Philip Huysmans


Contemporary organizations are operating in increasingly volatile environments. Hence, organizations must be agile in order to be able to quickly adapt to changes in its environment. This may be a complex process, since a change to one organizational unit may affect other units. Given the increasing complexity of organizations, it has been argued that organizations should be purposefully designed. Enterprise architecture frameworks provide guidance for the design of organizational structures. Unfortunately, current enterprise architecture frameworks have a descriptive, rather than a prescriptive nature and do not seem to have a strong theoretical foundation. In software engineering literature, the Normalized Systems approach has recently been proposed to provide such deterministic design principles for the modular structure of software. The Normalized Systems approach is based on the systems theoretic concept of stability to ensure the evolvability of information systems. In our PhD research, we explore the feasibility of extending the ns design principles to the field of enterprise architecture. Our results show that such approach is feasible and illustrate how the systems theoretic concept of stability can be used on the organizational level.


  1. Aghion, P. and Tirole, J. (1994). Opening the black box of innovation. European Economic Review, 38(3/4):701-710.
  2. Baskerville, R. L. and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 11(3):235-246.
  3. Brynjolfsson, E. and Saunders, A. (2010). Wired for Innovation: How Information Technology is Reshaping the Economy. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  4. Chan, Y. E., Huff, S. L., Barclay, D. W., and Copeland, D. G. (1997). Business strategic orientation, information systems strategic orientation, and strategic alignment. Information Systems Research, 8(2):125.
  5. Dietz, J. L. (2006). Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Berlin.
  6. Dijkstra, E. (1968). Go to statement considered harmful. Communications of the ACM, 11(3):147-148.
  7. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11):1105-1121.
  8. Fagerberg, J. (2005). Innovation: A guide to the literature. In Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., and Nelson, R. R., editors, The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
  9. Flores, F. and Ludlow, J. (1980). Doing and speaking in the office. In Fick, G. and Sprague, R. H., editors, Decision Support Systems: Issues and Challenges, pages 95-118. Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
  10. Garlan, D. and Perry, D. E. (1995). Introduction to the special issue on software architecture. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(4):269-274.
  11. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and Rationalization of Society, volume 1. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
  12. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., and Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1):75-105.
  13. Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., and Hameri, A.-P. (2009). Bridging practice and theory: A design science approach. Decision Sciences, 40(1):65-87.
  14. Hoogervorst, J. A. P. (2009). Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering (The Enterprise Engineering Series). Springer, 1st edition.
  15. Kazman, R. and Bass, L. (2005). Categorizing business goals for software architectures. Technical report, Software Engineering Institute. CMU/SEI-2005-TR021.
  16. Klahr, D. and Simon, H. A. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5):524-543.
  17. Kozina, M. (2006). Evaluation of aris and zachman frameworks as enterprise architectures. Journal of Information and Organization Sciences, 30(1).
  18. Lankhorst, M. M. (2005). Enterprise architecture modelling-the issue of integration. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 18(4):205 - 216. Enterprise Modelling and System Support.
  19. Lehman, M. (1980). Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proceedings of the IEEE, 68:1060- 1076.
  20. Leist, S. and Zellner, G. (2006). Evaluation of current architecture frameworks. In SAC 7806: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing, pages 1546-1553, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  21. Mannaert, H. and Verelst, J. (2009). Normalized SystemsRe-creating Information Technology Based on Laws for Software Evolvability. Koppa, Kermt, Belgium.
  22. March, S. T. and Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4):251-266.
  23. Op t Land, M. (2008). Applying Architecture and Ontology to the Splitting and Allying of Enterprises. PhD thesis, TU Delft.
  24. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3):45-77.
  25. Pereira, C. M. and Sousa, P. (2004). A method to define an enterprise architecture using the zachman framework. In SAC'04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing, page 13661371, New York,NY,USA. ACM.
  26. Ross, J. W., Weill, P., and Robertson., D. C. (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy - Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
  27. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, third edition.
  28. Teece, D. J., editor (1987). The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA.
  29. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7):509-533.
  30. The Open Group (2003). The open group architecture framework (togaf) version 8.1. Technical report.
  31. Van de Ven, A. H. and Angle, H. L. (2000). An Introduction to the Minnesota Innovation Research Program. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
  32. Van Nuffel, D., Mannaert, H., De Backer, C., and Verelst, J. (2009a). Deriving normalized systems elements from business process models. In Boness, K., Fernandes, J. M., Hall, J. G., Machado, R. J., and Oberhauser, R., editors, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA 2009), pages 27-32, Los Alamitos, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
  33. Van Nuffel, D., Mannaert, H., De Backer, C., and Verelst, J. (2009b). Deriving normalized systems elements from business process models. Software Engineering Advances, International Conference on, 0:27-32.
  34. Winter, R. (2008). Guest editorial - design science research in europe. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5):470-475.
  35. Zachman, J. A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J., 26(3):276-292.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Huysmans P. (2010). CONSTRUCTING EVOLVABLE ENTERPRISE IMPLEMENTATIONS . In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 2: SDT, (ICSOFT 2010) ISBN 978-989-8425-23-2, pages 521-531. DOI: 10.5220/0003047605210531

in Bibtex Style

author={Philip Huysmans},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 2: SDT, (ICSOFT 2010)},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 2: SDT, (ICSOFT 2010)
SN - 978-989-8425-23-2
AU - Huysmans P.
PY - 2010
SP - 521
EP - 531
DO - 10.5220/0003047605210531