Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Corey, S.M.: Learning from lectures vs. learning from readings. J. Educ. Psychol. 25(6), 459 (1934)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Silva, L., Balasubramaniam, D.: Controlling software architecture erosion: a survey. J. Syst. Softw. 85(1), 132–151 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fowler, M.: Patterns of enterprise application architecture. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McGill, R., Tukey, J.W., Larsen, W.A.: Variations of box plots. Am. Stat. 32(1), 12–16 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  33. McGovern, J.: A Practical Guide to Enterprise Architecture. Prentice Hall Professional, New Jersey (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Schalles, C.: Usability evaluation of modeling languages. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-00051-6

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tyree, J., Akerman, A.: Architecture decisions: demystifying architecture. IEEE software 2, 19–27 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Peter Hammar, Vahid Mojtahed, Daniel Oskarsson, and Björn Pelzer for participating in the pre-trial of the experiment and for suggesting valuable improvements. We also thank Teodor Sommestad for encouragement and comments on the research setup very early in the process. We would also like to express our gratitude to all the participating cadets at the Military Academy Karlberg, and to the R&D program of the Swedish Armed Forces for funding. The three anonymous reviewers also made comments which substantially improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FOI - Swedish Defence Research Agency, 164 90, Stockholm, Sweden

    Ulrik Franke & Mika Cohen

  2. FHS - Swedish Defence University, P.O. Box 27805, 115 93, Stockholm, Sweden

    Johan Sigholm

  3. SICS - Swedish Institute of Computer Science, P.O. Box 1263, 164 29, Kista, Sweden

    Ulrik Franke

Authors
  1. Ulrik Franke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mika Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johan Sigholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrik Franke.

Additional information

Communicated by Prof. Antonio Vallecillo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Franke, U., Cohen, M. & Sigholm, J. What can we learn from enterprise architecture models? An experiment comparing models and documents for capability development. Softw Syst Model 17, 695–711 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0535-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0535-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation