<!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>Towards Adoption and Use of i* to Support Enterprise Architecture in Organizational Settings: a Position Paper</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Daniel Gross</string-name>
          <email>daniel.gross@utoronto.ca</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Uwe Zdun</string-name>
          <email>uwe.zdun@univie.ac.at</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Eric Yu</string-name>
          <email>eric@cs.toronto.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Faculty of Computer Science, University of Vienna</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Berggasse 11, 1090 Vienna</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="AT">Austria</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Faculty of Information, University of Toronto</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>140 St. George Street, Toronto</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="CA">Canada</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2011</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>61</fpage>
      <lpage>65</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The i* modeling framework has over the last decade received much attention amongst research groups worldwide. However, despite the proliferation of i* research, there has been little work to-date to exploring the adoption and use of i* in enterprise organizational settings. This paper discusses some key challenges for using i* in an enterprise to support the modeling and analysis of distributed decision-making during the design and evolution of an enterprise architecture in an organizational setting, and proposes a research agenda to address such challenges in order to facilitate the adoption and use of i* in enterprise organizations.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>The i* modeling framework has over the last decade received much attention amongst
research groups worldwide. However, despite the branching out of i* research into
various domains, there has been little work to-date on exploring the adoption and use
of i* to support stakeholder and designers involved in distributed decision-making in
general and during the design and evolution of an enterprise architecture in an
organizational setting in particular. Yet, the i* modeling framework appears
particularly well suited to support enterprise architectural decision-making in
organizations, which requires dealing with the interests and needs and
decisionmaking of various business and technical stakeholders and designers holding different
responsibilities in organizational setting. For example, using intentional actors and
goal concepts supports representing and analyzing the different organizational
stakeholders and designers, their interests and decision-making, and their
organizational interdependence, while they aim to achieve respective goals.</p>
      <p>However, supporting distributed decision-making during enterprise architectural
design and evolution in an organizational setting raises various modeling and
methodological challenges. For example, it is common for large organizations to
operate hundreds if not thousands of business applications to support their business
processes and strategy, with different teams maintaining and evolving different
enterprise applications in the organization [1]. Various decisions that individual teams
more or less independently make could potentially affect whether the enterprise
organization as a whole is hindered or helped in achieving short term and/or longer
term goals [1, 2]. At the same time various management stakeholders and
enterprisewide architects aim to promote enterprise wide business and technical goals and
choices across the organization, negotiating decisions, the adoption of decisions as
well as dealing within decision compliance in the organization [3, 4]. Decision
making must thus be coordinated across teams and across managerial levels [5].</p>
      <p>Furthermore, in large organizations decision-making authority is by necessity
distributed [6, 7]. Different organizational participants, each contributing distinct
knowledge and skills, are given authority and autonomy to make decisions. A key
challenge is to allow for autonomous decision-making in various organizational
localities, while ensuring the overall consistency of decision-making within the
enterprise organization [8].</p>
      <p>Challenges also emerge from the various different knowledge domains
organizational participants work in and the different levels and scope of details
associated with participants’ individual vantage points. For example, strategic
management stakeholders are often interested in the enterprise as a whole and the
broader market place, while business architects’ main interests are business structures
and processes. Enterprise wide architects’ main focus is on the enterprise application
landscape, while individual enterprise application architects look at individual
capabilities and services provided to the enterprise. While each such organizational
participants have distinct responsibilities and purposes in mind, alignment across such
diverse domains and vantage points during decision-making is essential to the success
of the enterprise.</p>
      <p>Finally, there are also challenges related to the adoption of novel methods and
related tool support. Introducing new methods and tools to relevant stakeholders and
designers in enterprise organizations is usually a difficult task. Organizational
participants often have limited time and budget available for learning and exploring
novel modeling and analysis techniques.</p>
      <p>Furthermore, usually there are many different enterprise tools in use in an
enterprise organization to support the development and deployment of business
strategies, processes and applications. Tools that support the various organizational
participants need to be integrated with an i* decision modeling and management tool
to support the systematic linking of decision-making to artifact creation, change and
evolution. Tool support also needs to be tailored to the needs of various different tool
users, each with a different vantage point on decision-making. For example, a
management stakeholder would likely have a different stake in decision-making than
enterprise architects, each needing different kinds of features and views on
decisionmaking in the organization.
2.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Objectives of the research</title>
      <p>The overall objective of this research is to study the adoption and use of the i*
modeling framework in an enterprise organizational setting to support dealing with
distributed decision-making during enterprise architectural design and evolution. To
this end this research aims to explore:
a) in what way the i* decision modeling and analysis approach could be
adapted to meet the needs of different types of organizational participants in
an enterprise organizational setting while individually, collectively and/or
collaboratively performing decision tasks;
b) what additional modeling and analysis features could be identified to support
distributed decision-making tasks in an enterprise organizational setting;
including support for dealing with decision-making at different
organizational levels of abstraction, such as the enterprise business level, the
business processes level, the enterprise architecture level, the enterprise
application level, and enterprise component level, as well as the IT
infrastructure level [9];
c) what individual and collaborative tools to offer to organizational participants
to support i* modeling and analysis in an enterprise setting, including how
different stakeholders and designers with different technical skills could be
supported, as well as the integration of tool support into the existing
modeling and analysis tool set used by stakeholders in the enterprise
organization;
d) how to deal with in an integrated manner with qualitative and quantitative
goals and goal reasoning often employed in enterprise organizational
settings;
e) how to ease the adoption and use of the notation, method and tool; this
involves exploring user interaction with the notation, method and tools in
general and usability of the modeling notation and language and tool support
in particular.</p>
      <p>The aforementioned research objectives are quite broad and should rather be seen
as outlining a research agenda that involves different research strands, each focusing
on a different aspect of the problem of facilitating the adoption and use of the i*
modeling framework to support enterprise architectural design within an enterprise
organizational setting.
3.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Scientific contributions</title>
      <p>While much work has been done on exploring different areas in which the i*
modeling framework can be applied to advantage, little work to-date has focused on
the application and use the i* modeling framework to support distributed reasoning
and decision-making in enterprises in general and during enterprise architectural
decision-making in an enterprise organizational setting in particular [8, 10]. More
specifically, little work has been done on exploring the use of intentional actor and
goals to represent and analyze design reasoning and decision-making of different
organizational participants in enterprise organizations who hold different
organizational responsibilities, and pursue conflicting and/or synergistic business or
system goals.</p>
      <p>This research can also be seen as contribution to the body of works related to
Enterprise Architecture [1, 3], which deals with the continuous and iterative
improvement of existing and planned IT support for an organization to support the
organizations business processes, goals and strategies [1]. Current works on
Enterprise Architecture mainly focus on the artifacts produced and evolved during
enterprise architectural efforts. Little work has looked at the intentional and
organizational decision-making dimension that occurs during architectural and
architectural relevant decision-making [10, 11].
4.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Ongoing and future work</title>
      <p>Some initial work has been done in applying i* within an enterprise organizational
setting. One work explored the use of i* to support understanding stakeholders
decision-making viewpoints during an enterprise-wide architectural evolution effort
towards service-orientation, while another work looked a tactical change in a product
during an enterprise wide architectural evolution effort [8, 10, 12]. During these
works some possible extensions to i* have been identified such as intentional
viewpoint concept to support representing and reasoning about alternative
argumentations put forward by architectural designers, who have overlapping areas of
responsibilities in the organization; as well as the linking of i* models to models of
business and architectural design artifacts produced as a result of decision-making.</p>
      <p>During this initial research work, the need for a broader investigation into the
adoption and use of i* in enterprise organizations, as outlined in Section 2, was
identified.</p>
      <p>Feedback on the use of i* in an enterprise organization for example indicated the
need to tailor i* models, and in particular strategic rationale models, to the specific
needs of stakeholders and designers in the organization. Some designers require a
deeper understanding of the design issues and argumentation at hand and thus need
detailed rationale models; while other designers only need brief reminders of
rationales for choices to continue committing to them. For such purpose a simplified
version of a rationale model is already sufficient. Managerial stakeholders in
enterprise organizations were only interested in governance aspects – in what way
architectural choices downstream support (or hinder) short term or longer termed
organizational goals. For such managers a higher level “dashboard” offering a (real
time) views on goal achievement in the organization, including qualitative goals,
would be appropriate.</p>
      <p>Feedback also indicated the essential need for adequate tool support to facilitate the
adoption and use of i* in an enterprise organizational setting. This research therefore
includes in its future research effort the exploration and development of adequate tool
support to facilitate the adoption of i* modeling and analysis approach within an
enterprise organizational setting.</p>
      <p>Developing tools that practitioners can use is in particular important since without
adequate tool support that is to a sufficient extend integrated with already existing
enterprise tools, it is difficult to encourage organizational participants to adopt and
use on their own a novel modeling approach. Having adequate tool that practitioners
derive value from and are willing to use, would also be a useful vehicle to study the
adoption and use of i* in an enterprise, and to derive additional modeling and analysis
requirements. Such an intertwined approach would be consistent with the action
research approach [13], a participatory research approach where researchers and study
participants are jointly engaged in problems solving (i.e. such as to improve the
organizational distributed decision-making capability) through iterative learning
cycles and knowledge creation.
1.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Alexander</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tool</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Support for Enterprise Architecture Management - Strengths and Weaknesses</article-title>
          .
          <source>in 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC'06)</source>
          .
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Erl</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>SOA Principles of Service Design (The Prentice Hall Service-Oriented Computing Series from Thomas Erl)</source>
          .
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Engels</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.,
          <source>Quasar Enterprise: Anwendungslandschaften serviceorientiert gestalten</source>
          .
          <year>2008</year>
          : dpunkt verlag.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Farenhorst</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and H. van Vliet.
          <article-title>Understanding how to support architects in sharing knowledge</article-title>
          .
          <source>in Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge</source>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
          . SHARK '
          <volume>09</volume>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          ICSE Workshop on.
          <year>2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Curtis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Krasner</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Iscoe</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>Communications of the ACM</source>
          ,
          <year>1988</year>
          .
          <volume>31</volume>
          (
          <issue>11</issue>
          ): p.
          <fpage>1268</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1287</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Galbraith</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>Organization design. 1977</source>
          , Reading, Mass.:
          <string-name>
            <surname>Addison-Wesley Pub</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          Co. xvi,
          <volume>426</volume>
          p.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rasmussen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Brehmer</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and J. Leplat, eds.
          <article-title>Distributed decision making - cognitive models for cooperative work</article-title>
          .
          <source>New Technologies and Work. A Wiley Series</source>
          .
          <year>1990</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gross</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Supporting the evolution of software architectures in development organizations using intentional agents</article-title>
          .
          <source>Fourth International i* Workshop - istar10</source>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          2008, Springer Berlin /Heidelberg. p.
          <fpage>15</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>32</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gross</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Software architecture decision-making in organizational settings</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in Faculty of Information</source>
          .
          <year>2011</year>
          , University of Toronto: Toronto. p.
          <fpage>240</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Clements</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and L.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bass</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Relating Business Goals to Architecturally Significant Requirements for Software Systems</article-title>
          , in Research, Technology, and System Solutions Program.
          <year>2010</year>
          , Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gross</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Evolving System Architecture to Meet Changing Business Goals: An Agent and Goal-Oriented Approach</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering</source>
          .
          <year>2001</year>
          , IEEE Computer Society. p.
          <fpage>316</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kock</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Information systems action research: an applied view of emerging concepts and methods</article-title>
          .
          <source>Integrated series in information systems;</source>
          .
          <year>2007</year>
          , New York: Springer. xxv,
          <volume>425</volume>
          p.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>