A Method for Developing Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: An Interpretive Phenomenology Study

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Associate Prof., Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Candidate in Systems Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Iran


Nowadays, many of organizations, who are involved in enterprise architecting, make their own architecture framework or customize existing frameworks. These endeavors are based on the knowledge and the experience of each organization, and there is no defined method for developing the enterprise architecture framework. Therefore, a method for developing architecture framework is presented in this qualitative research. For this reason, 15 versions of 5 most used architecture frameworks are analyzed based on the interpretive phenomenology. Based on this analysis, a method for developing architecture frameworks is introduced which contains 8 disciplines and 6 phases. Analyzing the qualitative data of the research and also the validation of the research are carried out using the guidelines of Van Manen in the interpretive phenomenology.


Main Subjects

  1. بازرگان ، ع. (1387). مقدمه‎ای ‎بر روشهای تحقیق کیفی و آمیخته. تهران: نشر دیدار.
  2. مرآتی، ا. (1391). روش توسعۀ چارچوب معماری نیروهای مسلح، نشریۀ سیاست دفاعی، 14:60-33.

Abdallah, S. & Galal-Edeen, G. (2006). Towards a Framework for Enterprise Architecture Frameworks Comparison and Selection. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Informatics and Systems. Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Boland, R. (1979). Control, Causality and Information System Requirements. Accounting, Accounting, Organization and Society, 4 (4): 259-272.

Chen, P. & El-Sakka, A. (2000). Context Analysis and Principles Study, Department of Defence. New Yourk: DSTO.

Cohen, A. (2001). Review of literature: Responses to "Empirical and hermeneutic approaches to phenomenological research in psychology, a comparison". Gestalt, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.g-gej.org/5-2/reviewlit.html.

Giorgi, A. (1999). The status of Husserlian phenomenology in caring research. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 14 (1): 3-10.

Graves, T. (2007). Whole-of-Enterprise Architecture: Extending Enterprise-Architecture Beyond IT, Tetradian Consulting.

Guirguis, A. (2008). A Concept of Enterprise Architecture: Establishment of an EA Program, Requirements on EA, and Architecture Maintenance at IT Area R&D at Scania CV AB (Master Thesis). Dept. of Industrial Information and Control Systems KTH, Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm, Sweden.

Harmer, B.M. (2003). Culture at the Edge: An Exploration of Cultural Adaptation and Sense-making Across Workgroup Boundaries in Complex Organizations. Communications Studies, Wellington.

Infosys (2007). Enterprise architecture is maturing. Infosys enterprise architecture survey. Retrieved from http://www.infosys.com/consulting /architecture-services/ea-survey/enterprise-architecture-trends.pdf.

Institute for Enterprise Architecture Developments (2005). Trends in Enterprise Architecture 2005: How are Organizations Progressing? Retrieved from http://www.ea-consulting.com/Reports/Enterprise%20Architecture%20 Survey %202005%20IFEAD%20v10.pdf.

Introna, L.D. & Whittaker, L. (2002). The Phenomenology of IS Evaluation. in Proceedings of the Global and Organizational Discourse about Information Technology. Barcelona, Spain, p. 155-175.

Källgren, A., Ullberg, J. & Johnson, P. (2009). A Method for Constructing a Company Specific Enterprise Architecture Model Framework, 10th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligences, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing, indexed in IEEE Computer Society.

Karlsson, F. (2002). Meta-Method for Method Configuration: A RUP Case. Department of Computer and Information Science, Master Thesis, Linköpings universitet, Linköping, Sweden.

Kim, J., Kwon J., Kim, Y., Kim, H. & Baik, D. (2006). EAFoC: Enterprise Architecture Framework Based on Commonality. Journal of Computer Science & technology, 6  (???): 952-964.

Mamaghani, N., Madani, F. & Sharifi, A. (2012). Customer oriented enterprise IT architecture framework. Telematics and Informatics, 29  (???): 219-232.

Moreno Jr., V. (1999). A Phenomenological Study of Individual Experiences of BPR Processes. Information Technology & People. 12(4): 359-388.

Myers, M. (2009). Qualitative research in business and management, London: Sage Publication.

Nagarajan, P. (2010). Enterprise Architecture Ontology: A Shared Vocabulary for Efficient Decision Making for Software Development Organizations. Master Thesis. The Ohio State University, Ohio.

Pfeiffer, D. & Niehaves, B. (2005, May). Evaluation of Conceptual Models: A Structuralist Approach. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Information Systems in a Rapidly Changing Economy. Regensburg, Germany.

Reimen, D. J. (1986). The essential structure of a caring interaction: Doing phenomenology. In P. M. Munhall & C. J. Oiler (Eds.). Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (pp. 85-105). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Sarkar, P. & Cybulski, J. (2004). Evaluation of phenomenological findings in IS research: a study in developing web-based IS. in European IS profession in the global networking environment: proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information Systems, June 14 - 16, Turku, Finland.

Schekkerman, J. (2004). How to survive in the jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks. Victoria: Trafford.

Schulman, J. (2004). Architecture Frameworks Provide System Road Maps, Gartner, ID Number: G00125007.

Sharkey, P. (2001). Hermeneutic phenomenology. In R. Barnacle (Ed.), Phenomenology. Melbourne: RMIT Publications.

Tang, A., Han, J. & Chen, P. (2004, December). A comparative analysis of architecture frameworks. Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Busan, Korea.

Tasmanian Government (2003). Development of a Framework for Enterprise Architecture in the Tasmanian Government, Retrieved from www.go.tas. gov.au.

Tolvanen, J. P. (1996). Method engineering: current research directions and implications for future research, Proceedings of the IFIP Working Conference on Method Engineering, Chapman, Atlanta, USA.

Van Manen, M. (1990). From meaning to method. Qualitative Health Research, 7 (???): 345-369.

Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy, (2nd edition). London: Althouse Press.

Van Manen, M. (2003). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (3nd edition). Albany: NewYork Press.

Vishnavi, V. & Kuechler W. (2008). Design Science Research Methods and Patterns. Auerbach Publications. Boston, MA: Auerbach Pub.

Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting IS in Organizations. London: Wiley.

Weiss, D. (2006). Battleground of the Enterprise Architecture Frameworks, Research Publication, available at, http://www.gartner.com/0CFCD66C-34AE-4B78- 9403-45AF3BE14C79/FinalDownload/DownloadId- 151BF0 D726021B9F1D944A0A88FE30C5/0CFCD66C-34AE-4B78-9403- 45AF 3BE14C79/teleconferences/attributes/attr_155698_115.pdf.

Westbrock, T. (2009). Do Frameworks Really Matter? EA directions. Retrived from ww.eadirections.com/EAdirections%20Frameworks.pdf.

Zandi, F. & Tavana, M. (2012). A fuzzy group multi-criteria EA framework selection, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(???): 1165-1173.

Zellner, G. (2011). A structured evaluation of business process approaches, Business Process Management Journal, 17 (2): 203- 237.