Enterprise architecture measurement: an extended systematic mapping study

Enterprise architecture measurement: an extended systematic mapping study

Автор: Ammar Abdallah, Alain Abran

Журнал: International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science @ijitcs

Статья в выпуске: 9 Vol. 11, 2019 года.

Бесплатный доступ

A systematic mapping study (SMS) of proposed EA measurement solutions was undertaken to provide an in-depth understanding of the claimed achievements and limitations in evidence-based research of enterprise architecture (EA). This SMS reports on 22 primary studies on EA measurement solutions published up to the end of 2018. The primary studies were analyzed thematically and classified according to ten (10) mapping questions including, but not limited to, positioning of EA measurement solutions within EA schools of thought, analysis of consistency-inconsistency of the terms used by authors in EA measurement research, and an analysis of the references to the ISO 15939 measurement information model. Some key findings reveal that the current research on EA measurement solutions is focused on the “enterprise IT architecting” school of thought, does not use rigorous terminology as found in science and engineering, and shows limited adoption of knowledge from other disciplines. The paper concludes with new perspectives for future research avenues in EA measurement.

Еще

Enterprise architecture, EA measurement terminology, EA schools of thought, EA measurement solutions, EA concepts, EA project life cycle

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/15016383

IDR: 15016383   |   DOI: 10.5815/ijitcs.2019.09.02

Список литературы Enterprise architecture measurement: an extended systematic mapping study

  • J. Nurmi, “Examining Enterprise Architecture : Defini- Tions and Theoretical Perspectives,” Master thesis, University of Jyväskylä, pp.1-68, 2018.
  • N. Banaeianjahromi and K. Smolander, “The Role of Enterprise Architecture in Enterprise Integration – a Systematic Mapping,” in European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems, Doha (UAE), pp. 1–22, 2014.
  • F. Gampfer, A. Jürgens, M. Müller, and R. Buchkremer, “Past, current and future trends in enterprise architecture—A view beyond the horizon,” Comput. Ind., vol. 100, pp. 70–84, 2018.
  • M. J. a. Bonnet, “Measuring the Effectiveness of Enterprise Architecture Implementation, Master thesis,” Delft University of Technology, pp.1-90, 2009.
  • S. H. Kaisler, F. Armour, and M. Valivullah, “Enterprise Architecting: Critical Problems,” in 38’th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island (Hawai), pp. 1–10, 2005.
  • H. Plessius, R. Slot, and L. Pruijt, “On the categorization and measurability of enterprise architecture benefits with the enterprise architecture value framework,” in Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research and Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation, Berlin (Germany), pp. 79–92, 2012.
  • M. Razavi, F. S. Aliee, and K. Badie, “An AHP-based approach toward enterprise architecture analysis based on enterprise architecture quality attributes,” Knowl. Inf. Syst., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 449–472, 2011.
  • O. González-Rojas, A. López, and D. Correal, “Multilevel complexity measurement in enterprise architecture models,” Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf., vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1280–1300, 2017.
  • D. F. Rico, “A framework for measuring ROI of enterprise architecture,” J. Organ. End User Comput., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2006.
  • H. Safari, Z. Faraji, and S. Majidian, “Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR,” J. Intell. Manuf., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 475–486, 2016.
  • K. Petersen, R. Feldt, S. Mujtaba, and M. Mattsson, “Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering,” in 12’th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Bari, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 68–77, 2008.
  • Y. Gong and M. Janssen, “The value of and myths about enterprise architecture,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 46, pp. 1–9, 2019.
  • P. Saint-Louis and J. Lapalme, “Investigation of the Lack of Common Understanding in the Discipline of Enterprise Architecture : A Systematic Mapping Study,” in 20’th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop, Vienna (Austria), pp. 1–9, 2016.
  • S. S. Hussein et al., “Towards designing an EA readiness instrument: A systematic review,” in 4’th IEEE International Colloquium on Information Science and Technology (CiSt), Tangier (Morocco), pp. 158–163, 2016.
  • D. Jugel, K. Sandkuhl, and A. Zimmermann, “Visual Analytics in Enterprise Architecture Management: A Systematic Literature Review,” in International Conference on Business Information Systems, Poznań (Poland), pp. 99–110, 2017.
  • P. Andersen and A. Carugati, “Enterprise Architecture Evaluation: A Systematic Literature Review,” in 8’th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Verona (Italy), pp. 1–41, 2014.
  • F. Nikpay, R. Ahmad, B. D. Rouhani, and S. Shamshirband, “A systematic review on post-implementation evaluation models of enterprise architecture artefacts,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 62, no. 2015, pp. 1–20, 2015.
  • A. Abdallah, J. Lapalme, and A. Abran, “Enterprise Architecture Measurement: A Systematic Mapping Study,” in 4’th International Conference on Enterprise Systems: Advances in Enterprise Systems, Melbourne (Australia), pp. 13–20, 2016.
  • B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, “Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature reviews in Software Engineering Version 2.3,” UK, 2007.
  • E. Namey, G. Guest, L. Thairu, and L. Johnson, “Data Reduction Techniques for Large Qualitative Data Sets,” in Handbook for Team-based Qualitative Research, AltaMira Press, pp. 137–162, 2008.
  • D. S. Cruzes and T. Dyba, “Recommended Steps for Thematic Synthesis in Software Engineering,” in International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Banff (Canada), pp. 275–284, 2011.
  • M. Vaismoradi, H. Turunen, and T. Bondas, “Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study,” Nurs. Heal. Sci., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 398–405, 2013.
  • J. Lapalme, “Three schools of thought on enterprise architecture,” IT Prof., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 37–43, 2012.
  • M. Zarour, “Methods to Evaluate Lightweight Software Process Assessment Methods Based On Evaluation Theory and Engineering Design Principles, ”PhD thesis, Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Montréal (Canada), p. 240, 2009.
  • H. van Loon, Process Assessment and Improvement: A Practical Guide for Managers, Quality Professionals and Assessors, 1'st ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2004.
  • A. Abran, Software Metrics and Software Metrology. John Wiley & Sons Interscience and IEEE-CS Press, New York, 2010.
  • K. Krippendorff, Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology, 4th ed. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, 2018.
  • K. Krippendorff and M. A. Bock, The content analysis reader. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, 2009.
Еще
Статья научная
QR-код для установки приложения SciUp Наведите камеру и скачайте бесплатное приложение SciUp