ContextAgile enterprise architecture artefacts are initially architected at the high-level and the details of those artefacts iteratively evolve in small project increments. There is a need to model agile enterprise architecture artefacts both at the high and low detailed level for a particular context. ArchiMate is relatively a new high-level architecture modelling standard. There is a growing interest amongst organisations in applying ArchiMate for high-level agile enterprise architecture modelling. However, organisations are unsure how to effectively apply ArchiMate at high-level and integrate it with their existing low detailed level modelling standards in practice for supporting end-to-end agile enterprise architecture modelling. ObjectiveThis paper evaluates the applicability and integration of high-level ArchiMate modelling standard with the existing low-level modelling standards such as BPMN (Business Process Model and Notation), UML (Unified Modelling Language), FAML (FAME Framework for Agent-Oriented Method Engineering Language), SoaML (Service Oriented Architecture Modelling Language), and BMM (Business Motivation Model). MethodA qualitative questionnaire-based evaluation criteria has been developed based on the well-known and comprehensive The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF). The evaluation criteria has been applied to evaluate the applicability and integration of the selected six modelling standards from the business, application, infrastructure and extension perspectives. ResultsEach modelling standard is different in scope. A single modelling standard usually does not provide the kind of support required by the agile enterprise architecture modelling. Based on the review results, a hybrid enterprise architecture modelling approach is proposed. This paper demonstrates the application of the proposed hybrid approach with the help of an agile enterprise architecture modelling case study. ConclusionIt is concluded that the ArchiMate does not replace the existing low-level modelling standards, rather it can be used in conjunction with low-level modelling standards. This calls for the adoption of hybrid and integrated approach for agile enterprise architecture modelling.
[1]
Bokang Mthupha.
A framework for the development and measurement of agile enterprise architecture
,
2012
.
[2]
Jorge J. Gómez-Sanz,et al.
FAML: A Generic Metamodel for MAS Development
,
2009,
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.
[3]
Janis Stirna,et al.
Organizational Adoption of Enterprise Modeling Methods - Experience Based Recommendations
,
2014,
PoEM.
[4]
Asif Qumer Gill,et al.
SaaS Requirements Engineering for Agile Development
,
2013
.
[5]
Sandra Svanidzaite.
A Comparison of SOA Methodologies Analysis & Design Phases
,
2012,
DB&Local Proceedings.
[6]
André P. Calitz,et al.
An analysis of the adoption and Usage of Enterprise Architecture
,
2013,
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Enterprise Systems: ES 2013.
[7]
O. Zohreh Akbari,et al.
A survey of agent-oriented software engineering paradigm: Towards its industrial acceptance
,
2010
.
[8]
Azad M. Madni.
Agiletecting™: a Principled Approach to Introducing Agility in Systems Engineering and Product Development Enterprises
,
2008,
Trans. SDPS.
[9]
Muhammad Atif Qureshi.
Interoperability of Software Engineering Metamodels
,
2011,
MoDELS Workshops.
[10]
Asif Gill,et al.
Applying Agility and Living Service Systems Thinking to Enterprise Architecture
,
2014,
Int. J. Intell. Inf. Technol..
[11]
Jeanne W. Ross,et al.
Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution
,
2006
.
[12]
James Madison,et al.
Agile Architecture Interactions
,
2010,
IEEE Software.
[13]
Ricardo Valerdi,et al.
Enterprise Transformation: Why Are We Interested, What Is It, and What Are the Challenges?
,
2011
.
[14]
John A. Zachman,et al.
A Framework for Information Systems Architecture
,
1987,
IBM Syst. J..