Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An AHP-based approach toward enterprise architecture analysis based on enterprise architecture quality attributes

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Enterprise Architecture (EA) as a discipline that manages large amount of models and information about different aspects of the enterprise, can support decision making on enterprise-wide issues. In order to provide such support, EA information should be amenable to analysis of various utilities and quality attributes. In this regard, we have proposed the idea of characterizing and using enterprise architecture quality attributes. And this paper provides a quantitative AHP-based method toward expert-based EA analysis. Our method proposes a step-by-step process of assessing quality attribute achievement of different scenarios using AHP. By this method, most suitable EA scenarios are selected according to prioritized enterprise utilities and this selection has an important affect on decision making in enterprises. The proposed method also introduces a data structure that contains required information about quality attribute achievement of different EA scenarios in enterprises. The stored asset can be used for further decision making and progress assessment in future. Sensitivity analysis is also part of the process to identify sensitive points in the decision process. The applicability of the proposed method is demonstrated using a practical case study.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Naeem T, Gorton I, Babar M et al (2005) A quality-driven systematic approach for architecting distributed software applications. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on software engineering (ICSE). St. Louis, USA, pp 244–253

  2. Armour F, Kaisler S, Liu S (1999) Building an enterprise architecture step by step. IEEE IT Professional 1(4): 31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boer F, Bonsangue M, Jacob J et al (2005) Enterprise architecture analysis with XML. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2005). vol 8. IEEE Computer Society Press, USA, pp 222b

  4. Buckl S, Matthes F, Schweda C (2009) Classifying enterprise architecture analysis approaches. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IFIP WG5. 8 Workshop on enterprise interoperability (IWEI’2009). Valencia, Spain, pp 66–79

  5. Buyukozkan G, Ruan D (2008) Evaluation of software development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. Math Comput Simul 77(5–6): 464–475

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Buyukyazici M, Sucu M (2003) The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes. Hacettepe J Math Stat 32: 65–73

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Davidsson P, Johansson S, Svahnberg M (2005) Using the analytic hierarchy process for evaluating multi-agent system architecture candidates. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on agent-oriented software engineering (AOSE), LNCS 3950. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 205–217

  8. Deng H (1999) Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Int J Approx Reason 21: 215–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council (1999) Federal enterprise architecture framework (FEAF). Version 1.1, Available at http://www.cio.gov/Documents/fedarch1.pdf. Last retrieved 21 May 2010

  10. Forman E, Gass S (2001) The analytic hierarchy process—an exposition. Oper Res 49(4): 469–486

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Frank U, Heise D, Kattenstroth H et al. (2008) Designing and utilizing business indicator systems within enterprise models-outline of a method. In: Proceedings of modeling business information systems conference (MobIS 2008). Saarbrucken, Germany, pp 89–105

  12. Harker P, Vargas L (1987) The theory of ratio scale estimation. Manag Sci 33(11): 1383–1403

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Hilliard R (2000) Impact assessment of IEEE 1471 on the open group architecture framework, Retrieved from http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8/procs/p1471-togaf-impact.pdf

  14. Jacob M, Jonkers H (2006) Quantitative analysis of enterprise architectures. In: Konstantas D, Bourrieres J, Leonard M, Boudjlida N (eds) Interoperability of enterprise software and applications. Springer, Geneva, pp 239–252

    Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson P, Johansson E, Sommestad T et al. (2007a) A tool for enterprise architecture analysis. In: Proceedings of the 11 th IEEE enterprise distributed object computing conference. IEEE Computer Society, USA, pp 142–156

  16. Johnson P, Lagerström R, Närman P et al (2007b) Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams. Info Syst Front 9(2-3): 163–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson P, Lagerström R, Närman P et al (2007) Extended influence diagrams for system quality analysis. J Softw (JSW) 2(3): 30–42

    Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson P, Lagerström R, Närman P et al (2006a) Extended influence diagrams for enterprise architecture analysis. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE enterprise distributed object computing Conference, IEEE computer society, pp 3–12

  19. Johnson P, Nordstrom L, Lagerstrom R et al (2006b) Formalizing analysis of enterprise architecture. In: Doumeingts G, Muller J, Morel G (eds) Enterprise Interoperability—new challenges and approaches. Springer, London, pp 35–44

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kahraman C, Buyukozkan G, Ruan D (2004) Measuring software development value using fuzzy logic. In: Ruan D, Zeng X (eds) Intelligent sensory evaluation-methodologies and applications. Springer, pp 285–308

  21. Karlsson J, Wohlin C, Regnell B (1998) An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Info Softw Technol 39(14-15): 938–947

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lagerström R (2007) Analyzing system maintainability using enterprise architecture models. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on trends in enterprise architecture research (TEAR’07). St Gallen, Switzerland, pp 31–39

  23. Lagerström R, Johnson P (2008) Using architectural models to predict the maintainability of enterprise systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on software maintenance and reengineering, pp 248–252

  24. Lee K, Choi H, Lee D et al (2006) Quantitative measurement of quality attribute preferences using conjoint analysis. Lect Notes Comput Sci 3941: 213–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Løken E (2007) Use of multi criteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11: 1584–1595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Macdonald C, Ounis I (2008) Voting techniques for expert search. Knowl Inf Syst 16(3): 259–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mikhailov L, Tsvetinov P (2004) Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl Soft Comput 5: 23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Närman P, Johnson P, Nordström L (2007) Enterprise architecture: a framework supporting system quality analysis. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE enterprise distributed object computing conference, IEEE Computer Society, pp 130–141

  29. Niemann, K (eds) (2006) From Enterprise architecture to IT governance- elements of effective IT management. Vieweg+Teubner, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nightingale D, Rhodes D (2004) Enterprise systems architecting: emerging art and science within engineering systems. In: Proceedings of MIT engineering systems symposium

  31. Pomerol, J, Barba-Romero, S (eds) (2000) Multi-criterion decisions in management: principles and practice. Kluwer, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ramanathan R (2002) Successful transfer of environmentally sound technologies for greenhouse gas mitigation: a framework for matching the needs of developing countries. Ecol Econ 42(1): 117–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Razavi Davoudi M, Shams Aliee F (2009) Characterization of enterprise architecture quality attributes. In: Proceedings of the EDOC 2009 conference workshop on advances in quality of service management workshop (AquSerM09). IEEE Computer Society Press, Auckland, pp 131–137

  34. Rebovich G (2005) Enterprise systems engineering theory and practice, vol 2: systems thinking for the enterprise: new and emerging perspectives, The MITRE Corporation, MP05B0000043

  35. Reddy A, Naidu M, Govindarajulu P (2007) An integrated approach of analytical hierarchy process model and goal model (AHP-GP Model) for selection of software architecture. Int J Comput Sci Network Secur 7(10): 108–117

    Google Scholar 

  36. Saaty, T (eds) (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill Inc, New York, NY

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Saaty, T (eds) (1994) Fundamentals of decision making. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA

    Google Scholar 

  38. Saaty, T, Vargas, L (eds) (2001) Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  39. Seyed Danesh A, Ahmad R (2009) Study of prioritization techniques using students as subjects. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information management and engineering (ICIME), pp 390–394

  40. Spewak, S (eds) (1992) Enterprise architecture planning, developing a blueprint for data, applications and technology. Wiley , New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Štrumbelj E, Bosnić Z, Kononenko I, Zakotnik B, Grašič Kuhar C (2009) Explanation and reliability of prediction models: the case of breast cancer recurrence, knowledge and information systems. [Online]. doi:10.1007/s10115-009-0244-9

  42. Svahnberg M, Wohlin C, Lundberg L, Mattsson M (2003) A quality-driven decision-support method for identifying software architecture candidates. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 13(5): 547–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Svahnberg M, Wohlin C, Lundberg L, Mattsson M (2002) A method for understanding quality attributes in software architecture structures. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE), pp 819–826

  44. Swarz R, DeRosa J, (2006) A Framework for enterprise systems engineering processes. Tech Report MITRE Corporation

  45. Triantaphyllou E, Kovalerchuk B, Mann L et al (1997) Determining the most important criteria in maintenance decision making. J Qual Maint Eng 3(1): 16–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Vaidya O, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169: 1–29

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Wei G, (2009) Extension of TOPSIS method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information, knowledge and information systems. doi:10.1007/s10115-009-0258-3

  48. Yu E, Strohmaier M, Deng X, (2006) Exploring intentional modeling and analysis for enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of the EDOC 2006 conference workshop on trends in enterprise architecture research (TEAR 2006). IEEE Computer Society Press, Hong Kong, pp 32

  49. Zhu L, Aurum A, Gorton I et al (2005) Tradeoff and sensitivity analysis in software architecture evaluation using analytic hierarchy process. Softw Qual J 13(4): 357–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

    Mahsa Razavi

  2. Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

    Fereidoon Shams Aliee

  3. Iran Telecommunication Research Center, Tehran, Iran

    Kambiz Badie

Authors
  1. Mahsa Razavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fereidoon Shams Aliee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kambiz Badie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahsa Razavi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Razavi, M., Shams Aliee, F. & Badie, K. An AHP-based approach toward enterprise architecture analysis based on enterprise architecture quality attributes. Knowl Inf Syst 28, 449–472 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-010-0312-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-010-0312-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation