Presenting a Method for Agile Enterprise Architecture Modeling
Subject Areas : ICT
Ali Razi
1
,
Reza Rezaei
2
*
,
Ahmad Ali Yazdanpanah
3
1 - Department of IT Management, Science and Research branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 - گروه کامپیوتر، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، واحد ساوه
3 - Faculty Member of Statistic Researches & Information Technology Group, Institute for Research & Planning in Higher Education (IRPHE), Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Iran, Islamic Rep
Keywords: Decision Model and Notation, Modeling Standards, Business Architecture Modeling, Agile Enterprise Architecture Modeling, Evaluating the Applicability and Simplicity.,
Abstract :
One of the important issues and concerns in agile enterprise architecture is the documenting and modeling of requirements and artifacts. Architectural models and documents should be produced and updated as necessary and while meeting the requirements and concerns of the stakeholders, they should be presented in the shortest time and at the lowest cost. On the other hand, methods and tools should be used that are applicable and simple, and while using agile practices and modeling standards, have the necessary comprehensiveness. Researches has been done regarding the modeling and documenting of agile enterprise architecture. Since there is no comprehensive, standard and minimal method for modeling and documenting agile enterprise architecture in related researches, therefore, in this paper, a method for modeling agile enterprise architecture is presented and evaluated by the combined (qualitative + quantitative) method. Qualitative evaluation is performed through a case study. For quantitative evaluation, the AHP method is used to weighting and ranking the criteria. Evaluation criteria are extracted based on library studies and experts' opinions. In order to quantitatively evaluate the proposed method, six criteria have been proposed in this paper, which are: production of required and necessary artifacts, reduction of modeling time, reduction of cost, improvement of stakeholders satisfaction, improvement of applicability and increase of simplicity, and criteria of production of required and necessary artifacts, has won the highest rank.
[1]. A. Rüping, Agile Documentation: A Pattern Guide to Producing Lightweight Documents for Software Projects. Wiley; 1st edition, 2003.
[2]. J. M.Bass, “Artefacts and agile method tailoring in large-scale offshore software development programmes,” Information and Software Technology., vol. 75, pp. 1-16, July 2016.
[3]. A. Sadovykh, P. Desfray, B. Elvesæter, A. Berre, E. Landre, “Enterprise architecture modeling with SoaML using BMM and BPMN - MDA approach in practice,” Computer Science, 6th Central and Eastern European Software Engineering Conference, Oct 13-15, 2010, Moscow, Russia.
[4]. A. Zrnec, M. Bajec, M. Krisper, "Enterprise modelling with UML," Elektrotehni ski vestnik University of Ljubljana., vol. 68, pp. 109–114, 2001.
[5]. F. Armour, S. H. Kaisler, J. Getter, D. Pippin, “A UML-driven Enterprise Architecture Case Study,” Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference, February, 2003.
[6]. A.Q. Gill, "agile enterprise architecture modelling: Evaluating the applicability and integration of six modelling standards," Information and Software Technology, vol. 67, pp. 196-206, November 2015.
]7[. راضی، علی، رضایی، رضا، یزدان پناه، احمد علی، "مدل سازی معماری سازمانی چابک: ارزیابی کاربردپذیری شش استاندارد مدل سازی بر مبنای چارچوب ملی معماری سازمانی ایران"، دو فصلنامه علمی فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات ایران، شماره های 47 و 48، 105_ 135، تهران، بهار و تابستان 1400.
[8]. Scott W. Ambler. Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for extreme Programming and the Unified Process , Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2002,
[10]. S. Yamamoto, Q. Zhia, Z. Zhoua, “Aspect Analysis towards ArchiMate Diagrams,” Procedia Computer Science., vol. 159, pp. 973-980, 2019.
[11]. F. Hasić, J. Vanthienen, “Complexity metrics for DMN decision models,” Computer Standards & Interfaces., vol. 65, pp. 15-37, July, 2019.
[12]. Scott W. Ambler. Agile Enterprise Architecture, 2021,
[13]. R. Pichler, Agile Product Management with Scrum: Creating Products that Customers Love. New York: Addison-Wesley Professional; 1st edition, 2010.
[14]. F. Gampfer, “Managing Enterprise Architecture in Agile Environments,” Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), Gesellschaft für Informatik, 2018, Bonn.
[15]. C. Finkelstein, Enterprise Architecture for Integration: Rapid Delivery Methods and Technologies (Artech House Mobile Communications Library). Artech House Print on Demand; 1st edition, 2006.
[16]. P. Clements et al, 2th Ed., Documenting Software Architectures Views and Beyond. United States of America: Pearson, 2011.
[17]. J. Patton, P. Economy, User Story Mapping: Discover the Whole Story, Build the Right Product. O'Reilly Media; 1st edition, 2014.
[18] M.Z., Muehlen, M. Indulska, G. Kamp, "Business Process and Business Rule Modeling Languages for Compliance Management: A Representational Analysis," in Research and Practice in Information Technology: The Twenty-Sixth International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, ER 2007, Auckland, New Zealand, November 5-9, 2007.
[19]. W., Wei, M., Indulska, S., Sadiq, “Guidelines for Business Rule Modeling Decisions,” Journal of Computer Information Systems., vol. 58, Issue 4, pp. 363-373, 2018.
[20]. M.z, Muehlen, M., Indulska, “Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: A representational analysis,” Information Systems., vol. 35, Issue 4, pp. 379–390, June, 2010.
[21]. H. Herbst, G. Knolmayer, T. Myrach, M. Schlesinger, “THE SPECIFICATION OF BUSINESS RULES: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED METHODOLOGIES,” Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle., pp. 29-46, September, 1994.
[22]. OMG, Decision Model and Notation 1.4 (DMN), 2022,
[23]. E. Bazhenova, F. Zerbato, B. Oliboni, M. Weske, “From BPMN process models to DMN decision models,” Information Systems., vol. 83, pp. 69-88, July, 2019.
[24]. M. Häußler, S. Esser, A. Borrmann, “Code compliance checking of railway designs by integrating BIM, BPMN and DMN,” Automation in Construction., vol. 121, January, 2021, 103427.
[25]. I. Essefi, H. Rahmouni, M. Ladeb, “Integrated privacy decision in BPMN clinical care pathways models using DMN,” Procedia Computer Science., vol. 196, pp. 509-516, 2022.
[26]. M.D. Leoni, P. Felli, M. Montali, “Integrating BPMN and DMN: Modeling and Analysis,” Journal on Data Semantics., vol. 10, pp. 165-188, June, 2021.
[27]. OMG, ArchiMate 3.2, 2022,
[28]. OMG, Unified Modeling Language 2.5 (UML), 2015,
[29]. OMG, Business Process Model and Notation 2.0.2 (BPMN), 2013,
[30]. G. Beydoun, G. Low, B. Henderson-Sellers, H. Mouratids, J.J. Gomez-Snaz, J. Pavon, C. Gonzalez-Perez, “FAML: a generic metamodel for MAS development,” IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., vol. 35, Issue 6, pp. 841–863, Nov-Dec 2009.
[31]. OMG, Service Oriented Architecture Modeling Language 1.0.1 (SoaML), 2012,
[32]. OMG, Business Motivation Model 1.3(BMM), 2015,
]33[. صمدی اوانسر، عسگر، مقدمه ای بر معماری سازمانی (ویژه مدیران)، دبیرخانه شورای عالی اطلاع رسانی، تهران، ایران، 1384.
[34]. I. Band, H. Jonkers, E. Proper, D. Quartel, M. Lankhorst and M. Turner, "Using the TOGAF® 9.1 Framework with the ArchiMate® 3.0 Modeling Language," The Open Group, AUGUST 25, 2017.
[35]. M. Pankowska, “Business Models in CMMN, DMN and ArchiMate language,” Procedia Computer Science., vol. 164, pp. 11-18, 2019.
[36]. IBM Rational Unified Process (RUP), Business Modeling Discipline: Artifact Overview: Business Rules, 2001,
[37]. P. Desfray, G. Raymond, Modeling Enterprise Architecture with TOGAF® A Practical Guide Using UML and BPMN. Morgan Kaufmann; 1st edition, 2014.
[38]. K. Figl, J. Mendling, G. Tokdemir, J. Vanthienend, “What we know and what we do not know about DMN,” Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures., vol. 13, No. 2, 2018.
[39]. A. Valencia-Parra, L. Parody, A.J. Varela-Vaca, I. Caballero, M.T. G´omez-L´opez, “DMN4DQ: When data quality meets DMN,” Decision Support Systems., vol. 141, February, 2021, 113450.
]40[. شمس علیئی، فریدون. مهجوریان، امیر و همکاران. چارچوب و روش شناسی معماری سازمانی ایران، نسخه 1، شورای اجرایی)عالی(فناوری اطلاعات کشور، کمیسیون توسعه دولت الکترونیکی، تهران، 1395، https://www.ieaf.ir/.
]41[. محمدی لرد، عبدالمحمود، فرآیندهای تحلیل شبکه‌ای (ANP) و سلسله مراتبی (AHP)به همراه معرفی نرم‌افزار Super Decision، تهران، انتشارات البرز فر دانش، 1388.
]42[. سرافرازی، اعظم، ایزدیار، صدیقه، حبیبی، آرش، تصمیم‌گیری چند معیاره فازی، تهران، انتشارات کتیبه گیل، 1393.
]43[. عطائی، محمد، تصمیم‌گیری چند معیاره، شاهرود، انتشارات دانشگاه صنعتی شاهرود، چاپ اول، 1389.
[44]. R., Attri, N., Dev, V., Sharma, “Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) approach: An Overview,” Research Journal of Management Sciences., vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 3-8, February 2013.