Although there were many comparison literatures of EA frameworks, these literature use qualitative criteria based on intuitive practitioner's experience. The paper first defines 36 concrete features of EA frameworks using six categories and six interrogatives. Then we concretely compare typical EA frameworks based on the key features. The result shows the easiness and concreteness of the proposed EA comparison framework.Keywords enterprise architecture, enterprise architecture framework, comparison framework, case study IntroductionAs spreading the Enterprise Architecture (EA), many EA frameworks are proposed to implement EA.In the same time comparative studies of EA frameworks also are increased. However, there was a problem that previous EA framework comparison literatures use qualitative criteria. Some papers claim contradictory claims for the same criteria. This paper proposes a concrete evaluation framework to compare EA frameworks. Then six EA frameworks are compared by using the proposed comparison framework.The rest of the papers are organized as follows. Section 2 explains related work. The comparison framework is proposed in section 3. Section 4 shows a comparison of EA frameworks using the proposed approach. The effectiveness, novelty and limitations are discussed in section 5. Finally, section 6 concludes the paper. Related Work Enterprise Architecture ModelSchelp and Winter (2009) investigated seven academic EA language researches from meta-model for EA descriptions, procedure model for EA management, architecture levels, methodology, explication rules, and design research guidelines. The ArchiMate they mentioned is currently standardized as the EA modeling language of TOGAF. Blevins et al. (2010) showed to define DoDAF by using TOGAF as the meta-model. Farwick et al. (2011) analyzed for automating to maintain enterprise architecture models based on EA repository. Kotusev et al. (2015) described the following EA documentation problems: hard to develop, unusable, and isolation from EA practice. Feodoroff (2016) also described TOGAF seems apt as an example of a meta-model for Enterprise Buckl et al. (2010) defined a conceptual framework for EA design consists of EA vision, EA principles, EA strategy, and conformance to EA vison. Luke et al. (2010) identified two EA problem categories that are understanding and management of EA, and modeling of complex systems. Lagerström et al. (2011) analyzed the relationship between EA management and IT project success. The tested EA activities consist of existence, work load, and maturity. They conclude that maturity of EA management was necessary to succeed IT project. Farwick et al. (2011) identified architectural requirements, organizational requirements, integration requirements and data quality requirements to automate EA model maintenance by using EA repository. Haki et al. (2012) proposed three dimensions of EA management to adopt EA in enterprise. Three dimensions are EA phases, EA model and documentations, and EA governance. They also showed the importance ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.