An Architecture Framework for Higher Education

Siegfried Rouvrais

and Sobah Abbas Petersen

Department of Computer Science, IMT Atlantique, Brest, France

Department of Computer Science, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

Keywords: Enterprise Architecture, Higher Education, Educational Framework, Strategic Alignment, Organizational

Sustainability, Change Management.

Abstract: In the realm of higher education, an educational architecture framework can play a pivotal role in fostering

enhanced communication between program leaders and various educational stakeholders. Within this context,

architecture views serve as comprehensive representations of the overarching architectural landscape, catering

to the diverse requirements and needs of involved stakeholders. Embracing a view-based approach empowers

higher education institutions to reinforce strategic alignment while seamlessly integrating change

management practices to accommodate evolving requirements. In this perspective, this paper proposes six

distinct views to reflect on how enterprise architecture could be applied to higher education. Examples are

given based on ArchiMate models. These examples serve as compelling illustrations of how educational

architecture frameworks can drive organizational transformation.

1 INTRODUCTION

The higher education (HE) sector has been under

tension during the COVID-19 crisis. As identified by

Gardner-Le Bars (2023), ”when Higher Education

Institutions (HEIs) face crises, personnel are called

upon to rapidly develop and deploy innovative

solutions to maintain the integrity of teaching

services. As HEIs often possess highly diverse

employee and student populations, transboundary

type crisis events, which can provoke campus

closures, are particularly challenging. Such crises are

often unforeseen, require rapid and radical changes to

operations”. Changing requirements put some

pressure on institution’s strategic plan, they affect

goals, business processes, curriculums, as learning

resources. As an example, in the public HE sector if

less state aid are given, reducing operating costs can

be a new strong requirement. This requirement can

lead to a merger of two institutions to mutualize and

thus reduce expenses. With new goals, a merger

directly impacts business processes and the study

programs, as the institution is being dispatched

between different physical sites, with various learning

resources. As another example, considering societal

and environmental responsibility (SER) is now a must

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2801-3498

do in HE curriculums. Energy and environmental

issues are taking on major societal importance.

Integrating SER in an educational program can lead

to a reform, impacting the curriculum but also the

vision, goals, business processes, etc.

As a primer on how Enterprise Architecture (EA)

could be applied to HE, this paper contributes to the

ﬁeld of HE management in the context of changing

requirements. Changing requirements in a HES

(Higher Education System) raise some questions, e.g.

can a framework for HES with views improve

collaboration and communication between

stakeholders, reduce complexity, have better

resources management, enhance efficiency and

organizational coherency and sustainability? By

adopting a view-based framework directly inspired

from the TOGAF Open Group Architecture

Framework, the paper explores six specific views that

may be used in practical educational applications, to

guide effective change.

As a context, this paper first overviews the broad

lines of the TOGAF Architecture Development

Method (ADM) for the changes and transformations

within an organization. It presents the various

stakeholders and users of a HES. Then it shares and

discusses six views of an EA for HE, with examples.

Rouvrais, S. and Petersen, S.

An Architecture Framework for Higher Education.

DOI: 10.5220/0012738900003690

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2024) - Volume 2, pages 739-747

ISBN: 978-989-758-692-7; ISSN: 2184-4992

739

2 ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE

AND VIEWS

EA is aimed at understanding the needs of all the

stakeholders to meet the needs. As such, the Zachman

Framework provided a taxonomy to analyze the

different viewpoints of stakeholders and identify the

different aspects of an enterprise (Zachman, 2008).

Since then, several EA frameworks have been

developed, such as The Open Group’s Architectural

Framework, TOGAF (TOGAF, 2024) and the Federal

Enterprise Architecture FEA (Bellman & Rausch,

2004). A description of the most popular EA

frameworks and a comparison of them is available

from (Sessions & deVadoss, 2014). Some EA

frameworks, such as FEA, are focused on

standardization across enterprises, while others, such

as TOGAF, are focused on the process. As such,

TOGAF provides a method for the changes and

transformations within an organization, could it be a

HEI.

EA is a means of supporting the HESs and HEIs

in an era where they are expected to be agile and

flexible to meet changing requirements effectively.

Universities have adopted EA to align their ICT with

their strategic goals (Nottingham, 2012; Batmetan,

2022, Araya-Guzman et al., 2018). As reported in

(Nur Shabrina et al. 2022), EA helps also to achieve

the mission and objectives related to the education

process (Ramadhan & Arman, 2014), to plan the

University infrastructure and to reduce disparity

among the system development processes. More

importantly, the HE sector is affected by the trend to

undergo digital transformation. This requires a

redefinition of the services and how these services are

operated. EA has been identified as one of the

approaches that can support digital transformations in

HE (Sandkuhl & Lehmann, 2017. TOGAF appears to

be the most popular EA framework among HEIs, due

its completeness of the process (i.e. the TOGAF

ADM), easy access and availability of best practice

examples (Nur Shabrina et al. 2022).

For HE, an Architecture Development Method

(ADM) as TOGAF may be used (cf. Figure 1). ADM

phases are suggested, starting from Principles and

Vision (A) entities, intended “to capture the

surrounding context of formal architecture models,

including general Architecture Principles, strategic

context that forms input for architecture modeling,

and requirements generated from the architecture”.

The TOGAF standard relies on the various views

aside vision:

• Business Architecture View (B) for the

organization's business goals, processes, and

structure with its stakeholders.

• Information Systems Architecture View (C) for

the data, application, and technology architecture

(D) view. These are not addressed in this study.

• Opportunities and Solutions View (E) for

specific business needs to achieve strategic

objectives. It can link the architecture to the

implementation of educational purposes.

• Migration Planning View (F) for transitioning a

HE system architecture to the target architecture,

as for educational change or reforms.

• Implementation and Governance View (G) to

specify the actual implementation of the HES

architecture. It includes processes from the

governance domain, as compliance mechanisms

to ensure that the architecture is effectively

implemented and maintained, most often for

quality assurance purposes of the educational

programs;

• The Change management view (H).

Figure 1: Structure of the TOGAF Architecture

Development Method.

This paper proposes to organize the education parts

of a HES with views. It presents six views that may

be used to describe a HE system on its academic

perspective. These views can be used to better

understand the business, as well as for improving it.

Each view is discussed in the following sections.

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

740

3 STAKEHOLDERS

Changing requirements and requirement management

are in the scope of several stakeholders within the

HES. Stakeholders are at different level, they mainly

comprise:

• At macro-level, on the mission and strategy side:

o Internal: rectors, directors of education,

higher and faculty managers, etc.

o External; accreditation bodies,

governmental and non-governmental

organizations, local communities,

professional communities, etc.

• At meso-level:

o On the academic side and departments:

professors, faculty, assistants, heads of

programs, educational and curriculum,

committee members, etc.

o On the client side: students, student

associations, alumni, enterprises and socio-

economic environment, academic partners,

territorial communities, etc.

o On the service side: technicians,

administration staff, communication

members, IT service staff, scheduling

officers, grading administrators,

pedagogical service members, internship

managers, international service members,

industry liaison, etc.

These stakeholder profiles all form a constellation

of roles, directly linked to business domains and

processes. Understanding their needs and priorities

help to shape the architecture to better serve changing

requirements. Six views are suggested to manage

changing requirements of an HES, as suggested in

Figure 2.

Figure 2: Proposed views for Higher Education.

4 FROM PRINCIPLES TO GOALS

4.1 Policy and Principles

A policy aims to support University’s strategy and

provides a basis for making good strategic choices

that strengthen the quality of the programme portfolio

and each programme of study. Furthermore, the

policy aims to ensure that the development of study

programs and portfolios are within the frameworks

and overarching principles specified in legislation,

regulations, and political guidelines.

Educational principles play a vital role in

upholding the rule of Ministries of HE by promoting

adherence to legal norms. An educational principle

can for example emphasize active learning to provide

technical knowledge along with communication and

professional skills to students. Another can prompt to

societal, economic, and environmental responsibility

(SER) in the curriculums on all semesters. At design

level, the constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996)

principle can be a formal requirement of the

accreditation body (i.e. aligning all learning

objectives, assessments, and instructional activities),

as inclusive curriculum design.

For example, in 2024, IMT Atlantique,

grad/postgrad School of engineering in France, is

supported by several policies, e.g. policy of non-

discrimination; equivalent rights; ethical sourcing

policy; building energy renovation and construction;

biodiversity and ecosystems; robust and sustainable

technologies in training activities. They directly

irrigate the educational programs. Quality policies are

most often formally required. For NTNU in Norway,

five main principles are presented in Figure 3.

National guidelines for quality assurance and

compliance with legislation, regulations & political

guidelines are external requirements.

Figure 3: NTNU principles for educational concerns.

In France, a Master-level curriculum in

engineering education is evaluated every five years

by the French accreditation body (CTI, Commission

des Titres d’Ingénieurs, somehow same process and

references as with the ABET US accreditation system

for engineering education). As stated in CTI

references, “the school has defined a strategy and a

quality policy that has been made public. The school

defines the appropriate processes and tools that

enable it to ensure the quality of its activities and

An Architecture Framework for Higher Education

741

results; these elements form an integrated and

coherent system of internal and external management

of global quality. The bodies and personnel in charge

of the quality approach are duly designated and

identified as such in the school. All staff are

committed to the process of continuous

improvement”. In Norway, all courses offered at the

NTNU follow the national guidelines for quality

assurance issued by NOKUT (the Norwegian Agency

for Quality Assurance in Education). NTNU’s Policy

for Quality and Development of the Study

Programme Portfolio is intended to help ensure high

quality in the study programmes, and to stimulate

student’s personal development.

4.2 Vision and Goals

Principles can be implemented through various

strategies, e.g. thanks to pedagogical styles as project-

based learning, experiential learning. Work-

Integrated-Learning model can be beneficial when

University-Industry-Business collaboration is an

institution principle. Also, to be aligned with

principles, vision and goals impact the organizational

structure, academic programs, student services, as

administrative processes.

As an example, IMT Atlantique's vision is to

combine digital technology, energy, and the

environment to transform society and industry. This

vision translates into a scientific ambition focused on

interdisciplinarity, an assertive technological

dimension, and scientific strengths at the service of

the school's strategy. IMT Atlantique aims to develop

academic programs in line with the needs of

companies, to contribute to innovation and

entrepreneurship. I can be linked to University-

Industry collaboration principle. NTNU’s vision is

“knowledge for a better future” and aims to benefit

society. In Norway, NTNU’s mission includes

providing research-based education at all levels and

to participate in a knowledge-based public debate and

use the knowledge to benefit society. It recognises its

responsibility for creating outstanding graduates and

to contribute to the development of Norway. The

university’s strategy includes providing an excellent

learning environment that could lead to

internationally outstanding graduates. The strategy

also states that it will contribute actively towards

achieving the United Nations’ SDGs. The strategic

goals at the university level are then adapted at the

faculty and department levels as shown in Figure 4

(left part at university level, right part at department

level). Minimum 30% female students in all study

programs is an example of Department goal.

Figure 4: Strategic Goals at University and Department

levels.

5 DOMAINS AND PROCESSES

5.1 Business Domain in Higher

Education

Organizing the HES into the proposed business

domains is to help architects to benefit from a better

understanding of strategic needs, requirements, and

challenges of educational reforms or change to

optimize business functions. As seen previously, on a

pure educational level, some domains include

processes at Faculty level, at Programme level, some

other are more at micro-level, e.g. course level

domain. In the interface are some other domains, e.g.

R&D, finances, resources (cf. Table 1).

Table 1: Business domains.

Higher Education business domains

Faculty-level

domain (FD)

Programme-level

domain (PD)

Course-level

domain (CD)

Administration &

Financial domain

(AFD)

HR & Resources

domain

(RD)

R&D domain

(RDD)

Business domains are linked to functional areas, e.g.

• Faculty domain (FD) which support governance

processes.

• The programme (PD) and course (CD) level

domains include functions and processes related

to programs, program reforms, curricula, course

management, grading, academic support

services, etc.

• Administration and Finance Domain (AFD)

addresses functions and processes related to

budgeting, expenses, facilities and resource

management, as administrative activities.

Some other domains can be added, e.g. Alumni

and Business relation Domain (ABD) for functions

and processes related to interactions with alumni,

internships, work integrated learning, as fundraising

or donor relations; or Student Service Domain (SSD)

for functions and processes related to student

admissions, registration, student records, financial

aid, counselling, and career services.

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

742

The information technology domain is not

addressed in this paper and is out of the scope of this

study. Almost, the IT domain covers technical

infrastructure and its network, its service applications

(e.g. an LMS as Moodle or Teams) or the IT support.

Interfaces exist between domains, with a relative

proximity between domains. As an example, the

Research & Development business domain (which

include research activities, research projects and

contracts, business and industry partnerships,

innovation, or IP management) can impact and feed

curriculum updates, as business and industry

partnerships may add values to education.

5.2 Business Processes

Business domains group similarities and shared

characteristics of business functions, processes, and

activities. They can have their own set of processes,

data, as stakeholders. They permit to organize the

business architecture view, allowing HE architects to

design, understand, share, analyze and more easily

manage different aspects in a structured manner,

breaking down some complexity.

Governance processes are more in the hand of the

director, direction services and deans, for meeting

strategic requirements, school transformation, quality

assurance, external and internal communications,

engagement of the institution in the SDGs. Some

operational macro processes exist, they are out of the

scope of this paper, e.g. (i) developing research and

innovation, (ii) developing and strengthening

relations with companies, or (iii) developing the

school internationally. As support macro-processes

can be: (i) optimizing material and financial

resources, (ii) developing the IS, or (iii) managing HR

resources.

Linked to curriculum, several processes coexist

and interoperate, linked to principles and goals, e.g.:

• Designing and developing quality training

courses by integrating quality processes;

• Carrying out and managing training course;

• Implementing accreditation or certification

processes;

• Recruiting and graduating students;

• Providing administrative and social support for

students, socio-cultural and professional

activities.

5.3 Example

The main processes include (i) preparing the course,

(ii) delivering the course to the students, i.e. teaching,

(iii) conducting the learning activities, (iv)

assessments and (v) improving the course based on

feedback from the students. An overview of the main

processes is shown in Figure 5. Each of these main

processes are detailed in the different sub-processes.

Preparing the course involves designing (or

improving or revising) the course, preparing the

course material, such as lecture slides and learning

tasks and activities, developing assessment

guidelines, and publishing the course on the

university’s Learning Management System (LMS)

which can be a Blackboard application. Delivering

the course includes giving lectures, coordinating and

conducting tutorials, assessments of the students’

work and doing the final grading. The university

encourages and recommends the use of engaging

learning activities (cf. e.g. principle on active

learning) and therefore, the process also includes

coordinating and conducting learning activities (e.g.,

student presentations and peer reviews), providing the

necessary instructions to the Learning Assistants,

developing the relevant material for the activities,

e.g., some hints and recommendations, and

integrating any formative assessments into the final

grade. The final process is improving the course for

the future. Many activities are part of this course

process, which are to be best aligned with principles

and goals as with the changing requirements.

Figure 5: Course process view in ArchiMate.

6 CURRICULUMS

Educational leaders are given considerable latitude in

terms of programme contents, teaching methods,

assessment procedures, targeted skills, course type

and volume, or scheduling. Designing and operating

an educational programme is an engineering activity

by itself which requires methods and tools

(Rompelman & De Graaff, 2007). Concerns of the

educational programme domain can be structured in

a dedicated curriculum HE architecture view, e.g.

with the following three distinct curriculum models

(Harden 2001): (i) the syllabus composed of learning

outcomes (intended curriculum), (ii) the programme

with its T&L constituents (taught curriculum), and

An Architecture Framework for Higher Education

743

(iii) the validated curriculum. These three curriculum

perspectives can be part of a curriculum view in the

HE architecture.

6.1 Three Curriculum Perspectives in

the View

As presented in Rouvrais and Chiprianov (2012),

using UML class diagram modeling, for the intended

curriculum, authors define the associations for a

generic syllabus including learning outcomes, being

knowledge, skills, or competencies of activity

domains. These learning outcomes are linked with

process view activities, e.g. learning outcomes

definition, curriculum design activity, course process,

etc. A specific curriculum can be described by its own

type of learning outcomes and instances. For the

taught curriculum, associated concepts to the

educational programme are courses, internships,

extracurricular activities, majors, minors, electives,

T&L styles, etc. They are linked with the previous

view example on the course process. A specific

educational programme is specified by its own course

instances, which could be included in semesters. For

the validated curriculum, concepts are assessment,

proficiency level, portfolio, interview, report, oral

exam, questionnaire, a.s.o. Here also, some links from

the assessment business processes with curriculum

concepts are to be defined.

6.2 Curriculum Associations

The three previous curriculum models in this view

have also linked concerns, which are echoed in some

business processes of the previous view, e.g. to ensure

constructive alignment principle (Biggs, 1996). Each

course activities of the taught curriculum (cf. right of

the Figure 6) are to meet some learning outcomes

(e.g. knowledge, skills, dispositions) of the intended

curriculum (cf. left of the Figure 6), and the

assessment permit to reach a proficiency level in the

validated curriculum (cf. bottom of the Figure 6).

Curriculum maps and proficiency matrix are tools to

facilitate the alignment checking, e.g. for coherency

and completeness of learning achievements.

7 RESOURCES

In the HE architecture, the fifth Learning Resource

View, human and material, is to include all elements

which support operation in the HESs, being the staff,

the LMS or so. It can include also external resources,

Figure 6: Curriculum mapping.

as industrial partners, collaborations, etc. As an

example, it is to ensure as a requirement that the

school has enough permanent teachers and teachers

and researchers as well as administrative and

technical staff enabling it to define and implement its

educational project. This view permits to operate the

curriculum view, where links to stakeholders,

workspaces, material, IT can be made.

7.1 Resource Requirements

As required by the CTI in France, the requirements

can be at institutional level “The school has premises

and material resources which allow it to accomplish

its educational mission and all its activities in good

conditions: training premises, IT resources,

equipment for experimental work, multimedia

documentation center, platforms high technology.

The school offers material conditions which allow

students to benefit fully and safely from training and

to promote their personal development. The school

provides engineering students with premises enabling

them to develop a quality student and community life:

residences, university restaurants, sports facilities,

association premises […]. The school is making its

premises more accessible to people with disabilities”.

7.2 Resource Example

Figure 7: Resources in ArchiMate.

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

744

Resources mainly support the taught model of the

curriculum view. They are of different types and at

different levels, as described below for a course

example at NTNU on EA (cf. Figure 7):

• Human resources which are primarily the course

teacher, which is also the main lecturer, guest

lecturer(s) and the Learning Assistants. These are

shown as business actors (in yellow) in the

model.

• Physical facilities (shown in green), which

include lecture halls and classrooms for the

students to work in.

• Software applications and other support tools

(shown in blue). The modeling applications

include the ArchiMate modeling tool Archi and

iDraw templates for modeling the 4EM

language. The LMS system, Blackboard, is used

to share all the learning resources such as lecture

slides, the syllabus, which consists of a set of

research articles and books. In addition,

Microsoft teams is used to coordinate the work

among the lecturer and the Learning Assistants.

8 CHANGE MANAGEMENT

As part of quality assurance, study programs can be

assessed by an external accreditation body. For

internal quality improvement loops, the curriculums

and courses are often required to identify a reference

group, who act as representatives of the class and

provide feedback from the students to the teacher, and

recommend actions for improving the course in the

future. This is similar to an Action Research cycle

where feedback is first gathered, and the course is

improved based on the feedback. As an example, at

NTNU (cf. Figure 8), the improvement process

includes gathering feedback from students and

learning assistants, synthetising feedback, checking

updates from the university’s strategy, quality

assurance recommendations and guidelines, and then

updating the course within the overall study program,

and its three curriculum perspectives. The course

syllabus and educational activities are then updated,

ensuring also coherency with the overall curriculum

architecture view.

Figure 8: Change management process example in

ArchiMate.

As stated in the introduction, when a HEI faces

changing needs or even crises, personnel are called

upon to rapidly develop and deploy solutions to

maintain the integrity of learning activities, teaching

services, and overall curriculum coherency. A

pandemic crisis, an institution merge, a new formal

SER policy, ask for rapid transformations which can

impact the institution vision and goals, its processes,

its curriculums, its resources. Overall, the changing

requirements can impact several views, which are to

remain aligned as best as possible. Specific views can

be envisioned to facilitate transformations and change

management in the educational offers, e.g.:

• Opportunities and Solutions View (OOV) to

enhance the educational offerings, improve

student services, and optimize administrative or

support processes. Examples include

implementing a new T&L models, migrating

some course delivery mode to online, using

flipped classrooms, moving to more formative

assessments, etc.;

• Migration Planning View (PMV) would outline

the roadmap for change management as

identified in the OOV, with resource allocation

to facilitate a smooth transition;

• Implementation and Governance View (IGV) for

implementing the educational changes, including

project management, governance processes. The

accreditation requirements, university or school

policies as regulations are considered. It would

ensure that the architectural changes of a

curriculum are effectively aligned with the

strategic objectives.

9 CONCLUSION

An EA framework incorporating models of a HES

can play a crucial role in facilitating sense making

within an educational organization. A HES involves

multiple stakeholders and can be comprehensively

described through a structured architecture. To this

end, this study proposed six views inspired by the

TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM)

to specify an HES, enabling easier adaptation to

evolving requirements while maintaining strategic

alignment. Changing requirements, stemming from

internal or external factors or events, impact both

vision and goals, business processes, curriculum

offers, as learning resources. Illustrated examples

have shown that views and well documented models,

using ArchiMate, can enhance collaboration and

communication among stakeholders across different

An Architecture Framework for Higher Education

745

perspectives. The proposed framework helps to find

solutions when overarching goals conflict with

educational reality, guiding decision-making on

necessary actions to align educational programs with

emerging needs. Once the HE architecture is

established, detailed descriptions provide the

rationale behind strategic alignments, ensuring

coherence and effectiveness in organizational

transformations.

In future endeavours, HE architects and

educational program leaders may benefit from

comprehensive guidelines and a meta-model to aid in

change management processes. These resources

would provide valuable insights on constructing,

utilizing, and updating each view effectively. Change

within HES can stem from various sources such as

strategic realignments at the organizational level,

quality assessments based on student feedback,

recommendations for accreditation, new or

rationalized processes, evolving industry

requirements, shifts in graduate profile expectations,

as well as the identification of outdated or emerging

opportunities in T&L, could it be courses, T&L

models, human or physical resources. Also, in the

context of crisis, unanticipated change, resilience is to

be addressed, a property that reinforce the ability of a

system to continue operating effectively during

VUCA times (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014). Hollnagel

(Hollnagel, 2010) defines organizational resilience as

“the intrinsic ability of a system or an organization to

adjust its functioning prior to, during, or following …

disturbances, so that it can sustain required operations

under both expected and unexpected conditions”.

Business operations can adapt and respond to internal

or external dynamic unknown changes. Resilient

organization can recover more quickly as they have

built processes that minimize downtime (McManus,

Sonia et al., 2008).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was partly conducted through the

DECART project, co-funded by the Erasmus+

programme of the European Union

(www.decartproject.eu). The European Commission

support to produce this publication does not constitute

an endorsement of the contents which reflects the

author views only, and the Commission cannot be

held responsible for any use which may be made of

the information contained therein.

REFERENCES

Araya-Guzmán, S., Cares-Monsalves, L., Ramírez-Correa

P., Grandón E.E. and Alfaro-Perez J. (2018). Enterprise

Architecture Proposal for Undergraduate Teaching in

Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Information

Systems Engineering & Management. Vol. 3 Issue 3.

Batmetan, J. R. (2022). Model Enterprise Architecture for

Information Technology Services in Universities.

International Journal of Information Technology and

Education (IJITE), Vol. 1 Issue 4 Pages 18-34.

Bellman, B., and Rausch, F. (2004). Enterprise architecture

for e-government. International Conference on

Electronic Government, Springer.

Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a Difference a

Word Makes Understanding Threats to Performance in

a VUCA World. Business Horizons, 57, 311-317.

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive

alignment. Higher education. Vol. 32/3, pp. 347-364,

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gardner-Le Bars, J. (2023). Curriculum resilience.

DECART project deliverable.

Gardner-Le Bars, J., Simonin, J., Waldeck, R., Puentes, J.

(2023). A dual perspective of organizational resilience

(OR) and information technology systems resilience

(ITSR): an analysis of interdependencies and tensions.

ARPHA Conference Abstracts 6: https://doi.org/10.38

97/aca.6.e107704

Harden, R. M. (2001). Curriculum Mapping: A Tool for

Transparent and Authentic Teaching and Learning.

AMEE Guide No. 21. Medical Teacher Journal of the

Association for Medical Education in Europe, 23(2),

123-137.

Hollnagel, Erik. (2010). How Resilient Is Your

Organisation? An Introduction to the Resilience

Analysis Grid.

McManus, Sonia, et al. (2008). Facilitated Process for

Improving Organizational Resilience. In: Natural

Hazards Review 9.2, pp. 81–90.

Nottingham (2012). How is Enterprise Architecture used in

HE?. Strategic ICT. University of Nottingham, 2012.

Available from https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/grad

school/sict/toolkit/knowledge-base/ea/higher-

education

Nilesh, V., and Bernus, P. (2012). Strategic Planning to

Build Transformational Preparedness: An Application

of Enterprise Architecture Practice. 23rd Australasian

Conference on Information Systems, Geelong 3-5 Dec.

Nur Shabrina, M., Sulistiyani, E., Budiarti, R. P. N., and

Sari, R. (2022). "Enterprise Architecture Framework in

Higher Education: Systematic Literature Review"

Applied Technology and Computing Science Journal,

Vol. 5 Issue 2 Pages 112-118.

Ramadhan, A. and Arman, A. (2014). Enterprise

Architecture in University analyzing of implementation

using business process management, International

Conference on ICT For Smart Society (ICISS).

Rompelman, O., & De Graaff, E. (2007). The engineering

of engineering education: curriculum development

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

746

from a designer's point of view. Pages 215-226,

Published online: 19 Jan 2007.

Rouvrais, S., and Chiprianov, V. (2012). Architecting the

CDIO Educational Framework Pursuant to

Constructive Alignment Principles. In International

Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and

Technology Education, Vol. 2(2). IGI Global (USA),

pages 80-92.

Sandkuhl, K., and Lehmann, H. (2017). Digital

Transformation in Higher Education – The Role of

Enterprise Architectures and Portals. In proceedings of

Digital Enterprise Computing, (DEC2017).

Sessions, R., and deVadoss, J. (2014). A Comparison of the

Top Four Enterprise Architecture Approaches in 2014.

White paper. Institution: Microsoft Corporation 2014.

TOGAF (2024). The TOGAF® Standard, Version 9.2

Overview. Published by: The Open Group. Available

from: https://publications.opengroup.org/w182

Vaniya, N., Noran, Q., and Bernus, P. (2014). Merger and

Acquisition Preparedness Building: An Enterprise

Architecture Perspective. In: Improving Enterprise

Communication (Proceedings of the 22nd International

Conference on Information Systems Development),

edited by M. José Escalona. et al. Springer.

Zachman (2008). John Zachman's Concise Definition of the

Zachman Framework.

An Architecture Framework for Higher Education

747