Advertisement

An Empirical Evaluation of Design Decision Concepts in Enterprise Architecture

  • Georgios Plataniotis
  • Sybren de Kinderen
  • Dirk van der Linden
  • Danny Greefhorst
  • Henderik A. Proper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 165)

Abstract

Enterprise Architecture (EA) languages describe the design of an enterprise holistically, typically linking products and services to supporting business processes and, in turn, business processes to their supporting IT systems. In earlier work, we introduced EA Anamnesis, which provides an approach and corresponding meta-model for rationalizing architectural designs. EA Anamnesis captures the motivations of design decisions in enterprise architecture, alternative designs, design criteria, observed impacts of a design decision, and more. We argued that EA Anamnesis nicely complements current architectural languages by providing the capability to learn from past decision making.

In this paper, we provide a first empirical grounding for the practical usefulness of EA Anamnesis. Using a survey amongst 35 enterprise architecture practitioners, we test the perceived usefulness of EA Anamnesis concepts, and compare this to their current uptake in practice. Results indicate that while many EA Anamnesis concepts are perceived as useful, the current uptake in practice is limited to a few concepts - prominently ‘rationale’ and ‘layer’. Our results go on and show that architects currently rationalize architectural decisions in an ad hoc manner, forgoing structured templates such as provided by EA Anamnesis. Finally, we interpret the survey results discussing for example possible reasons for the gap between perceived usefulness and uptake of architectural rationalization.

Keywords

Enterprise Architecture Design Rationale Design Decision concepts Evaluation Survey 

References

  1. 1.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. Van Haren Publishing (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise architecture at work: Modelling, communication and analysis. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Plataniotis, G., Kinderen, S.D., Proper, H.A.: Ea anamnesis: towards an approach for enterprise architecture rationalization. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Workshop on Domain-specific Modeling, DSM 2012, pp. 27–32. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tang, A., Jin, Y., Han, J.: A rationale-based architecture model for design traceability and reasoning. Journal of Systems and Software 80(6), 918–934 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tang, A., Babar, M.A., Gorton, I., Han, J.: A survey of architecture design rationale. Journal of Systems and Software 79(12), 1792–1804 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Plataniotis, G., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A.: Capturing decision making strategies in enterprise architecture – A viewpoint. In: Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Soffer, P., Krogstie, J., Schmidt, R., Halpin, T., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2013 and EMMSAD 2013. LNBIP, vol. 147, pp. 339–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Plataniotis, G., Kinderen, S.D., Proper, H.A.: Relating decisions in enterprise architecture using decision design graphs. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, J.: Extending the potts and bruns model for recording design rationale. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 114–125 (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kruchten, P.: An ontology of architectural design decisions in software intensive systems. In: 2nd Groningen Workshop on Software Variability, pp. 54–61 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruchten, P., Lago, P., van Vliet, H.: Building up and reasoning about architectural knowledge. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnković, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tyree, J., Akerman, A.: Architecture decisions: Demystifying architecture. IEEE Software 22(2), 19–27 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Proper, H.A., Op ’t Land, M.: Lines in the water. In: Harmsen, F., Proper, E., Schalkwijk, F., Barjis, J., Overbeek, S. (eds.) PRET 2010. LNBIP, vol. 69, pp. 193–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cummins, J., Doherty, N.: The economics of insurance intermediaries. Journal of Risk and Insurance 73(3), 359–396 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios Plataniotis
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sybren de Kinderen
    • 3
  • Dirk van der Linden
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Danny Greefhorst
    • 4
  • Henderik A. Proper
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Public Research Centre Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.EE-TeamLuxembourgLuxembourg
  4. 4.ArchiXLThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations