Tailoring Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Resource
Structuring for Service-oriented Enterprises
Aleksas Mamkaitis and Markus Helfert
School of Computing, Dublin City University (DCU), Glasnevin, Dublin, Ireland
Keywords: Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Framework, Tailored Architecture Framework, Service
Science, Smart City.
Abstract: Enterprise Architecture (EA) is a discipline concerned primarily with enterprise Business-IT alignment. The
Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) is one of the leading EA frameworks that describes
methodology to carry out architecture work. TOGAF prescribes tailoring of the architecture frameworks for
enterprise architecture initiatives. However, there are no real-world examples of how these frameworks
would look like, nor there exist a clear process describing how to construct such frameworks. In this paper,
we show how to tailor an enterprise architecture framework for service-oriented enterprises.
Human-made systems are becoming inherently
complex (ISO, 2011). Enterprise Architecture (EA)
discipline is aiming at addressing complexity issues
of enterprises, and is primarily concerned with
enterprise Business-IT alignment (Ross et al., 2006).
The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)
(The Open Group, 2011) is one of the leading EA
frameworks that describes methodology to carry out
architecture work. TOGAF prescribes tailoring of
the architecture frameworks for enterprise
architecture initiatives. However, there are no real-
world examples of how these frameworks would
look like, nor there exist a clear process describing
how to construct such frameworks. Smart Cities can
be viewed as enterprises that are strategically using
Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
to improve quality of citizens life (Mamkaitis et al.,
2016). The application of ICT requires alignment
between system requirements and citizens needs
(Bastidas et al., 2017, Bastidas and Helfert, 2018).
From our conversations with Smart City leaders, one
of the themes that was became evident in the process
of discussing EA work was the fact that city councils
have no preference towards the business” language
in the EA initiatives. More precisely, while
reasoning in terms of the business architecture,
business services, business functions, business roles,
etc. the main comments were that city government is
not aiming at doing business, but rather at providing
a service. However, Enterprise Architecture work
revolves around the concepts of business. In
particular, the requirement that all architecture
decisions made during the architecting process must
be grounded in the need to support business agenda
of the enterprise (Lankhorst, 2009).
Today, services constitute a major part of
developed economies (National Academy of
Engineering, 2003). To formalize service research,
academic and research community proposed the
notion of Service Science Management and
Engineering (SSME) (Chesbrough and Spohrer,
2006), or Service Science (SS) for short (Maglio et
al., 2006, Spohrer et al., 2007). Service science
defines a set of concepts that are intended to
constitute a service system (Spohrer et al., 2008).
Researchers have identified connections between
these concepts to construct service system
ontologies (Mora et al., 2011, Ferrario et al., 2011,
Blaschke, 2018). Effectively, an ontology could be
utilized to describe and model service system
architecture. However, to-date there is no research
explaining what approach can be taken for service
system architecture description and modeling. In this
paper, we construct and demonstrate a practical
Tailored Enterprise Architecture Framewrok
(TFEA). This framework is based on the service
science theoretical foundations of service-dominant
logic (S-D) (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; 2006), and best
practice in the Enterprise Architecture (EA)
discipline. This work shows how to tailor
Mamkaitis, A. and Helfert, M.
Tailoring Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Resource Structuring for Service-oriented Enterprises.
DOI: 10.5220/0006933402150222
In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST 2018), pages 215-222
ISBN: 978-989-758-324-7
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
architecture framework to the requirements of the
EA initiatives.
Our approach to this research is guided by
Ostrowski and Helfert (2012) who list three
techniques that are important for execution of the
Design Science phases. These are a) literature
review, b) collaboration with practitioners, and c)
modelling. We complement our approach with
systems research thinking (Ackoff, 1971,
Checkland, 1981, Gelman and Garcia, 1989). First,
we modeled the water provisioning service in a city
setting with established Enterprise Architecture
modeling methods and tools. Following this, we
discussed the resulting model with four experts in
the water provision industry to make corrections to
the model where was necessary. From conversations
with water experts, we found that our model does
capture the structure of reality and therefore
provided a useful representation (March et al.,
1995). All experts were from different countries,
companies, and different employment positions in
their associated companies. After confirming the
validity of the model, we analyse it from theoretical
and conceptual view of service science (SS)
(Spohrer et al., 2008) and service-dominant (S-D)
logic perspective (Vargo and Lusch, 2006) to
construct a service-oriented enterprise architecture
framework. We then present results of this analysis.
Report by ABI Research (2017), referring to
Institute of Public Utilities at Michigan State
University, reveals that water had a tremendous
increase in price over the last thirty years. Water is
the basic utility in every city and is often taken for
granted by the city residents (Postel, 2014; Shiva,
2016). However, water supply service system is not
a trivial system (Salzman, 2006), and we chose to
simulate a water supply service as a case for this
paper analysis.
We chose to simulate the water supply service as
it very well exhibits the third Foundational Premise
(FP3) of service-dominant logic “goods are a
distribution mechanism for service provision”,
meaning that “goods.. derive their value through use
the service they provide” (Vargo and Lusch,
2008). Goods aid in addressing and solving specific
problems of persons and businesses, who acquire
those goods. The resolution of the problem is
manifested in value acquisition of which there might
be numerous (Sheth et al., 1991). However, the
functional value in this case is not straight-forward
clear. For example, water can be used for
recreational, health, domestic, food, industrial, and
so on, purposes (Rijsberman, 2006, Kenny et al.,
2009, Hoekstra 2006). The simulated use case was
modelled from the Enterprise Architecture practice
perspective (The Open Group, 2011) using
ArchiMate modelling language (The Open Group,
2016, Lankhorst et al., 2009). The Water Supply
Service architecture model included four layers, top-
down, as elaborated in Table 1.
Table 1: Enterprise Architecture layers and their contents.
Business Layer
Stakeholders, Business Processes, Business
Objects (contracts), Business Services.
Application Layer
Application systems that support business
layer activities e.g. software systems,
applications and data.
Technology Layer
Shows hardware elements and equipment,
such as computer devices, to run and support
components in the application layer.
Physical Layer
Enables to model water as the material
component of service.
The model did not include neither the strategy layer
nor the motivation layer, which enable to model
elements of e.g. value, meaning, requirement (and
constraints), principles, goals and outcomes, etc.
(Quartel et al., 2010, Greefhorst and Proper, 2011,
The Open Group, 2011). The reason for this is that
we were aiming to show how to construct tailored
enterprise architecture frameworks, not to give an
example of a complete or comprehensive one.
Where one perceives goods, they should think what
processes, skills, human effort and intent went into
creating those goods. In fact, any non-automated
processes are proveded as human service, and any
automated processes are provided by the systems
that are created, deployed, and maintained by the
means of human labour in effect, facilitated by the
human service (Sheridan, 2002, Cichocki et al.,
2012). To this day, the established goods-dominant
(G-D) worldview (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; 2008)
makes many to perceive that the basis for the
WEBIST 2018 - 14th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
economic system is the notion of goods as a
measurable units of tangible. However, no product
has existential significance without, or outside of,
the human social system (Hollnagel and Woods,
1999; 2006). Service science on the other hand, is
studying the universal service approach by viewing
service as a driving force for human cooperation and
survival (Vargo and Lusch, 2008, Leonard et al.,
2012, Bowles, 2003, Deutsch, 1949,). In this
context, even goods are considered as being indirect
service provision (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). This
approach to view service at the core of all human
activity is supported by service-dominant (S-D)
logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; 2008). Recent study
of manufacturing companies applying service
science and service innovation concepts shows
positive results while transforming their operations
according to service science approach (Gao and
Paton, 2018, Victorino et al., 2018). In this section,
we provide information about the service science
conepts used in this research. We primarily focus on
the basic resource types that are specified by the
service science, and in the next section we use this
knowledge to construct the Tailored Enterprise
Architecture Framework (TFEA).
4.1 Service System Architecture
The unit of analysis for service science is the service
system. Service system is a dyadic service
interaction between two atomic service systems.
Atomic service system is defined as “one that uses
no other service systems as resources” (Maglio et
al., 2009). Service systems exist to interact with
other service systems in the quest for value co-
creation (Maglio, 2008). A service system that is
composed of atomic service systems, forms a
composite service system (Maglio et al., 2009).
Examples of types of service systems range from
individuals, family, organization, business, hospitals,
universities, cities, departments, nations and global
economy (Jaakkola et al., 2014, Maglio and Spohrer,
Service systems are the configurations of
resources, skills, and knowledge to co-create value
(Maglio et al., 2006, Spohrer et al., 2007). The
complexity of resource configurations is presented
by Madhavaram and Hunt (2008), where authors
describe the framework of basic, composite, and
interconnected operant resources. It is known that
“every system has an architecture” (Software
Engineering Standards Committee, 2000), therefore
service systems being classified as complex systems
(Chae, 2012, Barile and Saviano, 2010) inherently
require scientific methods to study and design
service systems architecture. That said, service
science is lacking methods to describe and model
service system architectures, and early research on
formalising the service concept propose that beyond
the definition of what and how, service goes further
to integrate the two (Goldstein et al., 2002).
Integration involves the standardisation process of
the same. In line with architecture best-practice
(Software Engineering Standards Committee, 2000,
The Open Group 2011, Force, 1999), such
architectures must be descriptions of interactions
and relations between actors, and their use of various
configurations of resources. To facilitate description
and modeling of service systems architectures, the
methods for service system architecture practice
must accommodate at the very least the following
artifacts a) service system architecture framework,
b) a service system architecture meta-model, and c)
a service system architecture description and
modeling techniques and processes. In this paper, we
show how Enterprise Architecture can facilitate the
use and application of service science concepts. As a
result, we construct and demonstrate Tailored
Enterprise Architecture Framework (TFEA) for
service oriented architecture initiatives.
4.2 Service System Resource Types
A first challenge for service science is
“understanding of the type of resources.. and
methods to formally model their role” (Maglio,
2008). The purpose of this sections is to elaborate on
the types of resources that compose the service
system. Table 2. shows the types of resources
specified by service science (Maglio, 2008) which
we use as a base for the further analysis in this
paper. We also supplement the types of resources
with the set of resource types that are necessary for
service system architecture description
applications, data, materials.
Examining the model described in Section 3, it
became clear that service science specifies a set of
resources which are not sufficient for a
comprehensive architecture description. For
example, it was not possible to assign water to any
one of the four currently defined resource types
(person, business, technology, information) Table 2.
To articulate the need for “Materials” type of
resources we should bring attention to the fact that
any produced goods, potentially can be classified as
technology. The composition of any such
technology, physically, is essentially a configuration
of resources of nature whose properties are mended,
Tailoring Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Resource Structuring for Service-oriented Enterprises
altered, and eventually combined with other
resources to constitute goods. Such goods constitute
an end product whose purpose is to serve and aid a
goods-operating party in their endeavours.
Therefore, the life of any goods starts from the
resources that are provided by nature (Bridge, 2009)
and are of physical or “material” type. In our
simulated water provisioning service case, water was
the naturally occurring and renewable, component.
Table 2: Resources attributes, classes, and types. Adapted
from Maglio (2008).
With-Rights (WR)
Without-Rights (NR)
Applications, Data
Physical (P)
Technology, Materials
Note: resource types in italics are the resources introduced in this
Service science specifies four classes of
resources based on four attributes as they pertain to
physical constitution and assignment of rights
person, business, information, technology. Physical
constitution in this regard means the tangibility of
the resource, and rights referred to herein are
natural rights (Finnis, 2012) and legal righst (Stone,
1972). In addition to the resource types defined by
service science, we include three types of resources
that are necessary for the service system description
in the context of architecture application, data,
and materials, - Table 2. Further we elaborate on the
resource classes, and their types.
a) Physical-With-Rights (PWR) is a class of
physical resources with natural and/or legal rights.
