Enterprise Architecture Models - Description of Integrated Components for Validation - A Case Study of Student Internship Programme

Joe Essien, Samia Oussena

Abstract

Enterprise Architecture (EA) has been defined as the organization of a system embodied in its components, relationships to each other, environment, the principle guiding its design and evolution (IEEE, 2000). Thus an important characteristic of EA is to provide a holistic view of the enterprise visualizing the relevant aspects of the business for specific stakeholders. However, one of the many concerns of this interest has been how to deal with the complex challenges of implementing the models with the ability to validate its integrated components to ensure conformity with individual stakeholder’s motivation. To achieve this, methodologies that describe components in relation to their behavioral attributes, impact on other elements in the domain and their dependencies have been postulated. Albeit, studies show that these taxonomies do not adequately address this requirement (Lankhorst, 2013). This article analyzes the EA concepts of ArchiMate, focusing on the business and application layers with the objective to extend motivation with tests specifications using the model-driven approach thus offer descriptive semantics for validation. The paper contributes to a better understanding on how EA models can be validated thus improve alignment with the business vision and strategy. Student Internship Program case study is used to exemplify this hypothesis.

References

  1. Baker, P., Dai, Z. R., Grabowski, J., Haugen, O., Lucio, S., Samuelsson, E., Williams, C. E., 2004. The UML 2.0 testing profile. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Quality Engineering in Software Technology, Nuremberg (Germany) (pp. 181-189).
  2. Bahill, A. T., Botta, R., & Daniels, J., 2006. The Zachman framework populated with baseball models. Journal of EA, 2(4), 50-68.
  3. Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., Vernadat, F., 2008. Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: Past, present and future. Computer and Industrial Engineering, 59:647659.
  4. Clark, T., Barn, B. S., Oussena, S., 2011. Leap: a precise lightweight framework for enterprise architecture. In Proceedings of the 4th India Software Engineering Conference (pp. 85-94). ACM.
  5. Coleman, P., Papp, R., 2006. Strategic Alignment: Analy sis of Perspectives. Proceedings of the 2006 Southern Association for Information Systems Conference.
  6. Davenport, T., 1993. Process Innovation: Reengineering work through IT. HBS School Press, Boston.
  7. Fischer, C., winter, R, Aier, S., 2010. What Is an Enterprise Architecture Principle? Towards a Consolidated Definition, Computer and Information Science 2010, SCI 317, pp. 193-205. springerlink.com SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg.
  8. IEEE Computer Society. IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software Intensive Systems. IEEE Standard 1471-2000.
  9. Johannesson, P., Soderstrom, E., 2008. Information Systems Engineering: From Data Analysis to Process Networks. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing. p.58-61.
  10. Krogstie, J., 2008. Using EEML for Combined Goal and Process Oriented Modeling: A Case Study. Proceedings of EMMSAD 2008.
  11. Lankhorst, M., 2013. Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
  12. McGovern, J., 2004. A practical guide to enterprise architecture. Prentice Hall Professional.
  13. Noran, O., 2003. An Analysis of the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture from the GERAM perspective, Annual Reviews in Control, 27, 163-183
  14. OMG, http://www.omg.org/. Assessed 2013.
  15. Polgreen, J., 2012. Using TOGAF to Develop and Implement Enterprise Architecture in Government - U.S. Federal Agencies as Example.
  16. Quartel, D., Engelsman, W., Jonkers, H. 2009. A GoalOriented Requirements Modelling Language for Enterprise Architecture. Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2009, New Zealand.
  17. Salmans, B., Kappelman, L. A.,2010. The State of EA: Progress, Not Perfection. The SIM guide to enterprise architecture, 165-187.
  18. Sessions, R., 2007. A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies, ObjectWatch, Inc.
  19. TOGAF, The Open Group. ArchiMate Version 2. http://www.opengroup.org/archimate, Oct, 2012.
  20. Urbaczewski, L., & Mrdalj, S. 2006. A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues in Information Systems, 7(2), 18-23.
  21. Venkatraman, N., Henderson, J., 2010. Strategic Alignment: Leveraging IT for Transforming Organisations, IBM Systems Journal, Vol 32 No 1.
  22. Weston, J., Defee, J., 2004. Performance Based Enterprise Architecture Planning - A white Paper, 2004, http://www.caci.com/.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Essien J. and Oussena S. (2013). Enterprise Architecture Models - Description of Integrated Components for Validation - A Case Study of Student Internship Programme . In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8565-61-7, pages 302-309. DOI: 10.5220/0004443103020309


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis13,
author={Joe Essien and Samia Oussena},
title={Enterprise Architecture Models - Description of Integrated Components for Validation - A Case Study of Student Internship Programme},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},
year={2013},
pages={302-309},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004443103020309},
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 - Enterprise Architecture Models - Description of Integrated Components for Validation - A Case Study of Student Internship Programme
SN - 978-989-8565-61-7
AU - Essien J.
AU - Oussena S.
PY - 2013
SP - 302
EP - 309
DO - 10.5220/0004443103020309