartner|year=2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070806135856/http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=498188&tab=overview|archive-date=2007-08-06}}</ref> [[Erasmus University Rotterdam]] and [[IDS Scheer]],<ref>{{cite report|url=http://www.computerworld.com.au/whitepaper/370709/why-two-thirds-of-enterprise-architecture-projects-fail/?type=other&arg=0&location=art_related|title=Why Two Thirds of Enterprise Architecture Projects Fail|last1=Roeleven|first1=S.|last2=Broer|first2=J.|year=2010|publisher=ARIS|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113181849/http://www.computerworld.com.au/whitepaper/370709/why-two-thirds-of-enterprise-architecture-projects-fail/?type=other&arg=0&location=art_related|archive-date=2013-11-13}}</ref> [[Dion Hinchcliffe]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/enterprise/2009/09/fixing_enterprise_architecture.php|title=Fixing Enterprise Architecture: Balancing the Forces of Change in the Modern Organization|last=Hinchcliffe|first=Dion|date=2009-09-03|publisher=ebiz|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090906013021/http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/enterprise/2009/09/fixing_enterprise_architecture.php|archive-date=2009-09-06}}</ref> and [[Stanley Gaver]],<ref>{{cite report|url=http://www.ech-bpm.ch/sites/default/files/articles/why_doesnt_the_federal_enterprise_architecture_work.pdf|title=Why Doesn't the FEA Work?|last=Gaver|first=Stanley|publisher=Technology Matters, Inc.|year=2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160611170127/http://www.ech-bpm.ch/sites/default/files/articles/why_doesnt_the_federal_enterprise_architecture_work.pdf|archive-date=2016-06-11}}</ref> that argue that the frequent failure of EA initiatives makes the concept not worth the effort and that the methodology will fade out quickly. |
|||
=== Scopes === |
|||
Perspectives, or beliefs, held by enterprise architecture practitioners and scholars, with regards to the meaning of the enterprise architecture, typically gravitate towards one or a hybrid of three schools of thought:<ref name="Lapalme">Lapalme, J., Three Schools of Thought on Enterprise Architecture, IT Professional, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 37–43, Nov.–Dec. 2012, doi:10.1109/MITP.2011.109</ref> |
|||
# Enterprise IT design – the purpose of EA is the greater alignment between IT and business concerns. The main purpose of enterprise architecture is to guide the process of planning and designing the IT/IS capabilities of an enterprise in order to meet desired organizational objectives. Typically, architecture proposals and decisions are limited to the IT/IS aspects of the enterprise; other aspects only serve as inputs. |
|||
# Enterprise integrating – According to this school of thought, the purpose of EA is to achieve greater coherency between the various concerns of an enterprise (HR, IT, Operations, etc.) including the linking between strategy formulation and execution. Typically, architecture proposals and decisions encompass all the aspects of the enterprise. |
|||
# Enterprise ecosystem adaptation – the purpose of EA is to foster and maintain the learning capabilities of enterprises so that they may be sustainable. Consequently, a great deal of emphasis is put on improving the capabilities of the enterprise to improve itself, to [[innovation|innovate]] and to coevolve with its environment. Typically, proposals and decisions encompass both the enterprise and its environment. |
|||
==Relationship to other disciplines== |
|||
One’s belief with regards to the meaning of enterprise architecture will impact how one sees its purpose, its scope, the means of achieving it, the skills needed to conduct it, and the locus of responsibility for conducting it<ref name="Lapalme" /> |
|||
According to the Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations (FEAPO), EA interacts with a wide array of other disciplines commonly found in business settings such as [[performance engineering]] and [[performance management|management]], [[process engineering]] and [[Process management (project management)|management]], [[IT portfolio management|IT]] and [[Enterprise project management|enterprise portfolio management]], [[Governance, risk management, and compliance|governance and compliance]], IT strategic planning, [[risk analysis]], [[information management]], [[metadata management]], [[organization development]], [[design thinking]], [[systems thinking]], and [[user experience design]].<ref name=feapo/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.forrester.com/clay_richardson/13-04-12-design_thinking_reshapes_ea_for_dynamic_business|title=Design Thinking Reshapes EA For Dynamic Business|date=2013-04-12|publisher=Forrester|last=Richardson|first=Clay|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130419011441/http://blogs.forrester.com/clay_richardson/13-04-12-design_thinking_reshapes_ea_for_dynamic_business|archive-date=2013-04-19}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/gartner-urges-more-design-thinking-to-break-enterprise-architecture-out-of-its-silo/|title=Gartner urges more 'design thinking' to break enterprise architecture out of its silo|last=McKendrick|first=Joe|date=2010-05-19|publisher=ZDNet|access-date=2023-03-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.forrester.com/information_management/2010/02/who-owns-information-architecture-all-of-us.html|title=Who Owns Information Architecture? All Of Us.|last=Owens|first=Leslie|date=2010-02-02|publisher=Forrester|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100205132536/http://blogs.forrester.com/information_management/2010/02/who-owns-information-architecture-all-of-us.html|archive-date=2010-02-05}}</ref> The EA of an organization is too complex and extensive to document in its entirety, so [[knowledge management]] techniques provide a way to explore and analyze these hidden, tacit, or implicit areas. In return, EA provides a way of documenting the components of an organization and their interaction in a systemic and holistic way that complements knowledge management.<ref>{{cite book|title=Information First - Integrating Knowledge and Information Architecture for Business Advantage|last1=Evernden|first1=Elaine|last2=Evernden|first2=Roger|author2-link=Roger Evernden|publisher=Butterworth-Heinemann|location=Oxford, England, UK|year=2003|isbn=978-0-7506-5858-4}}</ref> |
|||
In various venues,<ref>{{cite web|title=Service Oriented Architecture : SOA and Enterprise Architecture|url=http://www.opengroup.org/soa/source-book/soa/soa_ea.htm|publisher=The Open Group|access-date=December 18, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150110073815/http://www.opengroup.org/soa/source-book/soa/soa_ea.htm|archive-date=January 10, 2015|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref> EA has been discussed as having a relationship with [[Service Oriented Architecture]] (SOA), a particular style of application integration. Research points to EA promoting the use of SOA as an enterprise-wide integration pattern.<ref>{{cite report|title=The Role of Service Oriented Architecture as an enabler for Enterprise Architecture|last1=Kistasamy|first1=Christopher|last2=van der Merwe|first2=Alta|last3=de la Harpe|first3=Andre|year=2012|publisher=AMCIS 2012 Proceedings|location=Seattle, Washington, USA|url=https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/EnterpriseSystems/4/}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/soa/rosa-sampaio-soa-gov-2080776.html|title=SOA Governance Through Enterprise Architecture|last1=Rosa|first1=Manuel|last2=de Oliveira Sampaio|first2=André|date=December 2013|publisher=Oracle|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131219030125/http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/soa/rosa-sampaio-soa-gov-2080776.html|archive-date=2013-12-19}}</ref> The broad reach of EA has resulted in this business role being included in the [[information technology governance]] processes of many organizations. Analyst firm [[Real Story Group]] suggested that EA and the emerging concept of the [[digital workplace]] are "two sides to the same coin."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.realstorygroup.com/Blog/2311-Digital-workplace-and-enterprise-architecture-two-sides-to-same-coin|title=Digital workplace and enterprise architecture -- two sides to same coin|last=Byrne|first=Tony|date=2012-03-19|publisher=Real Story Group|access-date=2023-03-04}}</ref> The Cutter Consortium described EA as an information and knowledge-based discipline.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cutter.com/article/dealing-too-much-data-architectural-perspective-469106|title=Dealing with Too Much Data from an Architectural Perspective|last=Evernden|first=Roger|author-link=Roger Evernden|date=2012-11-13|publisher=Cutter|access-date=2023-03-04}}</ref> |
|||
=== Architectural description of an enterprise === |
|||
{{see also|Architecture domain}} |
|||
According to the standard [[ISO/IEC 42010|ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010]],<ref name="ISO42010"/> the product used to describe the architecture of a system is called an ''architectural description''. In practice, an architectural description contains a variety of lists, tables, and diagrams. These are models known as ''views''. In the case of Enterprise Architecture, these models describe the logical business functions or capabilities, [[business process]]es, human roles and actors, the physical organization structure, [[data flow]]s and [[data store]]s, [[business application]]s and platform applications, hardware, and communications infrastructure.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}} |
|||
The UK National Computing Centre EA best practice guidance<ref>Jarvis, Bob (2003) ''Enterprise Architecture: Understanding the Bigger Picture – A Best Practice Guide for Decision Makers in IT'', The UK National Computing Centre, Manchester, UK. p. 9</ref> states: |
|||
<blockquote>Normally an EA takes the form of a comprehensive set of cohesive models that describe the structure and functions of an enterprise. The individual models in an EA are arranged in a logical manner that provides an ever-increasing level of detail about the enterprise. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
The architecture of an enterprise is described with a view to improving the manageability, effectiveness, efficiency, or agility of the business, and ensuring that money spent on [[information technology]] (IT) is justified.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}} |
|||
Paramount to ''changing'' the enterprise architecture is the identification of a [[:wikt:sponsor|sponsor]]. His/her mission, [[vision (business)|vision]], and strategy, and the governance framework define all roles, responsibilities, and relationships involved in the anticipated transformation. Changes considered by enterprise architects typically include: |
|||
* innovations in the structure or processes of an organization |
|||
* innovations in the use of information systems or technologies |
|||
* the integration and/or [[standardization]] of business processes, and |
|||
* improving the quality and timeliness of business information. |
|||
A methodology for developing and using architecture to guide the [[Business transformation|transformation of a business]] from a baseline state to a target state, sometimes through several transition states, is usually known as an [[enterprise architecture framework]]. A framework provides a structured collection of processes, techniques, [[Enterprise architecture artifacts|artifact descriptions]], reference models, and guidance for the production and use of an enterprise-specific architecture description. |
|||
== Benefits == |
|||
The benefits of enterprise architecture are achieved through its direct and indirect contributions to organizational goals. It has been found that the most notable benefits of enterprise architecture can be observed in the following areas:<ref name="The Contribution of Enterprise Architecture to the Achievement of Organizational Goals">The Contribution of Enterprise Architecture to the Achievement of Organizational Goals: Establishing the Enterprise Architecture Benefits Framework, Technical Report, Department of Information and Computing Sciences Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, ([http://www.cs.uu.nl/research/techreps/repo/CS-2010/2010-014.pdf 2010 online])</ref> |
|||
* Organizational design – Enterprise architecture provides support in the areas related to design and re-design of the organizational structures during mergers, acquisitions or during general organizational change.<ref name="Effects of an architectural approach to the implementation of shared service centers">Bert Arnold, [[Martin Op 't Land]] and [[Jan Dietz]]. "Effects of an architectural approach to the implementation of shared service centers," in Second International Workshop on Enterprise, Applications and Services in the Finance Industry (FinanceCom05), Regensburg, Germany, 2005.</ref><ref name="J. Schekkerman. Trends in enterprise architecture 2005">[[Jaap Schekkerman]]. Trends in enterprise architecture 2005: How are organizations progressing? [Online]. 2009(10/20), pp. 33. Available: ([http://www.enterprisearchitecture.info/Images/EA%20Survey/Enterprise%20Architecture%20Survey%202005%20IFEAD%20v10.pdf online]{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }})</ref><ref name="T. Buchter, Enterprise architecture analysis and application: An exploratory study">T. Bucher, R. Fischer, S. Kurpjuweit and [[Robert Winter (business theorist)|R. Winter]], "Enterprise architecture analysis and application: An exploratory study," in EDOC Workshop TEAR, Hong Kong, 2006.</ref><ref name="Nilsson, Management of technochange in an interorganizational E-government project,">Nilsson, "Management of technochange in an interorganizational E-government project," in Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2008, pp. 209.</ref> |
|||
* Organizational processes and process standards – Enterprise architecture helps enforce discipline and standardization of business processes, and enable process consolidation, reuse, and integration.<ref name="J Varnus, TOGAF 9 enterprise architecture survey results">J. Varnus and N. Panaich. TOGAF 9 enterprise architecture survey results. Presented at 23rd Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference. [Online]. Available: www.opengroup.org/public/member/proceedings/q309/q309a/Presentations/pl-varnus-panaich.pdf.</ref><ref name="J. W. Ross, Understanding the Benefits of Enterprise Architecture">[[Jeanne W. Ross]] and [[Peter Weill]], "Understanding the Benefits of Enterprise Architecture," CISR Research Briefings, 2005.</ref> |
|||
* [[Project portfolio management]] – Enterprise architecture supports investment decision-making and work prioritization.<ref name="J. Schekkerman. Trends in enterprise architecture 2005"/><ref name="T. Buchter, Enterprise architecture analysis and application: An exploratory study"/> |
|||
* Project management – Enterprise architecture enhances the collaboration and communication between project stakeholders. Enterprise architecture contributes to efficient project scoping and to defining more complete and consistent project deliverables.<ref name="Nilsson, Management of technochange in an interorganizational E-government project,"/><ref name="J Varnus, TOGAF 9 enterprise architecture survey results"/> |
|||
* [[Requirements engineering]] – Enterprise architecture increases the speed of requirement elicitation and the accuracy of requirement definitions, through publishing of the enterprise architecture documentation.<ref>W. Engelsman, M. E. Iacob and H. M. Franken, "Architecture-driven requirements engineering," in Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing(SAC '09), Honolulu, Hawaii, 2009, pp. 285-286.</ref> |
|||
* System development - Enterprise architecture contributes to optimal system designs and efficient resource allocation during system development and testing.<ref name="J. Schekkerman. Trends in enterprise architecture 2005"/><ref name="T. Buchter, Enterprise architecture analysis and application: An exploratory study"/> |
|||
* [[IT management]] and decision making – Enterprise architecture is found to help enforce discipline and standardization of IT planning activities and to contribute to a reduction in time for technology-related decision making.<ref name="T. Buchter, Enterprise architecture analysis and application: An exploratory study"/><ref name="J. W. Ross, Understanding the Benefits of Enterprise Architecture"/> |
|||
* IT value – Enterprise architecture helps reduce the system's implementation and operational costs, and minimize replication of IT infrastructure services across business units.<ref name="J. W. Ross, Understanding the Benefits of Enterprise Architecture"/><ref name="L. Kappelman, T. McGinnis 2008">L. Kappelman, T. McGinnis, A. Pettite and A. Sidorova, "Enterprise architecture: Charting the territory for academic research," in AMCIS 2008, 2008.</ref> |
|||
* IT complexity – Enterprise architecture contributes to a reduction in IT complexity, consolidation of data and applications, and to better [[interoperability]] of the systems.<ref name="J Varnus, TOGAF 9 enterprise architecture survey results"/><ref name="J. W. Ross, Understanding the Benefits of Enterprise Architecture"/><ref name="L. Kappelman, T. McGinnis 2008"/> |
|||
* IT openness – Enterprise architecture contributes to more [[open-closed principle|open]] and [[responsiveness|responsive]] IT as reflected through increased accessibility of data for [[regulatory compliance]], and increased transparency of infrastructure changes.<ref name="J. W. Ross, Understanding the Benefits of Enterprise Architecture"/><ref>M. Pulkkinen, A. Naumenko and K. Luostarinen, "Managing information security in a business network of machinery maintenance services business - Enterprise architecture as a coordination tool," J. Syst. Softw., vol. 80, pp. 1607-1620, 2007.</ref> |
|||
* [[IT risk management]] – Enterprise architecture contributes to the reduction of business risks from system failures and security breaches. Enterprise architecture helps reduce risks of project delivery.<ref name="J. W. Ross, Understanding the Benefits of Enterprise Architecture"/><ref>T. Obitz and M. K. Babu. (2009). Enterprise architecture expands its role in strategic business transformation: Infosys enterprise architecture survey 2008/2009. ([https://pub.infosys.com/ea-comprehensive-report-2008.pdf online]{{Dead link|date=August 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}).</ref> |
|||
== Examples == |
|||
Documenting the architecture of enterprises is done within the [[United States|U.S.]] [[United States Government|Federal Government]]<ref>Federal Government agency success stories, (2010), [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/E-Gov/ea_success.aspx whitehouse.gov] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100430152712/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/E-Gov/ea_success.aspx |date=April 30, 2010 }}</ref> in the context of the [[Capital Planning and Investment Control]] (CPIC) process. |
|||
The [[Federal Enterprise Architecture]] (FEA) reference model guides federal agencies in the development of their architectures.<ref>FEA Practice Guidance Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office OMB, (2007), [http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.pdf whitehouse.gov] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101016043354/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.pdf |date=October 16, 2010 }}</ref> |
|||
Companies such as [[Independence Blue Cross]], [[Intel]], [[Volkswagen AG]]<ref>"Volkswagen of America: Managing IT Priorities," Harvard Business Review, October 5, 2005, Robert D. Austin, Warren Ritchie, Greggory Garrett</ref> and [[InterContinental Hotels Group]] use enterprise architecture to improve their business architectures as well as to improve [[business efficiency|business performance]] and [[productivity]]. |
|||
For various understandable reasons, commercial organizations rarely publish substantial enterprise architecture descriptions. However, government agencies have begun to publish architectural descriptions they have developed. Examples include: |
|||
* [[United States Department of the Interior|US Department of the Interior]] |
|||
* [[United States Department of Defense|US Department of Defense]] Business Enterprise Architecture,<ref>[http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-architecture/ DoD BEA]</ref> or the 2008 BEAv5.0 version |
|||
* [[Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework]] <!-- source for further content [http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml;jsessionid=VNR2XMUQQQIV2AKRGWCB5VQBKE0YOISW?id=606003&referral=2341 Harvard Business School Case Study referencing Enterprise_architecture] --> |
|||
== Relationship to other disciplines == |
|||
According to the Federation of EA Professional Organizations (FEAPO), enterprise architecture interacts with a wide array of other disciplines commonly found in business settings. According to FEAPO: |
|||
{{quote|An Enterprise Architecture practice collaborates with many interconnected disciplines, including performance engineering and management, process engineering and management, IT and enterprise portfolio management, governance and compliance, IT strategic planning, risk analysis, information management, metadata management, and a wide variety of technical disciplines as well as organizational disciplines such as organizational development, transformation, innovation, and learning. Increasingly, many practitioners have stressed the important relationship of Enterprise Architecture with emerging holistic design practices such as design thinking, systems thinking, and user experience design.<ref name="FEAPO"/>}} |
|||
As enterprise architecture has emerged in various organizations, the broad reach has resulted in this business role being included in the [[information technology governance]] processes of many organizations. While this may imply that enterprise architecture is closely tied to IT, it should be viewed in the broader context of [[business optimization]] in that it addresses [[business architecture]], [[performance management]], and process architecture, as well as more technical subjects. |
|||
Discussions of the intersection of enterprise architecture and various IT practices have been published by various IT analysis firms. Gartner and Forrester have stressed the important relationship of enterprise architecture with emerging holistic design practices such as [[Design Thinking]] and [[User Experience Design]].<ref>Clay Richardson, Forrester Blogs – Design Thinking Reshapes EA For Dynamic Business, (2013) [http://blogs.forrester.com/clay_richardson/13-04-12-design_thinking_reshapes_ea_for_dynamic_business] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130419011441/http://blogs.forrester.com/clay_richardson/13-04-12-design_thinking_reshapes_ea_for_dynamic_business |date=April 19, 2013 }}</ref><ref>Joe McKendrick, ZDNet – Gartner urges more 'design thinking' to break enterprise architecture out of its silo, (2010) [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/service-oriented/gartner-urges-more-design-thinking-to-break-enterprise-architecture-out-of-its-silo/4858]</ref><ref>Leslie Owens, Forrester Blogs – Who Owns Information Architecture? All Of Us., (2010), [http://blogs.forrester.com/information_management/2010/02/who-owns-information-architecture-all-of-us.html blogs.forrester.com] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100205132536/http://blogs.forrester.com/information_management/2010/02/who-owns-information-architecture-all-of-us.html |date=February 5, 2010 }}</ref> Analyst firm [[Real Story Group]] suggested that enterprise architecture and the emerging concept of the [[digital workplace]] were "two sides to the same coin."<ref>Tony Byrne, Real Story Group Blog – Digital workplace and enterprise architecture: two sides to same coin, (2012), [http://www.realstorygroup.com/Blog/2311-Digital-workplace-and-enterprise-architecture-two-sides-to-same-coin]</ref> The Cutter Consortium describes enterprise architecture as an information and knowledge-based discipline.<ref>[[Evernden, Roger]]. "Dealing with Too Much Data from an Architectural Perspective", November 13, 2012 ([http://www.cutter.com/content-and-analysis/resource-centers/business-intelligence/sample-our-research/bia121113.html online])</ref> |
|||
The enterprise architecture of an organization is too complex and extensive to document in its entirety, so [[knowledge management]] techniques provide a way to explore and analyze these hidden, tacit, or implicit areas. In return, enterprise architecture provides a way of documenting the components of an organization and their interaction, in a systemic and holistic way that complements [[knowledge management]].<ref>Evernden, Elaine, [[Evernden, Roger]]. Information First - Integrating Knowledge and Information Architecture for Business Advantage, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2003 ([http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=861520 online])</ref> |
|||
In various venues,<ref>{{cite web|title=SOA and Enterprise Architecture|url=http://www.opengroup.org/soa/source-book/soa/soa_ea.htm|publisher=The Open Group|accessdate=December 18, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150110073815/http://www.opengroup.org/soa/source-book/soa/soa_ea.htm|archive-date=January 10, 2015|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref> enterprise architecture has been discussed as having a relationship with [[Service Oriented Architecture]], a particular style of application integration. Research points to enterprise architecture promoting the use of SOA as an enterprise-wide integration pattern.<ref>Christopher Kistasamy, Alta van der Merwe, Andre de la Harpe, (2012), The role of service-oriented architecture as an enabler for Enterprise Architecture, AMCIS 2012, Seattle Washington</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Rosa and Sampaio|title=SOA Governance Through Enterprise Architecture|url=http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/soa/rosa-sampaio-soa-gov-2080776.html|website=Oracle.com|publisher=Oracle|accessdate=December 19, 2014}}</ref> |
|||
== Tools == |
|||
The following table lists some notable enterprise architecture tools listed by [[Gartner]] and [[Forrester Research]] in their 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2018 reports.<ref>[https://www.gartner.com/doc/2601526/ Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture Tools, 2013]</ref><ref>[http://www.forrester.com/The+Forrester+Wave+EA+Management+Suites+Q2+2013/fulltext/-/E-RES90501 Forrester Wave EA Management Suites, Q2 2013]</ref> |
|||
<ref>[https://www.gartner.com/doc/2859721?ref=SiteSearch&sthkw=Magic%20Quadrant%20for%20Enterprise%20Architecture%20tools%202014&fnl=search&srcId=1-3478922254 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture Tools, 2014]</ref> |
|||
<ref>[https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-5JYE8BP&ct=181010&st=sb Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture Tools, 2018]</ref> |
|||
<ref>[https://www.forrester.com/report/The+Forrester+Wave+Enterprise+Architecture+Management+Suites+Q2+2017/-/E-RES136385, Forrester Wave Enterprise Architecture Management Suites, Q2 2017]</ref> |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%; width: auto; table-layout: fixed;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! Product |
|||
! Vendor |
|||
! Headquarters |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | Planview Enterprise One - Capability & Technology Management |
|||
| [[Planview (formerly Troux)]] |
|||
| United States |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | ABACUS |
|||
| [[Avolution]] |
|||
| Australia |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | Ardoq |
|||
| [[Ardoq]] |
|||
| Norway |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | [[BiZZdesign Enterprise Studio]] |
|||
| [[BiZZdesign]] |
|||
| Netherlands |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | [[Architecture of Integrated Information Systems|ARIS]] |
|||
| [[Software AG]] (formerly [[IDS Scheer]]) |
|||
| Germany |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | [[Enterprise Architect (software)|Enterprise Architect]] |
|||
| [[Sparx Systems]] |
|||
| Australia |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | [[leanIX]] |
|||
| [[LeanIX]] |
|||
| Germany |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | HOPEX |
|||
| [[MEGA International Srl.]] |
|||
| France |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | Alfabet |
|||
| [[Software AG]] (formerly [[alfabet (software)|alfabet]]) |
|||
| Germany |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | SAP PowerDesigner |
|||
| [[Sybase|SAP-Sybase]] |
|||
| Germany |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | ProVision |
|||
| [[OpenText]] (formerly Metastorm) |
|||
| Canada |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | QPR EnterpriseArchitect |
