Language Communities in Enterprise Architecture Research - CiteSeerX

Language Communities in Enterprise Architecture Research Joachim Schelp

Robert Winter

University of St. Gallen Institute of Information Management Müller-Friedberg-Str. 8 CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland

University of St. Gallen Institute of Information Management Müller-Friedberg-Str. 8 CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland

[email protected]

[email protected]

ABSTRACT As a result of the rigor vs. relevance debate, researchers who focus on design research on organizational problems are beginning to focus on their research methodology’s rigor. One of the means to lever the standards is the explicit establishment of defined language communities. This paper investigates to what extent current design research focusing on organizational problems is satisfying the requirements to establish such language communities. As research on organizational problems in IS research is still a very broad field, this paper focuses on research on enterprise architecture (EA). It contributes a state of the art overview on EA research regarding the research methodology employed and their language community state. Results show that local language communities in EA research do exist, but still have to lever their standards—both regarding the quality of the language communities and the quality of the design research.

Categories and Subject Descriptors D.2.9 [Software Engineering]: Management, H.4.0 [Models and Principles]: Systems and Information Theory, K.6.1 [Management of Computing and Information Systems]: Project and People Management

General Terms Management, Documentation, Design, Theory

Keywords Design science, enterprise architecture, language communities

1. INTRODUCTION Although the debate about rigor vs. relevance within the IS research community is still ongoing [119], top tier IS journals like MISQ as well as conferences like the DESRIST series [112] indicate an increasing acceptance of design research approaches. However, discussions e.g. at the DESRIST2008 conference show that there are differences between US based researchers and nonUS based researchers about the importance of the IT artifact in design research results. While the IT artifact dominates in the US,

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. DESRIST'09, May 7-8, 2009, Malvern, PA, USA. Copyright 2009 ACM 978-1-60558-408-9/09/05...$5.00.

researchers from Europe consider organizational artifacts to be valuable design research results as well. A focus on organizational problems and non-IT artifacts is however problematic because a long term research perspective is required: Particularly the evaluation of organizational artifacts requires organizational changes in corporations. This results in longer research projects in order to observe changes and analyze problem-solving capabilities of design research results. When looking at the research process conducted at most universities, there is an obvious obstacle for performing such long term research: academic research often is driven by short term researchers’ interests, e.g. for conducting a Ph.D. thesis or by time and budget limitations of a research grant. For long lasting (organizational) research problems, therefore, multiple research projects are required. In order to re-use the results of a design research project in the long run and in order to increase the number of testable cases, Schelp and Winter [105] propose to set up language communities. This would address the problems of both contributing to the continuity of research projects and setting up a consistent knowledge base as proposed by Hevner et al. [55]. This paper investigates at what extent current design research focusing on organizational problems is satisfying the requirements to establish such language communities. As research on organizational problems in IS research is still a very broad field, this paper is focusing on research on enterprise architecture (EA), which often is done constructivist or in a design research style. The contribution of this paper is a state of the art overview on EA research a) regarding the research methodology employed and b) regarding the existence and status of language communities. The results can be used to reflect the research methodology and to actively increase the consistency of own research in EA with one of the language communities in order to foster the validation process according to Hevner et al. [55, 56]. The paper is organized as follows: After a brief overview of design research and language communities (section 2), some contributions in EA research are selected which may constitute a language community (section 3). The selected groups of contributions are discussed and analyzed in section 4, followed by conclusions and implications in section 5.

2. DESIGN SCIENCE AND LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES Due to the usage of mature social science research methodology and a standardization of the research process, behavioral research was successful in establishing high rigor standards. In the rigor vs.

relevance debate, however, behavioral research results are questioned regarding their relevance. Design research, on the other hand, is primarily focusing on relevance or utility: Following Hevner et al. [57], the artifacts to be developed in design research have to solve problems which are identified in a problem space defined by individuals, organizations, and technology. Whereas behavioral theories are developed to explain or predict problem phenomena, design research artifacts are constructed to influence such phenomena—or in short, to solve real-world problems. According to the widely cited contribution of March and Smith [82] the most important design research artifact types are constructs, models, methods, and instantiations. Constructs define the language to describe the terminology of both problem and solution, which are then described in form of models using these constructs with having the solution process described by methods and the result implemented as instantiations.1 Within the rigor vs. relevance debate, however, design research is alleged to focus on relevance only and to have developed no research rigor at all. The current state of the debate shows that design researchers are addressing this issue [119]. At least from design research perspective as laid out by Hevner & March [55] both the behavioral and the design science paradigm are two sides of the same coin. This is not only reflected in detecting the problem by behavioral science (explanation and prediction) and contributing new artifacts to solve it by design research. Hevner et al. [54, 55] describe an information systems research cycle which includes contributions from both behavioral and design research, both adding to the knowledge base. For further refinements of both theories and artifacts, they make use of existing foundations (theories, frameworks, instruments, constructs, models, methods, and instantiations) and methodologies (data analysis techniques, formalisms, measures, and validation criteria) [57]. In order for a result to be used for a problem solution or to be added to the knowledge base, Hevner et al. [55, 57] require an assessment regarding usability in the context of the problem as well as their contribution to the scientific knowledge base. Due to the diversity of the underlying goals, procedures, quality requirements, research paradigms, and epistemological foundations, however, the combination of behavioral and design research results is not straightforward—especially when taking into account the diversity in the underlying assumptions, which is broad as stated by Niehaves [86]. The analysis by Schelp and Winter [105] shows that the establishment of long term language communities can serve as a solution to this problem by enabling the usage of mutual results in the long run. Becker et al. [19] describe the requirements necessary for the establishment of a language community. Foremost it is done by documenting the research process in a way that within the language community in question, a consensus of experts on the common understanding of this process can be achieved. Becker et al. develop a list of requirements which have to be met in order to establish a consensus on the scientific process. These requirements are: [19] 1

Following Hevner et al. [57] we define methods as part of the knowledge base foundations “used in the develop/build phase of a research study”[57, p. 80], i.e. as one of the results of a previous research process; whereas methodologies „provide guidelines used in the justify/evaluate phase“[57, p. 80] and characterize the research methodology employed.

(a) Completeness of the explication of the evaluation basis. (b) Documentation of research results in a way that they can be understood by “a well-informed and willing one”. (c) Selection of a research methodology. (d) Application of the research methodology, i.e. correctness of the application of the research methodology. (e) Research goal and discussing the achievement of the objectives. (f)

Overall assurance of consistency concerning the chosen epistemological and ontological positions. This requires the chosen objectives, methodology, its application and documentation to be consistent with these positions.

A common understanding is reached when accepted processes are applied. The acceptance is a result of the ongoing discourse of experts within the language community. These requirements are the skeleton for the research methodology and—based on this— for the research design. These criteria are of special importance regarding the design research process. Hevner et al. [57] propose seven guidelines aimed at ensuring a proper design research process: (1) Design as an artifact (2) Problem relevance (3) Design evaluation (4) Research contribution (5) Research rigor (6) Design as a search process (7) Communication of research The construction of the artifact in design research requires the establishment of a language community in order to reach consensus between researchers and practitioners. The language community requirements therefore contribute to the identification of both the research object and the resulting artifacts (1, 2), the development of the artifact (1, 4, 5, 6), communication (7), and especially evaluation (3): Hevner et al. [57] consider a design artifact to be “complete and effective when it satisfies the requirements and constraints of the problem it was meant to solve”, requiring the consensus of researchers if a subjectivist epistemological position is assumed. In their analysis Schelp and Winter [105] find indicators for the existence of language communities for reference modeling [e.g. 13, 40, 69, 80, 81, 90, 93, 102] and for method engineering [e.g. 25, 26, 61, 69, 89, 100]. Those research streams however are focused on methodology explicitly. The question remains open whether such language communities can be found in nonmethodological research as well.

3. ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE As laid out in the introduction, a research field focusing on organizational problems is selected where IT artifacts are—mostly— not part of the design research solution. In this paper Enterprise Architecture (EA) is selected. Following the architecture definition of ANSI/IEEE Std 1471-2000 EA can be understood as the “fundamental organization of a government agency or a corporation, either as a whole, or together with partners, suppliers and / or customers (`extended enterprise´), or in part (e.g. a division, a department, etc.) as well as [...] the principles governing its design

EA Research Group

Year

EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland [16, 76, 114, 115, 116, 117]

2002-

CO/ CS

Telematica Institute, The Netherlands [14, 65, 66, 67, 77, 80, 94, 118]

2003-

CO/ CS

University of St. Gallen, Switzerland [e.g. 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 53, 72, 73, 89, 98, 102, 103, 104, 106, 120, 122, 123]

2003-

CO/ CS/ EM

TU Berlin, Germany [1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11]

2004-

CO/ CS

KTH Stockholm, Sweden [41, 42, 46, 47, 62, 63, 64, 68, 74, 75, 85, 96, 108]

2004-

CO/ CS

TU Munich, Germany [27, 28, 29, 43, 59, 83]

2005-

CO/ CS/ EM

TU of Lisbon, Portugal [39, 40, 81]

2007-

CO/ CS

DR Guidelines met

Methodology

Infrastructure

Software

Integration

Organization

Architectural Levels

Explication for LC

58, 70, 71, 84, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 109, 111, 113]. Three approaches are related to a practitioner community contribution (namely The Open Group Architecture Framework, TOGAF [110]) or to governmental approaches (Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, FEAF [30, 31, 32], its variants [e.g. 34, 45], or the Department of Defense Architecture Framework, DoDAF [37]). In his comparative study on EA terminology Schönherr [107] included both academic and practitioner sources. But most of the practitioner contributions are weak regarding the definition of terminology, lack an explication of an underlying meta-model and/or methodology [107]. Therefore we excluded practitioner contributions from this analysis (with the exception of those showing explicit definitions or by referencing defined terminology sets as defined e.g. in TOGAF, FEAF, or DoDAF). Albeit constituting a distinct EA research framework, the approach of Bernus et al. [21, 22, 23] has been excluded because their EA understanding is too different from the common understanding of the remaining approaches.

Strategy

Procedure Model

Language/MetaModel

and evolution”[120, p. 1]. EA is positioned ‘between’ business and IT and has to serve both; and it is regarded as a mechanism for contributing to agility, consistency, compliance, and efficiency. Therefore literature is screened in order to detect promising candidates which may constitute a language community. The search includes selected English language and German language journals and conferences (including AIS affiliated conferences, GI conferences, EA conferences and workshops) as well as IEEE and ACM literature portals. Thirty-three distinct EA research approaches are identified which are documented in 94 publications—including several working reports from selected research group web sites. Publications which focus on technical aspects only (e.g. interface design, implementing web services, or protocols) are not included in the result set. Out of 33 approaches to EA, 29 are documented in a single publication or two publications only, are from a single author [therefore not constituting a community], and/or cannot be related consistently to any other publication [among others 15, 20, 24, 33, 35, 36, 38, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51,

Table 1: Selected Enterprise Architecture Frameworks Although the search process is still ongoing,2 the preliminary results serve as a good starting point for the investigation at hand. 2

Besides continuing the general EA literature search, members of the identified research clusters are contacted to get a deeper insight into their underlying research methodology and into addi-

