Do IT Architecture Principles Contribute to IT System’s Requirements Realisation? - Research Definition of Measuring the Contribution of IT Architecture Principles to the Realisation of IT System’s Requirements

Michiel Borgers

Abstract

The aim of IT architecture is to focus on the essential requirements so the IT system will fit for its purpose. IT architecture principles are the cornerstone of the IT architecture and therefore important in realising the IT system’s requirements. Because the implementations of IT systems fail in many cases and there is no empirical evidence of the contribution of IT architecture principles, we want to investigate the added value of IT architecture principles. To do so we want to develop measurement instruments for both the IT system’s requirements realisation and the IT architecture principles. We then can correlate the empirical results of both measurement instruments so we can determine the extent of added value of IT architecture principles. This is the research definition paper.

References

  1. Van't Wout, J. et al., 2010. The Integrated Architecture Framework Explained - Why, What, How, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  2. Babbie, E., 2015. The Practice of Social Research, Cengage Learning, Inc.
  3. Bryman, A., 2009. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? V. L. Pl. C. J. W. Creswell, ed. Qualitative Research, 6(1), pp.97-113.
  4. Churchman, C.W., 1971. The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization: Charles West, New York: Basic Books.
  5. Clements, P. et al., 2002. Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond.
  6. DeLone, W.H. & McLean, E., 2003. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A tenyear updated. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), pp.9-30.
  7. Department of Defense, 2006. Department of Defense Chief Information Officer Desk Reference. Chief Information Officer Desk Reference, I(August).
  8. Dietz, J.L.G., 2008. Architecture - Building stategy into design, Academic Service.
  9. Dietz, J.L.G., 2001. DEMO: Towards a discipline of organisation engineering. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), pp.351-363.
  10. Dietz, J.L.G., 2004. Extensible Architecture Framework, The NAF Program GAF.
  11. Dietz, J.L.G. (editor), 2010. Enterprise Engineering Toolset. Engineering, (January), pp.1-2.
  12. Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp.532-550.
  13. Elias, T., 2015. Parlementair onderzoek naar ICTprojecten bij de overheid, Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal, (In Dutch).
  14. El Emam, K. & Gunus Koru, A., 2008. A replicated survey of IT Software Project Failures. IEEE Software, pp.84-90.
  15. Gersick, C., 1988. Time and Transition in Work Teams: Towards a New Model of Group Development. Acedamy of Management Journal, 31, pp.9-41.
  16. Greefhorst, D. & Proper, E., 2011. Architecture Principles the Cornerstones of Enterprise Architecture, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  17. Greefhorst, D., Proper, E. & Plataniotis, G., 2013. The Dutch State of the Practice of Architecture Principles. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, p.6.
  18. Harris, S.G. & Sutton, R.I., 1986. Functions of Parting Ceremonies in Dying Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), pp.5-30.
  19. IEEE, 2000. IEEE SA - 1471-2000 - IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description for SoftwareIntensive Systems.
  20. IEEE, 1990. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. , pp.1-84.
  21. IIBA, 2015. A guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABOK Guide).
  22. ISO, ISO/IEC 12207:2008 - Systems and software engineering -- Software life cycle processes.
  23. Kaner, C., Falk, J. & Nguyen, H.Q., 1999. Testing Computer Software 2nd Editio, Wiley.
  24. Land, M.O. et al., 2008. Enterprise architecture: creating value by informed governance. Springer.
  25. Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-network-theory, Oxford University Press.
  26. De Leeuw, A.C.J., 1990. Organisaties: Management, analyse, ontwerp en verandering, Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp.
  27. Looijen, M., 1998. Information Systems: Management Control and Maintenance 1st edition, SDU.
  28. Mark, B. & Caputi Peter, 2001. Introduction to quantitative research. SAGE publication Ltd, p.272.
  29. Muijs, D.D., 2004. Doing Quantitative Research in Education: with SPSS, SAGE Publications.
  30. Oxford Dictionaries - Dictionary, Thesaurus, & Grammar. Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ [Accessed December 21, 2015b].
  31. Pan, J., 1999. Software Testing.
  32. Plasterk, R., 2013. Visiebrief digitale overheid 2017.
  33. PRISM, 1986. Dispersion and Interconnection: Approaches to Distributed Systems Architecture, Final Report. Technical Report, CSC Index, Inc and Hammer & Company, Cambridge MA.
  34. Ralph, P. & Wand, Y., 2007. A Proposal for a Formal Definition of the Design Concept, In Design Requirements Engineering: A Ten-Year Perspective, Volume 14, pp.103-136.
  35. Ravichandran, T. & Lertwongsatien, C., 2005. Effect of Information Systems Resources and Capabilities on Firm Performance: A Resource-Based Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(4), pp.237-276.
  36. Standish Group, 2015. Haze, Available at: https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files /Haze4.pdf [Accessed January 18, 2016].
  37. Slot, R., 2010. A method for valuing Architecture-Based Business Transformation and Measuring the value of Solutions Architecture. University of Amsterdam.
  38. Stelzer, D., 2009. Enterprise architecture principles: literature review and research directions. Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on Serviceoriented computing, pp.12-21.
  39. The Open Group, 2011. TOGAF® Version 9.1, Van Haren Publishing.
  40. Thorp, J. & Leadership, F.C.C. for S., 2003. The Information Paradox: Realizing the Business Benefits of Information Technology, McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
  41. Westerman, G., Bonnet, D. & McAffer, A., 2014. Leading Digital Turning Technology into Business Transformation. Harvard Business Review Press.
  42. Yin, R.K., 2013. Applications of case study research. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 34, p.173.
  43. Zachman, J.A., 1987. A Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26, No., 3(3), pp.276-292.
  44. Zachmann, John A., Conceptual, Logical, Physical: It is Simple Available at: http://www.zachman.com/eaarticles-reference/58-conceptual-logical-physical-it-issimple-by-john-a-zachman [Accessed December 18, 2015a].
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Borgers M. (2016). Do IT Architecture Principles Contribute to IT System’s Requirements Realisation? - Research Definition of Measuring the Contribution of IT Architecture Principles to the Realisation of IT System’s Requirements . In Doctoral Consortium - DCEIS, (ICEIS 2016) ISBN , pages 3-8


in Bibtex Style

@conference{dceis16,
author={Michiel Borgers},
title={Do IT Architecture Principles Contribute to IT System’s Requirements Realisation? - Research Definition of Measuring the Contribution of IT Architecture Principles to the Realisation of IT System’s Requirements},
booktitle={Doctoral Consortium - DCEIS, (ICEIS 2016)},
year={2016},
pages={3-8},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={},
isbn={},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Doctoral Consortium - DCEIS, (ICEIS 2016)
TI - Do IT Architecture Principles Contribute to IT System’s Requirements Realisation? - Research Definition of Measuring the Contribution of IT Architecture Principles to the Realisation of IT System’s Requirements
SN -
AU - Borgers M.
PY - 2016
SP - 3
EP - 8
DO -