Gap Analysis in Enterprise Architecture using Semantic Web Technologies

Philipp Diefenthaler, Bernhard Bauer

Abstract

Enterprise architectures (EA) can be used for analyses in different ways and thus can support the decision making process that has to cope with an increasing number of changes, the clarification of the extent of changes and the complexity of these changes. A gap analysis is used in the context of EA to identify differences between two states of an EA. Formal models of an EA allow tool support and the visual representation of these models. This paper shows how a gap analysis can be performed using semantic web technologies on a high-level current and target state of an EA. With the results of the gap analysis and a detailed current state it is possible to show a migration path from the current state of the EA to a plan or target EA.

References

  1. Aier, S. and Gleichauf, B. (2010a). Application of enterprise models for enginnering enterprise transformation. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, 5(1):56-72.
  2. Aier, S. and Gleichauf, B. (2010b). Towards a systematic approach for capturing dynamic transformation in enterprise models. In Sprague, R. H., editor, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society.
  3. Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuiness, D., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and Stein, L. A. (2004). OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. World Wide Web Consortium. Retrived November 5, 2012, from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/.
  4. Buckl, S., Ernst, A. M., Matthes, F., and Schweda, C. M. (2009). An information model capturing the managed evolution of application landscapes. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 5(1):12-26.
  5. Buckl, S. and Schweda, C. M. (2011). On the State-ofthe-Art in Enterprise Architecture Management Literature. Technical Report, Technische Universität Mü nchen, Chair for Software Engineering of Business Information Systems.
  6. Deming, W. E. (1994). Out of the crisis: Quality, productivity and competitive position. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 19 edition.
  7. Engels, G., Hess, A., Humm, B., Juwig, O., Lohmann, M., and Richter, J.-P. (2008). Quasar Enterprise: Anwendungslandschaften serviceorientiert gestalten. Dpunkt-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1 edition.
  8. Gringel, P. and Postina, M. (2010). I-pattern for gap analysis. In Engels, G., Luckey, M., Pretschner, A., and Reussner, R., editors, Software engineering 2010, Lecture Notes in Informatics, pages 281-292. Gesellschaft fü r Informatik, Bonn.
  9. Hanschke, I. (2009). Strategisches Management der ITLandschaft: Ein praktischer Leitfaden für das Enterprise Architecture Management. Hanser, Mü nchen, 1. edition.
  10. Hanschke, I. (2012). C planungs-muster: Downloadanhang zum buch strategisches management der itlandschaft. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http:// files.hanser.de/hanser/docs/20100621 21621165557- 63 HanschkeDownloadAnh%C3%A4nge final.zip.
  11. Kremen, P., Smid, M., and Kouba, Z. (2011). Owldiff: A practical tool for comparison and merge of owl ontologies. In 22nd International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pages 229-233. IEEE Computer Society.
  12. Lautenbacher, F. (2010). Semantic business process modeling: Principles, design support and realization. Shaker, Aachen.
  13. Manola, F., Miller, E., and McBride, B. (2004). RDF Primer. Retrived November 5, 2012, from http:// www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/.
  14. Niemann, K. D. (2006). From enterprise architecture to IT governance: Elements of effective IT management. Vieweg, Wiesbaden.
  15. Postina, M., Sechyn, I., and Steffens, U. (2009). Gap analysis of application landscapes. In 2009 13th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, pages 274-281. IEEE Computer Society.
  16. Prud'hommeaux, E. and Seaborne, A. (2008). SPARQL Query Language for RDF. Retrived November 5, 2012, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/ REC-rdf-sparql-query-20080115/.
  17. Pulkkinen, M. (2006). Systemic management of architectural decisions in enterprise architecture planning. four dimensions and three abstraction levels. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06), page 179a. IEEE Computer Society.
  18. Pulkkinen, M. and Hirvonen, A. (2005). Ea planning, development and management process for agile enterprise development. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, page 223c. IEEE Computer Society.
  19. Shadbolt, N., Berners-Lee, T., and Hall, W. (2006). The semantic web revisited. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(3):96-101.
  20. Winter, R. and Fischer, R. (2006). Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. In 2006 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW'06), page 30. IEEE Computer Society.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Diefenthaler P. and Bauer B. (2013). Gap Analysis in Enterprise Architecture using Semantic Web Technologies . In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8565-61-7, pages 211-220. DOI: 10.5220/0004439702110220


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis13,
author={Philipp Diefenthaler and Bernhard Bauer},
title={Gap Analysis in Enterprise Architecture using Semantic Web Technologies},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},
year={2013},
pages={211-220},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004439702110220},
isbn={978-989-8565-61-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - Gap Analysis in Enterprise Architecture using Semantic Web Technologies
SN - 978-989-8565-61-7
AU - Diefenthaler P.
AU - Bauer B.
PY - 2013
SP - 211
EP - 220
DO - 10.5220/0004439702110220