Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State of the Art

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Enterprise Architecture at Work

Part of the book series: The Enterprise Engineering Series ((TEES))

Abstract

This chapter gives an overview of currently used methods and techniques in enterprise architecture. Naturally, this description is a snapshot, and we cannot claim to be exhaustive, since the field of enterprise architecture is evolving rapidly. However, it provides this broad overview of current methods and techniques to give the reader an impression of the advances in this field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.itsmf.com

References

  • Acme (1998), http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~acme/.

  • BiZZdesign (2009), http://www.bizzdesign.com.

  • Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (1999), The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • C4ISR Architecture Working Group (1997), C4ISR Architecture Framework Version 2.0, US Department of Defense, December 18, 1997. http://www.c3i.osd.mil/org/cio/i3/AWG_Digital_Library/pdfdocs/fw.pdf.

  • CIO Council (2004), Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), http://www.cio.gov.

  • CMMI Product Team (2002), Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Version 1.1, Staged Representation, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-029, ESC-TR-2002–029, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • COBIT (2000), Control Objectives for Information and related Technology (COBIT), 3rd Edition. IT Governance Institute, Rolling Meadows, Illinois. http://www.isaca.org/cobit.htm.

  • Department of Defense (2007), DoD Architecture Framework Version 1.5, Volume I: Definitions and Guidelines. Department of Defense, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eertink H, Janssen W, Oude Luttighuis P, Teeuw W, Vissers C (1999), A Business Process Design Language, Proc. 1st World Congress on Formal Methods, Toulouse, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • EFQM (2003), EFQM Excellence Model, EFQM Brussels Representative Office, Brussels. http://www.efqm.org/model_awards/model/excellence_model.htm

  • FEAPMO (2004), Federal Enterprise Architecture, http://www.feapmo.gov.

  • Ferris C, Farrell J (2003), What are Web Services? Communications of the ACM, 46(6):31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimmons JA, Fitzsimmons MJ (2000), New Service Development: Creating memorable experiences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler M, Scott K (1999), UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, 2nd edition. Addison-Wesley, Springfield, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel DS (2003), Model Driven Architecture: Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein SM, Johnston R, Duffy J, Rao J (2002), The Service Concept: The Missing Link in Service Design Research? Journal of Operations Management, 20(2):121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna A, Windebank J, Adams S, Sowerby J, Rance S, Cartlidge A (2008), ITIL V3 Foundation Handbook. The Stationary Office, Norwich, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel D, Rumpe B (2004), Meaningful Modeling: What’s the Semantics of ‘Semantics’? IEEE Computer, October:64–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • IDEF (1993), Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0) Draft, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication FIPSPUB 183. U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEEE Computer Society (2000), IEEE Std 1471–2000: IEEE Recommended Practice for Architecture description of Software-Intensive Systems. IEEE, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • IFIP-IFAC Task Force (1999), GERAM: Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology, Version 1.6.3, March (Published also as Annex to ISO WD15704). http://www.fe.up.pt/~jjpf/isf2000/v1_6_3.html.

  • Illeris S (1997), The Service Economy: A Geographical Approach, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2000), Quality Management Systems – Requirements, ISO 9000:2000, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC/IEEE (2011), Systems and software engineering – Architecture description, ISO/IEC/IEEE FDIS 42010:2011, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITU (1995a), Open Distributed Processing – Reference Model – Part 2: Foundations, ITU Recommendation X.902 | ISO/IEC 10746–2, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITU (1995b), Open Distributed Processing – Reference Model – Part 3: Architecture, ITU Recommendation X.903 | ISO/IEC 10746–3, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITU (1996), Open Distributed Processing – Reference Model – Part 1: Overview, ITU Recommendation X.901 | ISO/IEC 10746–1, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITU (1997), Open Distributed Processing – Reference Model – Part 4: Architectural Semantics, ITU Recommendation X.904 | ISO/IEC 10746–4, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson I, Booch G, Rumbaugh J (1999), The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Norton D (1992), The Balanced Scorecard – Measures That Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review, January–February:71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RJ, Menzel CP, Painter MK, deWitte PS, Blinn T, Perakath B (1995), Information Integration for Concurrent Engineering (IICE), IDEF3 Process Description Capture Method Report, Interim Technical Report April 1992–September 1995. Knowledge Based Systems, College Station, Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGovern J, Ambler SW, Stevens ME, Linn J, Sharan V, Elias KJ (2004), A Practical Guide to Enterprise Architecture. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medvidovic N, Taylor RN (2000), A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26 (1):70–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel C, Mayer RJ (1998), The IDEF Family of Languages. In Bernus P, Mertins K, Schmidt G (eds.), Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems, vol. 1 of International Handbooks on Information Systems, Chap. 10, pp. 209–241. Springer, Berlin.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • NASCIO (2003), NASCIO Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model Version 1.3, National Association of State Chief Information Officers. https://www.nascio.org/ hotIssues/EA/EAMM.pdf

  • Object Management Group (2002), UML Profile for Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Specification, http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/edoc.htm.

  • Object Management Group (2006), Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification. OMG Available Specification Version 2.0, formal/06-01-01, Object Management Group. http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.0/.

  • Object Management Group (2007b), Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. Version 2.1.2, Final Adopted Specification formal/07-11-02, Object Management Group. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/.

  • Object Management Group (2008), Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification Version 1.0, Final Adopted Specification formal/2008-04-03, Object Management Group. http://www.omg.org/spec/QVT/1.0/.

  • Object Management Group (2011). Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0. Final Adopted Specification formal/2011-01-03, Object Management Group. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/.

  • Object Management Group Architecture Board (2001), Model Driven Architecture (MDA), Miller J, Mukerji J (eds.), ormsc/2001-07-01, Object Management Group. http://www.omg.org/docs/ormsc/01-07-01.pdf.

  • Paulk M, Curtis B, Chrissis M, Weber C (1993), Capability Maturity Model for Software (Version 1.1), Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-024, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putman JR (1991), Architecting with RM-ODP, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittgen P (2000), A Modelling Method for Developing Web-Based Applications. Proc. International Conference IRMA 2000, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 135–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross JW, Weill P, Robertson DC (2006), Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, A-W (1994), Business Process Engineering: Reference Models for Industrial Enterprises, 2nd Edition. Springer, Berlin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steen MWA, Lankhorst MM, Wetering RG van de (2002), Modelling Networked Enterprises, in Proc. Sixth International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC’02), Lausanne, Switzerland, September, pp. 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens M (2002), Service-Oriented Architecture Introduction, Part 1. www.developer.com/design/article.php/1010451, April.

  • The Open Group (2011), The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) Version 9.1. The Open Group, Reading, UK. http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/.

  • UN/CEFACT (2004), http://www.unece.org/cefact/.

  • US Treasury (2004), Treasury Enterprise Architecture, http://www.ustreas.gov/teaf/.

  • Van Bon J (ed.) (2002), IT Service Management – An Introduction – Based on ITIL. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Zee H, Laagland P, Hafkenscheid B (eds.) (2000), Architectuur als Management Instrument – Beheersing en Besturing van Complexiteit in het Netwerktijdperk. Ten Hagen & Stam, Den Haag (in Dutch).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zachman JA (1987), A Framework for Information Systems Architecture, IBM Systems Journal, 26(3):276–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Novay, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Marc Lankhorst

Authors
  1. Marc Lankhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lankhorst, M. (2013). State of the Art. In: Enterprise Architecture at Work. The Enterprise Engineering Series. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29651-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation