Enterprise Ontology and Semantics

FACULTY OF ARTS, COMPUTING, ENGINEERING AND SCIENCES

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMMES

MSc

Dissertation

Student Name ZAID AYOTUNJI ADEOGUN

Student ID 22040934

Course Title ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL

Supervisor DR. SIMON POLOVINA

Date of Submission

Faculty of Arts, Computing, Engineering and SciencesCity Campus Sheffield S1 1WB United Kingdom

FACULTY OF ARTS, COMPUTING, ENGINEERING AND SCIENCES

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMMES

A Descriptive Analysis of Enterprise Ontology and Semantics in LEADing Practice and

Essential Project

By

Zaid Adeogun

Supervised by

Dr. Simon Polovina

September 2014

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of

Master of Science in Enterprise Systems Professional

AcknowledgementFirstly, I will like to thank the God Almighty for giving me the ability to be able reach this level in life and academics.

My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Simon Polovina for his guidance throughout this research and his teachings on the subject. I also will like to thank Dr Sharif Hossein for his teachings of Enterprise Architecture.

I dedicate this work to my parents for providing both financial and moral support throughout this degree. This dedication will also be extended to my sister for her help throughout this degree, I appreciate it all and I hope soon enough I will be in a position to do more for you.

AbstractLike Charles Darwin said “it is neither the smartest nor the strongest that survive but those most adaptive to change” yet many enterprises around the world still have difficulties while trying to fulfil the capabilities and meet their goals.

Enterprise modelling is the act of making a model of an enterprise so as to facilitate change and to produce good enterprise architecture of an enterprise. The enterprise architecture frameworks tend to help in designing this enterprise model but they all still lack a standard description language because they tend to mix-up the captured information from the presented information.

Many projects within an enterprise fail because they lack semantics and ontology in their enterprise model. The aim of this research is to investigate the extent to which ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling is being aided by LEADing Practice and Essential Project.

A descriptive case study was used that helps in describing ontology and semantics in LEADing Practice and Essential Project with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of how these concepts improve enterprise modelling. Interviews were also carried out to substantiate the evidence from the case studies used for this study

The findings in the descriptive case study revealed that both LEADing Practice and Essential Project will help give enterprise architects a standard description language for modelling the enterprise because of ontology and semantics. This will also allow for the gap between BPM and EA to be bridged thereby allowing enterprise architecture to fulfil its goal of aligning business with IT.

This research recommends that the LEADing Practice enterprise modelling standard can work with Essential Project meta-model within the modelling environment of Essential to produce a high quality enterprise model that will not only help facilitate change within an enterprise but also deliver value .

An area for future work will look into how the concepts discussed in this research will be used in the visualisation tool called Essential Viewer which will help business and IT stakeholders view and analyse reports and also in decision making.

Table of ContentsAcknowledgement...............................................................................................iii

Abstract............................................................................................................... iv

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1

1.1 Background of the Study........................................................................1

1.2 Statement of Problem and Research Focus..........................................1

1.3 Research Question and Objectives........................................................2

1.3.1 Research Question..........................................................................2

1.3.2 Research Objectives........................................................................3

1.4 Research Methodology..........................................................................3

1.5 Organization of Thesis...........................................................................3

LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................5

2.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................5

2.2 Business Process Management.............................................................5

2.3 Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Modelling..................................6

2.4 Ontology and Semantics in Enterprise Modelling...................................7

2.5 Integrating Enterprise Architecture and Business Process Management8

2.6 Enterprise Architecture Frameworks......................................................8

2.6.1 Zachman Enterprise Architecture Framework.................................9

2.6.2 The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF).....................10

2.7 Summary and Gaps in Literatures Reviewed.......................................14

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.........................................................................16

3.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................16

3.2 Research Objectives............................................................................16

3.3 Research Strategy...............................................................................17

3.3.1 Case Study....................................................................................17

3.3.2 Justification for the use of Case Study..........................................18

3.4 Sources of Data Collection...................................................................19

3.4.1 Case Study Data Collection...........................................................19

3.4.2 Interviews......................................................................................20

3.5 Framework for Data Analysis...............................................................20

3.6 Limitations and Potential Problems......................................................21

CASE STUDY REPORT...................................................................................23

Reason behind Choosing LEADing Practice and Essential Project...............23

4.1 Case Study 1: LEADing Practice.............................................................23

4.1.1 Overview of LEADing Practice..........................................................23

4.1.2 Ontology and Semantics in LEADing Practice..................................24

4.1.3 Enterprise Modelling in LEADing Practices.......................................25

4.1.3.1 Enterprise Modelling in LEADing Practice..................................26

4.2 Case Study 2: Essential Project Report...................................................29

4.2.1 Overview of Essential Project...........................................................29

4.2.2 Ontology and Semantics in Essential Project...................................29

4.2.3 Enterprise Modelling in Essential Project..........................................30

4.3 Cross-Case Findings and Discussion......................................................43

Interview Results...........................................................................................44

Finding 1........................................................................................................46

Finding 2........................................................................................................46

Finding 3: Comparison of LEADing Practice with Essential Project...............47

Finding 4........................................................................................................47

Summary of Findings.....................................................................................48

CONCLUSION..................................................................................................49

5.1 Research Objectives............................................................................49

Objective 1: To investigate Ontology and Semantics in Enterprise Modelling...................................................................................................................49

Objective 2: To investigate the contribution of LEADing Practice and Essential Project to semantics and ontology in enterprise modelling.........49

Objective 3: To compare enterprise modelling in LEADing Practices with Essential Project........................................................................................50

Objective 4: To investigate the integration of business process management with enterprise architecture..................................................50

5.2 Evaluation of Thesis.............................................................................50

5.3 Future Research Ideas.........................................................................51

Bibliography.......................................................................................................52

Appendix A: Research Proposal........................................................................56

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................56

RESEARCH QUESTION...............................................................................56

Research Topic:.........................................................................................56

Main Research Question...............................................................................56

RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES.............................................................57

Research objectives......................................................................................57

LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................57

Enterprise Architecture..................................................................................57

Enterprise Architecture Frameworks..............................................................58

Semantics and Ontology in Enterprise Architecture......................................59

Service Oriented Architecture........................................................................60

Conceptual Graphs........................................................................................60

Transaction Oriented Architecture.................................................................60

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY and TOOLS.....................................................61

Target audience and evaluation of potential outcome.......................................63

Research Ethics.............................................................................................65

REFERENCES..................................................................................................66

Appendix B: Sheffield Hallam University Research Ethics Checklist.................69

Appendix C: Semi-Structured Interview Questions...........................................73

Participant One: LEADing Practice Based.....................................................73

Participant Two: Essential Project Based......................................................73

Appendix D: Composition and Decomposition of Requirements.......................74

Table of FiguresFigure 1: The Zachman Enterprise Framework (Zachman 2008)......................10Figure 2: TOGAF Content Overview (The Open Group 2013)..........................11Figure 3: TOGAF ADM Phases (The Open Group 2013)..................................12Figure 4: The types of Case Study Research (Biggam 2011)...........................18Figure 5: Designing Case Studies (Andrews 2011)...........................................21Figure 6: Enterprise Modelling, Enterprise Engineering and Enterprise Architecture.......................................................................................................26Figure 7: Components of Essential Project (Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2014).................................................................................................................29Figure 8: Essential Concepts (Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2013)............30Figure 9: Snapshot of Essential Project Business Conceptual modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................31Figure 10: Snapshot of Essential Project Business Logical modelling in Protégé...........................................................................................................................32Figure 11: Snapshot of Essential Project Business Physical modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................33Figure 12: The Business Modelling Overview within the three layers...............33Figure 13: Snapshot of Essential Project Application Conceptual modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................34Figure 14: Snapshot of Essential Project Application Logical modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................35Figure 15: Snapshot of Essential Project Application Physical modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................36Figure 16: The Application Modelling Overview within the three layers............36Figure 17: Snapshot of Essential Project Information Conceptual modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................37Figure 18: Snapshot of Essential Project Information Logical modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................38Figure 19: Snapshot of Essential Project Information Physical modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................39Figure 20: The Information Modelling Overview within the three layers............39Figure 21: Snapshot of Essential Project Technology Conceptual modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................40Figure 22: Snapshot of Essential Project Technology Logical Modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................41Figure 23: Snapshot of Essential Project Technology Physical modelling in Protégé..............................................................................................................42Figure 24: The Technology Modelling Overview within the three layers...........42

List of TablesTable 1: First Participant Interview Summary....................................................44Table 2: Second Participant Interview Summary...............................................45Table 3: Summary of Comparison between LEADing Practice and Essential Project...............................................................................................................47

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

An enterprise is defined as any collection of organization that has a

common set of goals, a good example is an agency within the government like

the ministry of finance which has several entities under it but they all have a

major goal of maintaining the finance of a country. A Model is the representation

or structure of something while modelling is the act of making a model while

enterprise modelling is the act of making the structure of an enterprise (Harrison

2009).

Enterprise architecture is a "strategic approach to architecture that

addresses a whole enterprise" (BCS 2013). Enterprise modelling is not a total

new concept, it can be said to be field or branch of enterprise architecture

because good enterprise architecture will depend on how good the enterprise

modelling was carried out. The need for a good enterprise modelling cannot be

over-emphasized because the operating model of an enterprise is connected to

the enterprise architecture (Buuren 2004).

There are various enterprise architecture frameworks that help in

enterprise modelling. Zachman and TOGAF are discussed in the literature

review chapter because of the impact of these frameworks in the enterprise

architecture modelling world.

1.2 Statement of Problem and Research Focus

The use of ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling is an

important concept in the enterprise architecture world (Buuren 2004); this is

because currently so many enterprise architect come up with their own

modelling techniques for each architectural domain. This is happening because

there is no standard enterprise architecture description language that can be

used in enterprise modelling (Buuren 2004).

1

Also the main focus of enterprise architecture is to enable IT deliver

business value which is aligning business with information technology but this is

not being fulfilled at the moment which is making executives lose confidence

that enterprise architecture can bring value to their enterprise. It was also

highlighted that less than 5% of enterprise uses enterprise architecture

effectively because of poor enterprise models (Ross, Weill and Robertson

2006).

So many projects fail within an enterprise because they do not have

ontology and semantics to assist in communication between human agents in

order to achieve interoperability among computer systems or to improve

process and quality (Dongwoo et al. 2010). It was also highlighted that well-

modelled enterprise architecture will bring great benefits to an organization no

matter the size using the Delta Airline and MetLife case study (Ross 2004);

Nowadays organisations do not pay so much attention to modelling enterprise

architecture because organisations are not getting the required value from the

enterprise architecture frameworks (Buuren 2004).

From this reasoning, the research question originated as also discussed in the

research proposal by (Adeogun 2014).

The main focus will be to discuss how ontology and semantics in LEADing

Practice and Essential Project help in enterprise architecture modelling.

1.3 Research Question and Objectives

Research questions might take some time to be formulated but they are

the starting point for a focused research. In some fields and in some projects,

their aim might be to work towards a research question over the years (Andrews

2003).

The research question in this proposal emerged from the literature review as

also discussed in the research proposal by (Adeogun 2014)

1.3.1 Research Question

This major aim is to investigate the extent to which ontology and semantics in

enterprise modelling is being aided by the LEADing Practice enterprise

2

modelling standard and the Essential Project meta-model. In order to fulfil this,

a research question and a number of objectives were set.

"To what extent will LEADing Practice and Essential Project help in enterprise

modelling?"

1.3.2 Research Objectives

The objectives of this research are:

i. To investigate the concept of ontology and semantics in enterprise

modelling

ii. To investigate the contribution of LEADing Practice and Essential Project

to ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling

iii. To compare enterprise modelling in LEADing Practice with Essential

Project.

iv. To investigate if both LEADing Practice and Essential Project bridge the

gap between Business Process Management and Enterprise

Architecture.

1.4 Research Methodology

The case study strategy was used to achieve the objectives of this

research because it is a strategy used when studying one or more example of

a particular type of something (Biggam 2011) . The case study report in chapter

4 was achieved by conducting desk research which mainly involves collecting

background information on both LEADing Practice and Essential Projects and

relevant documents. The type of case study used in this research is the

descriptive case study which is preferred for producing the full description of a

phenomenon in order to get a deeper understanding of that particular

phenomenon. Multiple case studies were also used to make sure the

conclusions reached are valid and reliable because there are some

misconceptions about single case studies (Flyvberg 2004).

A small sample of interviews was included to substantiate the resources that

were gotten from the desk research and also to serve as a form of primary data.

1.5 Organization of Thesis

Chapter 1: Introduction

3

This chapter contains the background of the study, the research focus and a

little bit of the research methodology. How the research question was

formulated was also discussed and the objectives of the research are outlined.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

In this chapter, literatures relating to the domain of this research (enterprise

architecture) were reviewed and the literatures are relevant to the objectives of

this research. There is also a section on the gaps in these literatures that

research intends to fill.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

This chapter covers the research strategy used to achieve the objectives of this

research. It also covers the justification for using this strategy, the data

collection methods and the framework for data analysis.

Chapter 4: Case Study Report

This chapter covers the report on the two case studies used to achieve the

objectives of this research. There is also a section on findings and discussion

from the case study.

Chapter 5: Conclusion

This chapter discusses the summary of this research based on the objectives,

the issues encountered during this research and an important area for further

research.

4

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will show a comprehensive review of literature relating to

enterprise modelling. All the literature reviewed here will be fully integrated

while the gaps and conflicts will also be addressed if any exist. The discussion

here will be relevant to the research objectives discussed in the previous

chapter. Finally the focus of this chapter is to show the depth of knowledge of

the domain being discussed. The topics covered in this chapter include:

Enterprise Modelling and Business Process Management, Enterprise

Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Frameworks, TOGAF ADM Phases,

Ontology and Semantics in enterprise modelling.

2.2 Business Process Management

A business process is a set of related events which consist of one or

more operations that is important to produce a service or product (AIAI 2001).

Nowadays the rate at which things change is becoming faster and more

dynamic, this is putting more pressure on organizations and enterprises around

the world to keep up with these changes hence the need for proper better

business process management (Rosenberg 2011).

Business process management is when an enterprise or an organization

is planning on taking a business from one state to another (usually an improved

state). Business Process Management is used and applied as an approach and

support to help understand and evaluate the current situation which is referred

to as the "AS-IS situation" and then to develop improvements which is known as

the "TO-BE Situation" (Ulf 2011). The above explanation shows the importance

of business processes to an enterprise but most importantly it shows that

business process of an organization needs to be understood in order to be able

5

to carry the organization forward which is why it is an integral part while

studying enterprise modelling (Rosenberg 2011).

2.3 Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Modelling

Enterprise Architecture is said to be the description of the goals of an

organization and how these goals are being achieved by business processes

and also how these business process can be optimized with information

technology. This definition of enterprise architecture is important because it has

emphasis on the business process which was why business process was

explained previously (Sessions 2008).

Enterprise Modelling on the other hand is the modelling of the processes,

infrastructures, or some other elements of a business within an enterprise. It

helps the non-technology people within an enterprise to visualize what is going

on within an enterprise and the strategic position of an enterprise. It has also

been found useful to system analyst because it helps to fix hardware issues and

troubleshooting within an enterprise (Janssen 2010).

Enterprise modelling is currently being used by large enterprises in order

to clarify, analyse and implement their business processes. It is also being used

to help all stakeholders have a common understanding of the enterprise

(Mentzas and Friesen 2010).

This is made possible because enterprise architecture is always

connected to the operating model of an enterprise which makes it important to

have a good enterprise model (Buuren 2004). If an enterprise has a poor model

then it will be difficult for technology to support its business process because

business processes without good IT support are always inefficient (Sessions

2008).

The quality that a good enterprise model will bring to an enterprise

cannot be overemphasized because of the enormous value it brings to the

enterprise. These values are but not limited to better insight, improved

communication between stakeholders and optimized change management but

unfortunately there is difficulty in producing good enterprise models because

there is no standard used among enterprise architect when doing enterprise

modelling (Buuren 2004).

6

2.4 Ontology and Semantics in Enterprise Modelling

Having discussed business processes, enterprise architecture and

enterprise modelling and their importance to an enterprise, the next set of

literature that will be reviewed will be on the concept of semantics and ontology

in the enterprise modelling world and how they both help improve enterprise

modelling.

Semantics has to deal with the meaning of something and ontology deals

with the nature of being (Oxforrd University Press 2014). In computing ontology

is said to be a "specification of a conceptualization" while in artificial intelligence

an otology is said to be a set of information where terms are defined and related

to each other (O'Leary 2010)

Relating these definitions to an enterprise, enterprise ontology and semantics is

a collection of terms and definitions relevant to an enterprise and sharing the

meaning across various entities of the enterprise (O'Leary 2010).

The Lack of semantics in enterprise modelling causes communication

problems between humans and between systems within an enterprise. This is

because it reduces the extent to which humans can understand the processes

that the enterprise runs on (Dongwoo et al. 2010) . The problems that arise due

to the lack of semantics in enterprise modelling as discussed in (Dongwoo et al.

2010) made the importance into the research of ontology and semantics in

enterprise modelling important.

Ontology is about concepts and how these concepts are inter-related

collectively so as to impose a structure on the domain (enterprise architecture in

this case). Ontology will assist in communication between human agents with

the ultimate aim of achieving interoperability among implemented systems and

also to improve process (Dongwoo et al. 2010).

Enterprise ontology is the study that describes a well-founded method of

how to model the essence of an organization in a coherent, consistent, concise

and comprehensive way (Dietz 2006). It is focussed on the essence of

operation of an enterprise; this means that it is fully independent of the current

realization and implementation of the enterprise. Likewise (Mentzas and Friesen

2010) discussed how interoperability is important to the modern day enterprise

and how this can be achieved through enterprise semantics and ontology

7

because the communication problem within the enterprise stated in (Dongwoo

et al. 2010) will be solved.

2.5 Integrating Enterprise Architecture and Business Process

Management

Having discussed Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Business Process

Management (BPM), it is important to look at literature that bring both fields

together because nowadays the gap between enterprise architecture and

business process management needs to be bridged.

There is much benefit that can be derived from combining enterprise

architecture and business process management if organizations move away

from using these disciplines individually. In a survey conducted by IBM in 2011

it was revealed by 8 out 10 CEOs that their organization will be going through

massive change in a couple of years, for all these changes to be successful

there is need to integrate business process management with enterprise

architecture so as to bridge the gap between the need for change and the ability

to make these changes actualise (Jensen 2011).

This argument was also backed up by (Shankararaman and Kazmi 2011)where

they mentioned some issues that arises in organization has a result of using

enterprise architecture and business process management independently.

Some of these issues are but not limited to:

No proper alignment between IT architecture to accommodate business

goals

The IT architecture will not be able to accommodate changes to business

strategy

Lack of commitment from business to IT projects.

The above issues are raised by (Shankararaman and Kazmi 2011) as

the major issue that will arise if enterprise architecture is not integrated with

business process management.

2.6 Enterprise Architecture Frameworks

There are various enterprise architecture frameworks and new ones are

still being added daily. Enterprise architecture framework is being discussed

because they are the traditional way used by enterprise architect in enterprise

modelling.

8

The main reason why enterprise architecture was initially design was to manage

the rapid rate at which distributed systems are being developed (Sessions

2007). Every important issue in an enterprise from every perspective is shown

graphically on the framework with ultimate goal of aligning IT with business

needs.

An architecture framework can also be said to be a tool that can be used

for developing a broad range of architectures in terms of building blocks to

speed up and simplify the architecture development (Harrison 2009).

According to (Minoli 2008) who said that a framework can generally be referred

to as just a detailed method and a set of supporting tools. It was further

explained in (Minoli 2008) that these frameworks provide guidance on how to

describe architectures only and do not provide guidance on how to develop or

implement a specific architecture.

The argument raised in (Minoli 2008) served as a motivation behind this

research because if these frameworks can't provide guidelines on how to

develop or implement specific architecture then we need to look further than

them which is why the LEADing Practice reference content and Essential meta-

model is being investigated.

2.6.1 Zachman Enterprise Architecture Framework

One of the first enterprise architecture frameworks is the Zachman

framework which is mainly referred to as a logical structure that provides a

comprehensive representation of an enterprise (Zachman 2008). The Zachman

framework proposed that there are six descriptive foci (data, function, time,

network, people and motivation) and also six player perspectives (owner,

planner, designer, builder, subcontractor and enterprise) (Zachman 2008). This

will be arranged as a two-dimensional grid to enable the consideration of each

functional focus from the perspective of each player.

