Evolution of Enterprise Architecture Discipline - Towards a Unified Developing Theory of Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge as an Evolving Discipline

Hadi Kandjani, Peter Bernus

Abstract

When studying enterprises as complex systems through the Enterprise Architecture (EA) discipline, researchers not only apply models, methods and theories of management and control – they ’should’ also use the same from engineering, linguistics, cognitive science, environmental science, biology, social science, artificial intelligence, systems thinking and cybernetics. This diversity of related disciplines derives from the nature of enterprises as multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary entities with interacting dimensions and different design- and evolution concerns. We believe that for the EA discipline (EAd), like any other developing and evolving discipline, there should exist a unified terminology, models and methodology. There already exists a fundamental and generalised theory of EAd, GERAM, however, it is a minimalist theory, not prescribing any particular reference models or any concrete methodology. Therefore, practitioners developed particular frameworks, adding concrete methodologies / reference models specific to the domain / type of change to tackle. The question is: is possible to extend the EA Body of Knowledge (EABOK) with common elements – independent from the domain / type of change? In other words, what is a unified evolving theory of EAd? To model the discipline-as-a-system, we use Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM) and introduce three basic components of EAd as a viable system. A ‘co-evolution mechanisms’ for EAd is proposed, and a cybernetic model of co-evolution applied to EAd. We also discuss a cybernetic model of EAd using Checkland’s model for discipline development.

References

  1. Anderton, R. H. and P. B., Checkland, (1977) On learning our lessons. Internal Discussion Paper. Lancaster, UK, Department of Systems, University of Lancaster. 2/77.
  2. Ashby, W. R., (1940) Adaptiveness and equilibrium. The British Journal of Psychiatry 86(362) pp478-483.
  3. Ashby, W. R., (1956) An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
  4. Ashby, W. R., (1960) Design for a brain; the origin of adaptive behavior. New York: Wiley.
  5. Beer, S., (1966) Decision and Control: The Meaning of Operational Research and Management Cybernetics. New York: Wiley.
  6. Beer, S., (1979) The Heart of Enterprise: the Managerial Cybernetics of Organization. New York: Wiley.
  7. Beer, S., (1981) Brain of the Firm, 2nd Ed. New York: Wiley.
  8. Beer, S., (1985) Diagnosing the system for organizations. New York: Wiley.
  9. Bertalanffy, L., (1968). General System TheoryFoundations and Developments. New York: George Braziller, Inc, l0.
  10. Bødker, K., Kensing, F., & Simonsen, J., (2004). Participatory IT design: designing for business and workplace realities: The MIT Press.
  11. Boulding, K. E., (1956) General systems theory-the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3) pp197- 208.
  12. Checkland, P., (1996) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons.
  13. Conant, R. C. and W. R. Ashby, (1970). Every Good Regulator of a System Must be a Model of That System. International Journal of Systems Science 1(2): 89-97.
  14. Doumeingts, G., (1984). La Methode GRAI [PhD Thesis]. Bordeaux, France: University of Bordeaux I.
  15. Doumeingts, G., (1998). GIM, Grain Integrated Methodology. In A. Molina and A. Kusiak and J. Sanchez (Eds.), Handbook of Life Cycle Engineering, Models and Methodologies (pp. 227-288). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  16. DoDAF (2009) DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0, US DoD, Washington.
  17. Gell-Mann, M., (1994) Complex adaptive systems. in Complexity: Metaphors, models, and reality. G. A. Cowan, D. Pines, and D. Meltzer (Eds) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. pp. 17-45.
  18. Geoghegan, M. C. and P. Pangaro, (2009). Design for a self-regenerating organisation. International Journal of General Systems 38(2): 155-173.
  19. Hammer, M., & Stanton, S. A., (1995). The reengineering revolution: A handbook: HarperBusiness New York.
  20. Holland, J. H., (1992). Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus 121(1): 17-30.
  21. IFIP-IFAC-Task-Force, (1999). GERAM: Generalised enterprise reference architecture and methodology. Version 1(3): 6-3.
  22. ISO15704, (2000, Amd.2005). Industrial automation systems -- Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies. Geneva: ISO TC184.SC5.WG1. Geneva, ISO TC184.SC5.WG1.
  23. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010, (2011) Systems and software engineering - Architecture description, Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Softwareintensive Systems. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/WG42.
  24. Kandjani, H., Bernus, P., (2011) Engineering SelfDesigning Enterprises as Complex Systems Using Extended Axiomatic Design Theory. Proc of the 18th IFAC World Congr. Miloan, Italy, IFAC Papers On Line, 18(1). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 11943-11948.
  25. Kensing, F., Simonsen, J., & Bodker, K., (1998). MUST: A method for participatory design. Human-Computer Interaction, 13(2), 167-198.
  26. Nonaka, I; Takeuchi, H., (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  27. Pask, G., (1975) Conversation, Cognition and Learning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  28. Senge, P. M. (1993). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization: Book review.
  29. Suh, N. P., (1990) The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.
  30. Suh, N. P., (2001) Axiomatic design: advances and applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
  31. Suh, N. P., (2005) Complexity: Theory and Applications. New York : Oxford University Press.
  32. TOGAF, (1999-2011) TOGAF 1 - TOGAF 9.1 (Versions of the TOGAF Architecture Framework). Open Group.
  33. Umpleby, S. A., (2009). Ross Ashby's general theory of adaptive systems. International Journal of General Systems 38(2): 231-238.
  34. Wiener, N., (1948) Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. (2nd Rev. Ed 1961). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  35. Wooldridge, M. J., (2002). An introduction to multiagent systems: Wiley.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Kandjani H. and Bernus P. (2012). Evolution of Enterprise Architecture Discipline - Towards a Unified Developing Theory of Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge as an Evolving Discipline . In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8565-12-9, pages 145-154. DOI: 10.5220/0003993401450154


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis12,
author={Hadi Kandjani and Peter Bernus},
title={Evolution of Enterprise Architecture Discipline - Towards a Unified Developing Theory of Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge as an Evolving Discipline},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},
year={2012},
pages={145-154},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003993401450154},
isbn={978-989-8565-12-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - Evolution of Enterprise Architecture Discipline - Towards a Unified Developing Theory of Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge as an Evolving Discipline
SN - 978-989-8565-12-9
AU - Kandjani H.
AU - Bernus P.
PY - 2012
SP - 145
EP - 154
DO - 10.5220/0003993401450154