Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Software and Systems Modeling
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling 2/2018

20.05.2016 | Regular Paper

What can we learn from enterprise architecture models? An experiment comparing models and documents for capability development

verfasst von: Ulrik Franke, Mika Cohen, Johan Sigholm

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 2/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Enterprise architecture (EA) has been established as a discipline to cope with the complex interactions of business operations and technology. Models, i.e., formal descriptions in terms of diagrams and views, are at the heart of the approach. Though it is widely thought that such architecture models can contribute to improved understanding and decision making, this proposition has not rigorously been tested. This article describes an experiment conducted with a real EA model and corresponding real traditional documents, investigating whether the model or the documents lead to better and faster understanding. Understanding is interesting to study, as it is a prerequisite to other EA uses. The subjects (\(N=98\)) were officer cadets, and the experiment was carried out using a comprehensive description of military Close Air Support capability either (1) in the form of a MODAF model or (2) in the form of traditional documents. Based on the results, the model seems to lead to better, though not faster, understanding.
Vorheriger Artikel Mining team compositions for collaborative work in business processes

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
1.
Abraham, R., Aier, S., Labusch, N.: Enterprise architecture as a means for coordination—an empirical study on actual and potential practice. In: The 7th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Paper, vol. 33 (2012)
2.
Aier, S., Schelp, J.: A reassessment of enterprise architecture implementation. In: Service-oriented computing. ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009 Workshops, pp. 35–47. Springer, New York (2010)
3.
Aier, S., Buckl, S., Franke, U., Gleichauf, B., Johnson, P., Närman, P., Schweda, C.M., Ullberg, J.: A survival analysis of application life spans based on enterprise architecture models. In: Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. P-152, pp. 141–154, September 2009. ISBN 978-3-88579-246-8. Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2009)
4.
Anajafi, F., Nassiri, R., Shabgahi, G.L.: Developing effective project management for enterprise architecture projects. In: Software Technology and Engineering (ICSTE), 2010 2nd International Conference on, vol. 1, pp. V1–388. IEEE (2010)
5.
Bergey, B.W., Cromley, J.G., Kirchgessner, M.L., Newcombe, N.S.: Using diagrams versus text for spaced restudy: effects on learning in 10th grade biology classes. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 85(1), 59–74 (2015)CrossRef
6.
Boucharas, V., van Steenbergen, M., Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S.: The contribution of enterprise architecture to the achievement of organizational goals: a review of the evidence. In: Lankhorst, E.P.M.M., Barjis, M.S.J., Overbeek, S. (eds.) Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research, vol. 70, pp. 1–15. Springer, New York (2010). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-16819-2_​1
7.
Boudreau, M.-C., Gefen, D., Straub, D.W.: Validation in information systems research: a state-of-the-art assessment. MIS Quarterly. 25(1), 1–16 (2001)
8.
Breimer, E., Conway, M., Cotler, J., Yoder, R.: A study of video-based versus text-based labs for a management information systems course. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, pp. 128–132. ACM, (2011)
9.
Brewer, M.B.: Research design and issues of validity. In: Reis, H.T., Judd, C.M. (eds.) Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, 1st edn, pp. 3–16. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)
10.
Busuioc, M., Smith, R.T., Allikmets, R., Lee, N., Laine, A., Shi, J.: Controlled field entries versus free text in a clinical/research emr. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 51(13), 1804–1804 (2010)
11.
Carey, J.M., White, E.M.: The effects of graphical versus numerical response on the accuracy of graph-based forecasts. J. Manag. 17(1), 77–96 (1991)
12.
Corey, S.M.: Learning from lectures vs. learning from readings. J. Educ. Psychol. 25(6), 459 (1934)CrossRef
13.
Dahlkoetter, J.A., Callahan, E.J., Linton, J.: Obesity and the unbalanced energy equation: exercise versus eating habit change. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 47(5), 898 (1979)CrossRef
14.
De Silva, L., Balasubramaniam, D.: Controlling software architecture erosion: a survey. J. Syst. Softw. 85(1), 132–151 (2012)CrossRef
15.
Fischer, R., Aier, S., Winter, R.: A federated approach to enterprise architecture model maintenance. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. 2(2), 14–22 (2007)
16.
Fowler, M.: Patterns of enterprise application architecture. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2002)
17.
Hammond, D., Fong, G.T., Borland, R., Cummings, K.M., McNeill, A., Driezen, P.: Text and graphic warnings on cigarette packages: findings from the international tobacco control four country study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 32(3), 202–209 (2007)CrossRef
18.
Herron, C., Morris, M., Secules, T., Curtis, L.: A comparison study of the effects of video-based versus text-based instruction in the foreign language classroom. Fr. Rev. 68(5), 775–795 (1995)
19.
Hjort-Madsen, K.: Enterprise architecture implementation and management: a case study on interoperability. In: System Sciences, 2006. HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, vol. 4, pp. 71c–71c. IEEE (2006)
20.
Innerhofer-Oberperfler, F., Breu, R.: Using an enterprise architecture for IT risk management. In: Proceedings of the ISSA 2006 from Insight to Foresight Conference, 5–7 July 2006, Balalaika Hotel, Sandton, South Africa, pp. 1–12 (2006)
21.
Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M., Silva, E., Plazaola, L.: Using enterprise architecture for CIO decision-making: On the importance of theory. In: Second Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research (2004)
22.
Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M.M., ter Doest, H.W.L., Arbab, F., Bosma, H., Wieringa, R.J.: Enterprise architecture: management tool and blueprint for the organisation. Inf. Syst. Front. 8(2), 63–66 (2006)CrossRef
23.
Jugel, D., Schweda, C.M.: Interactive functions of a cockpit for enterprise architecture planning. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops and Demonstrations (EDOCW), 2014 IEEE 18th International, pp. 33–40. IEEE (2014)
24.
Kaisler, S.H., Armour, F., Valivullah, M.: Enterprise architecting: critical problems. In: System Sciences, 2005. HICSS’05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, pp. 224b–224b. IEEE (2005)
25.
Korhonen, J.J., Molnar, W., et al.: Enterprise architecture as capability: strategic application of competencies to govern enterprise transformation. In: Business Informatics (CBI), 2014 IEEE 16th Conference on, vol. 1, pp. 175–182. IEEE (2014)
26.
Kurpjuweit, S., Winter, R.: Viewpoint-based meta model engineering. In: Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures—Concepts and Applications, Proceedings of the 2nd Int’l Workshop EMISA, vol. 119, pp. 143–161 (2007)
27.
Lagerström, R., Sommestad, T., Buschle, M., Ekstedt, M.: Enterprise architecture management’s impact on information technology success. In: System Sciences (HICSS), 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2011)
28.
Lagerström, R., Baldwin, C., MacCormack, A., Aier, S.: Visualizing and measuring enterprise application architecture: an exploratory telecom case. In: System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on, pp. 3847–3856. IEEE (2014)
29.
Lange, M., Mendling, J., Recker, J.: An empirical analysis of the factors and measures of enterprise architecture management success. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. (2015)
30.
Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise architecture modelling the issue of integration. Adv. Eng. Inf. 18(4), 205–216 (2004)CrossRef
31.
Lindström, Å., Johnson, P., Johansson, E., Ekstedt, M., Simonsson, M.: A survey on CIO concerns—Do enterprise architecture frameworks support them? Inf. Syst. Front. 8(2), 81–90 (2006)CrossRef
32.
McGill, R., Tukey, J.W., Larsen, W.A.: Variations of box plots. Am. Stat. 32(1), 12–16 (1978)
33.
McGovern, J.: A Practical Guide to Enterprise Architecture. Prentice Hall Professional, New Jersey (2004)
34.
Ministry of Defence. MOD Architecture Framework version 1.2.004. Technical report, Ministry of Defence, UK, April 2010
35.
Närman, P., Buschle, M., Ekstedt, M.: An enterprise architecture framework for multi-attribute information systems analysis. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 1085–1116 (2014)CrossRef
36.
NATO Standardization Agency (NSA). Air Interdiction and Close Air Support (AJP-3.3.2). Technical report, NATO, July 2004
37.
Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, an imprint of Elsevier, 1994. ISBN 978-0-12-518406-9
38.
Quartel, D., Engelsman, W., Jonkers, H., Van Sinderen, M.: A goal-oriented requirements modelling language for enterprise architecture. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2009. EDOC’09. IEEE International, pp. 3–13. IEEE (2009)
39.
Rohloff, M.: Enterprise architecture-framework and methodology for the design of architectures in the large. ECIS 2005 Proceedings, p. 113 (2005)
40.
Ross, J.W., Weill, P., Robertson, D.: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business School Press, August 2006. ISBN 1591398398
41.
42.
Schaub, M., Matthes, F., Roth, S.: Towards a conceptual framework for interactive enterprise architecture management visualizations. In: Modellierung, pp. 75–90 (2012)
43.
Schirillo, J.A., Stone, E.R.: The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism. Risk Anal. 25(3), 555–566 (2005)CrossRef
44.
Seidling, H.M., Paterno, M.D., Haefeli, W.E., Bates, D.W.: Coded entry versus free-text and alert overrides: What you get depends on how you ask. Int. J. Med. Inform. 79(11), 792–796 (2010)CrossRef
45.
Sistrom, C.L., Honeyman-Buck, J.: Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. Am. J. Roentgenol. 185(3), 804–812 (2005)CrossRef
46.
Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV). CAS EA. Technical report, June 2010. FMV document number FMT08-10:0059
47.
Roger, S.T., Chi, M.T.H.: Simulation versus text: acquisition of implicit and explicit information. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 35(3), 289–313 (2006)CrossRef
48.
Tyree, J., Akerman, A.: Architecture decisions: demystifying architecture. IEEE software 2, 19–27 (2005)CrossRef
49.
Van Der Raadt, B., Sander S., Hans Van V.: Stakeholder perception of enterprise architecture. In: Software Architecture, pp. 19–34. Springer, New York (2008)
50.
Vessey, I.: Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decis. Sci. 22(2), 219–240 (1991)CrossRef
51.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Magnus C.O., Björn R, Anders W.: An introduction. The Kluwer International Series in Software Engineering, Experimentation in software engineering (2000)
52.
Yeung, P., Justice, T., Pasic, R.P.: Comparison of text versus video for teaching laparoscopic knot tying in the novice surgeon: a randomized, controlled trial. J. Minim. Invas. Gynecol. 16(4), 411–415 (2009)CrossRef
53.
Zimmermann, O., Thomas G., Jochen K., Frank L., Nelly S.: Reusable architectural decision models for enterprise application development. In: Software Architectures, Components, and Applications, pp. 15–32. Springer, New York (2007)
Metadaten
Titel
What can we learn from enterprise architecture models? An experiment comparing models and documents for capability development
verfasst von
Ulrik Franke
Mika Cohen
Johan Sigholm
Publikationsdatum
20.05.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0535-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

Software and Systems Modeling 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Theme Section Paper

Accelerating task completion in mobile offloading systems through adaptive restart

Editorial

Special section of BPMDS’2015: enabling value creation via business process modeling, development, and support

Special Section Paper

Toward an execution system for self-healing workflows in cyber-physical systems

Theme Section Paper

WESSBAS: extraction of probabilistic workload specifications for load testing and performance prediction—a model-driven approach for session-based application systems

Special Section Paper

Scalable process discovery and conformance checking

Special Section Paper

Mining team compositions for collaborative work in business processes