Service science specifies one type of resource
pertaining to this class a person.
b) Non-Physical-With-Rights (NPWR) is a
class of resources that are of conceptual, rather than
physical. The types of resources in this class are
legal entities, or otherwise legaly recognised
congregated body of persons. Service science
specifies one type of resource pertaining to this class
e.g. business, a corporation, or other type of
organization with legal status.
c) Physical-Without-Rights (PNR) is a class
of physical resources that are the human-made
artifacts. Service science specifies one type of
resource related to this class technology. As part of
this paper, we propose additional type of resources
pertaining to this class Materials, which are
resources of nature that are harvested, processed,
and used by persons and businesses with, or without,
the aid of technology.
d) Non-Physical-Without-Rights (NPNR) is a
class of non-physical resources the artifacts in this
class include information such as laws, processes,
traditions, skills, contracts. We add two types of
resource to this category, namely Applications, and
Applications is a type of resource which include
software products, that are the instructions to be
executed by the computer hardware (Mahoney,
2004). We found it important for this type of
resource to be represented as a type of resource in
it’s own right, primarily due to the reason that it is
not possible to assign it to neither Technology, nor
Information type of resource. In fact, Applications
use technology (tangible resources, e.g. computers)
to produce information.
Data is a type of resource that is distinct from
either type of resources in the Non-Physical-
Without-Rights (NPNR) class. Applications operate
on data, to produce information (Bellinger et al.,
2004). In fact, data, information, knowledge and
wisdom, stack up in a pyramid of dependency on
one another (Rowley, 2007).
Materials is the resource type that includes raw
materials, as well as materials facilitated by nature
this is necessary to provide inclusion of resources
that are not addressed by any of the resource types
currently specified by service science. Materials are
the type of resource that come from nature and have
their own mechanisms of formation and, or,
reproduction such as water, wind, solar energy,
oxygen, etc. (Liu et al., 2007). Materials type belong
to the class Physical-Without-Righst (Table 2). The
aim of material resources type is to include
renewable, non-renewable, as well as mineral
resources. Wind, water, fauna, flora, crude oil,
petrol, gold, silver, ore, are all examples of material
resources. Some of these resources have the capacity
to self-sustain and regenerate over the life-time of a
human being, and some take much longer time.
However, the purpose of this type of resource is to
communicate the fact that resources of nature are
used as components for the creation of artifacts in
the technology layer.
Service science research revolves around
understanding of service system actors, the context
in which they operate, their interactions, interaction
outcomes, co-creation, measures, value,
stakeholders, entities, and resource configurations
(Spohrer et al., 2008, Patricio and Fisk, 2011).
However the area of constructing and architecting
service systems has not yet been explored. In the
next section, we present and analyse a layers for
service-oriented architecture framework that serves
WEBIST 2018 - 14th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
as a basis for our explanation of resource structuring
within the service system architectures.
Service science objective is to study service systems.
In the previous sections we discussed the types of
EA resources and how they align to the layers in an
EA practice. In this section, we show how layering
of types of resources align within the service science
resource classification, Table 3 and Table 4. Further
we discuss layers of the tailored service-oriented
architecture framework top-down.
Table 3: Architecture elements to types comparison:
Service Science (SS) and Enterprise Architecture (EA).
Resource Name
SS Type
Home Owner
Account Manager
Env. Regulator
Consumer Protection Agency
Water Ops. Manager
Customer Profile
Financial Transaction
Water Customer Support
Issue Management Process
Water Daily Ops. Process
Monitoring Application
Ticketing Application
Customer Mgmt.Application
Issue Resolution System
Database System
Internet 4G
Water Supply Control
5.1 Service Layer
The aim of the Enterprise Architecture is the
Business-IT alignment (Ross et al., 2006), the
principal idea behind which is that all architectural
decisions should be grounded in the need to support
business agenda of the enterprise (Lankhorst, 2009).
Business layer of the enterprise architecture includes
persons and organizations. In contrast to the EA,
service science research revolves around agenda of
service, in the context of which business is a type of
resource rather than a conceptual layer (Table 2,
Table 3). Interaction between persons and businesses
happen in a service setting, e.g. Home Owner to
Account Manager interaction, Water Operations
Manager to Environmental Regulator interaction, or
Table 4: Architecture elements to architecture layers
comparison: Service Science (SS) and Enterprise
Architecture (EA).
Resource Name
SS Layer
EA layer
Home Owner
Account Manager
Env. Regulator
Consumer Protection Agency
Water Ops. Manager
Customer Profile
Financial Transaction
Water Customer Support
Issue Mgmt. Process
Water Daily Ops. Process
Monitoring Application
Ticketing Application
Customer Mgmt. Application
Issue Resolution System
Database System
Internet 4G
Water Supply Control
Consumer Protection Agency to Water Customer
Suport interaction. All of these actors engage in
service interactions. They make up, and belong to,
the logical strata of service (Table 4).
5.2 Information Layer
The next resource type is information. Enterprise
Architecture specify business contract, as well as
business processes as types within the business
layer, Table 4. In the context of service science,
contracts and processes fall within the Information
resource type as these resources are considered to
be conceptual rather than physical, Table 2.
Technology and Applications can be used to
construct and present these resources e.g. make
visual presentation with pen and paper, or digitally).
Artifacts in the Information Layer are the resources
that are in the state of “ready-to-be-acted-upon”.
Actors in a service system are constantly engaging
with other actors in the quest of value co-creation
and value extraction. Any interactions between
actors are based on the value propositions (Frow and
Payne, 2011). These propositions are delivered in a
form of information. In fact, information is a first-
order operand in the context of any actor activities
(McFadyen and Cannella, 2004). An example is a
person-to-person communication, where information
is passed between persons without the use of
technology e.g. by the means of spoken language
(Premack, 2004). Humans use information to make
decisions, directing them in the universal space of
entities and contextual space of actors (a scoped
Tailoring Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Resource Structuring for Service-oriented Enterprises
service system). Information Layer includes, but is
not limited to, written knowledge, processes,
procedures, written law, traditions, agreements,
contracts, instructions, spoken language, etc. This
makes logical information strata to exist
independently from other service architecture layers.
5.3 Application Layer
Further, humans exchange information in two
broadly accepted ways. First is with the use of
technology. One of the most primitive example of
information exchange with the aid of technology is
the use of writing, and print. In the modern society,
Information Technology (IT) has advanced beyond
writing and print to include information science and
information systems (Campbell-Kelly, 2018, Janich
et al. 2018). In this context, technology facilitates
the functions of data and information collection,
storing, transmission, processing and display, etc.
Therefore, much of the life-time, information resides
within the context of technology (applications) in the
form of data.
5.4 Technology Layer
According to the basic types of resources, Table 2.,
Technological resources are of a Physical-Without-
Rights (PNR). These resources are the human-made
artifacts (March, 2008, Arthur, 2009, Franssen et al.,
2013) such as, but not limited to, buildings,
factories, computer equipment, network
communications infrastructure including devices and
networks, etc. Technology resources are utilised by
humans to more effectively and efficiently
accomplish tasks at hand.
5.5 Materials Layer
Humans harvest and consume resources of nature. In
the context of this research, these are the resources
of mineral (Kesler and Simon, 2015, Ross, 2015)
and natural origin (Gylfason, 2001, Lederman et al.,
2006). In general, the Materials Layer is aimed to
include all the nature resources, inclusive of
renewable and non-renewable, mineral, and natural
resources. These resources are then used by humans
to produce composite resources (Madhavaram,
2008), higher order constructs, such as food, tools,
circuit boards, alloy compounds, etc.
To solve the complexity of enterprises, practitioners
embrace the Enterprise Architecture discipline
(Ross, 2006). EA is both a product and a process
(Lankhorst, 2009) in terms that it provides methods
to record and plan, as well as produces artifacts that
help to implement, analyse and change the
architectures of enterprises. However, due to the
expressiveness of TOGAF, architecture frameworks
need to be tailored for specific enterprise
architecture initiatives. In this paper, we showed
how it is possible to construct a Tailored Enterprise
Architecture Framework for the service-oriented
enterprises. Our approach shows, that by grounding
architecture work in the theoretical foundations of
the subject of interest, service science in our case, it
is possible to tailor TOGAF framework to a specific
project needs. In this particular case, the framework
enables architecture approach to service systems and
shows where exactly in the context of architecture
service related theories and methods should be
applied the service layer, between actors,
stakeholders and entities. Future research should
focus on service-specific architecture processes, to
extract elements pertaining to service systems and
facilitate the service system description methods.
We would like to express gratitude to the experts
who took time to review the Water Supply Service
Model and provide valuable feedback for this
This work was supported with the financial
support of the Science Foundation Ireland grant
13/RC/2094 and co-funded under the European
Regional Development Fund through the Southern
and Eastern Regional Operational Programme to
Lero - the Irish Software Research Centre
ABI Research, 2017. Smart Cities and Cost Savings.
[online] Available at: http://www.chordant.io/
savings [Accessed 14 Dec. 2017].
Ackoff, R.L., 1971. Towards a system of systems
concepts. Management science, 17(11), pp.661-671.
Arthur, W.B., 2009. The nature of technology: What it is
and how it evolves. Simon and Schuster.
WEBIST 2018 - 14th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies
Barile, S. and Saviano, M., 2010. A new perspective of
systems complexity in service science.
Bastidas, V., Bezbradica, M. and Helfert, M., 2017, June.
Cities as Enterprises: A Comparison of Smart City
Frameworks Based on Enterprise Architecture
Requirements. In International Conference on Smart
Cities (pp. 20-28). Springer, Cham.
Bastidas, V., Helfert, M. and Bezbradica, M., 2018,
January. A Requirements Framework for the Design of
Smart City Reference Architectures. In Proceedings of
the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System
Bellinger, G., Castro, D. and Mills, A., 2004. Data,
information, knowledge, and wisdom.
Blaschke, M., Haki, M.K., Aier, S. and Winter, R., 2018.
Value Co-creation OntologyA Service-dominant
Logic Perspective.
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H., 2003. Origins of human
cooperation. Genetic and cultural evolution of
cooperation, 2003, pp.429-43.
Bridge, G., 2009. Material worlds: Natural resources,
resource geography and the material economy.
Geography Compass, 3(3), pp.1217-1244.
Campbell-Kelly, M., 2018. Computer: A history of the
information machine. Routledge.
Chae, B.K., 2012. An evolutionary framework for service
innovation: Insights of complexity theory for service
science. International Journal of Production
Economics, 135(2), pp.813-822.
Checkland, P., 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice.
Chesbrough, H. and Spohrer, J., 2006. A research
manifesto for services science. Communications of the
ACM, 49(7), pp.35-40.
Cichocki, A., Ansari, H.A., Rusinkiewicz, M. and Woelk,
D., 2012. Workflow and process automation: concepts
and technology (Vol. 432). Springer Science and
Business Media.
Derhamy, H., Eliasson, J., Delsing, J. and Priller, P., 2015,
September. A survey of commercial frameworks for
the internet of things. In Emerging Technologies and
Factory Automation (ETFA), 2015 IEEE 20th
Conference on (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Deutsch, M., 1949. A theory of co-operation and
competition. Human relations, 2(2), pp.129-152.
Ferrario, R., Guarino, N., Janiesch, C., Kiemes, T., Oberle,
D. and Probst, F., 2011, February. Towards an
ontological foundation of services science: The
general service model. In 10th International
Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 675-684).
Finnis, J., 2011. Natural law and natural rights. Oxford
University Press.
Force, I.I.T., 1999. GERAM: Generalised enterprise
reference architecture and methodology. IFIP-IFAC
Task Force on Architectures for Enterprise Integration
March Version, 1(3).
Franssen, M., Kroes, P., Reydon, T.A. and Vermaas, P.E.
eds., 2013. Artefact kinds: Ontology and the human-
made world (Vol. 365). Springer Science and Business
Frow, P. and Payne, A., 2011. A stakeholder perspective
of the value proposition concept. European journal of
marketing, 45(1/2), pp.223-240.
Gao, B. and Paton, R.A., 2018, March. Growing SMEs the
role of Service Innovation: The Case of CCoI. In
ISPIM Innovation Symposium (pp. 1-18). The
International Society for Professional Innovation
Management (ISPIM).
Gelman, O. and Garcia, J., 1989. Formulation and
axiomatization of the concept of general system.
Outlet IMPOS (Mexican Institute of Planning and
Systems Operation), 19(92), pp.1-81.
Goldstein, S.M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J. and Rao, J., 2002.
The service concept: the missing link in service design
research?. Journal of Operations management, 20(2),
Greefhorst, D. and Proper, E., 2011. Architecture
principles: the cornerstones of enterprise architecture.
Springer Science and Business Media.
Gylfason, T., 2001. Natural resources, education, and
economic development. European economic review,
45(4-6), pp.847-859.
Haber, S. and Menaldo, V., 2011. Do natural resources
fuel authoritarianism? A reappraisal of the resource
curse. American political science Review, 105(1),
Hoekstra, A.Y. and Chapagain, A.K., 2006. Water
footprints of nations: water use by people as a function
of their consumption pattern. In Integrated assessment
of water resources and global change (pp. 35-48).
Springer, Dordrecht.
Hollnagel, E. and Woods, D.D., 2006. Joint cognitive
systems: patterns in cognitive systems engineering.
CRC Press.
ISO, M., 2011. Systems and software engineering
architecture description (pp. 1-46). ISO/IEC/IEEE
Jaakkola, E. and Alexander, M., 2014. The role of
customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: a
service system perspective. Journal of Service
Research, 17(3), pp.247-261.
Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S.,
Lovelace, J.K. and Maupin, M.A., 2009. Estimated use
of water in the United States in 2005 (No. 1344). US
Geological Survey.
Kesler, S.E. and Simon, A.C., 2015. Mineral resources,
economics and the environment. Cambridge
University Press.
Lankhorst, M., 2009. Enterprise architecture at work:
Modelling, communication and analysis. Springer
Science and Business Media.
Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A. and Jonkers, H., 2009. The
architecture of the archimate language. In Enterprise,
Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling
(pp. 367-380). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Lederman, D. and Maloney, W.F. eds., 2006. Natural
resources, neither curse nor destiny. World Bank
Leonard, K.M., Cosans, C., Pakdil, F. and Collaborator,
C., 2012. Cooperation across cultures: An examination
of the concept in 16 countries. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 36(2), pp.238-247.
Tailoring Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Resource Structuring for Service-oriented Enterprises
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Alberti, M.,
Redman, C.L., Schneider, S.H., Ostrom, E., Pell, A.N.,
Lubchenco, J. and Taylor, W.W., 2007. Coupled
human and natural systems. AMBIO: a journal of the
human environment, 36(8), pp.639-649.
Madhavaram, S. and Hunt, S.D., 2008. The service-
dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant resources:
developing masterful operant resources and
implications for marketing strategy. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp.67-82.
Maglio, P.P. and Spohrer, J., 2008. Fundamentals of
service science. Journal of the academy of marketing
science, 36(1), pp.18-20.
Maglio, P.P., Srinivasan, S., Kreulen, J.T. and Spohrer, J.,
2006. Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and
innovation. Communications of the ACM, 49(7),
Maglio, P.P., Vargo, S.L., Caswell, N. and Spohrer, J.,
2009. The service system is the basic abstraction of
service science. Information Systems and e-business
Management, 7(4), pp.395-406.
Mahoney, M.S., 2004. Finding a history for software
engineering. IEEE Annals of the History of
Computing, 26(1), pp.8-19.
Mamkaitis, A., Bezbradica, M. and Helfert, M., 2016,
September. Urban enterprise: a review of smart city
frameworks from an enterprise architecture
perspective. In Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), 2016
IEEE International (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
March, S.T. and Smith, G.F., 1995. Design and natural
science research on information technology. Decision
support systems, 15(4), pp.251-266.
March, S.T. and Storey, V.C., 2008. Design science in the
information systems discipline: an introduction to the
special issue on design science research. MIS
quarterly, pp.725-730.
McFadyen, M.A. and Cannella Jr, A.A., 2004. Social
capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns
of the number and strength of exchange relationships.
Academy of management Journal, 47(5), pp.735-746.
Mora, M., Raisinghani, M., Gelman, O. and Sicilia, M.A.,
2011. Onto-servsys: A service system ontology. In
The Science of Service Systems (pp. 151-173).
Springer, Boston, MA.
National Academy of Engineering, 2003. The Impact of
Academic Research on Industrial Performance. The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
O’Regan, G., 2018. Overview of Telecommunications. In
World of Computing (pp. 227-237). Springer, Cham.
Ostrowski, L. and Helfert, M., 2012. Reference model in
design science research to gather and model
Patricio, L. and Fisk, R.P., 2011. Synthesizing service
design and service science for service innovation.
Touchpoint: The Journal of Service Design, 3(2),
Postel, S., 2014. The last oasis: facing water scarcity.
Premack, D., 2004. Is language the key to human
intelligence?. Science, 303(5656), pp.318-320.
Quartel, D., Engelsman, W. and Jonkers, H., 2010.
ArchiMate extension for modeling and managing
motivation, principles and requirements in TOGAF.
Reading, Berkshire: Whitepaper, The Open Group.
Reddy, O.G. and Raghavendra, G., 2018. Fifth Generation
(5G) in Wireless Mobile Communication Systems.
Rijsberman, F.R., 2006. Water scarcity: fact or fiction?.
Agricultural water management, 80(1-3), pp.5-22.
Ross, J.W., Weill, P. and Robertson, D., 2006. Enterprise
architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for
business execution. Harvard Business Press.
Ross, M.L., 2015. What have we learned about the
resource curse?. Annual Review of Political Science,
18, pp.239-259.
Rowley, J., 2007. The wisdom hierarchy: representations
of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of information
science, 33(2), pp.163-180.
Salzman, J., 2006. Thirst: a short history of drinking
water. Yale JL and Human., 18, p.94.
Sheridan, T.B., 2002. Humans and automation: System
design and research issues. Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L., 1991. Why we
buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values.
Journal of business research, 22(2), pp.159-170.
Shiva, V., 2016. Water wars: Privatization, pollution, and
profit. North Atlantic Books.
Software Engineering Standards Committee, 2000. IEEE
recommended practice for architectural description of
software-intensive systems. Technical Report IEEE
Std 1471-2000, IEEE Computer Society.
Spohrer, J., Anderson, L., Pass, N. and Ager, T., 2008,
December. Service science and service-dominant
logic. In Otago Forum (Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 4-18).
Spohrer, J., Maglio, P.P., Bailey, J. and Gruhl, D., 2007.
Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer,
Stone, C.D., 1972. Should Trees Have Standing--Toward
Legal Rights for Natural Objects. S. CAl. l. rev., 45,
The Open Group. “ArchiMate® 3.0.1 Specification”,
The Open Group. “Open Group Standanotepadrd TOGAF
Version 9.1”, 2011.
Van der Heijden, J., 2011. Institutional layering: A review
of the use of the concept. Politics, 31(1), pp.9-18.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new
dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing,
68(1), pp.1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., 2006. Service-dominant
logic. The service-dominant logic of marketing:
Dialog, debate, and directions.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., 2008. Service-dominant
logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the
Academy of marketing Science, 36(1), pp.1-10.
Victorino, L., Field, J.M., Buell, R.W., Dixon, M.J.,
Meyer Goldstein, S., Menor, L.J., Pullman, M.E.,
Roth, A.V., Secchi, E. and Zhang, J.J., 2018. Service
operations: what have we learned?. Journal of Service
Management, 29(1), pp.39-54.
WEBIST 2018 - 14th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies