<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Aligning agile software development with enterprise architecture framework</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Karolis Noreika</string-name>
          <email>knoreikos@gmail.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Saulius Gudas</string-name>
          <email>saulius.gudas@mii.vu.lt</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Institute of Data Science and Digital Technologies, Vilnius University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Vilnius</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="LT">Lithuania</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Kaunas</institution>
          ,
          <country country="LT">Lithuania</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>98</fpage>
      <lpage>103</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The effectiveness of internal processes is a key in modern day economy for companies of all sizes. This also includes the effectiveness in software development management and its alignment with business goals both short and long term. But it is not always easy to align IT development with organizational goals. This paper suggests a method for aligning modern software development approaches with enterprise architecture frameworks.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>agile software development</kwd>
        <kwd>business and IT alignment</kwd>
        <kwd>enterprise architecture framework</kwd>
        <kwd>TOGAF</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>I. INTRODUCTION</p>
      <p>
        Agile approach is a popular software development
methodology. Agile approach currently is being adopted to
business strategy execution, decision making to achieve
strategic goals. Companies are “going agile” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] in order to
improve productivity of software teams as well as business
teams making business decisions. “Going agile” is a big
organizational change. It means that employees in all levels of
organization will need to adapt to the new way of working,
which is getting the results of their daily duties evaluated
much faster than in the traditional way of working. However,
when “going agile”, the overall goals of the organization are
not always supported with an organizational change. There are
researches that emphasize the importance of supporting the
agile way of working from organizational perspective
(provide appropriate physical atmosphere, work environment
that encourages creativity) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. The gaps between business and
IT strategies appear. It might result in not sufficient quality of
software products, that are not in line with overall goals of the
organization both short and long term.
      </p>
      <p>Eventually the misalignment becomes so significant that
organizations get into a position when there is no way back –</p>
      <p>II. AGILITY IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND SOFTWARE</p>
      <p>DEVELOPMENT</p>
      <p>
        Agile approach allows business representatives to see the
value of the software product being developed faster
compared to traditional software development. Traditional or
“waterfall” software development dates back to around
1970ties when the development of large enterprise IT systems
was started to be described in a scientific way [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>The waterfall methodology utilizes the idea that each
phase in software development is sequential and cannot
repeat. The agile methodology promotes the idea of repeated
and iterative steps, which are explained in Fig. 1 below.</p>
      <p>Fig. 1. THE CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF THE AGILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
© 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
information/knowledge flows. The detailed description of
each of the elements is in table 1 below.</p>
      <p>Step/
element
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The data flow, containing the information needed for understanding the business need,
problem. It is transformed into product backlog item (element no. 2)
List of features and requirements that the solution should have once completed.
An incoming data flow for the next element in the life cycle – sprint backlog (element no.
4). It contains the features that software should contain after development iteration – sprint.
List of features that will be developed in the next sprint. Sprint is a time frame with a list of
features described and approved by business and IT representatives.</p>
      <p>Once the high level features to be developed in the next sprint are agreed upon – the details
must be clarified to the level needed in order to accomplish the business needs. This data
flow contains the sprint backlog items or features explained in smaller pieces of information
or requirements – user stories.</p>
      <p>The detailed requirements are worked on – analyzed by the development team so that both
IT and business representatives understands the problem each user story would solve.
The detailed user stories are placed in some software tool that would allow keeping track of
the progress of development of user stories.</p>
      <p>This is the most beneficial part of the agile life cycle. It is a method of constantly developing
small part of the overall software solution and getting the feedback fast.</p>
      <p>Each sprint consists of:
a) Design – designing the user interface, business rules placed in the solution.
b) Build (develop) – coding, styling, working on the solution from development
perspective.
c) Test – test the developed solution against the requirements.
d) Review – review the solution test findings and decide what to improve.
e) Launch – after the items that were agreed to be developed at the end of sprint are
verified against the solution itself and the found changes that were necessary to do
are done, the project team decides should the solution at current stage be deployed
into production (or live) environment, where it could be already used by business
representatives.</p>
      <p>Note: agile promotes the approach that the project team should be able to continue the
iterative development for indefinite amount of time. Therefore, the number of sprints with
the same phases as mentioned above could continue indefinitely.</p>
      <p>The information gathered from the business need at the beginning of the project and
throughout development phase aggregated to prepare the demo of the solution.
The demo for the solution is a system presentation conducted to all relevant stakeholders.
The decision after the demo whether the solution should be included into production
environment or should the development continue with taking the next set of requirements
made.</p>
      <p>As Agile methodology describes – self-organizing team should be capable of keeping the
accepted efficiency for product development indefinitely. This means that if business
managers decide – the team should be able to repeat the whole cycle indefinite amount of
times until the repetition does not increase the value significantly. If the decision is made to
close the project – the agile life cycle is completed.</p>
      <p>If it is decided to continue development – the next set of requirements is taken from the
product backlog items list (element no. 2) and the agile life cycle is repeated.</p>
      <p>
        There are a lot of details and techniques how agile life
cycle should be managed to achieve the best efficiency [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ],
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], but this is not a subject of this paper.
      </p>
      <p>However, running a successful business is not only about
doing software development in an agile way. Often IT
development is ahead of business decisions where to come up
with a suitable software solution development teams needs
quick decisions by business that might be applicable across
multiple projects in same business area (i.e. store related
documents in single repository, have same classification of
them, etc.) The business side in the enterprises is also starting
to take decision based on agile methodology, although it is
often perceived as a part of startup culture – i.e. not something
established and large organizations would do. Table 2 below
represents the comparison of agile and traditional approach on
business decision making in agile and traditional ways.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Methodology</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Agile (including</title>
      <p>variations)
Traditional</p>
      <p>Agile methodology could be applied to business decision
making by mapping the agile phases to decision making
process – i.e. limit the information needed to make decision
could be compared to sprint backlog. Having a deadline for a
decision could be understood as the date for demo. Adjust to
new information on the decision could be understood as
review part of sprint.</p>
      <p>III. IDENTIFICATION OF GAPS BETWEEN BUSINESS</p>
      <p>AND IT STRATEGIES</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>A. Business and IT alignment model</title>
        <p>
          The business and IT alignment model was created by
Henderson and improved by Venkatraman to represent
business strategy alignment with IT strategy thus providing
analysis method aimed for competitive advantage [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ]. Fig. 2
below represents the strategic alignment model.
        </p>
        <p>Fig. 2. THE BUSINESS AND IT ALIGNMENT MODEL</p>
        <p>There are four domain alignment perspectives where each
focuses on different aspect of alignment between the business
and IT alignment, i.e.:</p>
        <p>1) Strategy execution – business strategy is the driver for
organization design changes and the logic of IT infrastructure.
In this perspective, the top management of the organization
dictates the strategy of the company and the IT management
is the strategy implementer.</p>
        <p>2) Technology potential – business strategy is the driver
for change, however it is closely aligned with IT strategy as
well, therefore the IT systems are more aligned with IT
strategy and also business strategy.</p>
        <p>The top management should provide the vision of the
technology to articulate the logic and choices to IT strategy
what would best support the chosen business strategy. The
role of IT manager in this perspective should be of the
technology architect – the IT manager should efficiently and
effectively design and also implement information system
infrastructure that is consistent with the IT strategy. This
alignment perspective could be used for aligning business and
IT strategy along with IT systems in an agile way as vision is
also one of key aspects to have for the agile development
teams to be successful and self-organizing.</p>
        <p>3) Competitive potential – focuses on utilizing emerging
IT capabilities to impact new products and services also to
influence key attributes of strategy (distinct competences) as
well as form new relationships (business governance). This
perspective also allows the changing of business strategy via
emerging IT capabilities. The role of the management is of
business visionary who dictates how emerging IT
competences and functionality would impact the business
strategy. The role of IT manager is of the one who identifies
and interprets the trend in the IT environment to assist the
business managers to understand the potential opportunities
and threats from an IT perspective and handle them
accordingly.</p>
        <p>4) Service level – this perspective focuses on building
world class IT team. Therefore, the role of IT manager is also
of a business leadership with tasks of making the internal
business succeed with the operating guidelines from top
management.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>B. TOGAF</title>
        <p>
          TOGAF is framework for designing, planning,
implementing, and governing an enterprise information
technology architecture. The TOGAF standard includes a
content framework to drive the Architecture Development
Method (ADM). TOGAF is an iterative process model
(enterprise architecture development life cycle) supported by
best practices and a re-usable set of existing architecture
assets. TOGAF supports Capability-Based Planning of
enterprise architecture [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
          ].
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>The TOGAF framework is presented in Fig. 3 below. Enterprise architecture development life cycle (defined in TOGAF) could be used for analysis of the agile software development approach.</title>
      <p>
        The TOGAF life cycle in Fig. 3 was transformed to a
schematic view of a table (Fig. 4) in which the columns
represent the phases of TOGAF enterprise architecture
development life cycle and agile methodology life cycle and
the activities in the intersecting sections – the phases of agile
development (design, build, test and deploy) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. This
approach could be used into applying agile way of working
for building up and aligning with enterprise architecture
implementation that TOGAF provides.
      </p>
      <p>
        Although companies can change strategies quickly, they
then face the big slowdown of executing one or several
strategies. For enterprise architects, this has traditionally
meant defining a new target state, comparing it with the
current state, and then developing a road map. But this
multistep process is now perceived as taking too long — by
the time EA has all of these documented and approved, the
business will have moved on [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Fig. 3. ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT LIFE
CYCLE TOGAF (https://www.opengroup.org/togaf)</p>
      <p>It is a common belief that TOGAF and also other large
enterprise architecture frameworks are “waterfall”. This is a
common misinterpretation largely due to these models
encompassing all related IT activities and not specific. But
basically all these enterprise architecture frameworks are sets
of tools, similar like agile where one also should choose the
tools and methods suitable for each specific case. A problem
in large organizations is that there are different levels of
maturity of agile of different teams. Business representatives
(also called stakeholders, subject matter experts or in agile –
product owners) represent the business only fragmentally –
whenever there is a question regarding IT and business
alignment – it is solved on ad-hoc basis, but a long term IT
and business strategy should be capable of answering these
questions on a higher – strategic – level which is orchestrated
by using the TOGAF methodology.</p>
      <p>The idea behind mapping TOGAF to agile life cycle is use
the strategic vision that TOGAF provides by using its
framework and utilize the benefits of agile continuous
improvement and “inspect and adapt” approach. The
suggested mapping is displayed in Fig. 5.</p>
      <p>When TOGAF is used for overall overview on the
enterprise architecture and agile is used for project’s
iterations, the business gets benefit from even faster deliveries
and projects are aligned with business goals at all times.</p>
      <p>V. CASE STUDY</p>
      <p>Large enterprises often combine the IT infrastructure
„inhouse“ together with outsourcing it. It could be only storing
part of data or all the data of the enterprise. These decisions
are made according to IT strategy mostly and not always these
decisions are aligned with business strategy. As the
technology advances to the cloud based solutions more and
more companies are concerned about the safety of the data in
the cloud based systems. Combining these concerns with the
agreed service level agreements provided by external vendors
not being maintained for enterprises to run their operations
smoothly (i.e. important IT system being outsourced is not
working part of the day due to agreed service level agreement
breached) might lead to decisions to insource the IT and IS
infrastructure. But the cost of such decisions is very dependent
on the level of alignment between IT and business strategy and
the less is the alignment, the bigger are the costs. Whenever
an enterprise is faced with such decision, it is very important
to keep the alignment between business and IT strategies
moving on.
By using the TOGAF enterprise architecture framework
and agile methodology alignment suggested in chapter 4, the
company facing such decision might significantly reduce the
cost and impact of the migration from outsource provider to
in-house solution by constantly aligning the enterprise
architecture which TOGAF describes with the constant
feedback, “inspect and adapt” approach that agile promotes.</p>
      <p>The case where such suggestion was made was about large
enterprise moving over 2000 servers of different purposes
from outsource to in-house. When using the suggested method
of enterprise architecture framework TOGAF being aligned
with agile methodology the implementation of the change
could have taken at least 10 % less effort both in terms of cost
and time needed for the change as the comparison of activities
by using only agile methods and the suggested method
showed. Also it is worth noting that this situation could have
been avoided if all the tools and methodologies mentioned in
this paper were used: IT and business alignment model for
overseeing the potential IT infrastructure decisions, TOGAF
for overseeing enterprise architecture and the TOGAF and
agile alignment model suggested by this paper which helps to
see the potential gaps between agile software development
and business strategy much faster.</p>
      <p>VI. CONCLUSIONS</p>
      <p>The agile way of working is something that in some
enterprises is new but others are already very far away in
implementing this approach into daily decision making
process both business and software development. These
decisions need to be constantly aligned with the overall
business strategy to have the effective enterprise run
smoothly. Therefore, it is very important to align the
enterprise architecture of the organization with agile approach
to make the most benefit of enterprise architecture framework
like TOGAF, which provides the tools to ensure business and
IT alignment whereas agile provides the speed and the
possibility to adapt to changes. Method, suggested in this
paper, supports utilization of those mentioned benefits from
both tools and allows to improve not only software
development process which agile supports, but also keep the
alignment between IT and business strategy by constantly
keeping IT projects aligned with business strategy which
TOGAF supports to make sure right solutions are developed
and aligned with long term goals of the enterprise. The
proposed approach could be further improved through the use
on different types of organizations (i.e. financial, trade,
manufacturing) and adapting it in a generalized way for
further usage.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Pikkarainen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Haikara</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
            <surname>Salo</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Abrahamsson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Still</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Pikkarainen,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Haikara</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Salo</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>O.</surname>
          </string-name>
          et al. “
          <source>Empir Software Eng”</source>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
          <volume>13</volume>
          :
          <fpage>303</fpage>
          . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9065-9
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Crawford</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Broderick</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp; León
          <string-name>
            <surname>de la Barra</surname>
            , Claudio &amp; Soto, Ricardo &amp; Misra, Sanjay &amp; Monfroy,
            <given-names>Eric.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
          <article-title>“Agile Software Development: It Is about Knowledge Management and Creativity”</article-title>
          .
          <source>ICEIS 2013 - Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. 2. 10.5220/0004447802650272.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <article-title>[3] Federation of EA Professional Organizations, "Common Perspectives on Enterprise Architecture," Architecture and Governance Magazine, Issue 9-4</article-title>
          ,
          <year>November 2013</year>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Dirk</given-names>
            <surname>Draheim</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>Gerald Weber “Trends in Enterprise Application Architecture” 2nd International Conference, TEAA 2006</source>
          , Berlin, Germany, November 29 - December 1,
          <year>2006</year>
          , Revised Selected Papers
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Winston</given-names>
            <surname>Royce</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>“Managing the Development of Large Software Systems”, Proc. Westcon</source>
          , IEEE CS Press,
          <year>1970</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>328</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>339</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Jeffrey</given-names>
            <surname>Verret</surname>
          </string-name>
          “Implementing Agile Methodology: Challenges and Best Practices” University of Oregon (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Darrell</surname>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rigby</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Jeff Sutherland,
          <source>Hirotaka Takeuchi “Embracing Agile” Harvard Business Review</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>40</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>48</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zamudio</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Lizbeth</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp; Aguilar, José &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tripp-Barba</surname>
            , Carolina &amp; Misra,
            <given-names>Sanjay.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          ).
          <article-title>A Requirements Engineering Techniques Review in Agile Software Development Methods</article-title>
          .
          <fpage>683</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>698</lpage>
          .
          <fpage>10</fpage>
          .1007/978-3-
          <fpage>319</fpage>
          - 62404-4_
          <fpage>50</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Henderson</surname>
          </string-name>
          , John and Venkatraman, N.”
          <article-title>Strategic alignment: A model for organization transformation via information technology</article-title>
          ”
          <source>Working Paper 3223-90</source>
          . Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
          <year>1990</year>
          , 458 p.
          <source>ISBN</source>
          <volume>9781245057264</volume>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>The</surname>
            <given-names>TOGAF</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ®
          <article-title>Standard, Version 9</article-title>
          .2 https://www.opengroup.org/togaf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <article-title>BPM utils</article-title>
          .
          <source>com Enterprise Agile solution Delivery Framework</source>
          <year>2017</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Henry</given-names>
            <surname>Peyret “EA Methodologies Enlarge To Address</surname>
          </string-name>
          The New Business Landscape”,
          <year>2013</year>
          http://entreprise-agile.com/ForresterEA.pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>