Enterprise Architecture (EA) is created, maintained, and managed through EA processes. While the quality of these processes is perceived to ultimately impact the realization of benefits from the EA approach, it has been considered in relatively few studies. Specific aspects of EA processes such as EA frameworks have been extensively studied, but there is no common understanding of the attributes that make up EA processes of high quality. In this exploratory case study, data from 14 themed interviews of EA stakeholders is utilized to identify 15 quality attributes for EA processes. These are then supplemented and validated by comparison to the hitherto existing state of research. The results provide a comprehensive framework for understanding EA process quality. They can be used to identify areas for development and define metrics for further improvement of the EA practice, and as a basis for further research.
This article proposes a Complex Adaptive Architecture (CAA) method to architect an organic enterprise. It presents a complicated concept in a simple 3×3 matrix bonded by three architecture theories and a three-tiered architecture approach. CAA recognizes that SOA and Cloud Computing is a horizontal architecture practice which cannot be accomplished with the traditional top-down approach. The horizontal architecture consists of the discipline of learning from the experience of others, the discipline of engineering of re-use and consolidation, and the discipline to facilitate buy-in from stakeholders. CAA also discovers that the business community is making decisions based on influence relation rather than structural relation. Coherence Architecture theory is based on enterprise influence modeling and coherence modeling for the purpose of supporting enterprise strategic planning and decision-making. The Coherence Architecture consists of the discipline of influence modeling and the discipline of analogical reasoning. CAA embraces continuous change with a three-tiered architecture approach. The initial tier is the Notional Architecture which serves much like a master plan in city planning. The second tier is the Segment Architecture to close the business performance gaps due to change. The third tier is the daily Enterprise Architecture (EA) to enable an agile solution architecture.
The discipline of Enterprise Architecture (EA) is still relatively immature and incoherent. The discourse is rather fragmented and lacking a shared vocabulary. To shed some light on the situation, some schools of thought on EA have been suggested, each with its distinct concerns and set of assumptions. In this article, we aim to bring more structure and clarity to EA discourse. Not only do we review the identified types and schools of EA, but we also attempt to make sense of the underlying structural and metaphysical underpinnings of the field and to ground EA in theory. As per our analysis, requisite architecture methods and tools are contingent on the level of complexity. In particular, while best practices and linear techniques are applicable in a contained operational scope, they fall severely short in addressing complex problems pertaining to non-linear discontinuities inherent in the increasingly interconnected and global business environment. On the other hand, we view that an ideal scope of an architecture “work system” is bounded by a maximum number of people able to create a shared meaning. Accordingly, we propose that architectural work in an enterprise be divided into three distinct yet interlinked architectures: Technical, Socio-Technical, and Ecosystemic. Each of these architectures is selfregulated, based on different ontological and epistemological assumptions, has its own vertical scope, and requires its own distinct methods and tools.
Enterprise Architecture (EA) is increasingly being adopted and utilized by all types of organizations (Fri 2007; Jung 2009; Kappelman et al. 2008). Despite its growing popularity, the challenge facing many organizations is how to measure and provide evidence of the value that EA provides to an enterprise (Boster et al. 2000; Plessius et al. 2012). This challenge includes determining the best ways to effectively evaluate and measure the impact EA has on an enterprise. To provide some insight into this problem, this article provides an overview of the means used to measure the value of EA within organizations. This article seeks to accomplish four tasks. First, to demonstrate that EA value measurement is a challenge that needs to be addressed within organizations. Second, to highlight the variety of methods and measures that organizations currently use in their attempts to measure the value of EA. Third, to provide insight into the reported challenges facing organizations involved in the process of measuring the value of EA. Fourth, to propose a conceptual model for EA value measurement that can be utilized by organizations who have implemented EA. To provide support and evidence for all four of these tasks, we present the results from a survey that contains the responses from 276 participants whose job roles and responsibilities directly reflected working in EA within their organizations.
Analyzing the Current Trends in Enterprise Architecture FrameworksBrian H. Cameron and Eric McMillanAbstractEnterprise Architecture (EA) is gaining additional visibility and importance, and it is attaining higher levels of influence within many organizations today (Brownet al. 2010). As the importance and stature of EA grows, so too does the number of frameworks proposed to support the work of EA. This proliferation has led to an increasing challenge within organizations to develop a process for selecting the correct framework that best fits their unique needs, culture, and goals. Traditionally, EA frameworks have been used to facilitate alignment (Kaplan & Norton 2006) between the strategic goals and direction of the organization and the IT that supports the business units within the organization. This alignment process is a critical component to support the continued growth and success of a firm (Cuenca et al. 2010; Pombinho et al. 2012; Singh & Woo 2009). Despite several research studies that focused on a direct comparison of EA frameworks (Alghamdi 2009; McCarthy 2006; Tang et al. 2004; Urbaczewski & Mrdalj 2006a), there have been few studies aimed at capturing the information needed to support organizations in their decision-making process when selecting an EA framework (Armour et al. 1999). Also, as the usage of frameworks continues to mature within organizations, there has been little research conducted that documents the trends of both the usage and maturity of using frameworks within organizations. This research compares the attributes of various EA frameworks and provides a method to assist organizations in their efforts to choose an EA framework for their organization. The basis of this research is a survey that contains the responses from 276 participants whose job roles and responsibilities directly reflected working in EA within their organizations. This research was conducted in collaboration with leading EA industry associations, and the survey results provide a view of the current landscape of EA framework usage by a wide range of respondents worldwide and throughout many different organizations. The aim is that the inferences drawn from this survey will help support recommendations on a process that can be used to assist with the selection of an EA framework by organizations.
Many, if not most, US Federal Departments and agencies continue to spend millions of dollars annually on Enterprise Architecture (EA). Few government organizations extract anything of value from their EAs. For a large government agency, the authors matured the EA program with an integrated repository that supports executive decision-makers with actionable, fact-based enterprise viewpoints. The integrated repository and best practice EA methods are being successfully applied to Information Technology (IT) lifecycle governance, portfolio management, strategic planning, and complex multi-program analyses.