WIXLIB

Enterprise Architecture Management ToolsOverview & ExampleDr. Sabine Buckl 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved0

Learning objectives of this unit Knowing what requirements for an EA management tool existfrom a practitioners point of view Understanding how different EA management tools can beevaluated Being capable of detailing on the different approaches and originsof EA management tools Obtaining a general idea of how a generic approach to select anEA management tool looks like Hands on experience with iteraplan 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved1

Outline of this unit Origin and background: Approaches of EAM toolsTool SurveysHow to introduce an EAM toolHands-On with iteraplan 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved2

Challenges for EAM tools (1)The „glue“ between different managment functionsArchitecture ManagementStrategy ManagementPortfolio ManagementMulti-Project ManagementInnovation ManagementSynchronization ManagementProject neMeasure 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reservedPlanMeasurePrioritize& CommitImplementMeasureDeploy& Migrate3

Challenges for EAM tools (2)Be connected to different information sourcesEnterprise ArchitectureFrameworks: Information Model,Viewpoints, Views, Adaptive, alfabet, BoC, Casewise, IDS Scheer, MEGA,iteratec, Troux Technolgies, Data import & exportprocessing & filteringSpecializedArchitecturePlanning & ModelingFrameworks,Methods,Best eServiceArchitecture(Management)Systems andAssetsManagementProject Planning,BusinessIntelligenceEPK,BPMN ADL,DLS,UML, ITIL, CobitMOF(Microsoft),SNMP, Gantt diagrams,Cubes, Open View,SMS,Tivoli, SAP BW,MS Project, ARIS,Tools &VendorsEmbarcadero, 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reservedRational SoftwareArchitect,Together, Mercury UniversalCMDB, Tivoli, 4

Approaches of EAM tools (1) EAM-Tools have different approaches Flexibility vs. Guidance regarding process, method, and informationmodel for supporting EA management Preconfigured vs. Customization regarding the functionality provided bythe tool out of the box – two approaches exist: EA management solutionvs. EA management platform Integration vs. Single-Point-of-Truth regarding the information base of thetool, which in the one approach is collected from a variety of sources,while in the other approach being under data sovereignty of the tool itself (Framework-driven) These approaches are not disjoint! Combinations of different approaches are possible Tools follow partially several approaches with variable degree ofcoverageAttention: Mostly no exact matching between tools and approaches is possible! 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved5

Approaches of the tools (2)Flexibility vs. Guidance Meta model driven approach: Customers can adapt the information model to their needs Reports and visualizations have to be adapted to the changedinformation model Mightiness of the tools at changing the information model is heavilyvariable; From small proprietary solutions up to MOF compliant solutionsMethodology driven approach: Predefined and documented methodology (methodology manual) How to use which models? Which elements belong to which models? Only small or no changes to the information model, methodology remains Reports and visualizations are coupled to the information modelProcess driven approach: Methodology is expanded with a management process The “what” and “how” of the methodology is extended by the “when” Process connects different modules in a process model 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved6

Approaches of the tools (3)Preconfigured vs. Customization EA Management Solutions (Preconfigured) Preconfigured functionality for typical EA Management tasks areprovided by delivery “Misuse“ is aggravated Rampant learning curve (Training, Consulting necessary)EA Management Platforms (Customization) At delivery only basic functionality is provided Implementation of a company specific EA Management approach ispossible At the beginning of the implementation of the tool a customer specificadaption is necessary 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved7

Approaches of the tools (4)Integration vs. Single-point-of-truth Single-point-of-truth Data of EA are stored centrally in the EAM Tool Replication is done „manually“ via imports conflict resolution strategy is necessary High data consistency, clear data sovereigntyIntegration EAM-Tool acts as „Data Warehouse“ Main target of these EAM-Tools is the maintenance of the relationinformation Reuse of different data sources Linking, integration and aggregation of different sources in one model Demands sophisticated transformation possibilities Is also called „Metadata Integration“ Data consistency and data sovereignty may be problematic 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved8

Classification of different EAM toolsMeta modeldrivenEAM Tooladaptive EAM 5.0planningIT 3.1MethodologydrivenaADOit 3.0aEmbarcadero EA/Studio 1.5ARIS IT Architect 7.0.2iteraplanMEGA Modeling Suite 2007Metastorm ProVision 6.0System Architect 11.0Troux 7aProcessdrivenaaaaaaa 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reservedEAM solutionaEAM ngle-point-oftruthaaaaaaaa9

Example of a combination of approachesMethodology driven and metamodel driven approach Tool owns methodology manual and Tools allows definition of customized information modelVariant 1: Information model is customized and the given model is changed (notonly extended!) Consequence: Predefined methodology has to be replaced partially! Remark: This is often done, when the tool has good meta modelingcapabilities and the methodology does not fit.Variant 2: Predefined information model is only extended slightly Consequence: Predefined methodology has to be extended! Remark: This is often done, when the tool has a good methodology butthe company specifications are not yet defined. 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved10

Example of an unusual approach Meta model of the tool cannot be customized but the methodology is bended. The information model is implicitly redefined Existing models of the tool are redefined using a self-developed methodmanualConsequences: An own method manual has to be writtenRemark: If a tool is already applied in an enterprise, which is (politically) set, or nofunds are available for the purchasing of a new product, this method ischosen frequently Even UML-tools are used! 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved11

Outline of this unit Origin and background: Approaches of EAM toolsTool SurveysHow to introduce an EAM toolHands-On with iteraplan 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved12

Gartner‘s Magic Quadrant Two dimensions Completeness of vision Ability to execute 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved13

The Enterprise Architecture Management Tool Survey(EAMTS) Several tools with different origins, different approaches, different goals, and different strenght and weaknesses. Adaptive, Ltd.: Adaptive EAMAgilense, Inc.: EA WebModeleralfabet AG: planningITASG, Inc.: ASG Enterprise Management/RochadeBEA AquaLogic: Enterprise RepositoryBiZZdesign: BiZZdesign Architect, BiZZdesignerBOC GmbH: ADOit/ADOxxCasewise Ltd.: Corporate Modeler Suite, ITArchitecture AcceleratorEmbarcadero: EA/StudioFuture Tech Systems Inc.: ENVISION VIPHewlett Packard: Mercury Project and PortfolioManagement CenterIBM: Rational Software ArchitectIDS Scheer AG: ARIS ToolsetMEGA International SA: MEGA Modeling SuitePrimavera: ProSightprocess4.biz: process4.bizProforma Corp.: ProVision Modeling Suitepulinco: TopEase SuiteTelelogic AB: System ArchitectTroux Technologies, Inc: Metis Architect, MetisServer, Metis Collection The survey can be downloaded at MTS2008 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved14

Partners and sponsors of the EAMTS2008UsersConsultants 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved15

Identifying the mayor players (as of 2007)Nr Name of 72829303132333435363738394041Name of Tool(s)AB ive EAMAgilenseEA WebModeleralfabet AGplanningITASGASG Enterprise Management/RochadeAvolutionABACUSBEA AquaLogicEnterprise RepositoryBiZZdesignBiZZdesign Architect, BiZZdesignerBOCADOit/ADOxxBTM CorporationBTM 360 Product SuiteCAClarityCasewiseCorporate Modeler Suite, IT Architecture AcceleratorComma SoftinfoneaEmbarcaderoEA/StudioEnterprise ElementsElements RepositoryFramework SoftwareStructureFuture Tech SystemsENVISION VIPGoAgileGoAgile MAPHewlett PackardMercury Project and Portfolio Management CenterIBMRational Software ArchitectIDS ScheerARIS IT ArchitectIDS ScheerARIS ArchiMate ModelerINOVA EngineeringMERGE-ToolIntelligileMap SuiteKnotion ConsultingSYNAP-C SolutionLogicLibraryLogiScan & LogidexMEGA InternationalMEGA Modeling SuiteNetVizNetVizOrbus SoftwareiServer for EA oformaProVision Modeling SuitepulincoTopEase SuiteQualiWareEAM SuiteSelect Business Solutions Select Component ArchitectSparx SystemsEnterprise ArchitectSybasePowerDesignerTelelogicSystem ArchitectTroux TechnologiesMetis Architect, Metis Server, Metis CollectionVisible Systems Corporation Visible Enterprise Products 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reservedRelevance for "Short List“ (Points 1-low to 4525273333383034243226605530ShortList xxxxxxxxxx xx16

Overview on the evaluation process and its criteria9 Tools are evaluated by 3 teamsFunctional Criteria Online questionnaire for every vendor Simulation of functional scenarios with everytool Documentation of the functional aspectsand the evaluation results in simulationEA Management Task Criteria Simulation of typical EA Management taskswith every tool One scenario per EA Management task Documentation of the evaluation results insimulationFinal evaluation based on the results documented Each evaluation criterion is assigned an ordering of tools reflecting their specific support9 Spider diagrams eachwith 8 specificfunctionalitites 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved8 Spider diagramseach with 9 EAmanagement tasks17

Test: What do you think are the approaches ofthe following two tools?UsabilityImpact Analysis andReportingImporting, Editing, andValidating76543210Support of large scaleDataCreatingVisualizationsInteracting with,Editing of, Communication andCollaboration SupportImpact Analysis andReportingImporting, Editing, andValidating76543210Support of large scaleDataCreatingVisualizationsInteracting with,Editing of, tion andCollaboration Support 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved18

Outline of this unit Origin and background: Approaches of EAM toolsTool SurveysHow to introduce an EAM toolHands-On with iteraplan 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved19

Generic tool selection process (1)1Create List of Criteria Collecting demands for tool support from stakeholders Consolidate demands in a list of criteria Define „must have“ criteria in order to speed up the selection process Weighting the criteria Define scales for the evaluation of the tools2Create Long List Analyze the market for existing tools Analysts, like e.g. Gartner, may be a source for a list of existing tools Be aware that they do not list all available tools! Studies for EAM tools may be another source for available tools3Reduce to Short List Apply list of criteria on long list in order to select 2-3 tools, which will befurther evaluated Looking for „must have“ criteria speeds up the selection process No complete objective evaluation possible[Ke12] 2007 – 2014 Sabine Buckl & Wolfgang W. Keller - all rights reserved20