Investigation of enterprise architecture and software architecture in relation to quality attributes in military applications

• Autorzy: Werewka J.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In this paper the relations between enterprise and software architecture are investigated. These relations may be different for a company which uses the software as part of their operation as opposed to a company which develops software systems. The relations are usually very complicated, therefore only the attribute of quality was chosen for this study. This paper shows the importance of finding mappings between quality attributes on enterprise architecture and software architecture levels. Some examples from the military domain are given. An interesting example used in the military is the survivability quality attribute, which has similar meaning on enterprise, system, and network levels. This paper proposes some ways in which the relations may be investigated.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

enterprise architecture; software architecture; quality attributes; military; survivability

• Wydawca: Ośrodek Badawczo – Rozwojowy Urządzeń Mechanicznych „OBRUM” sp. z o. o
• Czasopismo: Szybkobieżne Pojazdy Gąsienicowe
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: nr 2 (37)
• Strony: 7--18
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 31 poz., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Werewka J.

• AGH University of Science and Technology, Department of Applied Computer Science, Krakow, Poland

Bibliografia

• [1] The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9.1 (2009-2011), p. 692.
• [2] Lankhorst M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Enterprise engineering series, Springer (2009).
• [3] Werewka J.: From Enterprise Architecture to Software Architecture, Military Approach. Presentation on 6th International Scientific – Technical Conference Application of Data Exchange Networks in Military and Civilian Technology, OBRUM, Chorzów 2014, Poland,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Werewka/contributions.
• [4] Werewka J., Jamróz K., Pitulej D.: Developing Lean Architecture Governance in a Software Developing Company Applying ArchiMate Motivation and Business Layers, In book: Beyond Databases, Architectures, and Structures, Vol. 424, pp. 492-503, Springer International Publishing (2014).
• [5] The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2.02, US Department of Defense. http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/DODAF/DoDAF_v2-02_web.pdf
• [6] MOD EA & MODAF Documents, British Ministry of Defence, http://www.modaf.org.uk.
• [7] NATO Architecture Framework V.4.0., http://nafdocs.org.
• [8] Alghamdi A. S., Ahmad I.: Comparative Analysis of Defense Industry Frameworks for C4I System, Second International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications, 2010, pp. 443-447.
• [9] Niemi E., Pekkola S.: Enterprise Architecture Quality Attributes: A Case Study, 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2013, pp. 3878-3887.
• [10] ArchiMate® 2.0 Specification, Open Group Standard, 2009-2012, pp. 183, http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/toc.html.
• [11] Rogus G., P. Skrzyński, P. Szwed, M. Turek, J. Werewka: SMESDaD – a Synergetic Methodology for Enterprise Software Development and Deployment. In: Aspects of production engineering and management. ed. Piotr Łebkowski, AGH, 2011.
• [12] COBIT® 5: A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT, ISACA, ISBN 978-1-60420-237-3, United States of America (2012).
• [13] A. S. Guceglioglu, O. Demirors: The Application of a New Process Quality Measurement Model for Software Process Improvement Initiatives, 11th International Conference On Quality Software, 2011, pp. 112- 120.
• [14] C. Falge, B. Otto, H. Österle: Data Quality Requirements of Collaborative Business Processes, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4316 – 4325.
• [15] B. Otto and V. Ebner: Measuring Master Data Quality: Findings from an Expert Survey, in M. Schumann, L. M. Kolbe, M. H. Breitner and A. Frerichs, eds., Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2010, Göttingen, 2010.
• [16] ISO/IEC, "ISO/IEC 25010 - Systems and software engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and software quality models," International Organization for Standardization, Tech. Rep., 2010.
• [17] UML Profile for modeling quality of service and fault tolerance characteristics and mechnisms v1.1, formal/2008-04-05, http://www.omg.org/spec/QFTP/1.1/PDF/.
• [18] M. Bjeković, S. Kubicki: Service quality description – a business perspective, Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, 2011, pp. 513–520.
• [19] S. Nenonen and K. Storbacka: Business model design: conceptualizing networked value co-creation, Int. Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, vol. 2, no. 1, 2010, pp. 43-59.
• [20] H. Töhönen, M. Kauppinen, T. Männistö: Evaluating the Business Value of Information Technology. Case Study on Game Management System. 22nd International Requirements Engineering Conference, IEEE, 2014, pp. 283-292.
• [21] P. Närman, P. Johnson, L. Nordström: Enterprise Architecture: A Framework Supporting System Quality Analysis, 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2007, pp. 130-141.
• [22] P. Travainen: Survey of Survivability of IT systems, Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Workshop on Secure IT-Systems, Helsinki, 2004.
• [23] P. Szwed, P. Skrzynski, G. Rogus, J. Werewka: SOAROAD: An Ontology of Architectural Decisions Supporting Assessment of Service Oriented Architectures, Informatica, Special Issue: Advances in Semantic Information Retrieval Guest Editors: Vitaly Klyuev, Vol. 38, 2014; 38, 31-42.
• [24] P. Clements, R. Kazman, M. Klein: Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies. 2001.
• [25] M. Dach, J. Werewka: Accelerator’s supervisory control system based on CAN bus. Archives of Control Sciences, Vol. 18 (LIV), No. 3, 2008 (pp. 357-383).
• [26] J. Werewka: The design of distributed reactive event systems based on the CAN bus on the example of the supervisory control-diagnostic system. (In Polish) Journal: Szybkobieżne Pojazdy Gąsienicowe (23), No. 1, Gliwice, 2008 (pp. 31-42).
• [27] J. Chong, P. Pal, M. Atigetchi, et al: Survivability Architecture of a Mission Critical System: The DPASA Example. In: the 21st Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. Tucson, Arizona, USA, December 5-9, 2005.
• [28] A. Avritzer, S. Beecham, J. Kroll, D. S. Menasche, J. Noll, M. Paasivaara: Survivability Models forGlobal Software Engineering. 2014 IEEE 9th International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 100-109.
• [29] Zhanshan (Sam) Ma: Towards a Unified Definition for Reliability, Survivability and Resilience (I): the Conceptual Framework Inspired by the Handicap Principle and Ecological Stability, Aerospace Conference, 2010 IEEE, pp.1 – 12.
• [30] J. – C. Laprie: Dependability vs Survivability vs Trustworthiness. 42nd 10.4 meeting. Workshop on Dependability and Survivability.
• [31] L. Bass, P. Clements, R. Kazman: Software Architecture in Practice (SEI Series in Software Engineering), Third Edition, 2012.