Towards a National Enterprise Architecture Framework in Iran

Fereidoon Shams Aliee

, Reza Bagheriasl

, Amir Mahjoorian

, Maziar Mobasheri

Faezeh Hoseini

and Delaram Golpayegani

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Information Technology Organization of Iran, Tehran, Iran

Service-Oriented Enterprise Architecture (SOEA) Laboratory, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Keywords: Enterprise Architecture, E-Government, Enterprise Architecture Framework, Public Agencies.

Abstract: National Enterprise Architecture (EA) is regarded as a catalyst for achieving e-government goals and many

countries have given priority to it in developing their e-government plans. Designing a national EA

framework which fits the government’s specific needs facilitates EA planning and implementation for

public agencies and boosts the chance of EA success. In this paper, we introduce Iran’s national EA

framework (INEAF). The INEAF is designed in order to improve interoperability and deal with EA

challenges in Iranian agencies.

1 INTRODUCTION

E-government for every country, developed or

developing, that aim at not only taking advantage of

technology but also achieving better governance is a

necessity (Gupta and Jana, 2003). In developing

countries, the main reason for e-government failures

is a huge gap between the current reality and the

design of the e-government system (Dada, 2006).

From EA point of view, this challenge is interpreted

as problems in transforming the current (as-is) state

to the future (to-be) state. Besides adopting EA at a

national level can have a great impact on e-

government success since EA is a blueprint for

defining the current and desired environment as well

as the transition plan (Bellman and Rausch, 2004).

In fact, EA is an effective means of transforming

and modernizing the government and acts as a

catalyst for e-government by improving

interoperability, reducing costs, and avoiding

duplicated effort (Lee et al., 2013, Saha, 2012).

In recent years, There is an upward trend towards

national EA (Christiansen and Gotze, 2007), which

is also called government-wide EA (Lee et al.,

2013), in both developed and developing countries.

Surveys on national EA show that most of the

developed countries have taken EA plans into

consideration (Christiansen and Gotze, 2007,

Liimatainen et al., 2007).

By gaining an understanding of the decisive role

of EA in bringing e-government success, the

demand for planning and implementing EA at a

national level was crystallized. In this regard, we

designed an EA framework based on the

government’s special needs and characteristics. In

this paper, after reviewing the history of EA and its

challenges in Iran, we will explain the ins and outs

of Iran’s National Enterprise Architecture

Framework (INEAF).

2 OVERVIEW OF EA IN IRAN

The official launch of EA activities in Iran was in

2002 when the National Enterprise Architecture

Committee had formed. Since then, acquiring a full

understanding of EA challenges in Iran and

responding to them have been a top priority. As a

result of the committee’s activities, Iran ranked 9

2004 EA activities (Schekkerman, 2005).

Moreover, many doctoral and Master’s

dissertations were completed and dozens of research

papers were published on e-government such as

(Yaghoubi et al., 2011, Atashak and Mahzadeh,

2008, Sharifi and Zarei, 2004, Jayashree et al., 2016,

Shahghasemi et al., 2013) as well as EA including

(Fatolahi and Shams, 2006, Razavi et al., 2011,

Khoshnevis et al., 2009, Khayami, 2011). These

448

Aliee, F., Bagheriasl, R., Mahjoorian, A., Mobasheri, M., Hoseini, F. and Golpayegani, D.

Towards a National Enterprise Architecture Framework in Iran.

DOI: 10.5220/0006371304480453

In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2017) - Volume 3, pages 448-453

ISBN: 978-989-758-249-3

publications reflect a research trend toward both e-

government and EA in Iran. In addition, Shahid

Beheshti University offers EA master’s degree with

the purpose of providing students with EA skills and

knowledge.

Aside from academic achievements, almost a

hundred EA projects were carried out in public and

private agencies, but most of them were not

successful. In the following, we are going to identify

some of the most common causes of EA failure in

Iran.

2.1 EA Challenges in Iran

EA projects in Iran have faced many challenges.

First of all, a majority of chief officers and decision

makers misinterpreted EA as a panacea for all the

enterprise’s problems. This unrealistic expectation

led to defining a false project domain which result in

project failure.

Another important EA barrier in Iran is a lack of

skilled staff who are qualified in enterprise

information architecture as well as business process

engineering, information resource management, and

strategic information systems planning.

Furthermore, problems in EA knowledge transfer

and sharing within or between agencies made best

practices inaccessible and unusable.

A lack of a standard framework, deficiency of

capacity building and empowerment, insufficient

incentives and legal regulations, a paucity of training

on EA, and a sheer lack of EA assessment seem to

be other reasons behind the failure of EA projects.

2.2 The Demand for National EA

Framework

Since EA projects were launched in Iran, both public

and private agencies have chosen freely whichever

frameworks fit their enterprise’s needs. As a result

of developing EA projects without considering

specific standards, practical guidelines, and e-

government regulations and policies, the outcomes

were inconsistent, not able to interoperate, and even

in some cases infringe e-government regulations.

Seeking for an ideal solution for dealing with

challenges of EA projects, designing a national EA

framework is an important step.

By exploring e-government top leading

countries, we find out that there exists a positive

correlation between success of e-government and

establishing national EA frameworks. Therefore, it

gets clear for us that promoting EA and designing a

national framework in our country is vital.

3 IRAN’S NATIONAL EA

FRAMEWORK (INEAF)

To avoid reinventing the wheel, we first studied

existing EA frameworks to find the ones provide a

good foundation for the national EA framework. As

mentioned earlier, some countries have developed

and published their national EA frameworks, mostly

as a part of their e-government plan. Some of them

that we have studied are: FEAF (CIO Council,

2013), Australian Government EA

Framework (Australian Government, 2013), Korean

Figure 1: EA ecosystem in Iran.

Towards a National Enterprise Architecture Framework in Iran

449

Government EA (Lee et al., 2013), Singapore

Government EA (Saha, 2009), Bahrain National EA

Framework (AlSoufi, 2014), OIO EA (Denmark)

(Danish Agency for Digitisation, 2014). In addition,

we also examined two well-known general-purpose

frameworks including the Zachman framework

(Zachman, 1987) and TOGAF (Haren, 2011).

Although we have inspired by the aforementioned

EA framework but we have chosen FEAF and

TOGAF as basis for INEAF.

INEAF has four groups of stakeholders including

government organizations, EA laboratories,

agencies, and EA consultancies. Figure 1 depicts the

tasks assigned to these stakeholders and the

relationship between them.

INEAF is established regarding Iranian

government’s specific needs and features. Providing

the public agencies with reliable and practical

guidelines for planning and developing EA projects

and improving e-government interoperability are the

two main purposes of this EA framework.

INEAF deals with EA at two levels: government

EA and agency EA. The agency EA defines

guidelines for developing EA projects in agencies.

Each agency should develop its EA in alignment

with the government EA. However, the agency plans

and implements EA by considering its specific

requirements and experiences.

3.1 Areas of INEAF

As depicted in figure 2, INEAF has four areas:

Framework and Methodology, National Reference

Models, Deployment and Promotion Program, and

Sector Reference Models. In this section, we are

going to explore these areas.

3.1.1 Framework and Methodology

Framework and Methodology area defines how EA

is developed. This area contains four components:

Architecture Development Method (ADM),

which is derived from the TOGAF methodology,

consists of three states including Preparation,

Architecture Establishment, and Architecture

Implementation.

Architecture Capability Framework describes

roles, their responsibilities, and required skills for

setting up EA projects in public agencies.

Architecture Content Framework defines

architecture artifacts, deliverables, and their

classification. All the artifacts should be produced in

Figure 2: Iran’s National EA Framework.

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

450

one of the ADM phases and may be used or updated

in other phases.

Guidelines, Techniques, and Case Studies

provide best practices and practical guidelines for

EA planning and development.

3.1.2 National Reference Models

INEAF supports six interrelated national models,

which define government-wide architecture

standards and patterns. The following are the

national reference models:

National Performance Reference Model

(PRM) focuses on performance measurement. It

helps the government in performance assessment

process by providing a common language for

identifying and classifying performance metrics.

Figure 3 shows the structure of the national PRM.

Figure 3: The national PRM structure.

National Business service Reference Model

(BRM) defines the government services and

functions from the stakeholders’ points of view. It

also provides a taxonomy of these services and

articulates a big picture of the service architecture.

Figure 4 demonstrates the hierarchal structure of the

national BRM.

Figure 4: The national BRM structure.

To make service classification a straightforward

task, ten patterns of the government services are

identified (figure 5), which cover government-to-

government (G2G), government-to-business (G2B),

and government-to-citizens (G2C) services. To

determine the type of a service, it should be matched

to one of the patterns. The patterns also can be used

as a template for service specification.

National Data Reference Model (DRM)

provides a taxonomy of government data and

information and enables inter- and intra-agency data

sharing. Iranian Government Interoperability

Framework (IGIF) (Shahkooh et al.) is a supplement

to the national DRM.

National Application Reference Model (ARM)

models the services defined and classified in the

SRM. It also classifies applications and systems

provided by the government.

National Technology Reference Model (TRM)

provides a classification of technologies, IT

standards, and IT tools. Moreover, it gives agencies

a set of guidelines about using technology. Structure

of the national TRM is shown in figure 6.

Figure 5: Patterns of the government services.

Figure 6: The national TRM structure.

National Security Reference Model (SRM)

provides a framework for classifying security risks

Towards a National Enterprise Architecture Framework in Iran

451

and vulnerability. As shown in figure 2, the SRM is

the only reference model linked to all other

reference models.

3.1.3 Deployment and Promotion Program

Deployment and promotion program mainly focuses

on EA infrastructure and EA rules and legislations.

It has four main components:

Enterprise Architecture Regulations are

introduced by the government. EA plans and

development process have to comply with these

regulations. Therefore, the possibility of producing

inconsistent and not interoperable outcomes will be

eliminated.

Enterprise Architecture Assessment is done

with the help of Iran’s National Enterprise

Architecture Maturity Assessment Framework

(INEAMAF), which provides two different

assessment methods: self-assessment and EA

assessment by laboratories.

Capability Building focuses on EA

empowerment, promotion, and training.

INEAF Maintenance should be carried out in

order to satisfy new government’s needs and

respond to the changing knowledge and technology.

This will be done by continuous maintenance of the

framework components.

3.1.4 Sector Reference Models

Sector reference models contain off-the-shelf EA

patterns and standards for an industry or a business

area. Development of these models is assigned to the

industries.

4 CONCLUSIONS

EA in Iran is still in its early adolescence and the

path of reaching maturity is a critical one. By

designing INEAF, we take the first step towards

maturity and further pursue e-government

objectives.

For the next step, the government will mainly

focus on the deployment and promotion program. To

comply with EA regulations, agencies should plan

their EA program in accordance with INEAF.

As mentioned earlier, INEAF is adopted from

both TOGAF and FEAF. Table 1 draws a

comparison between these frameworks.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is based upon work supported by the

Information Technology Organization of Iran. We

express our gratitude to Mr. Jahangard for his great

Table 1: Comparison between FEAF, TOGAF, and INEAF.

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

452

support. We also thank many individuals in Iran E-

Government team and SOEA laboratory at Shahid

Beheshti University who have contributed in

developing INEAF.

REFERENCES

Alsoufi, A. 2014. Bahrain National Enterprise

Architecture Framework: a Platform towards a GCC

EA Initiative. GSTF Journal on Computing (JoC),

2(1).

Atashak, M. & Mahzadeh, P. 2008. E-government status

in Iran (TAKFA Plan case study). World Applied

Sciences Journal, 4, 12-20.

Australian Government 2013. Australian Government

Enterprise Architecture Principles. Commonwealth of

Australia.

Bellman, B. & Rausch, F. Enterprise architecture for e-

government. International Conference on Electronic

Government, 2004. Springer, 48-56.

Christiansen, P. & Gotze, J. 2007. Trends in governmental

enterprise architecture: Reviewing national EA

programs–Part 1. Journal of Enterprise Architecture,

3, 8-18.

CIO Council 2013. A Practical Guide to Federal

Enterprise Architecture.

Dada, D. 2006. The failure of e-government in developing

countries: A literature review. The Electronic Journal

of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 26.

Danish Agancy for Digitisation 2014. Introduction To

National Enterprise Architecture in Denmark

[Online]. Available: http://arkitekturguiden.digitaliser

.dk/node/29.

Fatolahi, A. & Shams, F. 2006. An investigation into

applying UML to the Zachman framework.

Information Systems Frontiers, 8, 133-143.

Gupta, M. & Jana, D. 2003. E-government evaluation: A

framework and case study. Government information

quarterly, 20, 365-387.

Haren, V. 2011. TOGAF Version 9.1, Van Haren

Publishing.

Jayashree, S., Salehi, F., Abdollahbeigi, B. & Malarvizhi,

C. A. 2016. Factors Influencing Intention to use E-

Government Services among Iran Citizens. Indian

Journal of Science and Technology, 9.

Khayami, R. 2011. Qualitative characteristics of enterprise

architecture. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1277-

1282.

Khoshnevis, S., Aliee, F. S. & Jamshidi, P. Model driven

approach to service oriented enterprise architecture.

Services Computing Conference, 2009. APSCC 2009.

IEEE Asia-Pacific, 2009. IEEE, 279-286.

Lee, Y.-J., Kwon, Y.-I., Shin, S. & Kim, E.-J. Advancing

government-wide Enterprise Architecture-A meta-

model approach. Advanced Communication

Technology (ICACT), 2013 15th International

Conference on, 2013. IEEE, 886-892.

Liimatainen, K., Hoffmann, M. & Heikkilä, J. 2007.

Overview of Enterprise Architecture work in 15

countries. Ministry of Finance, State IT Management

Unit, Research reports 6b.

Razavi, M., Aliee, F. S. & Badie, K. 2011. An AHP-based

approach toward enterprise architecture analysis based

on enterprise architecture quality attributes.

Knowledge and information systems, 28, 449-472.

Saha, P. 2009. A methodology for government

transformation with enterprise architecture. Advances

in government enterprise architecture, 1-29.

Saha, P. 2012. Enterprise Architecture for Connected E-

Government: Practices and Innovations: Practices

and Innovations, IGI Global.

Schekkerman, J. 2005. Trends in Enterprise Architecture

2005: How are Organizations Progressing? : Institute

For Enterprise Architecture Developments (IFEAD).

Shahghasemi, E., Tafazzoli, B., Akhavan, M., Mirani, G.

& Khairkhah, T. 2013. Electronic Government in Iran:

A case study. Online Journal of Social Sciences

Research, 2, 254-62.

Shahkooh, K. A., Sadeghi, M. & Mamaghani, N. D. 2011.

Interoperability evaluation of iranian organizations

through proposed national E-government

interoperability framework (Case Study of Tehran

Municipality). journal of AISS: Advances in

Information Sciences and Service Sciences, 3(1), 62-

77.

Sharifi, H. & Zarei, B. 2004. An adaptive approach for

implementing e-government in IR Iran. Journal of

Government Information, 30, 600-619.

Yaghoubi, N. M., Haghi, A. & Asl, S. 2011. e-

Government and citizen satisfaction in Iran: Empirical

study on ICT offices. World Applied Sciences Journal,

12, 1084-1092.

Zachman, J. A. 1987. A framework for information

systems architecture. IBM systems journal, 26, 276-

292.

Towards a National Enterprise Architecture Framework in Iran

453