Abstract
Enterprise architecture is a relatively young field. Many organiza-tions are still engaged in implementing and developing a fully mature enterprise architecture practice. In this paper we introduce an architecture maturity model that enables us to identify strong and weak points in an organization’s architecture practice and to consequently set priorities for improvement. The model distinguishes 18 factors that are relevant to developing an architectural practice. Each of these factors has its own maturity development path that is balanced against the maturity development paths of the other factors. In this respect, the model differs from other existing models that adhere to a generic 5-level approach. Two industrial case studies are presented to illustrate the use of the model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bucher, T., Fischer, R., Kurpjuweit, S., Winter, R.: Enterprise Architecture Analysis and Application - An Exploratory Study. In: EDOC workshop TEAR 2006, Hong Kong, Retrieved November 22, 2006, from tear2006.telin.nl. (2006)
Lankhorst, et al.: Enterprise Architecture at Work. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
CMMI: CMMISM for Systems Engineering, Software Engineering, Integrated Product and Process Development, and Supplier Sourcing (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1) Staged Representation; CMU/SEI-2002-TR-012; ESC-TR-2002-012 (2002)
Koomen, T., Pol, M.: Test Process Improvement, a practical step-by-step guide to structured testing. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1999)
GAO: A framework for assessing and improving enterprise architecture management (2003)
Appel, W.: Architecture Capability Assessment. In: Enterprise Planning & Architecture Strategies, vol. 4(7). METAGroup (2000)
METAgroup: Diagnostic for Enterprise Architecture, META Practice (2001)
NASCIO: NASCIO enterprise architecture maturity model (2003)
Westbrock, T.: Architecture Process Maturity Revisited and Revised. METAgroup Delta 2902 (2004)
Hartman, A., Sifonis, J., Kador, J.: Net Ready: Strategies for Success in the E-conomy. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)
Kaplan, R., Norton, D.: The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70(1), 71–79 (1992)
Martinsons, M., Davison, R., Tse, D.: The balanced scorecard: a foundation for the strategic management of information systems. Decision Support Systems 25, 71–88 (1999)
Schelp, J., Stutz, M.: A balanced scorecard approach to measure the value of enterprise architecture. In: Tear workshop (June 2007)
Wagter, R., van den Berg, M., Luijpers, L., van Steenbergen, M.: Dynamic Enterprise Architecture: how to make it work. Wiley, Hoboken (2001)
van den Berg, M., van Steenbergen, M.: Building an enterprise architecture practice. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)
van den Berg, M., van Steenbergen, M.: Niveaus van werken onder architectuur (Levels of architectural maturity). Informatie 45(2), 52–56 (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
van Steenbergen, M., van den Berg, M., Brinkkemper, S. (2008). A Balanced Approach to Developing the Enterprise Architecture Practice. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J., Cardoso, J. (eds) Enterprise Information Systems. ICEIS 2007. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 12. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88710-2_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88710-2_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-88709-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-88710-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)