Ghent University EA for SMEs

Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
Department of Management Information Science and Operations Management
Maxime Bernaert, Joost Dumeez, and Geert Poels
17/06/2013
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Development of Software Tool Support
for Enterprise Architecture in Small and
Medium-Sized Enterprises
Maxime Bernaert, Joost Dumeez
Promoter: Prof. Dr. Geert Poels (Ghent University), Prof. Dr. Monique
Snoeck (K.U. Leuven), Prof. Dr. Manu De Backer (Antwerp University)

17/06/2013
Draw your house

17/06/2013

17/06/2013
Draw your company

17/06/2013
Enterprise Architecture

11
Enterprise Architecture (EA)1: a holistic
approach to keep things aligned in a company
(IT - business, operations - strategy)
Holistic overview:
 Optimization of the company as a whole
(essentials are more stable than specific solutions)
 Strategy --> Operations
 Understood by all those involved
1Lankhorst M (2009) Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis.
Springer-Verlag, New York

12
Some advantages:
 Common architecture from multiple stakeholders
 Overview with different viewpoints
 Testing environment
 Analysis and optimization
 Change impact analysis
 Find best-fitted ERP system

13
Enterprise Architecture for SMEs
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises2
 European definition
• <= 250 employees
• Annual turnover <= 50 million euros or total assets <=
43 million euros
2European Commission (2003) Recommendation 2003/361/EC: SME Definition. Official Journal of
the European Union 46 (L 124) (6)

14
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
 Important for economy3
• 20.8 million SMEs in Europe (99.8% of all companies)
• 19.2 million micro enterprises (<= 10
employees, turnover <= 2 million euros or total assets
<= 2 million euros)
• 70% of European jobs, 58.4% of gross production
3European Commission (2010) Are EU SMEs Recovering from the Crisis? Annual Report on EU
Small and Medium Sized Enterprises 2011

15
Research steps
Small and medium-sized enterprises
Enterprise architecture
Case studies
CHOOSE metamodel
Tool support
Requirements
CHOOSE method
Criteria for tools
Evaluation

16
Research steps
Case studies
CHOOSE metamodel
Tool support
Requirements
CHOOSE method
Criteria for tools
Evaluation

17
EA for SMEs???
 Not known in SMEs
 Not used in SMEs
 Adoption models

18
Adoption Models
Method Evaluation Model

19
EA for SMEs???
 Increase the perceived usefulness
• Increase actual effectiveness
• Advantages for SMEs in practice
 Increase the perceived ease of use
• Adapt methods to an SME context (in practice)
• Complexity10 (= 1/actual efficiency) must be decreased
 From actual to perceived efficacy
• Test in SMEs: feedback + EA gets better known
10Rogers EM, Shoemaker FF (1971) Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach.
The Free Press, New York

20
Research steps
Case studies
CHOOSE metamodel
Tool support
Requirements
CHOOSE method
Criteria for tools
Evaluation

21
Research steps
Case studies
CHOOSE metamodel
Tool support
Requirements
CHOOSE method
Criteria for tools
Evaluation

22

23
Five criteria for EA (derived from definition)
1. Control: “Controlling the complexity of the enterprise.”
2. Holistic Overview: “EA has to capture the essentials of
the enterprise (more stable).”
3. Objectives: “Translation from corporate strategy to daily
operations.”
4. Suitable for its target audience (here: SMEs):
“Understood by all those involved.”
5. Enterprise: “Optimization of the company as a whole
instead of doing local optimization within individual
domains.”

24
Five criteria for EA (derived from definition)
1. Control: “Controlling the complexity of the enterprise.”
2. Holistic Overview: “EA has to capture the essentials of
the enterprise (more stable).”
3. Objectives: “Translation from corporate strategy to daily
operations.”
4. Suitable for its target audience (here: SMEs):
“Understood by all those involved.” (Simple)
5. Enterprise: “Optimization of the company as a whole
instead of doing local optimization within individual
domains.”

25
Existing EA techniques

26
mentioned. In the strategy-operations column, a minus indicates that a translation from strategy
(business or IT) to operations (organizational or IT) is not clearly supported.
Table 1 Analysis of EA frameworks
WHAT HOW WHERE WHO WHEN WHY
BUSINESS
IS
IT
STRATEGY
-
OPERATIONS
Zachman What How Where Who When Why B/IS/IT +
TOGAF
Data entity,
...
Process, ...
Infrastructure
extension
Organization unit,
actor, role, ...
Event, ...
Motivation
extension
B/IS/IT +
ArchiMate Information Behavior Network, ... Structure Event, ... Motivation B/IS/IT +
DoDAF Resource Activity Location Performer - Capability Blend +
CARP Resource Activity - Performer - Capability B +
IAF Object Activity Interaction Actor, role, ... Event Why, goal, ... B/IS/IT +
E2AF
Business
objects,
resources, ...
Business
activities,
...
With who?
Organization
structure, actors,
...
When? Why? B/IS/IT +
FEA: FEAF Objects, ...
Business
process, ...
Business
locations, ...
- - - IS/IT -
FEA: TEAF
Information,
...
Business
process, ...
Information
exchange, ...
Organization
chart, ...
Event, ...
Mission, vision,
...
B/IS/IT +
GEAM - - - - -
Requirements
vision
B/IS/IT +
ARIS
Input, output,
...
Function -
Organizational
unit, ...
Event Goal Blend +-
(BMM) -
(Business
process) -
(Organization
unit) - End B +
DYA
Product,
data, ...
Process Network Organization, ... -
Business
objectives
B/IS/IT +
Enterprise
modelling /
EKD
Concepts
model
Business
process
model
-
Actors and
resources model
- Goals model B/IS +
REA Resource Event - Agent - Goals B -
SEAM - - - - - Strategies B/IS +
LEAP Object Operation - Object Condition OCL constraint B/IS/IT -

27
CHOOSE metamodel

28
CHOOSE Full Metamodel

29
CHOOSE Essential Metamodel

30
CHOOSE Goal Model Example

31
CHOOSE Actor Model Example

32
CHOOSE Operation Model Example

33
CHOOSE Object Model Example

34
CHOOSE Model Example

35
Research steps
Case studies
CHOOSE metamodel
Tool support
Requirements
CHOOSE method
Criteria for tools
Evaluation

36
Research steps
Case studies
CHOOSE metamodel
Tool support
Requirements
CHOOSE method
Criteria for tools
Evaluation

37
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

38
Action Research: Profile Tyrecenter (3)
Snapshot of the Goal tree

39
Action Research: Profile Tyrecenter (4)
The CHOOSE-method

40
Research steps
Case studies
CHOOSE metamodel
Tool support
Requirements
CHOOSE method
Criteria for tools
Evaluation

41
Research steps
Case studies
CHOOSE metamodel
Tool support
Requirements
CHOOSE method
Criteria for tools
Evaluation

42
Tool support

43
Tool support

44
Problem identification: case studies
Case study evidence of the need for tool support

45
Tool support: case studies
Case study evidence of the need for tool
support:
Input
Storage
Data retrieval
Data adjustments
Analyses

46
Tool support: Why on mobile devices

47
Tool support

48
Tool support
“Drawing is no management”
 Drawings cannot be analyzed (constraints, …)
Automated generation of adequate
visualization

49
Tool support

50
Tool support

51
Goal-directed design

52
Tool support
Future user
CEO/manager of SME, time
contraints, knowledge constraints

53
Tool support
Persona: portrait of ideal user
Gather information of Research step in one
model
Unexperienced CEO/manager of SME
 Technology & EA dummy
 Simple, while offering value (overview of SME)

54
Tool support
Extract persona’s needs/requirements
11 Requirements for EA and SMEs
Data requirements
 SME overview, focused view, Excel/Powerpoint
Functional requirements
 Fit busy schedule of manager

55
Tool support
Platform (mobile, screen size)
Define data and functional elements (cf.
requirements)
Define application flow

57
Tool support
 Platform (mobile, screen size)
 Define data and functional elements (cf.
requirements)
 Define application flow
Interaction design principles
 Simplicity, familiarity, safety, availability, flexibilit
y,…

58
Simplicity, Less is More
More or Less Information?

60
More or Less Information?
 People can only process a limited amount of
information

61
More or Less Features?

63
More or Less Features?
 Features sell better
 However, if users were able to first test, product
with better usability > with more features

64
More or Less Choice?

66
More or Less Choice?
 Higher sales revenues when offering a handful of
options
 People were more satisfied with what they bought

67
Familiarity
Instead of the up button, two hierarchic layers in an OSX style are shown. This makes easy navigation
possible between two layers, while maintaining easy access to other layers with the clickable file path.
The color-coded picture gives a graphical explanation of the combined design elements (see Fig. 27).f the up button, two hierarchic layers in an OSX style are shown. This makes easy navigation
between two layers, while maintaining easy access to other layers with the clickable file path.
-coded picture gives a graphical explanation of the combined design elements (see Fig. 27).

68
Safety

69
Availability
furthermore reduce cognitive overload. Please note for example that during the CHOOSE guide, some
elements can already be added. When going to the actual models, several goals/ actors/ operations/
objects can already be seen. Now the user does not start from a blank canvas.

70
Flexibility

71
Beginners, Experts and Intermediates
Nine page introductory guide

72
Tool support
Visualization (graphical representations)
Attract attention
(contrast, …)

73
Tool support
Visualization (graphical representations)
Attract attention
(contrast, …)
Content
Visual simplicity

74
Tool outline: Android Tablet

No outside help is needed (quickly explanation: availability & safety criterion)

Playful start screen: appeal to work when free time (SME criterion)

Steps in chewable chuncks (simplicity criterion)

File explorer from Windows is mimicked (Familiarity criterion) + focus view

96
Evaluation
CEO of a consultancy company with
approximately 30 employees across three
different countries
Usability test: while they perform certain
prescribed tasks, the user is asked to think
aloud
Where is the most added value?

97
Evaluation
Added value became apparent when we
brainstormed about different ways of output
that could be extracted from the application:
 Goal sheets for individual employees with their
targets and projects for the following year
 Printout of critical goals with targets and metrics
 Constructing a tactical plan where all projects are
appointed to the six focus points of their company

98
Evaluation
Especially in thinking about this output, the
power of the model became clear. With
further fine-tuning of the application and the
model, it could be something that could really
add value according to the CEO.

99
CHOOSE Metamodel Constraints

100
Questions

101
Past Work
 Integrating the Semantics of Events, Processes and Tasks across Requirements Engineering
Layers
Bernaert M, Poels G, PhD Day FEB UGent 2010, May 28th, Ghent
 A Consolidated Enterprise Reference Model: Integrating McCarthy's and Hruby's Resource-
Event-Agent Reference Models
Laurier W, Bernaert M, Poels G, 2010. ICEIS (3), pp. 159-164
 Integrating the Semantics of Events, Processes and Tasks across Requirements Engineering
Layers
Bernaert M, Poels G, 2010. Proceedings of the CAiSE Doctoral
Consortium, Hammamet, Tunisia, 2010, pp. 11-19
 The Quest for Know-How, Know-Why, Know-What and Know-Who: Using KAOS for Enterprise
Modelling
 Het Realiseren van een Globaal Procesoverzicht bij Gedecentraliseerde Procesarchitecturen
Vancaeneghem T, Bernaert M, Poels G (2011), Thesis

102
Past Work
Modeling
Bernaert M, Poels G, 2011. 6th International Workshop on Business/IT Alignment and
Interoperability (BUSITAL), London, UK, 2011. In: Lecture Notes in Business Information
Processing 83: 29-40
Modelling
Bernaert M, Poels G, 2011, Proceedings of the 6th SIKS Conference on Enterprise Information
Systems, pp. 15 - 16, Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (EIS2011) (Delft (The
Netherlands))
 De Zoektocht naar Know-How, Know-Why, Know-What en Know-Who: Architectuur voor
Kleinere Bedrijven in Vier Dimensies
Bernaert M, 2011, Informatie (Amsterdam), November nummer, 34-41
 Review: A How-To Guide to Successful Enterprise Architecture: The Strategic Fit between
Business and IT
Bentham Science Publishers, 2012
 Enterprise Architecture for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

103
Past Work
 Keuzes Maken binnen Processen: Het Vermijden van een Russische Roulette voor de
Organisaties
Heyse M, Bernaert M, Poels G (2012), Thesis
 Van Strategie tot Procesmodellering in Kleine en Middelgrote Organisaties: Een Exploratief
Onderzoek
De Nil S, Deprost E, Bernaert M, Poels G (2012), Thesis
 Enterprise Architecture for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
Bernaert M, 2012, In: Poels G, Gailly F, De Backer M (eds) Doctoral Consortium of the 6th
International Conference on Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems
(CONFENIS 2012), Ghent, Belgium
 Enterprise Architecture for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Bernaert M, Poels G, 2011, Proceedings of the 7th SIKS Conference on Enterprise Information
Systems (EIS2012) (Nieuwegein (The Netherlands))
 Development of a Common Base for Enterprise Architecture: Building the Bridge Between
CHOOSE and ArchiMate
Roose D, Vansteenlandt J, Bernaert M, Poels G (2012), Thesis

104
Past Work
 Enterprise Architecture for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Starting Point for Bringing
EA to SMEs, Based on Adoption Models
Bernaert M, Poels G, Snoeck M, De Backer M, 2013, Information Systems and Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs): State of art of IS research in SMEs
 Software Tool Support voor Enterprise Architectuur in Kleine en Middelgrote
Ondernemingen: EASE
Ingelbeen D, Bernaert M, 2013, Informatie (Amsterdam)
 Development of Software Tool Support for Enterprise Architecture in Small and Medium-
Sized Enterprises
Dumeez J, Bernaert M, Poels G, 2013. 8th International Workshop on Business/IT Alignment
and Interoperability (BUSITAL), Valencia, Spain, 2013. In: Lecture Notes in Business
Information Processing
 Enterprise Architecture Software Tool Support for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: EASE
Ingelbeen D, Bernaert M, 2013. 19th Americas Conference on Information Systems
(AMCIS), Chicago, USA

105
Past Work
 CHOOSE: Towards a Metamodel for Enterprise Architecture in Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises
Bernaert M, Poels G, Snoeck M, De Backer M, 2013, Submitted to Information Systems
Frontiers
 Enterprise Architecture Modelling for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Case Study
Research to Refine and Evaluate the CHOOSE Method and Metamodel
Bernaert M, Callaert M, Poels G, Snoeck M, De Backer M, 2013, Submitted to Enterprise
Information Systems
 Softwareondersteuning voor een Enterprise Architectuur in Access en Java
Ingelbeen D, Bernaert M, Poels G (2013), Thesis
 Business Architecture Modelling in CHOOSE: A Visual Application for Android Tablets
Maes J, Bernaert M, Poels G (2013), Thesis
 Next Generation Media: A User-Friendly Android Tablet Application for Business Architecture
Modelling
Dumeez J, Bernaert M, Poels G (2013), Thesis
 Business Architectuur Modellering in KMO’s: Case Study Onderzoek ter Verfijning en Validatie
van de CHOOSE Methode en Metamodel
Callaert M, Bernaert M, Poels G (2013), Thesis

106
Past Work
 Business Architectuur Modellering in CHOOSE: Een Gebruiksvriendelijke Applicatie voor de
iPhone
Puylaert O, Bernaert M, Poels G (2013), Thesis
 Development of a Tool for Business Architecture Modeling in Eclipse
Zutterman S, Bernaert M, Poels G (2013), Thesis
 Next Generation Media: A User-Friendly iPad Application for Business Architecture Modelling
Otte M, Bernaert M, Poels G (2013), Thesis

107
In Progress
 Business Architectuur Modellering in CHOOSE: Een Gebruiksvriendelijke Applicatie Aangepast
aan de User Interface van de iPad
Verhulst P, Bernaert M, Poels G (2013), Thesis
 The Development of an Optimal Visualisation for Enterprise Architecture (ArchiMate)
Paesschesoone J, Bernaert M, Poels G (2014), Thesis
 The Development of an Optimal Visualisation for Enterprise Architecture (CHOOSE)
Boone S, Bernaert M, Poels G (2014), Thesis
 Evaluating Enterprise Architecture Techniques Based on the Rule of 7
Morina A, Bernaert M, Poels G (2014), Thesis
 A Performance Management System for the CHOOSE Method for Enterprise Architecture for
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Moons L, Bernaert M, Poels G (2014), Thesis
 The Development of a Domain Ontology for Enterprise Architecture
Carron S, Bernaert M, Poels G (2014), Thesis
 From Strategy to Process Modeling in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Flanders: A
Large Scale Quantitative Research
Piens S, Bernaert M, Poels G (2014), Thesis

108
CHOOSE Metamodel Academics

109
Case study research: academics

110
Case study research: academics

Ghent University EA for SMEs

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Ghent University EA for SMEs

Similaire à Ghent University EA for SMEs (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Ghent University EA for SMEs