|||
| [[QPR Software]] |
|||
| Finland |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{rh}} | [[System Architect (software)|System Architect]] |
|||
| Unicomm (formerly [[IBM]] (formerly [[Telelogic]])) |
|||
| United States |
|||
|- class="sortbottom" |
|||
! Product |
|||
! Vendor |
|||
! Headquarters |
|||
|} |
|||
== Criticism == |
|||
Despite the benefits that enterprise architecture claims to provide, for more than a decade, writers and organizations raised concerns about enterprise architecture as an effective practice. Here is a partial list of those objections: |
|||
* In 2007, computer scientist [[Ivar Jacobson]] (a major contributor to UML and pioneer in OO software development) gave his assessment of enterprise architecture: "Around the world introducing an Enterprise Architecture EA has been an initiative for most financial institutions (banks, insurance companies, government, etc.) for the last five years or so, and it is not over. I have been working with such companies and helped some of them to avoid making the worst mistakes. Most EA initiatives failed. My guess is that more than 90% never really resulted in anything useful."<ref>[http://blog.ivarjacobson.com/category/ivarblog/architecture/ EA Failed Big Way!] by [[Ivar Jacobson]]. on ''http://blog.ivarjacobson.com/'' October 18, 2007.</ref> |
|||
* In a 2007 report, on enterprise architecture, [[Gartner]] predicted that "... by 2012 40% of [2007’s] enterprise architecture programs will be stopped."<ref>[[Gartner]] (2007) [http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=498188&tab=overview Gartner Enterprise Architecture Summit: Architecting the Agile Organization, 26 – 27 September 2007. Overview] on ''www.gartner.com''. Accessed November 18, 2013.</ref> |
|||
* A 2008 study performed by Erasmus University Rotterdam and software company [[IDS Scheer]] concluded that two-thirds of enterprise architecture projects failed to improve business and IT alignment.<ref>S. Roeleven, Sven and J. Broer (2010). "Why Two Thirds of Enterprise Architecture Projects Fail," |
|||
ARIS Expert Paper ([http://www.computerworld.com.au/whitepaper/370709/why-two-thirds-of-enterprise-architecture-projects-fail/?type=other&arg=0&location=art_related online])</ref> |
|||
* In a 2009 article, industry commentator Dion Hinchcliffe wrote that traditional enterprise architecture might be "broken": "At its very best, enterprise architecture provides the bright lines that articulate the full range of possibilities for a business, even describing how to go about getting there. ... Recently there’s a growing realization that traditional enterprise architecture as it’s often practiced today might be broken in some important way. What might be wrong and how to fix it are the questions du jour."<ref>[http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/enterprise/2009/09/fixing_enterprise_architecture.php Fixing Enterprise Architecture: Balancing the Forces of Change in the Modern Organization] Dion Hinchcliffe, September 3, 2009</ref> |
|||
* In 2011, federal enterprise architecture consultant Stanley Gaver released a report that examined problems within the United States federal government’s enterprise architecture program. Mr. Gaver concluded that the federal enterprise architecture program had mostly failed; this conclusion was corroborated by a similar one made by the federal government at an October 2010 meeting that was held to determine why the federal enterprise architecture program was not "as influential and successful as in the past."<ref>[http://www.ech-bpm.ch/sites/default/files/articles/why_doesnt_the_federal_enterprise_architecture_work.pdf "Why Doesn't the FEA Work"]</ref> |
|||
A key concern about EA has been the difficulty in arriving at metrics of success, because of the broad-brush and often opaque nature of EA projects.<ref>[http://liacs.leidenuniv.nl/assets/Masterscripties/ICTiB/Gunther-Wendy-non-confidential.pdf Measuring Enterprise Architecture Effectiveness: A Focus on Key Performance Indicators, Gunther, W 2014]</ref> |
|||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
{{Wikipedia books|Enterprise Architecture}} |
|||
* [[Enterprise architecture artifacts]] |
* [[Enterprise architecture artifacts]] |
||
* [[Enterprise architecture framework]] |
* [[Enterprise architecture framework]] |
||
| Line 202: | Line 49: | ||
* [[Architecture of Integrated Information Systems]] |
* [[Architecture of Integrated Information Systems]] |
||
* [[Architecture of Interoperable Information Systems]] |
* [[Architecture of Interoperable Information Systems]] |
||
* [[Architecture domain]] |
|||
* [[John Zachman]], promoter of enterprise architecture |
* [[John Zachman]], promoter of enterprise architecture |
||
* [[service-oriented modeling#Service-oriented modeling framework|Enterprise Architecture Service Life Cycle - SOMF]] |
* [[service-oriented modeling#Service-oriented modeling framework|Enterprise Architecture Service Life Cycle - SOMF]] |
||
== References == |
|||
{{Reflist|2}} |
|||
== External links == |
== External links == |
||
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120723011042/http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-architecture/ United States Department of Defense definition of EA] (archive) |
|||
* {{Commons category-inline}} |
* {{Commons category-inline}} |
||
* {{Wikiquote-inline}} |
* {{Wikiquote-inline}} |
||
* {{Wiktionary-inline}} |
* {{Wiktionary-inline}} |
||
== References == |
|||
{{Reflist|2}} |
|||
{{Software engineering}} |
{{Software engineering}} |
||
{{Authority control}} |
{{Authority control}} |
||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Enterprise Architecture (EA)}} |
{{DEFAULTSORT:Enterprise Architecture (EA)}} |
||
[[Category:Information science]] |
|||
[[Category:Enterprise architecture| ]] |
[[Category:Enterprise architecture| ]] |
||
[[Category:Information science]] |
|||
[[Category:Systems engineering]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 17:46, 24 December 2024
Enterprise architecture (EA) is a business function concerned with the structures and behaviours of a business, especially business roles and processes that create and use business data. The international definition according to the Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations is "a well-defined practice for conducting enterprise analysis, design, planning, and implementation, using a comprehensive approach at all times, for the successful development and execution of strategy. Enterprise architecture applies architecture principles and practices to guide organizations through the business, information, process, and technology changes necessary to execute their strategies. These practices utilize the various aspects of an enterprise to identify, motivate, and achieve these changes."[1]
The United States Federal Government is an example of an organization that practices EA, in this case with its Capital Planning and Investment Control processes.[2] Companies such as Independence Blue Cross, Intel, Volkswagen AG,[3] and InterContinental Hotels Group also use EA to improve their business architectures as well as to improve business performance and productivity. Additionally, the Federal Enterprise Architecture's reference guide aids federal agencies in the development of their architectures.[4]
Introduction
[edit]As a discipline, EA "proactively and holistically lead[s] enterprise responses to disruptive forces by identifying and analyzing the execution of change" towards organizational goals. EA gives business and IT leaders recommendations for policy adjustments and provides best strategies to support and enable business development and change within the information systems the business depends on. EA provides a guide for decision making towards these objectives.[5] The National Computing Centre's EA best practice guidance states that an EA typically "takes the form of a comprehensive set of cohesive models that describe the structure and functions of an enterprise. The individual models in an EA are arranged in a logical manner that provides an ever-increasing level of detail about the enterprise."[6]
Important players within EA include enterprise architects and solutions architects. Enterprise architects are at the top level of the architect hierarchy, meaning they have more responsibilities than solutions architects. While solutions architects focus on their own relevant solutions, enterprise architects focus on solutions for and the impact on the whole organization. Enterprise architects oversee many solution architects and business functions. As practitioners of EA, enterprise architects support an organization's strategic vision by acting to align people, process, and technology decisions with actionable goals and objectives that result in quantifiable improvements toward achieving that vision. The practice of EA "analyzes areas of common activity within or between organizations, where information and other resources are exchanged to guide future states from an integrated viewpoint of strategy, business, and technology."[7]
Definitions
[edit]The term enterprise can be defined as an organizational unit, organization, or collection of organizations that share a set of common goals and collaborate to provide specific products or services to customers.[8] In that sense, the term enterprise covers various types of organizations, regardless of their size, ownership model, operational model, or geographical distribution. It includes those organizations' complete sociotechnical system,[9] including people, information, processes, and technologies. Enterprise as a sociotechnical system defines the scope of EA.
The term architecture refers to fundamental concepts or properties of a system in its environment; and embodied in its elements, relationships, and in the principles of its design and evolution.[10] A methodology for developing and using architecture to guide the transformation of a business from a baseline state to a target state, sometimes through several transition states, is usually known as an enterprise architecture framework. A framework provides a structured collection of processes, techniques, artifact descriptions, reference models, and guidance for the production and use of an enterprise-specific architecture description.[citation needed]
Paramount to changing the EA is the identification of a sponsor. Their mission, vision, strategy, and the governance framework define all roles, responsibilities, and relationships involved in the anticipated transformation. Changes considered by enterprise architects typically include innovations in the structure or processes of an organization; innovations in the use of information systems or technologies; the integration and/or standardization of business processes; and improvement of the quality and timeliness of business information.[citation needed]
According to the standard ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010,[10] the product used to describe the architecture of a system is called an architectural description. In practice, an architectural description contains a variety of lists, tables, and diagrams. These are models known as views. In the case of EA, these models describe the logical business functions or capabilities, business processes, human roles and actors, the physical organization structure, data flows and data stores, business applications and platform applications, hardware, and communications infrastructure.[11]
The first use of the term "enterprise architecture" is often incorrectly attributed to John Zachman's 1987 A framework for information systems architecture.[12] The first publication to use it was instead a National Institute of Standards (NIST) Special Publication[13] on the challenges of information system integration.[citation needed] The NIST article describes EA as consisting of several levels. Business unit architecture is the top level and might be a total corporate entity or a sub-unit. It establishes for the whole organization necessary frameworks for "satisfying both internal information needs" as well as the needs of external entities, which include cooperating organizations, customers, and federal agencies. The lower levels of the EA that provide information to higher levels are more attentive to detail on behalf of their superiors. In addition to this structure, business unit architecture establishes standards, policies, and procedures that either enhance or stymie the organization's mission.[13]
The main difference between these two definitions is that Zachman's concept was the creation of individual information systems optimized for business, while NIST's described the management of all information systems within a business unit. The definitions in both publications, however, agreed that due to the "increasing size and complexity of the [i]mplementations of [i]nformation systems... logical construct[s] (or architecture) for defining and controlling the interfaces and... [i]ntegration of all the components of a system" is necessary. Zachman in particular urged for a "strategic planning methodology."[12]
Overview
[edit]Schools of thought
[edit]Within the field of enterprise architecture, there are three overarching schools: Enterprise IT Design, Enterprise Integrating, and Enterprise Ecosystem Adaption. Which school one subscribes to will impact how they see the EA's purpose and scope, as well as the means of achieving it, the skills needed to conduct it, and the locus of responsibility for conducting it.[14]
Under Enterprise IT Design, the main purpose of EA is to guide the process of planning and designing an enterprise's IT/IS capabilities to meet the desired organizational objectives, often by greater alignment between IT/IS and business concerns. Architecture proposals and decisions are limited to the IT/IS aspects of the enterprise and other aspects service only as inputs. The Enterprise Integrating school believes that the purpose of EA is to create a greater coherency between the various concerns of an enterprise (HR, IT, Operations, etc.), including the link between strategy formulation and execution. Architecture proposals and decisions here encompass all aspects of the enterprise. The Enterprise Ecosystem Adaption school states that the purpose of EA is to foster and maintain the learning capabilities of enterprises so they may be sustainable. Consequently, a great deal of emphasis is put on improving the capabilities of the enterprise to improve itself, to innovate, and to coevolve with its environment. Typically, proposals and decisions encompass both the enterprise and its environment.
Benefits, challenges, and criticisms
[edit]The benefits of EA are achieved through its direct and indirect contributions to organizational goals.[15] Notable benefits include support in the areas related to design and re-design of the organizational structures during mergers, acquisitions, or general organizational change;[16][17][18][19] enforcement of discipline and business process standardization, and enablement of process consolidation, reuse, and integration;[20][21] support for investment decision-making and work prioritization;[17][22][18] enhancement of collaboration and communication between project stakeholders and contribution to efficient project scoping and to defining more complete and consistent project deliverabless;[19][20] and an increase in the timeliness of requirements elicitation and the accuracy of requirement definitions through publishing of the EA documentation.[23]
Other benefits include contribution to optimal system designs and efficient resource allocation during system development and testing;[17][18] enforcement of discipline and standardization of IT planning activities and contribution to a reduction in time for technology-related decision making;[18][21] reduction of the system's implementation and operational costs, and minimization of replicate infrastructure services across business units;[21][24] reduction in IT complexity, consolidation of data and applications, and improvement of interoperability of the systems;[20][21][24] more open and responsive IT as reflected through increased accessibility of data for regulatory compliance, and increased transparency of infrastructure changes;[21][25] and a reduction of business risks from system failures and security breaches. EA also helps reduce risks of project delivery.[21][26] Establishing EA as an accepted, recognized, functionally integrated and fully involved concept at operational and tactical levels is one of the biggest challenges facing Enterprise Architects today and one of the main reasons why many EA initiatives fail.[27]
A key concern about EA has been the difficulty in arriving at metrics of success because of the broad-brush and often opaque nature of EA projects.[28] Additionally, there have been a number of reports, including those written by Ivar Jacobson,[29] Gartner,[30] Erasmus University Rotterdam and IDS Scheer,[31] Dion Hinchcliffe,[32] and Stanley Gaver,[33] that argue that the frequent failure of EA initiatives makes the concept not worth the effort and that the methodology will fade out quickly.
Relationship to other disciplines
[edit]According to the Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations (FEAPO), EA interacts with a wide array of other disciplines commonly found in business settings such as performance engineering and management, process engineering and management, IT and enterprise portfolio management, governance and compliance, IT strategic planning, risk analysis, information management, metadata management, organization development, design thinking, systems thinking, and user experience design.[1][34][35][36] The EA of an organization is too complex and extensive to document in its entirety, so knowledge management techniques provide a way to explore and analyze these hidden, tacit, or implicit areas. In return, EA provides a way of documenting the components of an organization and their interaction in a systemic and holistic way that complements knowledge management.[37]
In various venues,[38] EA has been discussed as having a relationship with Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), a particular style of application integration. Research points to EA promoting the use of SOA as an enterprise-wide integration pattern.[39][40] The broad reach of EA has resulted in this business role being included in the information technology governance processes of many organizations. Analyst firm Real Story Group suggested that EA and the emerging concept of the digital workplace are "two sides to the same coin."[41] The Cutter Consortium described EA as an information and knowledge-based discipline.[42]
See also
[edit]- Enterprise architecture artifacts
- Enterprise architecture framework
- Architectural pattern (computer science)
- Architecture of Integrated Information Systems
- Architecture of Interoperable Information Systems
- Architecture domain
- John Zachman, promoter of enterprise architecture
- Enterprise Architecture Service Life Cycle - SOMF
External links
[edit]- United States Department of Defense definition of EA (archive)
Media related to Enterprise architecture at Wikimedia Commons
Quotations related to Enterprise architecture at Wikiquote
The dictionary definition of enterprise architecture at Wiktionary
References
[edit]- ^ a b "Common Perspectives on Enterprise Architecture" (PDF). Architecture and Governance Magazine. 9 (4): 1. November 2013. Retrieved March 4, 2023.
- ^ "EA-Success". The White House. 2010. Archived from the original on April 30, 2010.
- ^ Austin, Robert D.; Ritchie, Warren; Garrett, Greggory (October 5, 2005). "Volkswagen of America: Managing IT Priorities". Harvard Business Review.
- ^ "FEA Practice Guidance Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office OMB" (PDF). The White House. November 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 16, 2010.
- ^ "Enterprise Architecture (EA)". Gartner. Retrieved July 29, 2013.
- ^ Jarvis, Bob (2003). Enterprise Architecture: Understanding the Bigger Picture – A Best Practice Guide for Decision Makers in IT. Manchester, England, United Kingdom: The UK National Computing Centre. p. 9.
- ^ "Planning an EA – Purpose". Enterprise Architecture Book of Knowledge. Mitre Corporation. Archived from the original on October 1, 2013. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
- ^ "Business Analysis Body of Knowledge". International Institute of Business Analysis. Archived from the original on June 24, 2017.
- ^ Giachett, R.E. (2010). Design of Enterprise Systems, Theory, Architecture, and Methods. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press.
- ^ a b "ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011: Systems and software engineering — Architecture description". International Organization for Standardization. November 24, 2011. Retrieved March 4, 2023.
- ^ Kotusev, Svyatoslav; Kurnia, Sherah (September 1, 2021). "The theoretical basis of enterprise architecture: A critical review and taxonomy of relevant theories". Journal of Information Technology. 36 (3): 275–315. doi:10.1177/0268396220977873. ISSN 0268-3962. S2CID 230545944.
- ^ a b Zachman, John A. (1999). "A framework for information systems architecture". IBM Systems Journal. 38 (2/3) (reprint ed.): 454–470. doi:10.1147/sj.382.0454. S2CID 12191060.
- ^ a b Fong, E. N.; Goldfine, E.H. (December 1989). "Information management directions: the integration challenge" (PDF). SIGMOD Record. 18 (4): 40–43. doi:10.1145/74120.74125. S2CID 23939840.