Table 1 exhibits the EA understanding as shown in the cumulative publications of seven research groups. The first column displays tional literature on their approaches not yet published. E.g. the Swedish group provided rich material, which is under analysis now.

the origin (mostly University) of the researchers and references to their publications. The first year of publication is displayed in the second column. Column three indicates the existence of a defined language or meta-model for EA descriptions. In cells marked with a filled dot ( ), a language or meta-model is described or at least sketched in one of the referenced publications. A bold circle ( ) indicates that the references at least indicate its existence. If no hints can be found, this is indicated by a fine circle ( ). The same notation applies for subsequent columns: The fourth column indicates the existence of a procedure model for EA management. Columns five to nine indicate the architectural scope. The tenth column indicates the methodology documented in the publications which is conceptual (CO), based on case studies (CS), based on surveys (EM), or a combination of those. The eleventh column indicates, if none ( ), some ( ), or all ( ) of the six explication rules required for constituting a language community according to Becker et al. [19] are met. The minimum requirement for indicating “some ( )” is that the explication of (parts of) the meta-model has to be documented, which meets requirements (a) and (b) and is a prerequisite to address the remaining requirements. The twelfth column indicates the same for meeting the design research guidelines outlined by Hevner et al. [57]. The rows are arranged in chronological order (of the earliest publication). The systemic enterprise architecture ‘methodology´ (SEAM) is the result of the ongoing research project developed at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland. SEAM is rooted in systems theory and reflects previous work on EA. The approach’s epistemological foundation is constructivist, it includes an ontology defining its terminology by re-using previous standards, and it includes a method to describe the procedure model. The origins are conceptual and an application of the method in a governmental setting is described in [117]. The ArchiMate project is a Dutch research initiative comprising participants both from academia and practice. It is led by the Telematica Institute with links to the University of Twente and the University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. ArchiMate is a method to manage and communicate EA issues between the different involved stakeholders. It is based on an analysis of existing architecture frameworks and uses views and viewpoints as its core method, closely following the IEEE 1471 standard [60]. The derived modeling language is clearly defined and is used to develop an EA toolset. A procedure model is developed in order to employ a modeling language and a modeling tool in EA communication and EA decision processes. Its roots being conceptual, several case studies have been documented [e.g. in 77] which show the applicability of the different aspects of the method. Although modeling language, procedure model, and tool are specified in several publications, explicit references regarding the epistemological position or the consideration of the design research guidelines cannot be found. At the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, the Business Engineering Framework was developed since the early 1990ies [52, 87, 88, 90, 91]. While the focus was on business process engineering in the beginning, in 2003 publications start to extend the Business Engineering Framework to EA. Explicit meta-models [92] and procedure models exist. The method is developed using conceptual, case study and empirical foundations. The method components are developed in cooperation with companies which are employing the resulting method chunks. Although this process is described and documented [e.g. in 7, 10, 17, 18, 52, 73, 106, 121, 124], there is no explicit publication which positions the

method component development from the viewpoint of the design research guidelines: There are some publications which position method components regarding the design research cycle, but the full cycle or a complete method passing the full cycle cannot be found (with the exception of several German language PhD thesis on parts of the methodology). The epistemological positioning is made explicit in several publications. A toolset based on the metamodel is developed and currently deployed in at least one company. Another EA approach has been proposed by a group at the Technical University (TU) of Berlin, Germany. Based in the enterprise application integration (EAI) discussion, they develop a method to establish an EA model. The documentation of the meta-model and the procedure model in the publications is spare, but the metamodel is used to develop an EA modeling tool. The development approach is conceptual, but uses case studies and some surveys as well. Neither epistemological work regarding the language community requirements nor a discussion regarding the design research process can be found. At the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, Sweden, an EA framework has been developed which is rooted in views and viewpoints. The language work is made explicit very thoroughly, as well as the procedure model. Most of the publications are conceptual with extensive literature analysis, but case studies can be found as well. The epistemological foundations are not discussed explicitly, neither is the design research stance. Two recent approaches are originated from the Technical University (TU) of Munich, Germany, and the Technical University (TU) of Lisbon, Portugal. The Munich approach is stemming from a more technical perspective on complex application landscapes which evolves into an EA perspective. A meta-model, but no procedure model is defined. The meta-model is implemented by means of a system cartography tool. In contrast to the other groups, the Munich group’s tool as an IS artifact is playing a major role within their research work. It is used in case studies which are complemented by some surveys from which EA patterns are derived. Compared to the other approaches, the EA scope is targeted to a more technical audience. Hints regarding the epistemological or design research methodological position cannot be found. Finally the Lisbon approach is to be mentioned, although it is quite different from the others because it is focusing on information systems architecture and it is still in its early stages. But as it is sketched in [39, 40], the Lisbon group is also focusing on EA. A meta-model is in its early stages, but a procedure model is not mentioned. The research work is conceptual and based on case studies. Hints regarding an explication of the epistemological or design research methodological position, however, cannot be found yet.

4. ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORKS The seven approaches show a range of initial through mature indicators to constitute language communities as described in section 2. With the set of publications from a group, the terminology has been widely standardized. Discussions with representatives from some groups show that glossaries are defined or are currently in the development stage in some groups. Some deviations in terminology between individual publications of a group can be assigned to the progress of knowledge gained in the ongo-

ing research process, some minor deviations to the usual clutter introduced by review processes forcing the authors to apply e.g. terminology changes. Regarding the scope of language, most groups have their EA language (i.e. architectural layers, elements included in models, relationships etc.) defined, some to an extent that a corresponding tool could be developed. Regarding the requirements to constitute a language community, therefore, there are indicators that criterions (a) and (b) are met by all groups. A proper selection of a research methodology can be assumed to be done by most (criterion [c]). However, the evaluation of a group’s ability to enable tests e.g. on correctness (criterion [d]) requires additional work. Having these criterions defined in a (research) meta-model, which is the case e.g. with [52, 92], is an important step towards meeting criterions [e+f]. In the analyzed literature, only the St. Gallen group makes explicit references to such a (research) meta-model which is linked to the Business Engineering research framework in their case. As shown in section 2, the criterions as proposed by Becker et al. [19] give support in contributing to the design research guidelines as proposed by Hevner et al. [57]. Due to the fact that only a small subset of the publications has an explicit discussion of the guidelines or equivalent considerations, there is room for improvement.

and one of the Swiss groups). Furthermore current discussions between these groups show that their standards regarding the explication of the design research process are converging—thus raising the bar for others in EA research: In contrast to these groups, individual EA publications are falling short of setting up language communities of their own. On the other side, however, it is made easier for individuals or new groups to attach to the developing language communities because more information on required elements of a language community and on the design research process becomes available. The discussions at DESRIST 2008 show that in particular within European research groups there is the desire to apply design research processes to organizational problems—even if no IT artifact is part of the solution. Previous publications in EA research exhibit gaps regarding the rigor of the research process. The ongoing debate [112, 119] indicates that this aspect is going to be addressed more thoroughly.

6. REFERENCES [1]

5. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK All analyzed approaches are constructing EA frameworks comprising EA description languages; some are including procedure models for EA management as well. The research methodology employed is essentially design research. Both meta-models and procedure models define an important part of the terminology used in EA research projects. At least six of the seven approaches covered in this study, are defining their language with sufficient maturity to make it adaptable by others. Although most of the groups are hardly meeting all of the criteria defined by Becker et al. [19], they constitute local language communities. In order to further develop their approaches, it is necessary to include the research methodology into their meta-models and terminologies. The research framework used in this paper, linking requirements for language communities and design research guidelines, can be used to compare existing research approaches to a selected field and to highlight intersections and gaps both in research content and research methodology. A more detailed application to the state of the art in EA research is part of the ongoing research work on research methodology. It is notable that some of the research groups focusing on EA are moving toward a mutual understanding.3 The major players are increasingly interacting at conferences, in joint program committees, and editorial groups, which can be observed e.g. at the TEAR (trends on enterprise architecture) workshop series [5, 78, 79]. Personal interchanges between some research groups are developing since 2008 (esp. between the Dutch, Swedish, German

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7] 3

In [107] Schönherr can be interpreted contradictory to this conclusion. In his study he included practitioner (“pragmatic sources”) and technology driven EA publications in addition to academic contributions, which resulted in a different picture: a lack in common terminology. When restricting the analysis to the academic publications and grouping them as it is done here, a conversion within this subset becomes visible.

[8]

Aier, S., EAI und Nachhaltigkeit von Architekturen – Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie. In Schelp, J. and Winter, R. eds. Auf dem Weg zur Integration Factory – Proceedings der DW2004 – Data Warehousing und EAI (DW2004), Nov 4-5 2004, Friedrichshafen, Germany, Physica, Heidelberg, 41–58. Aier, S. Integrationstechnologien als Basis einer nachhaltigen Unternehmensarchitektur – Abhängigkeiten zwischen Organisation und Informationstechnologie. Gito, Berlin, 2007. Aier, S., Ahrens, M., Stutz, M. and Bub, U., Deriving SOA Evaluation Metrics in an Enterprise Architecture Context. In Di Nitto, E. and Ripeanu, M. eds. 2nd International SeMSoC Workshop – Business Oriented Aspects concerning Semantics and Methodologies in Service-Oriented Computing at the 5th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2007), Vienna, Austria, Springer, Berlin et al., 224–233. Aier, S. and Dogan, T., Indikatoren zur Bewertung der Nachhaltigkeit von Unternehmensarchitekturen. In Ferstl, O. K., Sinz, E. J., Eckert, S. and Isselhorst, T. eds. Wirtschaftsinformatik 2004 – eEconomy, eGovernment, eSociety, Physica, Heidelberg, 607–626. Aier, S., Johnson, P. and Schelp, J., TEAR 2008 Introduction. In Aier, S., Johnson, P. and Schelp, J. eds. PreProceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2008), Dec 1, 2008, in conjunction with the 6th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC08), Sydney, Australia, Sydney, Australia. Aier, S., Kurpjuweit, S., Saat, J. and Winter, R. Enterprise Architecture Design as an Engineering Discipline. AIS Transactions on Enterprise Systems, 1 (1), 2009. 36-43. Aier, S., Kurpjuweit, S., Schmitz, O., Schulz, J., Thomas, A. and Winter, R., An Engineering Approach to Enterprise Architecture Design and its Application at a Financial Service Provider. In Loss, P., Nüttgens, M., Turowski, K. and Werth, D. eds. Modellierung betrieblicher Informationssysteme (MobIS 2008), Gesellschaft für Informatik, Saarbrücken, 115–130. Aier, S., Riege, C. and Winter, R. Classification of Enter-

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17] [18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

prise Architecture Scenarios – An Exploratory Analysis. Enterprise Modelling And Information Systems Architectures, 3 (1), 2008. 14–23. Aier, S. and Schönherr, M. (eds.). Enterprise Application Integration – Flexibilisierung komplexer Unternehmensarchitekturen, 2 ed. Gito, Berlin, 2007. Aier, S. and Schönherr, M., Evaluating Integration Architectures – A Scenario-Based Evaluation of Integration Technologies. In Draheim, D. and Weber, G. eds. Proceedings of the VLDB Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Application Architecture (TEAA 2005), Aug 28, 2005, Trondheim, Norway, Revised Selected Papers, Springer, Berlin et al., 2–14. Aier, S. and Schönherr, M., Integrating an Enterprise Architecture using Domain Clustering. In Lankhorst, M. M. and Johnson, P. eds. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2007) in conjunction with the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2007), Jun 6, 2007, St. Gallen, Switzerland, Via Nova Architectura, Enschede, The Netherlands, 23–30. Aier, S. and Winter, R., ADOben as an Engineering Toolset for Enterprise Transformation. In Proper, E. ed. 1st Workshop on Practice-driven Research on Enterprise Transformation (PRET'09), Amsterdam, Springer, Berlin et al. Aier, S. and Winter, R., Fundamental Patterns for Enterprise Integration. In Matthes, F. and Ernst, A. eds. Patterns in Enterprise Architecture Management (PEAM2009), Kaiserslautern, Germany, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn. Arbab, F., de Boer, F., Bonsangue, M., Lankhorst, M., Proper, E. and van der Torre, L. Integrating Architectural Models. Symbolic, Semantic and Subjective Models in Enterprise Architecture. Enterprise Modelling And Information System Architectures, 2 (1), 2007. 40–56. Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Chastek, G., Donohe, P. and Preuzzi, F. The Architecture Based Design Method. Working Report, no. CMU/SEI-2000-TR-001 ESC-TR-2000-001, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2000. Balabko, P. and Wegmann, A. Systemic classification of concern-based design methods in the context of enterprise architecture. Information Systems Frontiers, 8 (2), 2006. 115–131. Baumöl, U. Methodenkonstruktion für das Business-ITAlignment. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 48 (05), 2006. 314–322. Baumöl, U. Situative Methodenkonstruktion für die organisationale Veränderung, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, 2005. Becker, J., Holten, R., Knackstedt, R. and Niehaves, B. Forschungsmethodische Positionierung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik – epistemologische, ontologische und linguistische Leitfragen. Arbeitsbericht, no. 93, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, 2003. Berbner, R., Grollius, T., Repp, N., Heckmkann, O., Ortner, E. and Steinmetz, R., An approach for the Management of Service-oriented Architecture (SoA) based Application Systems. In Desel, J. and Frank, U. eds. Proceedings of the Workshop Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, Oct 24-25, 2005, Klagenfurt, Austria, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, 208–221. Bernus, P. and Nemes, L., A Framework to Define a Generic Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology. In

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30] [31] [32] [33]

[34]

[35]

Minutes of the Eighth Workshop Meeting, IFAC/IFIP Task Force on Architectures for Enterprise Integration, Jun 1112, 1994, Vienna, Austria. Bernus, P., Nemes, L. and Schmidt, G. (eds.). Handbook on Enterprise Architecture Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2003. Bernus, P. and Schmidt, G. Architecture of Information Systems. In Bernus, P., Mertins, K. and Schmidt, G. eds. Handbook on Information Systems, 2 ed., Springer, Berlin, 2006, 1–9. Bleistein, S. J., Aurum, A., Cox, K. and Ray, P. K., Linking Requirements Goal Modeling Techniques to Strategic eBusiness Patterns and Best Practice. In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Workshop on Requirements Engineering (AWRE 2003), Dec 4-5, 2003, Sydney, Australia, University of Technology, Sydney, 13–23. Brinkkemper, S. Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38, 1996. 275–280. Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M. and Harmsen, F., Assembly Techniques for Method Engineering. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering: 10th International Conference (CAiSE'98), Jun 1998, Pisa, Italy, Springer, Berlin et al., 381–400. Buckl, S., Ernst, A. M., Lankes, J. and Matthes, F. Enterprise Architecture Management Pattern Catalog München, 2008. Buckl, S., Ernst, A. M., Lankes, J., Schneider, K. and Schweda, C. M., A Pattern based Approach for Constructing Enterprise Architecture Management Information Models. In Oberweis, A., Weinhardt, C., Gimpel, H., Koschmider, A., Pankratius, V. and Schnizler, B. eds. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI2007), Karlsruhe, Germany, Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, 145–162. Buckl, S., Ernst, A. M., Matthes, F. and Schweda, C. M., An Information Model for Landscape Management – Discussing Temporality Aspects. In Aier, S., Johnson, P. and Schelp, J. eds. Pre-Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2008), Dec 1, 2008, in conjunction with the 6th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC08), Sydney, Australia, Sydney, Australia. C. I. O. Council. Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework Version 1.1, 1999. C. I. O. Council. Federal Enterprise Architecture Reference Model Maintenance Process, 2005. C. I. O. Council. A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, 2001. Chung, H. M. and McLeod, G., Enterprise architecture, implementation, and infrastructure management. In Sprague, R. H., Jr. ed. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'02), Jan 7-10 2002, Hawaii, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1256–1257. CITC-EASC. California Enterprise Architecture Framework, July 2005, Release 1.0 Final. White Paper, California Information Technology Council Enterprise Architecture and Standards Committee, Office of the State Chief Information Officer (SCIO), Sacramento CA, USA, 2005. Cloutier, R. and Verma, D. Applying Pattern Concepts to Enteprise Architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture,

2 (2), 2006. 34–50. [36] Coggins, C. Department of the Interior: A Practical Approach to Enterprise Architecture – Part 2. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 2 (2), 2006. 51–61. [37] Department of Defense. DoD Architecture Framework, Version 1.5, Volume I: Definitions and Guidelines, Department of Defense, 2007. [38] Dreyfus, D. and Iyer, B., Enterprise Architecture: A Social Network Perspective. In Sprague, R. H. ed. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06), January 4-7 2006, Hawaii, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 178a. [39] e Vasconcelos, A. F. F. C., de Sousa, P. M. M. V. A. and Tribolet, J. M. N. S., Information System Architecture Evaluation: From Software to Enterprise Levels Approaches. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation (ECITE 2005). [40] e Vasconcelos, A. F. F. C., Pereira, C., de Sousa, P. M. M. V. A. and Tribolet, J. M. N. S., Open Issues On Information System Architecture. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2004), Portugal. [41] Ekstedt, M. Enterprise Architecture as Means for IT Management. EARP Working Paper, no. 2004-02, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Department of Industrial Information and Control Systems, Stockholm, Sweden, 2004. [42] Ekstedt, M., Johnson, P., Lindström, Å., Gammelgård, M., Johansson, E., Plazaola, L., Silva, E. and Liliesköld, J., Consistent Enterprise Software System Architecture for the CIO – A Utility-Cost Based Approach. In Sprague, R. H., Jr. ed. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'04), Jan 5-8 2004, Hawaii, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1–10. [43] Ernst, A. M., Lankes, J., Schweda, C. M. and Wittenburg, A., Tool Support for Enterprise Architecture Management Strenghts and Weaknesses. In Proceedings of the Tenth IEEE International Conference on Enterprise Computing (EDOC2006), Hong Kong, China, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 13–22. [44] Fatolahi, A. and Shams, F. An investigation into applying UML to the Zachman framework. Information Systems Frontiers, 8 (2), 2006. 133–143. [45] Findlay, D. Implementing Enterprise Architecture in the Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Organization. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 2 (2), 2006. 28–33. [46] Gammelgård, M., Lindström, Å. and Simonsson, M., A reference model for IT management responsibilities. In Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research Workshop. [47] Gammelgård, M., Simonsson, M. and Lindström, Å. A reference model for IT management responsibilities applied to evaluation of enterprise architecture scenarios. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 5, 2007. [48] Garg, A., Kazman, R. and Chen, H.-M. Interface descriptions for enterprise architecture. Science of Computer Programming, 61 (1), 2006. 4–15. [49] Goethals, F. G., Snoeck, M., Lemahieu, W. and Vandenbulcke, J. Management and enterprise architecture click: The FAD(E)E framework. Information Systems Frontiers, 8 (2), 2006. 67–79. [50] Greefhorst, D., Koning, H. and van Vliet, H. The many

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54] [55] [56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

faces of architectural descriptions. Information Systems Frontiers, 8 (2), 2006. 103–113. Groot, R., Smits, M. and Kuipers, H., A Method to Redesign the IS Portfolios in Large Organisations. In Sprague, R. H. ed. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'05), Jan 3-6 2005, Hawaii, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 223a. Gutzwiller, T. A. Das CC RIM-Referenzmodell für den Entwurf von betrieblichen, transaktionsorientierten Informationssystemen. Physica, Heidelberg, 1994. Hafner, M. and Winter, R., Processes for Enterprise Application Architecture Management. In Sprague, R. H., Jr. ed. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'08), Jan 7-10, 2008, Waikoloa, HI, USA, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 396 (391–310). Hevner, A. R. Design Research: Rigorous and Relevant (Keynote), 2007. Hevner, A. R. and March, S. T. The Information Systems Research Cycle. Computer, 36 (11), 2003. 111–113. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J. and Ram, S. Design Science in Information Systems Research. In King, J. L. and Lyytinen, K. eds. Information Systems: The State of the Field, Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2006, 191–232. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J. and Ram, S. Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28 (1), 2004. 75–105. Hjort-Madsen, K., Enterprise Architecture Implementation and Management: A Case Study on Interoperability. In Sprague, R. H. ed. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06), Jan 4-7 2006, Hawaii, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 71c. Holscke, O., Närman, P., Rocha, F. W., Eriksson, E. and Schönherr, M., Using Enterprise Architecture Models and Bayesian Belief Networks for Failure Impact Analysis. In Aier, S., Johnson, P. and Schelp, J. eds. Pre-Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2008), Dec 1, 2008, in conjunction with the 6th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC08), Sydney, Australia, Sydney, Australia. IEEE. IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software Intensive Systems (IEEE Std 14712000). IEEE Std., no. 1471-2000, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2000. Johannesson, P. and Perjons, E. Design principles for process modelling in enterprise application integration. Inf. Syst., 26 (3), 2001. 165–184. Johnson, P. and Ekstedt, M. Enterprise Architecture – Models and Analyses for Information Systems Decision Making. Studentlitteratur, 1 ed., Pozkal, 2007. Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M., Silva, E. and Plazaola, L., Using Enterprise Architecture for CIO Decision-Making: On the Importance of Theory. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research, 1–10. Johnson, P., Lagerström, R., Närman, P. and Simonsson, M., Extended Influence Diagrams for Enterprise Architectural Analysis. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Annual Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 1–10.

[65] Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., van Buuren, R., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Bonsangue, M. and van der Torre, L. Concepts for Modelling Enterprise Architectures. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13 (3), 2004. 257–287. [66] Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M. M., ter Doest, H. W. L., Arbab, F., Bosma, H. and Wieringa, R. J. Enterprise architecture: Management tool and blueprint for the organisation. Information Systems Frontiers, 8 (2), 2006. 63–66. [67] Jonkers, H., van Buuren, R., Arbab, F., de Boer, F., Bonsangue, M., Bosma, H., ter Doest, H., Groenewegen, L., Scholten, J. G., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Iacob, M.-E., Janssen, W., Lankhorst, M., van Leeuwen, D., Proper, E., Stam, A., van der Torre, L. and van Zanten, G. V., Towards a Language for Coherent Enterprise Architecture Descriptions. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC'03), Washington, DC, USA, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 28. [68] Jonsson, N. and Simonsson, M., A Bridge between Practice and Research: Which Governance Vehicle Suits best the Purpose? In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on IS Management, Leadership and Governance (ECMLG'06), Jul 12-13, 2006, Paris, France, 1–10. [69] Karlsson, F., Ågerfalk, P. J. and Hjalmarsson, A., Method configuration with development tracks and generic project types. In The 6th CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in System Analysis and Design. [70] Kim, T.-Y., Lee, S., Kim, K. and Kim, C.-H. A modeling framework for agile and interoperable virtual enterprises. Computers in Industry, 57 (3), 2006. 204–217. [71] Kirchner, L., Cost Oriented Modelling of IT-Landscapes: Generic Language Concepts of a Domain Specific Language. In Desel, J. and Frank, U. eds. Proceedings of the Workshop Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, Oct 24-25, 2005, Klagenfurt, Austria, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, 166–179. [72] Klesse, M., Wortmann, F. and Schelp, J. Erfolgsfaktoren der Applikationsintegration. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 47 (4), 2005. 259–267. [73] Kurpjuweit, S. and Winter, R., Concern-oriented Business Architecture Engineering. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC'09), Mar 3-5, 2009, Honolulu, Hawaii, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA. [74] Lagerström, R. Analyzing System Maintainability using Enterprise Architecture Models. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 3 (4), 2007. 33-42. [75] Lagerström, R. and Johnson, P., Using Architectural Models to Predict the Maintainability of Enterprise Systems. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2008), Athens, Greece, 248-252. [76] Langenberg, K. and Wegmann, A. Enterprise Architecture: What Aspects is Current Research Targeting. Technical Reports in Computer and Communication Sciences, no. 200477, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Faculté I&C, School of Computer and Communication Sciences, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004. [77] Lankhorst, M. Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.

[78] Lankhorst, M. and Steen, M. W. A. (eds.). Proceedings of the First Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2006), Oct 16, 2006, Hong Kong, China, Hong Kong, 2006. [79] Lankhorst, M. M. and Johnson, P. (eds.). Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2007), Jun 6, 2007, St. Gallen, Switzerland Via Nova Architectura, Telematica Instituut, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2007. [80] Lankhorst, M. M., van Buuren, R., van Leeuwen, D., Jonkers, H. and ter Doest, H. Enterprise Architecture Modelling—The Issue of Integration. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 18 (4), 2004. 205–216. [81] Magalhaes, R., Zacarias, M. and Tribolet, J., Making Sense of Enterprise Architectures as Tools of Organizational SelfAwareness (OSA). In Lankhorst, M. M. and Johnson, P. eds. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2007) in conjunction with the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2007), Jun 6, 2007, St. Gallen, Switzerland, Via Nova Architectura, Enschede, The Netherlands, 61–70. [82] March, S. T. and Smith, G. F. Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems, 15 (4), 1995. 251–266. [83] Matthes, F., Wittenburg, A., Ernst, A. M., Lankes, J. and Schweda, C. M. Enterprise Architecture Management Tool Survey. Software Engineering for Business Information Systems (sebis) Ernst Denert-Stiftungslehrstuhl Chair for Informatics 19 TU München, München, 2005. [84] Moser, C. and Bayer, F., IT Architecture Management: A Framework for IT-Services. In Desel, J. and Frank, U. eds. Proceedings of the Workshop Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, Oct 24-25, 2005, Klagenfurt, Austria, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, 137–151. [85] Närman, P., Schönherr, M., Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M. and Chenine, M., Using Enterprise Architecture Models for System Quality Analysis. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2008), Munich, Germany, IEEE Computer Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 14-23. [86] Niehaves, B., On Epistemological Diversity in Design Science: New Vistas for a Design-Oriented IS Research? In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS2007), Dec 9-12, 2007, Montréal, Québec, Canada, Association for Information Systems (AIS), 1–13 (electronic version). [87] Österle, H. Business Engineering in the Information Age – Heading for New Processes. Springer, New York, 1995. [88] Österle, H., Brenner, W. and Hilbers, K. Unternehmensführung und Informationssystem – Der Ansatz des St. Galler Informationssystem-Managements. B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1992. [89] Österle, H. and Winter, R. Business Engineering. Springer, 2 ed., Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2003. [90] Österle, H. and Winter, R. (eds.). Business Engineering – Auf dem Weg zum Unternehmen des Informationszeitalters, 2 ed. Springer, Berlin et al., 2003. [91] Österle, H. and Winter, R. (eds.). Business Engineering – Auf dem Weg zum Unternehmen des Informationszeitalters Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, u.a., 2000. [92] Österle, H., Winter, R., Höning, F., Kurpjuweit, S. and Osl, P. Business Engineering: Core-Business-Metamodell. WISU

– Das Wirtschaftsstudium, 36 (2), 2007. 191–194. [93] Pavlak, A. Enterprise Architecture: Lesssons from Classical Architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 2 (2), 2006. 20–28. [94] Proper, H. A., Verrijn-Stuart, A. A. and Hoppenbrouwers, S. J. B. A., On utility-based selection of architecturemodelling concepts. In Hartmann, S. and Stumptner, M. eds. Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (CRPIT'43), Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 25–34. [95] Pulkkinen, M. and Hirvonen, A., EA Planning, Development and Management Process for Agile Enterprise Development. In Sprague, R. H., Jr. ed. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS'05) – Track 8, Jan 3-6 2005, Hawaii, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 223.223 (221–210). [96] Raderius, J., Närman, P. and Ekstedt, M., Assessing System Availability Using an Enterprise Architecture Analysis Approach. In Aier, S., Johnson, P. and Schelp, J. eds. PreProceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2008), Dec 1, 2008, in conjunction with the 6th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC08), Sydney, Australia, Sydney, Australia. [97] Richardson, G. L., Jackson, B. M. and Dickson, G. W. A Principles-Based Enterprise Architecture: Lessons from Texaco and Star Enterprise. MIS Quarterly, 14 (4), 1990. 385–403. [98] Riege, C. and Aier, S., A Contingency Approach to Enterprise Architecture Method Engineering. In Pre-Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2008), Dec 1, 2008, in conjunction with the 6th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC08), Sydney, Australia. [99] Rohloff, M., Framework and Reference for Architecture Design. In Proceedings of the 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2008), Toronto. [100] Rolland, C. and Prakash, N., A Proposal for ContextSpecific Method Engineering. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 Working Conference on Method Engineering, Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, Springer, Berlin et al., 191–207. [101] Rood, M. A., Enterprise architecture: definition, content, and utility. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, Apr 17-19 1994, Morgantown, WV, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 106–111. [102] Schelp, J. and Aier, S., Serviceorientierte Architekturen – Potentiale für eine nachhaltige Steigerung der Unternehmensagilität. In Dinter, B., Winter, R., Chamoni, P., Gronau, N. and Turowski, K. eds. Proceedings der DW2008, Oct 28-29, 2008, St. Gallen, Switzerland, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, 567–580. [103] Schelp, J. and Stutz, M. A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Measure the Value of Enterprise Architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 3 (4), 2007. 8–14. [104] Schelp, J. and Winter, R. Entwurf von Anwendungssystemen und Entwurf von Enterprise Services – Ahnlichkeiten und Unterschiede. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 50 (1), 2008. 6– 15.

[105] Schelp, J. and Winter, R., On the Interplay of Design Research and Behavioral Research—A Language Community Perspective. In Vaishanvi, V. and Baskerville, R. eds. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST2008), May 7-9, 2008, Westin, Buckhead, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 79–92. [106] Schelp, J. and Winter, R., Towards a Methodology for Service Construction. In Sprague, R. H. ed. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS'07), Jan 3-6 2006, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 64a (61-67). [107] Schönherr, M., Towards a Common Terminology in the Discipline of Enterprise Architecture. In Aier, S., Johnson, P. and Schelp, J. eds. Pre-Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2008), Dec 1, 2008, in conjunction with the 6th International Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC08), Sydney, Australia, 107–123. [108] Sommestad, T., Ekstedt, M. and Johnson, P., Combining defense graphs and enterprise architecture models for security analysis. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC 2008), Munich, Germany. [109] Spewak, S. H. and Tiemann, M. Updating the Enterprise Architecture Planning Model. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 2 (2), 2006. 11–19. [110] The Open Group. TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) Version 8.1 "Enterprise Edition", The Open Group, 2003. [111] Tyler, D. F. and Cathcart, T. P., A structured Method for Developing Agile Enterprise Architectures. In Verma, A. K. ed. Proceedings of the International Conference on Agile Manufacturing (ICAM 2006), July 19-20 2006, Norfolk, Virginia, USA, 1–8. [112] Vaishnavi, V. and Baskerville, R. (eds.). Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST2008), May 7-9, 2008, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, 2008. [113] Versteeg, G. and Bouwman, H. Business architecture: A new paradigm to relate business strategy to ICT. Information Systems Frontiers, 8 (2), 2006. 91–102. [114] Wegmann, A., On the systemic enterprise architecture methodology (SEAM). In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems 2003 (ICEIS 2003), Apr 23-26, 2003 Angers, France. [115] Wegmann, A. The Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology (SEAM) – Business and IT Alignment for Competitiveness. Technical Reports in Computer and Communication Sciences, no. 2002-65, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Faculté I&C, School of Computer and Communication Sciences, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2002. [116] Wegmann, A. Theory and practice behind the course designing enterprisewide IT systems. IEEE Transactions on Education, 47 (4), 2004. 490–496. [117] Wegmann, A., Regev, G. and Loison, B., Business and IT Alignment with SEAM. In Cox, K., Dubois, E., Pigneur, Y., Bleistein, S. J., Verner, J., Davis, A. M. and Wieringa, R. eds. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Re-

quirements Engineering for Business Need, and IT Alignment (REBNITA2005), Aug 29-30, 2005, Paris, France, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 74–84. [118] Wieringa, R. J. Competenties van de ICT-architect. Informatie, SDU, 2006 (48), 2006. 34-40. [119] Winter, R. Relevance and Rigour – What are Acceptable Standards and How are they Influenced? Wirtschaftsinformatik, 49 (5), 2007. 403–409. [120] Winter, R. and Fischer, R., Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Architecture. In Hung, P. C. K. ed. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW'06), Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2006), October 17 2006, Hong Kong, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1– 8 (CD-ROM). [121] Winter, R., Müller, J. and Gericke, A. Business Enginee

ring: der St. Galler Ansatz zum Veränderungsmanagement. OrganisationsEntwicklung, 27 (2), 2008. 40–47. [122] Winter, R. and Schelp, J., Enterprise Architecture Governance: The Need for a Business-to-IT Approach. In Liebrock, L. M. ed. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC2008), Mar 16-20, 2008, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 548–552. [123] Winter, R. and Schelp, J. Integrationsmanagement – Notwendigkeit und Gestaltung aus Controlling-Sicht. Zeitschrift für Controlling & Management, 50 (2 (Sonderheft)), 2006. 22–32. [124] Winter, R. and Schelp, J., Reference Modeling and Method Construction – A Design Science Perspective. In Liebrock, L. M. ed. Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC2006), Apr 23-27, 2006, Dijon, France, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 1561–1562.