SCENARIO-BASED EVALUATION OF ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE - A top-down approach for chief information officer decision making

Mårten Simonsson, Åsa Lindström, Pontus Johnson, Lars Nordström, John Grundbäck, Olof Wijnbladh

Abstract

As the primary stakeholder for the Enterprise Architecture, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for the evolution of the enterprise IT system. An important part of the CIO role is therefore to make decisions about strategic and complex IT matters. This paper presents a cost effective and scenario-based approach for providing the CIO with an accurate basis for decision making. Scenarios are analyzed and compared against each other by using a number of problem-specific easily measured system properties identified in literature. In order to test the usefulness of the approach, a case study has been carried out. A CIO needed guidance on how to assign functionality and data within four overlapping systems. The results are quantifiable and can be presented graphically, thus providing a cost-efficient and easily understood basis for decision making. The study shows that the scenario-based approach can make complex Enterprise Architecture decisions understandable for CIOs and other business-orientated stakeholders

References

  1. Bass, L., Clements P., Kazman R., 1998, Software Architecture in Practice, Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley.
  2. Boehm, B. W., et al, 1978, Characteristics of software quality, North Holland.
  3. Brown, C., 1993, “The Successful CIO: Integrating Organizational and Individual Perspectives”, Proceedings of SIGCPR 93.
  4. Brackett, M., 1994, Data Sharing: Using a Common Data Architecture, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  5. Cassidy, A., 1998, Information Systems Strategic Planning, Boca Raton, Florida, St Licie Press.
  6. Chief Information Officer Council, 1999, The Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, CIO Council.
  7. Chief Information Officer Council, 2001, The Federal Enterprise Architecture, CIO Council.
  8. Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (formerly known as the Information Management Reform Act), 1996, Division E National Defense Authorization Act for FY, February 10.
  9. Department of Defense, 2003, The Department of Defense Architecture Framework, Department of Defense.
  10. Gottschalk, P., 1999, “Strategic Management of IS/IT Functions: The Role of the CIO in Norwegian Organizations”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol 19, pp. 389-399.
  11. Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M., Silva, E., Plazaola, L., 2004, Using Enterprise Architecture for CIO DecisionMaking: On the importance of theory, In the Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER).
  12. Kaplan R., Norton D., 1996, The Balanced Scorecard, Boston, Massachusetts, HBS Press.
  13. Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., Regnell, B., 1998, On Evaluation of Methods for Prioritizing Software Requirements, Information and Software Technology, 39(14-15):939- 947.
  14. Kazman, R., Klein, M., Barbacci, M., Longstaff, T., Lipson, H., Carriere, J., 1998, The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method, Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS), Monterey, CA.
  15. Kirkpatrick, K.A., 2002, “CIO Role Survey (350 American senior IT executives)”, CIO Insight Magazine.
  16. Land, R., Crnkovic, I., 2003, Software System Integration and Architectural Analysis - A Case Study, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance.
  17. Lindström, Å., Johnson, P., Johansson, E., Ekstedt, M., Simonsson, M., 2004, A Study on CIO Concerns: Do Enterprise Architecture Frameworks Support Them?, Submitted to Information Systems Frontiers.
  18. Linthicum D., 2000, Enterprise Application Integration, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Addison Wesley.
  19. Luftman, J., 2000, Assessing Business-IT alignment maturity, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4.
  20. Mc Govern, J., et al, 2003, A practical Guide to Enterprise Architecture, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
  21. The Open Group homepage, 2004, www.opengroup.org, February 20.
  22. The Open Group, 2003, The Open Group Architectural Framework, Version 8, The Open Group.
  23. Oskarsson, Ö., 1981, Mechanisms of Modifiability in Large Software Systems, Dissertation, Software Systems Research Center, Linköping University.
  24. Ruh W., 2001, Enterprise Application Integration, Wiley.
  25. Spewak, S., 1992, Enterprise Architecture Planning - Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications and Technology, New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  26. Zachman, J.A., 1987, A Framework for Information Systems Architecture”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 26, No 3.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Simonsson M., Lindström Å., Johnson P., Nordström L., Grundbäck J. and Wijnbladh O. (2005). SCENARIO-BASED EVALUATION OF ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE - A top-down approach for chief information officer decision making . In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS, ISBN 972-8865-19-8, pages 130-137. DOI: 10.5220/0002517301300137


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis05,
author={Mårten Simonsson and Åsa Lindström and Pontus Johnson and Lars Nordström and John Grundbäck and Olof Wijnbladh},
title={SCENARIO-BASED EVALUATION OF ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE - A top-down approach for chief information officer decision making},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS,},
year={2005},
pages={130-137},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002517301300137},
isbn={972-8865-19-8},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS,
TI - SCENARIO-BASED EVALUATION OF ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE - A top-down approach for chief information officer decision making
SN - 972-8865-19-8
AU - Simonsson M.
AU - Lindström Å.
AU - Johnson P.
AU - Nordström L.
AU - Grundbäck J.
AU - Wijnbladh O.
PY - 2005
SP - 130
EP - 137
DO - 10.5220/0002517301300137