| 1. |
- Aier, Stephan, et al.
(author)
-
A Survival Analysis of Application Life Spans based on Enterprise Architecture Models
- 2009
-
In: Proc. 3rd International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, EMISA 2009. ; , s. 141-154
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Modern enterprises face the challenge to survive in an ever changing environment. One commonly accepted means to address this challenge and further enhance survivability is enterprise architecture (EA) management, which provides a holistic model-based approach to business/IT alignment. Thereby, the decisions taken in the context of EA management are based on accurate documentation of IT systems and business processes. The maintenance of such documentation causes high investments for enter-prises, especially in the absence of information on the change rates of different systems and processes. In this paper we propose a method for gathering and analyzing such in-formation. The method is used to analyze the life spans of the application portfolio of three companies from different industry sectors. Based on the results of the three case studies implications and limitations of the method are discussed.
|
|
| 2. |
- Buckl, Sabine, et al.
(author)
-
A meta-language for Enterprise Architecture analysis
- 2011
-
In: 12th International Conference on Business Process Modeling, Development and Support, BPMDS 2011 and 16th International Conference on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design. - Berlin, Heidelberg : Springer Berlin Heidelberg. - 9783642217586 ; , s. 511-525
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Enterprise Architecture (EA) management is a commonly accepted instrument to support strategic decision making. The objective of EA management is to improve business IT alignment by making the impact of planned changes explicit. The increasing interconnectivity of applications with other applications and with business processes however makes it difficult to get a complete view on change impacts and dependency structures. This information is nevertheless required to support decision makers. Current meta-languages proposed for the context of EA management provide only limited support for modelling qualitative and quantitative dependencies. In this paper we propose a meta-language, which builds on the Meta Object Facility (MOF). This meta-language specifically accounts for the requirements of EA analysis. We discuss existing meta-languages from the field of EA management and related areas against these requirements. Building on the standard of the OMG, we present an extension of MOF designed to support EA analysis. The theoretic exposition of the extension is complemented by an example illustrating the applicability of the presented meta-language.
|
|
| 3. |
- Buckl, S., et al.
(author)
-
A pattern-based approach to quantitative enterprise architecture analysis
- 2009
-
In: 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems 2009, AMCIS 2009. - 9781615675814 ; , s. 2314-2324
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Enterprise Architecture (EA) management involves tasks that substantially contribute to the operations of an enterprise, and to its sustainable market presence. One important aspect of this is the availability of services to customers. However, the increasing interconnectedness of systems with other systems and with business processes makes it difficult to get a clear view on change impacts and dependency structures. While management level decision makers need this information to make sound decisions, EA models often do not include quality attributes (such as availability), and very rarely provide quantitative means to assess them. We address these shortcomings by augmenting an information model for EA modeling with concepts from Probabilistic Relational Models, thus enabling quantitative analysis. A sample business case is evaluated as an example of the technique, showing how decision makers can benefit from information on availability impacts on enterprise business services.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
