Another Look at Enterprise Architecture Framework

Abstract

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 ...

A TOGAF based interoperable health information system needs assessment for practitioner–patient interaction

“…This sub‐architecture dealt with the kind of data to be shared in the HIS among and between practitioners and patients. This stratum allows for data storage and retrieval by actors in the interoperable system context, Moreover, the DA was concerned with the data models, metadata dictionaries, standards, and procedures for healthcare data communication (Neittaanmaki, 2017; Yamamoto et al, 2018). In the end, the technology architecture (TA) was concerned with identifying the ideal technologies to be used for practitioners' and patients' healthcare interaction and in managing healthcare information.…”

“…To that effect, federal governments are appreciating the need to address such challenges, and therefore, appreciating the need for collaboration and integration of such healthcare systems among healthcare service providers to plan, strategize, implement programs, and share data which is pivotal to the growth and efficiency of modern‐day HISs. Progressively, the trend of HIS evolution around the world is now to re‐engineer HISs to develop adaptive enterprise architecture (EA) systems for healthcare that are interoperable (Yamamoto et al, 2018). HISs interoperability refers to the creation of a relational distributed database which is a repository of information concerning the integrated systems of care in a computer‐based environment, to record, transform and safely allow sharing of data to privileged users (Hovenga, 2008).…”

Metodología para la evaluación y comparación de marcos de trabajo de arquitectura empresarial

“…Según estos autores, las escalas propuestas para evaluar cada criterio son muy simplistas (Hadaya et al, 2019). Por su parte Yamamoto et al (2018), en su análisis de diferentes modelos coincide en que la descripción detallada de los criterios es uno de los puntos débiles de muchos de los modelos de evaluación estudiados. Uno de los estudios más extensos sobre la temática es el realizado por Bui (2017), donde se identifican 198 publicaciones fechadas entre 1982 y 2014.…”

Product Design Model by ArchiMate

“…ArchiMate can describe the deliverables of all the processes of the Architecture Development Method (ADM) of TO-GAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) [11]. The most feature-rich EA framework is TOGAF [12].…”