1. 2009 Fourth International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology
A new Method for Enterprise Architecture Assessment and Decision-making about
Improvement or Redesign
Mehrshid Javanbakht Maryam Pourkamali MohammadReza Feizi
Science and Research Branch Science and Research Branch Derakhshi
Islamic Azad University Islamic Azad University Tabriz University
Tehran, Iran Tehran, Iran Tabriz, Iran
mehrshid-javanbakht@ieee.org m.pourkamali@ieee.org mfeizi@tabrizu.ac.ir
Abstract— In the process of Enterprise Architecture Planning,
As-Is architecture To-Be architecture
the “As-Is” architecture is considered as baseline architecture,
and target-architecture is designed on its basis. However, in
some enterprises, particularly in developing countries, “as-is”
architecture is not a suitable basis for creating target Mission & Goal
Mission & Goal
architecture. One method of improvement and correction of Business Process
organizational architecture is using enterprise architecture Business Process
&Function &Function
maturity. In such cases, improvement efforts will not only fail
to improve the procedures, but also consume time and Transition Information
financial and human resources of the organization. That is Information
plan
why it is recommended to redesign the organizational Service
Service
architecture instead of organizational architecture
improvement. In this paper, multifactor systems are used to Technology Technology
provide a practical method for assessment of any given
organization and making accurate decisions on improvement Figure 1. Important Component of Enterprise Architecture
or redesign of its architecture based on missions, goals and
restrictions of the organization. With the use of this method, Therefore, to design the transition plan there is a need to
the enterprise architectures can be assessed and an accurate define the “to-be” conditions. However, one cannot
decision about development of the enterprises can be made introduce any ideal “to-be” condition or a break point for
based on its mission. improvement of organizational “to-be”. This is because once
the “to-be” conditions are available; there might be a better
Keywords-decision making; enterprise architecture; status available as well. This is why the enterprise
improvement; redesigning; assessment architecture maturity was introduced. Here the “to-be” of
organizational architecture is expressed in terms of
I. INTRODUCTION
enterprise architecture maturity. Thus there is no pause in
Organizational architecture includes a full set of the correction and improvement of organizational
information about its missions, goals, functions, services, architecture, and step-by-step guidelines are also available
and technologies needed to fulfill its goals and missions. for improvement of organizational architecture. A diagram
The main components of organizational architecture are “as- of this approach is demonstrated in Fig.2 [2][3].
is” architecture, “to-be” architecture, and the transition plan
designed to convert the “as-is” to “to-be.” Fig. 1 presents an As-Is Ideal Ideal
overall idea of these components and their interrelationships Architecture Situation ....Ideal
SituationSituation
[6]. “As-is” architecture is a set of documentations related to #1 #2 #n
the functions, services, and technologies currently available
at the organization. “To-be” architecture is a set of
documentations about policies, strategies, and plans related
Mapping
to correction and development of enterprise architecture
development. The transition plan is a plan that includes all …
Level 1 Level 2 Level n
activities and components necessary for the transition of
“as-is” architecture to “to-be” architecture [4][5][6][7][8][9].
Figure 2. Enterprise Architecture Maturity Idea
It is needed to point out that sometimes the “as-is”
condition lacks the necessary capacity and power to play
this role sufficiently. In such cases, improvement efforts are
futile and redesign of organizational architecture is
978-0-7695-3751-1/09 $25.00 © 2009 IEEE
$26.00 69
DOI 10.1109/ICCGI.2009.18

2. recommended. Therefore the question is how to measure the It is needed to note that federal enterprise architecture
capacities of the “as-is” conditions of a given organization reference models have been developed according to US
in terms of its mission and goals and how to make decision federal organizations, with the goal of giving efficient and
on its improvement or redesign. In many instances if a timely services to US citizens. That is why in this paper the
precise decision is not made, there will be possible risks of first step is to customize the federal enterprise architecture
waste of time, resources, and man force. Besides, selection reference models as required for general organizations. A
of the more important activities will enhance efficacy of the customized reference models is presented in Fig. 3 [1].
time which is consumed. In this paper multifactor systems
are used to provide a practical method for assessing the Resource Management
conditions of any given organization and making accurate
Human Resource Management
decisions on improvement or redesign of its architecture
based on missions, goals and restrictions of the organization. Official Management
Another advantage of this method is the possibility of using
the scores resulting from Cost-Benefit analysis and Supply chain Management
possibility of making decision about planning and Information &Technology Management
scheduling of activities for development of enterprises more
Figure 3. Sample of Customized Reference Model
accurately.
In this study, in order to validate the proposed method, a
This is done through several case studies such as “Iran
software tool was developed and five different case studies
Statistics Center”, “Iran Ports Shipping Lines” and “Tehran
were performed.
In this paper, the position of the method which is offered Water and Sewer” organizations.
in the enterprise architecture planning is explained. Then the III. MULTI-AGENT ARCHITECTURE
structure of the multi–agent system which is designed for
the explained method is noted. First, a top-down method for One of the significant advantages of supporting decision
detection and prioritization of the important elements of the making in intelligent and semi-intelligent systems is the use
organization is suggested. Then a bottom-up method for of multi-agent systems. These systems usually divide each
assessment of the enterprise architecture based on the problem into several sections and assign each section to an
identified scores is explained. In the end, the designed tool, agent for separate processing in a way that each agent can to
and some case studies which were performed based on the use the results of calculations of other agents. This is a big
suggested method, and the results are discussed. achievement in solving complex problems. An agent is an
autonomous computerized system which has social features
II. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL MODELS and the ability to analyze and react. A multi-agent system is
Budget and time restrictions emerge a need for in fact a network of independent components working
prioritization of the development activities and selection of a interactively to solve a single problem. Defining the duties
subset of them. Therefore in the process of enterprise and assigning each work section to one agent is done based
architecture planning there is a need to assess, prioritize, and on the capacities of agents. The final answer to any question
sequence the components of the given organization. Because is found through combining all solutions and computations.
of this reasons there is a need to analyze all the components The proposed method uses multi-agent architecture as
of the organization. Components of organizational stated above. A detailed explanation of the above method is
architecture are plenty and diverse. This fact makes their presented in a multi-agent system. According to this sort of
analysis a very complex process. One method to correctly architecture, the method is divided into 4 separate agents
classify organizational information is to use reference and each of them may be divided into the following sub-
models. Reference architecture is a detailed explanation of agents. These agents and sub-agents may be seen in Fig. 4.
components and an overall view of the whole system. The four selected agents are explained below.
Reference models work within organizational architecture
not only to introduce the necessary components of the A. Middleware Agent
organization, but also to give an estimate of their This agent has the duty to offer an interface to input and
relationships. The method presented here recognizes more transfer the information into un-concentrated knowledge
significant components by using reference models. This is bases as needed by other agents. This interface must transfer
because they are considered to be standards of best the assessment and decision making results to the user as
experiences in the past. The federal enterprise architecture well. Some of the duties assigned to this agent are as
framework considers a layered structure for the components follows:
of organizational architecture. Since this applies to the • Acquisition of the basic information from reference
method which is proposed here, reference models of FEAF models,
(Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework) is used. In this • Acquisition of the project goals, this section
paper, the business reference model, the service reference completes the standards and facts of a multi-agent
model, and the technology reference model will also be system,
studied [10][11][12].
70

3. • Acquisition of the rate of significance of each D. Knowledge Discovery and Management Agent
option for the upper layers, This agent has the duty to update and maintain a
• Acquisition of the information related to the rate of knowledge base related to decision making for the project
each option in the three lower layers, status. In this study, comparison of the given project with
• Input of neighborhood radius information and other successful and unsuccessful projects of the past was
proximity percents and learning rates in the “nearest done to recognize the project status. This required storage
neighborhood” algorithm [13]. and updating the information from past projects in a new
knowledge base, and addition of the new project to the list
Some of the items given to the user as outputs of these of best practices or failed projects based on the status
systems are: detected for it. Management of this knowledge base is the
• Displaying the level of significance of each item for duty of this agent. It automatically adds the information of
the organization to promote its mission and goals, new projects to the system based on the status detected for
• Displaying the scores resulting from organizational them, providing the system with self-learning features.
assessment, Moreover, this agent performs parts of its duties by using
• Displaying the project status through “nearest the information received by the middleware agent.
neighborhood” method in real-time graphic format,
• Displaying the project status in text format by using
threshold method,
• Reporting the results of calculations and system
decisions specifically or generally and based on
chosen seeding of the user,
• Displaying the chosen project based on TOPSIS
(Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
Ideal Solution) method [14][15],
• Displaying the proposed components for
implementation.
B. Rule Comparison Agent
This agent has the duty to draw relational matrices. It
has to connect each item on each layer to the items on the
upper layers. Any mistake in drawing internal matrices will
distort the assessment results. Moreover, this agent controls
the sum of scores and normalizes them according to a score
of 100 while the value of each item for the organization or
the upper layer is entered. To do so, the agent dynamically
checks the information being entered and alerts the user
about the scores left to 100 and in case of a mistake in
inputted information, it prevents that information from being
stored and asks the user to correct the mistake. This is of
utmost significance for such wide knowledge bases.
C. Dynamic Analytical Agent
This one assesses the analytical and decision making
core of the system and consists of the following sub-agents:
• Autonomous agent of top-down procedure,
• Autonomous agent of bottom-up procedure using
the output of lowest layer agent in top-down agents,
• Agent of Statistical threshold analysis,
• Agent of analysis of the “nearest neighborhood” Figure 4 . Architecture used in multi-agent system
network,
• Agent of analysis of the TOPSIS, Thus the projects entering the knowledge base may not be
• Agent of the cost-benefit analysis. assessed by the current system, or they may have been
assessed previously by manual or intuitional methods. In
The architecture used to connect the sub-agents of this
such cases a section of the user interface agent provides a
agent is presented in Fig. 4.
chance for entering the information of already-assessed
projects. On the other hand, another duty of this agent is to
perform the following tasks if necessary:
71

4. • Acquisition of the base information from reference transition of organizational architecture, but also prioritize
models, them. This is a top-down method. The selected levels are:
• Acquisition of the project goals, • Objective
• Acquisition of the rate of significance of each item • Goal
for upper layers, • Function
• Acquisition of the relationship designed by the rule • Service
interpreting agent, • Technology
• Acquisition of the information related to The overall idea of the levels considered in this method can
determining the rate of meeting of each item on the be seen in Fig. 5.
three lower layers,
• Acquisition of the data related to neighborhood
radius and proximity percent and learning rate in the
“nearest neighborhood” algorithm.
IV. ASSESSMENT AND DECISION MAKING METHOD OF
ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE
The proposed method dynamically adapts its
assessments according to the missions, goals, opportunities,
and threats of the organization. Thus, any organizational
architecture is assessed in terms of its own missions and Figure 5 . Layers of the method
duties. The method may be divided into several phases as
follows: The objectives and goals are determined by detection of
• Customization of reference models for general the points needed to achieve the mission of organizations
organizations by using case studies, and restrictions such as risks and budget or time limitations.
• Use of a layer model to recognize the relationships At the highest level, the senior managers of any organization
between layers of organizational architecture, choose the objectives according to mission of the given
• Taking a top-down approach to prioritizing organization and prioritize the significance of each objective
implementation of different components of by giving them special scores. The total of significance
organizational architecture and related activities, scores of all objectives related to a given project must equal
• Taking a bottom-up approach towards assessment of 100. When disclosing the scores at goal level one must
organizational architecture, recognize to which objective they relate. The score is given
• Computations and calculations related to the cost- to each goal according to the objective to which it relates.
benefit analysis, This can be seen in Fig. 6 and (1).
• Decision making and choice between improvement
or redesign of organizational architecture.
The method offered here first uses a top-down approach
to identify and detect the more significant components of the
enterprise architecture and activities related to their
implementation. It proceeds to a bottom-up approach to
assess the enterprise architecture according to the level of Figure 6 . Scored Objective-Goal matrix
significance of each component based on organizational
goals and missions. In fact the bottom-up approach uses the
results of the top-down. In this method hierarchy levels are n
Score − of − each − Goal = ∑ (Gi × Fi )
(1)
used to disperse the scores. 1
V. METHOD OF PRIORITIZING ENTERPRISE
In (1), Gi is the score related to objectives for which the goal
ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPING PROCESSES
in question will be helpful. n is number of objectives related
One of the most important issues related to to each goal. To score the goal layer, since each objective
organizational architecture is designing a transition plan consists of a number of goals and a given goal may be more
based on its missions and goals. One issue here is that important towards promotion of an objective, a certain
designing the transition plan is totally dependent on the degree of significance is assigned to each goal for. Fi is the
system for which it is designed. As a result, one cannot offer score related to the significance of each goal for the related
a general plan to enhance all activities related to objective. The sum of significance degrees of all goals
improvement of organizational architecture. The proposed related to one objective must equal 100.
method may not only recognize activities related to At lower levels, each function should be studied to
identify what goal it is related so that the score can be
72

5. determined. Using the Fig. 7 and (2), each function is scored
similar to the goal level. n
(4)
Score − of − each − Technolog y = ∑ ( M i × Fi )
1
The component with the highest score will receive the
highest degree of significance. It is obvious that activities
related to implementation of components with higher scores
will be assigned a higher priority and are more
recommended. Normalization of the calculations has been
Figure 7 . Scored Goal-Function matrix approved in previous studies [1][2].
Since in any organization there are restrictions of time
and budget that prevent implementation of all recognized
n (2) components, in many cases there is no choice but to
Score − of − each − Function = ∑ ( H i × Fi ) implement a subset of required components. A cost-benefit
1
analysis can be done by the use of the results of
To the function in question, Fi is the score related to prioritization.
significance of each function for the given goal. The sum of In the design of objectives and functions layer, issues
like risk and time consumption reduction and functions
significance degrees of all functions related to one goal must
related to each one are considered. In fact, these issues are
equal 100. Hi relates to the score of each goal which considered in the cost-benefit formula under the benefits in
function will be useful for its promotion. n is number of the process of score dispersion. Equation (5) may be used
goals related to each function. for this purpose where Benefiti is the score given to ith
Finally the score given to each service is calculated component, and Costi is the cost related to the ith
through the Fig. 8 and (3) in which Bi is the score related to component. Furthermore, with rougher seeding one can use
each function and Fi is the score related significance of each the cost-benefit analysis for the projects proposed by
service for related function. The sum of significance degrees different stakeholders. Equation (5) may be used to this end.
of all services related to one function must equal 100. The component or project with the lowest CBA (Cost-
Benefit Analysis) value will gain the highest priority for
implementation [2].
Cost i (5)
CBAi =
( Benefit i )
This sort of analysis may be done in higher levels with the
Figure 8 . Scored Function-Service matrix
same logic. The same formula may be used for the cost-
benefit analysis of each project. Using (6) enables us to
make decisions about investment in architecture
n
(3) development activities, where m is the number of
Score − of − each − Service = ∑ ( Bi × Fi )
1
component related to project K. Using the cost-benefit
analysis, those projects with lowest CBA are recognized as
As shown in Fig. 9 and (4), the same applies to the better choices for implementation.
technology where Mi is the score of related service, n is
number of services related to each technology, and Fi is the m
⎡ Costi ⎤ (6)
CBA(Project) K = ∑ ⎢ ⎥
degree of significance of each technology for that service. 1 ⎣ Benefiti ⎦ j
VI. METHOD FOR ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE
ASSESSMENT
After recognition of the degree of significance of
components in enterprise architecture development, comes
the assessment procedure according to the significance
Figure 9 . Scored Service-Technology matrix degree of each component. To do so, a bottom-up method
was used. First the degree of realization of each technology
must be determined in terms of percent. Several formulas
have been offered in the documentation accompanying this
paper which may be used to calculate this degree. Thus the
73

6. score related to higher node, is calculated through the
Fig. 10 and (7). n
(9)
∑ ( BScorei × Bi)
GLScore = 1
n
The score related to each objective is calculated according
to the Fig. 13 and (10), where GIScore is the score related to
each objective, Gi is the significance of each goal for the
parent node, GLScorei is the score given to each goal, and n
Figure 10 . Dispersion of score for each service is the number of goal related to each objective.
n
(7)
∑ ( MScorei × Mi)
FScore = [ 1
+ S1] / 2
n
The score of each service may be calculated by (7) where
Fscore is related to each service, Mscorei is related to each Figure 13 . Dispersion of score for each Objective
technology, Mi is the degree of significance of each
technology in promotion of the parent node service, n is the
number of technology related to each service and S1 is the n
(10)
quality percentage of each service. This process is repeated ∑ (GLscorei × Gi)
for calculation of scores given to function. GIScore = 1
The score related to each function is calculated by the n
Fig. 11 and (8), where Bscore is for each function, Fi is the
significance of each service for the parent node, FScorei is The rate of influence of each objective may be calculated
the score given to each service, n is the number of services through (10). The calculated value must approximately
related to each given function, and S2 is quality percentage equal the rate of significance assigned to objectives at the
of each function. beginning of top-down calculations. Finally, the score
related to the whole Project may be calculated from (11),
where Project-score is the score given to the whole project
and n is the number of objectives which is defined.
n
(11)
∑ GIMScorei
Pr oject − Score = 1
n
Figure 11 . Dispersion of score for each Function
As the scores are expressed in percent, one can easily
determine what percent of the mission of enterprise has been
n
(8)
∑ ( FScorei × Fi) fulfilled.
BScore = [ 1
+ S 2] / 2
n VII. HOW TO MAKE DECISION ABOUT IMPROVEMENT OR
REDESIGN OF ENTERPRISE ARRCHITECTURE
The score related to each goal is calculated according to Three decision making methods were used to make a
the Fig. 12 and (9), where GLScore is the score related to
choice between improvement and redesign of architecture:
each goal, Bi is the significance of each function for the
parent node, BScorei is the score given to each function, and • statistical sampling
n is the number of functions related to each goal. • nearest neighborhood method
• TOPSIS method
The first method uses the experiences of previous
successful projects and statistical information gathering and
sampling methods to calculate the approximate threshold. If
the score obtained by the project is higher than the
threshold, the enterprise architecture will be benefit from
improvement. Otherwise, it is recommended to be
Figure 12 . Dispersion of score for each Goal redesigned.
74

7. The second method uses the “nearest neighborhood”
strategy to import scoring results of previous successful
projects into the network and eventually studies and reports
on the network conditions based on project interruption
points. For this purpose, the learning rate was taken at 0.1,
neighborhood radius was taken as 2, and neighborhood
radius decrement was taken as 0.999. Two variables x and y
were taken as the score of each project and the costs of its
improvement [13].
The third method, TOPSIS, is a multiple indicator
decision making method which works based on distances to
the best and worst projects [14][15].
One of the most important advantages of this method is
the ability to sequence the choices. This method is more
normalized than “nearest neighborhood” method. In this
method the matrix demonstrated in table 1 was used. In this
table, 5 parameters are used. im shows the improvement
choice and rd shows the redesign choice, and n shows the nth
contractor. As shown in table 1, based on cases which are Figure 14 . Interface for presenting the results of prioritization
more important for enterprises, the projects which are most
preferred by the enterprise are sequenced. Based on the first
project in sorted list of preferences, improvement or
redesign of the architecture was chosen.
TABLE I. NORMALIZED WEIGHTED MATRIX
Contractor Score Cost Time Person number
Contractor(1,im)
Contractor(1,rd)
…
Contractor(n,rd)
VIII. CASE STUDY
For the case studies, the information available in the real
projects of “Iran Statistics Center”, “Iran Ports and Shipping
Lines”, “Tehran Water and Sewer” Organizations and two
hospitals in Tehran was entered as input into the system.
This was accompanied by reasonable results in full harmony
Figure 15 . User interface displaying the project status based on “nearest
with intuitive observations of senior managers. The results neighborhood” network
of each of the three methods enriched the correctness of the
presented assessment method.
A tool for the case study was created which is capable of
storing the information related to the enterprise architecture,
handling the calculations related to the assessment
automatically, and reporting the results. This architecture is
demonstrated in Fig. 4. This tool consists of the following
sections:
• Input of basic information (such as all the data
related to function, service, and technology),
• Information input section of each project,
• Determination of the significance of each
component based on selected seeding levels,
• Report of the conditions of a project based on the
“nearest neighborhood” method, threshold was
defined based on statistical data gathering, and
TOPSIS method.
Schemas of some tool intermediates is demonstrated in Fig. Figure 16 . User interface displaying the project status based on the
14, 15, 16 and 17. threshold obtained from statistical data gathering
75

8. REFERENCES
[1] Mehrshid Javanbakht, “A new method for enterprise architecture
assessment”, Thesis of MSc, Computer Engineering Department,, Islamic
Azad University Science and Research Branch, 2006.
[2] Mehrshid Javanbakht ,”A New Method for Decision Making and
Planning in Enterprises”, IEEE, International Conference on Information
& Communication Technologies: From theory to Applications , Aprill
2008.
[3] M. Ahern Dennis, Clourse Aaron, and Turner Richard.“CMMI
Distilled., A practical guide to integrated process improvement”, Second
edition,Addison Wesley, Part1, September 23 2003.
[4] Blueprint Technologies., “Best practice approach to enterprise
architecture”, 8618 Westwood Center Suite. 310, Vienna, VA 22182,
United States. 2. NASA-ESDIS, Bldg 32, Rm S224C Mail Code 423.2004.
[5] Jaap Schekkerman,B.Sc., ”Enterprise architecture source card”,
Institute for enterprise architecture development, 2004.
[6] Chief information Officer Council A Practical guide to federal
enterprise architecture, Version 1.0. February 2001.
[7] EA Practice team., ”Enterprise Architecture Transition Plan, Version
1.0”, Volume 1, July 29 2005.
[8] Spwak Steven Hill., “Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a
Figure 17. User interface displaying sorted projects based on TOPSIS blueprint for Data, Applications, & Technology”, John Willey & Sons,
method September 1993.
[9] .,”Enterprise architecture development Tool-Kit v 3.0”, National
association of state chief information officer,82126. October 2004..
Structure of this tool is the same as the Multi-agent structure [10] “The business Reference Model Version 2.1”, The federal Enterprise
demonstrated in Section 3. Architecture Program Management Office, June 2005.
[11] “The component reference model(SRM) version 1.0”, The federal
IX. CONCLUSION Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office, Feb 2005.
[12] “FEA reference model mapping quick guide, version 2.3”, The
Using the results of this paper, a method was suggested federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office, agust 2008.
that may be used as a complementary factor in assessment [13] Gregory Shakhnarovich, Trevor Darrell, and Piotr Indyk, “Nearest-
of organizational architecture. Use of this method enhances Neighbor Methods in Learning and Vision: Theory and Practice”, The
the possibility of assessment of organizational architecture MIT Press, March 31, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-0262195478
[14] E. Triantaphyllou, “Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A
based on missions, goals, opportunities, and threats of the comparative Study”, Springer, November 2000, ISBN-13: 978-
organization. Having such a tool one can compare different 0792366072
organizations quantitatively and according to their rate of [15] K . Paul Yoon, and Ching-Lai Hwang, “Multiple Attribute Decision
meeting special goals and objectives. Making An Introduction”, Sage Publications, January 1995, ISBN-13:
One obstacle which is faced by many systems is that in 978-0803954861
many cases the qualitative level of organizational
architecture is so low that its improvement will be too costly
and there is no choice but to redesign the whole architecture.
By the use of the method which is conjectured in this paper,
one is enabled to assess the enterprise architecture and make
more accurate decisions on improvement or redesign of the
organizational architecture. This is a very important decision
in reducing the costs, risks, and time in development or
improvement activities.
Another advantage of this method is the possibility of
using the scores resulted in Cost-Benefit analysis and
possibility for decision making for planning and scheduling
of activities for development of enterprises.
Among the development fields available to the proposed
method, is the development and higher accuracy of the list
of reference models. Other fields related to this issue include
finding a more accurate neighborhood function for the
implemented “nearest neighborhood” network. Moreover,
ontology of reference models can be used to fully automate
the rule interpreting agent.
76