Business Cloudification

An Enterprise Architecture Perspective

Ovidiu Noran and Peter Bernus

IIIS Centre for Enterprise ARchitecture Research and Management, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Keywords: Enterprise Architecture, System Properties, Cloud Computing, Cloudification.

Abstract: Cloud computing is emerging as a promising enabler of some aspects of the ‘agile’ and ‘lean’ features that

businesses need to display in today’s hyper-competitive and disruptive global economic ecosystem.

However, it is increasingly obvious that there are essential prerequisites and caveats to cloudification that

businesses need to be aware of in order to avoid pitfalls. This paper aims to present a novel, Enterprise

Architecture-based approach towards analysing the cloudification endeavour, adopting a holistic paradigm

that takes into account the mutual influences of the entities and artefacts involved, in the context of their life

cycles. As shown in the paper, this approach enables a richer insight into the ‘readiness’ of a business

considering embarking on a cloudification endeavour and therefore empowers management to evaluate

consequences of- and take cognisant decisions on the cloudification extent, type, provider etc. based on

prompt information of appropriate quality and detail. The paper also presents a brief practical example of

this approach and illustrates, using the Enterprise Architecture viewpoint, the necessity of well-defined

business architecture, policies and principles dictating solution selection and design and transition program

as sine qua non preconditions towards successful cloudification.

1 INTRODUCTION

In today’s competitive and disruptive global

economic ecosystem, businesses need more than

ever to display agility, i.e. the capacity to quickly

adapt to changes in their environment. This implies

the capacity to promptly reconfigure and redesign

themselves ‘on the fly’ to various extents.

Importantly, an essential enabler of agility is the

need to be ‘lean’, i.e. avoid excessive investment in

areas that are likely to change and can be

outsourced.

Cloud computing, as an Internet-based paradigm

model enabling on-demand access to configurable

computing resources that can be promptly and easily

enabled from the client side, holds the promise to

answer some aspects of the two requirements

described above. This is because typically cloud

computing and storage solutions provide services

such as Infrastructure (IaaS), Platform (PaaS),

Software (SaaS) (see Fig. 1), while making use of

shared resources in order to achieve coherence and

economies of scale.

For example, in the case of IaaS, cloud

computing allows companies focus on their core

businesses instead of spending resources on building

and maintaining their own computer infrastructure.

Cloud computing also promises to allow enterprises

deploy and operate applications faster, reduce

maintenance, improve manageability, thus directly

supporting the said lean and agile requirements

(Hirzalla, 2010; Sawas and Watfa, 2015).

Figure 1: Typical Cloud Architecture – based on NIST

Cloud Computing Reference Architecture (Liu et al,

2011).

Figure 1 presents a typical cloud architecture. While

following the accepted NIST terminology (Liu et al.,

2011), it does however consider the architecture

from a functional point of view (i.e., leaving it open

on how service, service management and other

Noran, O. and Bernus, P.

Business Cloudiﬁcation - An Enterprise Architecture Perspective.

DOI: 10.5220/0006248603530360

In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2017) - Volume 3, pages 353-360

ISBN: 978-989-758-249-3

353

related functions are distributed among

organisations). In addition, in Fig. 1 Information

Services are singled out separately, given the various

new forms of services that are based on various

other information sources and repositories other than

databases, such as streaming data, unstructured

media sources, etc.

Cloud computing may be deployed in various

ways, such as private, public, community or hybrid

(a combination thereof). Choosing the type of

deployment must consider factors such as security,

privacy, compliance, availability and reliability

(Goyal, 2014; Jansen and Grance, 2011).

This is especially true considering that cloud

computing technology has not yet fully matured and

as such it cannot always satisfy the above-mentioned

criteria to the level required (Badger et al., 2014a;

Zhang et al., 2010; Wang et al, 2008, Brian et al.,

2008; Grossman, 2009). The recent years have seen

the lowering of cost of services, computing and

storage, and improvements in scalability and

availability and network capacity. This situation, in

the context of the emergence, increase in acceptance

and subsequent adoption of models such as

Information Technology (IT), virtualisation and

service orientation by businesses have encouraged

the perception that cloudification is an achievable

target for most businesses. Gartner (2016) states that

currently cloud vendors (and users) are still rushing

to the market to gain a position in the growth

market, with various service delivery models (IaaS,

PaaS, SaaS, etc.) present at all levels of the hype

cycle. It is however emphasized that only those

businesses who filter out the hype and perform a

realistic assessment and matching of the cloud

capabilities “to the right scenarios, with the right

management and governance” benefit from “[…]

increased agility, elasticity, scalability, innovation,

and in some cases, cost savings” [ibid.]. This

supports the above-stated authors’ stance (detailed in

Section 2) that there are important aspects that need

to be observed in order to make the ‘cloudification

journey’ a successful one. Identifying the aspects

that need to be addressed and selecting the

appropriate methods and models to prepare for

cloudification can be a daunting task given the daily

economic pressures and the ‘system-of-systems’

complexity of today’s enterprises. This paper

advocates the use of Enterprise Architecture (EA) as

a holistic, life-cycle oriented approach towards

assessing, creating or improving of what can be

called ‘cloudification readiness’ of businesses.

2 CLOUDIFICATION

CHALLENGES

As more businesses attempt the move to the cloud,

an increasing number of problems are surfacing.

This has much to do with the expected inherent

complexity of- and turbulence created by any major

change in doing business; however, in this case there

are also present specific problems originating in the

very nature of cloud computing and importantly, in

the fact that the business, as well as the cloud

computing business model and technology

themselves are ‘moving targets’ that evolve during

and after the ‘cloudification’ project(s).

A first major hurdle that businesses face is the

extent of cloudification. Thus, organizations must

apply due diligence when selecting and moving

functionality to the cloud, as cost and productivity

advantages also bring potential drawbacks in risk

and liability (Cayirci et al., 2016). For example,

although government organizations may be

discouraged to outsource services to a public cloud

due to the sensitivity of the data handled, with

appropriate risk mitigation a partial deployment in

the cloud should still be possible (Jansen and

Grance, 2011). However, a proper analysis

determining which services and what proportion

thereof to be outsourced requires that a common

understanding of the AS-IS (present) state of the

business is achieved by all stakeholders and in all

aspects necessary for the change.

A second important challenge increasing the

complexity of the cloudification endeavour is

service recursion, where services may call upon

other services, such as e.g. in an ‘intercloud’

architecture (Morrow et al., 2009). For example, an

E-commerce site needs banking, fraud detection, etc.

which are nowadays (also, or often only) offered as

external services (Aulkemeier et al., 2016). This

situation raises several important questions such as:

Who is responsible for reliability if a service fails

due to other services it depends on? Can a service be

guaranteed if is integrated with / depends on others?

If so, who is the responsible / guarantor entity?

Therefore, it is important that the degree of recursion

is properly understood and therefore, adequate

queries are raised by the acquisition panel of the to-

be-cloudified business to the cloud computing

solution provider.

A main driver for cloudification is the promise of

lowered costs; therefore, realising if appropriate

savings are indeed achieved in the long run is an

important issue (considering also that business needs

will change). Thus, the total cost of ownership

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

354

(including initial migration and deployment to the

cloud, operation, continual development and

decommissioning / migration) can escalate if the

cloud pricing model is not understood and

strategically assured by the user. The use of cloud

pricing frameworks (e.g. as proposed by Laatikainen

(2013)) is useful in this regard so as to understand

the options; however, this should not be the only

factor and as previously stated, first of all it should

be decided why cloudification is necessary or

desirable, what is to be cloudified, and to what

extent. In addition, cloud solution vendors are

increasingly asking for long term contracts and to

bundle applications in order to offer discounts;

hence, an essential cloud solution incentive is in

danger of not being materialised.

A heterogeneous cloudification solution (using

several providers) could be cheaper and a better fit

for purpose as various providers offer different

coverage of specific services and thus best prices

may be negotiated for each application type. This

option would require more varied in-house

competencies compared to relying on a single cloud

service provider; however, the latter option has

drawbacks such as potential lock-in, or high exit cost

should a migration be necessary.

Zardari et al. (2012) argue that analysing Service

Level Agreements (SLA) of cloud providers and

matching them against the user requirements can

reveal potential violations of important principles, or

conflicts and risks; while the SLA approach is

useful, in the authors’ opinion the above discussion

has revealed that a much broader spectrum of

cloudification challenges is in fact present. Due to

their intertwined character, these challenges have to

be addressed in a more holistic manner, based on the

entire set of applicable quality of service

requirements (also called ‘architecturally significant’

or ‘non-functional’ requirements (Chen et al.,

2013)). The ‘applicable’ qualifier used above raises

the question as to which non-functional systemic

requirements, or ‘ilities’ (de Weck, 2011), are

affected by the various cloudification solutions, how

(to the better or the worse) and to what extent. The

following sub-section attempts to identify the most

relevant ‘ilities’ in question.

3 CLOUDIFICATION AND

SYSTEMS ‘ILITIES’

As de Weck (ibid.) explains, “[…] the ilities are

desired properties of systems, […] (usually but not

always ending in 'ility'), that often manifest

themselves after a system has been put to its initial

use. These properties […] typically concern wider

system impacts with respect to time and stakeholders

[…]”. He also provides a ranking of the ilities based

on journal articles’ coverage and Google hits, and

identifies and further describes four classic

engineering ilities, i.e. safety, quality, usability and

reliability. Willis and Dam (2011) provide a more

complete list that includes what they call ‘the

forgotten ilities’.

In this paper, the authors will attempt to select

the most relevant ilities from the point of view of

cloudification and analyse how they are affected by

various cloud service delivery models, and if

possible, analyse the extent of impact.

It is important to state some overall observations

beforehand. For example, some ilities appear to

subsume others, or at least overlaps are present. E.g.,

quality is a very general ility that appears to be one

of the most cited; in addition, quality can be

evaluated from several points of view (see Table 1.),

thus illustrating another general ility aspect.

The discussion of ilities in the context of cloud

computing presents two main aspects: i) cloud

computing (in its various forms) promises to solve a

number of business problems, by allowing the

achievement of some systemic properties that

otherwise may be out of reach, however, ii) adopting

a cloud solution changes many existing systemic

properties of the IT ecosystem, and therefore in a

cloudification project (or more often than not a

programme) it is not possible to simply concentrate

on the desired additional benefits. This makes the

cloudification attempt more complex than might

initially have been assumed.

As mentioned, the ilities are not a set of mutually

independent systemic properties; in addition, some

important ilities are in fact aggregations of others

(see Table 1). Therefore, to reach an optimum (or at

least an acceptable trade-off) one must employ

multi-criteria decision making- and cost analysis

techniques known from systems engineering to

explore the ilities ‘trade space’ Boehm et al (2014).

In general, the typical problems that cloud

computing promises to solve are as follows:

concerns about the total cost of ownership of

information technology services, the scalability /

elasticity of the IT solution, the rigidity of

investment timing, and agility (e.g., quick time to

market).

However, security, privacy, trust, compliance

with legislations, and a number of other strategically

important architectural properties could substantially

Business Cloudiﬁcation - An Enterprise Architecture Perspective

355

Table 1: Categories of ilities (Source: Boehm, 2014).

Individual ilities

 Quality of Service: Performance, Accuracy,

Usability, Scalability, Versatility

 Resource Utilization: Cost, Duration, Personnel,

Scarce Quantities (size, weight, energy, …)

 Protection: Safety, Security, Privacy

 Robustness: Reliability, Availability,

Maintainability

 Flexibility: Modifiability, Tailorability /

Extendability, Adaptability

 Composability: Interoperability/Portability,

Openness/Standards Compliance, Service-

Orientation

Composite ilities

 Comprehensiveness/Suitability: all of the above

 Dependability: Quality of Service, Protection,

Robustness

 Resilience: Protection, Robustness, Flexibility

 Affordability: Quality of Service, Resource

Utilization

deteriorate or even be lost when adopting a cloud

solution. Therefore, both governments and vendors

are working very hard to guarantee that these

limiting factors are removed from the pathway to

adopt cloud solutions in order to reap its benefits.

For example NIST (Badger et al, 2014a) define

security, interoperability and portability to be the top

priority ilities for government.

Governments have been playing a pro-active role

in laying the ground rules for the cloud computing

market, and this has had a substantial benefit for all

involved stakeholders e.g. by funding the research

and standardisation work to establish a cohesive

terminology and nomenclature (Liu et al., 2011)..

Furthermore, some governments played a

substantial role in organising the consensus

definition of capability deficits that need research

and development e.g., (Badger et al, 2014a) and

defining accreditation of cloud products (IaaS, PaaS

and SaaS) to create a cloud market and a service

delivery and quality control framework, in regard to

both organisational and technical aspects – called

FedRamp in the USA (Federal Risk and

Authorization Management Program) and IRAP in

Australia (Information Security Registered

Assessors Program) and the Australasian

Information Security Evaluation Program (AISEP).

Several other countries have similar arrangements.

The above-mentioned efforts include reference

models for Service Level Agreements (Aljoumah et

al., 2015) and the definition of service metrics (de

Vaulx, Simmon and Bohn, 2015) that can be used to

decide required capability and capacity and to

monitor the actual service performance.

Large enterprises and governments are in a

substantially different situation relative to small and

medium sized businesses who could never afford to

own and internally run a complete professional-

quality IT service. Therefore the potential gain for

the latter is to achieve ilities that were previously out

of reach, as opposed to the large players mentioned

who could take those for granted and now must be

careful to be able to keep them.

Thus, it appears that two main current problems

in achieving a successful cloudification are (1)

cloudification cannot be just done off the shelf - the

business needs to transform to some extent (while

still operating as it cannot afford to stop) so as to

minimize turbulence and best take advantage of the

service structure offered by the cloud and (2) even if

(1) is accomplished, how can the end user avoid the

bad side effects of moving to the cloud? The current

lack of emphasis on the interactions between the

various entities inhabiting the layers created by (1)

and the interaction among the life cycle phases of

these entities carries the risk of creating sub-standard

‘solutions’ that suffer from multiple systemic

aspects in unanticipated ways.

A systematic treatment of moving to the cloud

can be regarded as a specialised application of an

Enterprise Architecture (EA) effort. It must be noted

from the beginning that clearly, the limited view of

EA as a ‘business – IT alignment’ exercise that is

sometimes adopted e.g., COBIT (Isaca, 2012),

TOGAF (Open Group, 2011) will not be sufficient,

because the change will fundamentally affect the

way business is done, will change the human

organisation (including roles and responsibilities)

and also alter legal, financial and contractual

relationships (and the IT sub-system itself as well,

where the IT architecture view of EA is applicable).

In other words, such transformation requires a

holistic approach that considers mission fulfilment

(manufacturing, mining, banking, health care,

transportation, logistics, etc. technology, processes

and human (TPH) organisation) as well as

management and control (command and control)

TPH, the redesign of business relationships, carrying

out ensuing organisational changes, human

competency development, and the introduction of

new governance constructs, to only name a few.

The authors therefore propose the use of a

framework that provides this broader view of

enterprise architecture (ISO 15704) thus enabling a

perspective that sees the embodiment of the

enterprise as an evolving socio-technical system of

systems. As a result of this framework adoption, the

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

356

standard vocabulary of EA (as present in ISO

15704) and Systems Engineering (as espoused by

ISO 15288 will be used throughout the discussion in

Section 4 that demonstrates through an example an

approach that considers ‘moving to the cloud’ to be

an EA endeavour.

4 THE EA PERSPECTIVE ON

CLOUDIFICATION

The goal of adopting Enterprise Architecture

practice in an enterprise is to ensure that strategy,

human organisation, utilised technology and

processes are all in alignment (Doucet at al., 2009).

Alignment, however, is not a one-off transformation

project, but rather part of the enterprise’s evolution

This article assumes that the reader is familiar

with the basic terminology of ISO 15704 / GERAM

nevertheless a brief overview of the most important

concepts is given below and illustrated in Fig. 2.

The scope of the architecture is equivalent to the

scope of the NIST Cloud Computing Reference

Architecture (which is in ISO15704 terms an

architectural level reference model of the IT system

of the enterprise, also called a ‘Reference

Architecture of type I’).

Given the open nature of enterprises, when

looking at the entities of interest in describing the

enterprise, one cannot limit to organisational

boundaries; rather, rather include other relevant

entities, such as suppliers and customers, as well as

supporting entities that provide services to sustain

the enterprise’s operations and/or other entities that

may be called upon to help any transformational

tasks.

This extended scope is justified as cloudification

requires so-called ‘generative interactions’ among

participating entities. (A generative interaction is

defined as the operations of one entity performing or

contributing to one or several life cycle phases of

another (e.g. entity A develops or changes the

business concept of entity B.).

Figure 3 shows a life cycle diagram representing the

life cycles of all typically involved entities. The

model includes existing infrastructure as well as new

cloud entities and a transformation programme

(coordinating multiple projects). Interestingly, the

decomposition of the system into a system of

systems is not a uniform disaggregation: those

systems whose subsystems will be expected to

change in a similar fashion are not further

decomposed, which controls the number of entities

in the model (to the extent possible of course).

The model can also be thought of as a first-cut

structural decomposition of the enterprise into

functionally-independent entities. This is necessary

because cloudification typically implies that part of

the IT Stack would be ‘carved out’ and moved. It

therefore makes sense to first fence off parts of the

IT stack that are candidates for cloudification

(whether into a private, public or hybrid cloud).

Essentially this is tantamount to re-organising the IT

stack in a service-oriented way (Rabelo, Noran and

Bernus, 2015).

Various techniques are known to achieve the

desired maximum functional independence among

service entities (these are not discussed in detail in

this article as they are out of scope); the necessary

methods are available in the literature on Service

Orientation (Keith, Demirkan and Goul, 2013)

axiomatic design (Suh, 2001) and enterprise

architecture complexity management (Kandjani,

Bernus and Wen, 2014).

Figure 2: Enterprise entities interact with each other in the context of their life cycles.

Business Cloudiﬁcation - An Enterprise Architecture Perspective

357

Figure 3. Life cycle relationships among service entities and cloud service consumers.

Using such a decomposition allows to separately

consider several systemic properties and make

independent decisions, namely:

o) As part of a preliminary stage for

cloudification we assume that Government and

Industry bodies have defined policies, principles and

laws regarding cloud services, including the roles

and responsibilities of cloud service brokers and

auditors (arrows marked 0 in Fig.3), and that these

have been implemented and rolled out by respective

organisations (arrow 0’ in Fig. 3).

i) Decide the desired improvements that each

service layer must undergo (for example, creating

dynamically established ‘many-to-many’ (M:N)

infrastructure-platform and application-platform

relationships, in order to allow load sharing and

elasticity, to achieve increased responsiveness and

availability of IT support to the business), as layer

by layer the business benefit may vary. Systems

engineering methods and tools exist to support the

cost optimisation of investment (Boehm et al.,

2014), taking into account through-life support, total

cost of ownership, as well as performing risk

mitigation and probabilistic optimisation based on

the analysis of possible future scenarios (arrow 1 in

Fig. 3).

ii) Decide the desired business, technological and

organisational benefits of creating a cloud and

balance it with the known limitations to cloud

service security and trust, interoperability and

portability (and also other important ilities discussed

in Section 2.2). Note that these limitations are

different between SaaS, PaaS and IaaS, as well as

depend on the choice of Private-, Public- and Hybrid

cloud. There are various systems engineering

methods that help holistic decision making in this

regard. For example, system thinking diagrams

(Meadows, 2008) may reveal the cause and effect

relationships among multiple change factors and are

helpful in assisting management to avoid unexpected

effects of the cloudification effort. Boehm et al.

(2014, p28.) discuss known cross-relationships

among ilities in the cloud. (arrow 1 in Fig.3)

iii) Based on the above two decisions, determine

the current, future and transition boundaries between

services provided from inside the organisation and

those from the outside. Some decisions may be

conditional based on technology analysis / forecasts;

however, management may decide to build

preparedness for being able to make certain future

cloudification decisions, even though current

technology may not be deemed mature or

appropriate (arrow 1 in Fig.3).

iv) Determine a ‘rolling’ strategic roadmap with

clearly defined benefits after each stage of the

transition (rolling meaning that the roadmap is

periodically reviewed in light of new information or

developments in business, technology or

organisation). (arrow 2 in Fig.3)

v) Define the design activities performed by the

cloudification project (including the external service

provider’s possible participation in the project -

arrows 4’…4’’’ in Fig. 3)

vi) Describe the rollout of changes in the

business (including contracting, see arrow 5’ in Fig.

3) and the deployment of the SaaS service by the

service provider (arrow 5’’ in Fig. 3)

vii) Define the respective service provisions in

operation (arrows 6’ and 6’’ in Fig. 3).

Note that the SaaS entity has two parts: the actual

service and the management of that service. The

latter is supported by an Auditing Service to monitor

performance and adherence to quality criteria

against standards and SLAs (arrow 7 in Fig. 3).

viii) Select the SaaS service – which may be

performed by Corporate Management or by the

Government/

Industry

Regulator

Broker

0’

2

3

4’

Corporate

management

1’

5’

SaaS

4’’

ExternalService

Provider

4’’’

SBUs

5’’

6’

6’’

Cloudifica on

Project

1’’

Auditor

0’

7

0

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

358

cloudification project (N.B. arrow 4’’’ shows the

case where a cloud broker entity is engaged by the

project).

Note that in Fig. 1 the cloud carrier (such as

telecommunication service providers) was omitted,

but when intending to commit to using a cloud

service, the availability, bandwidth and trust aspects

need to be checked and brokering and auditing

services need to be engaged, in the same way as they

would be used in conjunction with the cloud service

and its provider.

It must be stressed that some entities represented

in Fig. 3 are ‘representative’ rather than individual;

e.g., ‘SaaS’ stands for multiple applications (bundles

or suites), on the condition that organisationally

speaking each bundle undergoes similar transition.

The similarity is based on the governance

relationship between a transition programme,

transition projects, and such bundles. This greatly

simplifies the management of transition projects,

because they all share the same architecture

principles and mostly similar strategic objectives.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND

FURTHER WORK

This paper has presented an Enterprise Architecture-

based approach towards the cloudification effort,

involving the adoption of a holistic paradigm that

models the mutual influences (generative

interactions) of the entities and artefacts involved in

the project, in the context of their life cycles. The

authors have argued and demonstrated that this

approach enables a richer insight into the current and

planning of ‘cloudification readiness’ of a business.

Using the EA-based approach, the findings are that

firstly, cloudification requires the business to

prepare ‘on-the-fly’ and the cloud services to be

customised to achieve a useful match. Thus, moving

to the cloud requires increasing and improving

architecture competencies. Policies and principles

dictating the design / select solution and the

transition program must be put in place beforehand.

Secondly, cloudification is not a ‘done-and-dusted’,

one-off exercise; the solution has to be maintained

as the business structure and its environment

(including the cloud it now resides in) constantly

evolve. There is a need for an increase in human

resources prominently featuring architecture

competencies. Thirdly, successful cloudification

requires (a) a good understanding of the enterprises’

needs driving the value that can be derived from

cloud computing, (b) an architected design of the

solution to be able to efficiently utilize cloud

services (Dodani, 2009) and (c) the ability to grow

the cloud capabilities and value delivered in time.

The scope of this paper was limited to presenting

cloudification on the example of the adoption of

software as a service (such as expense management

services). Further work should extend the present

model by developing a reference model of a typical

SaaS adoption roadmap, as well as expanding it into

a more complex scenario demonstrating a

combination of IaaS, PaaS, Information as a Service

and SaaS in a hybrid cloud.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the research

grant (Strategic Advancement of Methodologies and

Models for Enterprise Architecture) provided by

Architecture Services Pty Ltd (ASPL Australia) in

supporting this work.

REFERENCES

Aljoumah, E., Al-Mousawi, F., Ahmad, I., Al-Shammri

M., and Al-Jady Z., (2015) SLA in Cloud Computing

Architectures: A Comprehensive Study. Int J of Grid

Distrib. Computing. 8(5):7-32.

Aulkemeier, F., Paramartha, M. A., Iacob, M-E., van

Hillegersberg, J. (2016) A pluggable service platform

architecture for e-commerce, J. Inf Syst E-Bus

Manage 14:469–489.

Badger, L., Bohn, R., Chu, S., de Vaulx, F., Hogan, M.,

Iorga, M., Kauffman, V., Liu, F., Mao, J., Messina, J.,

Mills, K., Simmon, E., Sokol, A., Tong, J., Whiteside

F., Leaf, D. (2014b) US Govt. Cloud Computing

Technology Roadmap Volume II: Useful Information

for Cloud Adopters. NIST SP 500-293.

Badger, L., Bernstein, D., Bohn, R., de Vaulx, F., Hogan,

M., Iorga, M., Mao, J. Messina, J., Mills, K., Simmon,

E., Sokol, A., Tong, J., Whiteside, F., Leaf. D.

(2014a). US Government Cloud Computing

Technology Roadmap Volume I: High-Priority

Requirements to Further USG Agency Cloud

Computing Adoption. NIST SP 500-293.

Boehm, B. (2014). Ilities Tradespace and Affordability

Analysis. GSAW/INCOSE LA/SPIN (talk).

Boehm, B. et al (2014). -ilities Tradespace and

Affordability Project – Phase 3. Technical Report

SERC-2014-TR-039-3. Hoboken, NJ: Stevens

Institute of Technology, Systems Engineering

Research Center.

Brian, H., Brunschwiler, T., Dill, H., Christ, H., Falsafi,

B., Fischer, M. and Zollinger, M.―Cloud computing,

Communications of the ACM, 51(7), 9-11, 2008.

Business Cloudiﬁcation - An Enterprise Architecture Perspective

359

Cayirci et al. (2016). A risk assessment model for

selecting Cloud Service Providers. J. Cloud

Computing, 2016.

Chen, L., Ali Babar, M., Nuseibeh, B. (2013).

"Characterizing Architecturally Significant

Requirements". IEEE Software. 30 (2): 38–45.

Cloud Service Providers. Journal of Cloud Computing:

Advances, Systems and Applications 5:14.

de Vaulx, F., Simmon, E., and Bohn, R. (Eds) (2015).

Cloud Computing Service Metrics Description.

Gaithersbourg, WA: NIST.

De Weck, O. L. (2011) Life-Cycle Properties of

Engineering Systems: The Ilities. In de Weck, O. L.,

Roos, D. and Magee, C. L. (Eds.) Engineering

Systems, pp. 65-96.

Dodani, M. (2009) Cloud Architecture. Journal of Object

Technology, 8 (7), pp 35-44 http://www.jot.fm/

issues/issue_2009_11/column3/

Doucet, G., Gøtze, J., Saha, P., Bernard, S. (Eds) (2009).

Coherency Management – Architecting the Enterprise

for Alignment, Agility and Assurance. Hershey, PA,

USA: Idea Group Inc.

Goyal, Sumit (2014) Public vs Private vs Hybrid vs

Community - Cloud Computing: A Critical Review

I.J. Comp. Network and Info. Security, 2014, 3, 20-29.

Grossman, R.L. ―The case for cloud computing, IT

professional, 11(2), 23-27, 2009.

Hirzalla, M. (2010) Realizing Business Agility

Requirements through SOA and Cloud Computing.

IEEE International Requirements Engineering

Conference pp. 379 - 380.

I.J. Comp Network and Info Security, 2014, 3, 20-29.

Isaca (2012). Cobit 5. Rolling Meadows, IL: Information

Systems Audit and Control Association.

ISO 15704 (2000; Amd 1: 2005) Requirements for

enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies.

Geneva: ISO.

ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (2015). : Systems and software

engineering–System life cycle processes. Geneva:

ISO.

Jansen, W., Grance, T. (2011) Guidelines on security and

privacy in public cloud computing, ‖ NIST special

publication 800-144.

Johnston, S. (2009) Overview of cloud computing,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60

80417.

Kandjani, H. and Bernus,P., Wen, L. (2014) Enterprises as

Complex Systems: Extended Axiomatic Design

Theory and its Application in Enterprise Architecture

Practice. In Pallab Saha (Ed) A Systemic Perspective

to Managing Complexity with Enterprise Architecture.

Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global. pp72-98.

Keith, M., Demirkan, H., Goul, M. (2013). Service-

Oriented Methodology for Systems Development.

Journal of Management Information Systems.

30(1):227-260.

Laatikainen, G., Ojala, A., and Mazhelis, O. (2013). Cloud

Services Pricing Models. In G. Herzwurm and T.

Margaria (Eds.), Software Business. From Physical

Products toSoftware Services and Solutions (pp. 117-

129). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Liu, F., Tong, J., Mao, J., Bohn, R. B., Messina, J. V.,

Badger, M. L., Leaf, D. M. (2011). NIST Cloud

Computing Reference Architecture. NIST SP 500-292.

Gaithersburg, MD: NIST IT Laboratory.

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer.

White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Morrow, M., Bernstein, D., Diamond, S., Sankar,K.,

Ludvigson, E. (2009) "Blueprint for the Intercloud -

Protocols and Formats for Cloud Computing

Interoperability", International Conference on Internet

and Web Applications and Services, pp. 328-336.

Open Group (2011). TOGAF 9.1.Burlington, MA: The

Open Group.

Rabelo, J. R., Noran, O., Bernus, P. (2015). Towards the

Next Generation Service Oriented Enterprise

Architecture. In Proc. IEEE 19th Int. Enterprise

Distributed Object Computing Workshop. pp91-100.

Sawas, M. S. and Watfa, M. K. 2015, The impact of cloud

computing on information systems agility,

Australasian J of Info. Systems, vol. 19, pp. 97-112.

Suh, N.P. (2001). Axiomatic Design: Advances and

Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wang, L., Tao, J., Kunze, M., Castellanos, A.C, Kramer,

D. and Karl, W. (2008) Scientific cloud computing:

Early definition and experience, ‖ In: Proceedings of

10th IEEE International Conference on High

Performance Computing and Communications, (pp.

825-830), September 2008.

Willis, J. D. and Dam, S. (2011) The Forgotten Ilities,

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011system/13166_WillisWed.pdf.

Zardari, S., Faniyi, F. and Bahsoon, R., (2012) Using

obstacles for systematically modeling, analysing, and

mitigating risks in cloud adoption. Aligning Enterprise

System and Software Architectures, IGI Global, pages

275-296.

Zhang, Q., Cheng, L., Boutaba, R. (2010) Cloud

computing: state-of-the-art and research challenges.‖nt

J of Internet Services and Applications, 1(1), 7-18.

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

360