IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v9y2007i2d10.1007_s10796-007-9030-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams

Author

Listed:
  • Pontus Johnson

    (Royal Institute of Technology)

  • Robert Lagerström

    (Royal Institute of Technology)

  • Per Närman

    (Royal Institute of Technology)

  • Mårten Simonsson

    (Royal Institute of Technology)

Abstract

The discipline of enterprise architecture advocates the use of models to support decision-making on enterprise-wide information system issues. In order to provide such support, enterprise architecture models should be amenable to analyses of various properties, as e.g. the level of enterprise information security. This paper proposes the use of a formal language to support such analysis. Such a language needs to be able to represent causal relations between, and definitions of, various concepts as well as uncertainty with respect to both concepts and relations. To support decision making properly, the language must also allow the representation of goals and decision alternatives. This paper evaluates a number of languages with respect to these requirements, and selects influence diagrams for further consideration. The influence diagrams are then extended to fully satisfy the requirements. The syntax and semantics of the extended influence diagrams are detailed in the paper, and their use is demonstrated in an example.

Suggested Citation

  • Pontus Johnson & Robert Lagerström & Per Närman & Mårten Simonsson, 2007. "Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 163-180, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:9:y:2007:i:2:d:10.1007_s10796-007-9030-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-007-9030-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-007-9030-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10796-007-9030-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang, Jian-Bo, 2001. "Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 31-61, May.
    2. Ronald A. Howard, 1988. "Decision Analysis: Practice and Promise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 679-695, June.
    3. Ross D. Shachter, 1986. "Evaluating Influence Diagrams," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 871-882, December.
    4. Åsa Lindström & Pontus Johnson & Erik Johansson & Mathias Ekstedt & Mårten Simonsson, 2006. "A survey on CIO concerns-do enterprise architecture frameworks support them?," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 81-90, February.
    5. Ross D. Shachter, 1988. "Probabilistic Inference and Influence Diagrams," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 589-604, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chulhwan Chris Bang, 2015. "Information systems frontiers: Keyword analysis and classification," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 217-237, February.
    2. Ana Maria Magalhães Correia & Claudimar Pereira da Veiga & Carlos Otávio Senff & Luiz Carlos Duclós, 2021. "Analysis of the Maturity Level of Business Processes for Science and Technology Parks," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, September.
    3. Gong, Yiwei & Janssen, Marijn, 2019. "The value of and myths about enterprise architecture," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Soomro, Zahoor Ahmed & Shah, Mahmood Hussain & Ahmed, Javed, 2016. "Information security management needs more holistic approach: A literature review," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 215-225.
    5. Monika Kaczmarek-Heß & Sybren Kinderen, 2017. "A Multilevel Model of IT Platforms for the Needs of Enterprise IT Landscape Analyses," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 59(5), pages 315-329, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Tonoli, Fabio, 2014. "Decision-network polynomials and the sensitivity of decision-support models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 490-503.
    2. Logan, Douglas M., 1990. "5.4. Decision analysis in engineering-economic modeling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 15(7), pages 677-696.
    3. Concha Bielza & Prakash P. Shenoy, 1999. "A Comparison of Graphical Techniques for Asymmetric Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(11), pages 1552-1569, November.
    4. Stephen G. Pauker & John B. Wong, 2005. "The Influence of Influence Diagrams in Medicine," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 2(4), pages 238-244, December.
    5. Özgür-Ünlüakın, Demet & Bilgiç, Taner, 2017. "Performance analysis of an aggregation and disaggregation solution procedure to obtain a maintenance plan for a partially observable multi-component system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 652-662.
    6. Concha Bielza & Peter Müller & David Ríos Insua, 1999. "Decision Analysis by Augmented Probability Simulation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(7), pages 995-1007, July.
    7. Douglas K. Owens & Ross D. Shachter & Robert F. Nease JR, 1997. "Representation and Analysis of Medical Decision Problems with Influence Diagrams," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(3), pages 241-262, July.
    8. Salo, Ahti & Andelmin, Juho & Oliveira, Fabricio, 2022. "Decision programming for mixed-integer multi-stage optimization under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 550-565.
    9. Jae Kwang Lee & Jae Kyeong Kim & Soung Hie Kim, 2000. "A methodology for modeling influence diagrams: a case‐based reasoning approach," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 55-63, March.
    10. Regan, Peter J. & Holtzman, Samuel, 1995. "R&D Decision Advisor: An interactive approach to normative decision system model construction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 116-133, July.
    11. Apiruk Detwarasiti & Ross D. Shachter, 2005. "Influence Diagrams for Team Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 2(4), pages 207-228, December.
    12. Jesus Rios & David Rios Insua, 2009. "Supporting Negotiations over Influence Diagrams," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 153-171, September.
    13. Dennis M. Buede, 2005. "Influence Diagrams: A Practitioner's Perspective," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 2(4), pages 235-237, December.
    14. Alan Brennan & Samer Kharroubi & Anthony O'Hagan & Jim Chilcott, 2007. "Calculating Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information via Monte Carlo Sampling Algorithms," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(4), pages 448-470, July.
    15. Thomas W. Keelin & Bradford W. Powley, 2011. "Quantile-Parameterized Distributions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 206-219, September.
    16. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "Modeling personalized cognition of customers in online shopping," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    17. David V. Pynadath & Bistra Dilkina & David C. Jeong & Richard S. John & Stacy C. Marsella & Chirag Merchant & Lynn C. Miller & Stephen J. Read, 2023. "Disaster world," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 84-117, March.
    18. Caetani, Alberto Pavlick & Ferreira, Luciano & Borenstein, Denis, 2016. "Development of an integrated decision-making method for an oil refinery restructuring in Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-210.
    19. J-B Yang & D-L Xu & X Xie & A K Maddulapalli, 2011. "Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritizing voices of customer," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1638-1654, September.
    20. Bielza, Concha & Gómez, Manuel & Shenoy, Prakash P., 2011. "A review of representation issues and modeling challenges with influence diagrams," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 227-241, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:9:y:2007:i:2:d:10.1007_s10796-007-9030-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.