- ^ Lapalme, J. (November 2012). "Three Schools of Thought on Enterprise Architecture". IT Professional. 14 (6): 37–43. doi:10.1109/MITP.2011.109. S2CID 206469705.
- ^ Vasilis Boucharas; Marlies van Steenbergen; Slinger Jansen; Sjaak Brinkkemper. The Contribution of Enterprise Architecture to the Achievement of Organizational Goals: Establishing the Enterprise Architecture Benefits Framework, Technical Report (PDF) (Report). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Department of Information and Computing Sciences at Utrecht University. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 4, 2022. Retrieved November 29, 2014.
- ^ Bert Arnold; Martin Op 't Land; Jan Dietz (2005). "Effects of an architectural approach to the implementation of shared service centers". In Fethi Rabhi; Daniel Veit; Christof Weinhardt (eds.). Financecom05: Second international workshop on Enterprise, applications and services in the finance industry. Regensburg, Germany: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
- ^ a b c Schekkerman, Jaap. Trends in enterprise architecture 2005: How are organizations progressing? (Report). Institute For Enterprise Architecture Developments. p. 33.
- ^ a b c d Bucher, T.; Fischer, R.; Kurpjuweit, S.; Winter, Robert (2006). Enterprise architecture analysis and application: An exploratory study (Report). Hong Kong, China: EDOC Workshop TEAR.
- ^ a b Nilsson, Andreas (2008). Management of technochange in an interorganizational E-government project (Report). Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. p. 209.
- ^ a b c Varnus, J.; Panaich, N. (July 20, 2009). TOGAF 9 enterprise architecture survey results (PDF) (Report). 23rd Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 20, 2009.
- ^ a b c d e f Ross, J.W.; Weill, P. (2005). Understanding the benefits of enterprise architecture (Report). Vol. V. CISR Research Briefings.
- ^ Quartel, Dick; Steen, Maarten W.A.; Lankhorst, Marc M. (May 1, 2012). "Application and project portfolio valuation using enterprise architecture and business requirements modelling". Enterprise Information Systems. 6 (2): 189–213. Bibcode:2012EntIS...6..189Q. doi:10.1080/17517575.2011.625571. ISSN 1751-7575. S2CID 28199240.
- ^ Engelsman, W.; Iacob, M.E.; Franken, H.M.; Jonkers, J. (2009). "Architecture-driven requirements engineering". Advances in Enterprise Engineering II (Report). Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Vol. 28. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. pp. 285–286. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01859-6_8. ISBN 978-3-642-01858-9.
- ^ a b Kappelman, Leon; McGinnis, Tom; Pettite, Alex; Sidorova, Anna (2008). Enterprise Architecture: Charting the Territory for Academic Research (Report). AMCIS 2008 Proceedings.
- ^ Pulkkinen, M.; Luostarinen, K.; Naumenko, A. (2007). "Managing information security in a business network of machinery maintenance services business - Enterprise architecture as a coordination tool". Journal of Systems and Software. 80 (10): 1607–1620. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.01.044.
- ^ Obitz, T.; Babu, M.K. (2009). Enterprise architecture expands its role in strategic business transformation: Infosys enterprise architecture survey 2008/2009 (Report). Infosys.
- ^ Dedic, N. (2020). "FEAMI: A Methodology to include and to integrate Enterprise Architecture Processes into Existing Organizational Processes". IEEE Engineering Management Review. 48 (4): 160–166. doi:10.1109/EMR.2020.3031968. S2CID 226351029.
- ^ Günther, Wendy Arianne (August 2014). Measuring Enterprise Architecture Effectiveness: A Focus on Key Performance Indicators (PDF) (Master's thesis). Universiteit Leiden. Retrieved March 4, 2023.
- ^ Jacobson, Ivar (October 18, 2007). "EA Failed Big Way!". Archived from the original on April 1, 2016.
- ^ "Gartner Enterprise Architecture Summit: Architecting the Agile Organization, 26 – 27 September 2007". Gartner. 2007. Archived from the original on August 6, 2007.
- ^ Roeleven, S.; Broer, J. (2010). Why Two Thirds of Enterprise Architecture Projects Fail (Report). ARIS. Archived from the original on November 13, 2013.
- ^ Hinchcliffe, Dion (September 3, 2009). "Fixing Enterprise Architecture: Balancing the Forces of Change in the Modern Organization". ebiz. Archived from the original on September 6, 2009.
- ^ Gaver, Stanley (2010). Why Doesn't the FEA Work? (PDF) (Report). Technology Matters, Inc. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 11, 2016.
- ^ Richardson, Clay (April 12, 2013). "Design Thinking Reshapes EA For Dynamic Business". Forrester. Archived from the original on April 19, 2013.
- ^ McKendrick, Joe (May 19, 2010). "Gartner urges more 'design thinking' to break enterprise architecture out of its silo". ZDNet. Retrieved March 4, 2023.
- ^ Owens, Leslie (February 2, 2010). "Who Owns Information Architecture? All Of Us". Forrester. Archived from the original on February 5, 2010.
- ^ Evernden, Elaine; Evernden, Roger (2003). Information First - Integrating Knowledge and Information Architecture for Business Advantage. Oxford, England, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-7506-5858-4.
- ^ "Service Oriented Architecture : SOA and Enterprise Architecture". The Open Group. Archived from the original on January 10, 2015. Retrieved December 18, 2014.
- ^ Kistasamy, Christopher; van der Merwe, Alta; de la Harpe, Andre (2012). The Role of Service Oriented Architecture as an enabler for Enterprise Architecture (Report). Seattle, Washington, USA: AMCIS 2012 Proceedings.
- ^ Rosa, Manuel; de Oliveira Sampaio, André (December 2013). "SOA Governance Through Enterprise Architecture". Oracle. Archived from the original on December 19, 2013.
- ^ Byrne, Tony (March 19, 2012). "Digital workplace and enterprise architecture -- two sides to same coin". Real Story Group. Retrieved March 4, 2023.
- ^ Evernden, Roger (November 13, 2012). "Dealing with Too Much Data from an Architectural Perspective". Cutter. Retrieved March 4, 2023.
| Authority control databases: National |
|---|