The Zachman framework is only good for introduction for an initial

venture into the highly complex subject matter of enterprise architectures and

does not comprise of any specific method, adequate tool support or guidelines

for designing and implementing a customized architecture for an enterprise

(Hanschke 2010).

9

Figure 1: The Zachman Enterprise Framework (Zachman 2008)

Figure 1 shows the full blueprint of the Zachman enterprise framework.

2.6.2 The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)

Having discussed Zachman, another important framework is The Open

Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF). TOGAF was developed by a

collaborative effort of more than 300 architecture forum member companies

from some of the world's leading IT customers and it is regarded today as the

best practice in architecture development (The Open Group 2009). Enterprise

architectures development usually requires a very technical complex process

while the design of heterogeneous and multi-vendor architecture is complex as

well. TOGAF comes in to help here by aiding the development of architectures

that are consistent, reflect the needs of the stakeholders, employ best practice

and gives good room for scalability while also playing an important role in

helping to "de-mystify" and "de-risk" the process involved in architecture

development (The Open Group 2009).

10

2.8.2.1What Makes Up TOGAF?

According to (The Open Group 2013) TOGAF is divided into four major

architectures: business architecture, application architecture, data architecture

and technical architecture although the data architecture and application

architecture have been merged together to form the "information system

architecture".

It was further discussed in (The Open Group 2013), TOGAF is made up

of four major components and they are: Architecture Development Method

(ADM) which is a generic method for developing enterprise architecture. The

Architecture Content Framework used to provide a detailed model of

architectural work products. The Enterprise Continuum used to provide a model

for structuring a virtual repository and also provides methods for classifying

architecture and solution artefacts. The Architecture Capability Framework

which is set of resources, guidelines, templates and background information

used to help the architect establish an architecture practice within an

organization. Finally there are two reference models in TOGAF for possible

inclusion in an enterprise's own continuum.

Figure 2: TOGAF Content Overview (The Open Group 2013)

11

2.8.2.2TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM)

The TOGAF ADM is a generic method with eight phases used for

developing enterprise architectures (Hanschke 2010). In each phase of the

ADM, the goals, approaches, requires input activities and deliverables are

documented seperately thereby making the ADM method enriched by specific

ADM guidelines and techniques (Hanschke 2010).

The phases of the ADM are: Architecture Vision, Business Architecture,

Information Systems Architecture, Technology Architecture, Opportunities and

Solutions, Migration Planning, Implementation Governance and Architecture

Change Management (The Open Group 2013).

Figure 3: TOGAF ADM Phases (The Open Group 2013)

Figure 3 shows the phases involved when using the ADM to develop enterprise

architectures. The emphasis is on the

12

I. Preliminary Phase: According to (Harrison 2009), this phase describes

the preparation and initiation activities required to prepare to meet the

business directive for new enterprise architecture.

II. Architecture Vision: In this phase, the initial Architectural Development

Cycle is described. It also includes information relating to defining the

scope, identifying the stakeholders, creating the architecture vision and

obtaining approvals (Harrison 2009).

III. Business Architecture: According to (Harrison 2009), this is the phase

where the description of the development of a business architecture to

support the agreed architecture vision. Also (Hanschke 2010) this phase

also describes the strategies, governance, organisation and business

processes of the enterprise.

IV. Information Systems Architectures: In this phase, the description of the

development of information systems architecture for an enterprise

architecture project takes place (Harrison 2009). This phase has two sub

architectures under it:

The Data Architecture: According to (Hanschke 2010), here this is

where the data, the associations that exist between them and the

principles for organising and managing resources in the context of

the application landscape is described.

The Application Architecture describes the applications and the

relationship that exists between them and also between

applications and business processes (Hanschke 2010). Also

according to (BCS 2013) the application architecture focus is on

the data consumed and produced by applications rather than their

internal structure.

V. Technology Architecture: According to (Hanschke 2010), the technology

architecture describes the current technical implementation and the

future technical standards that are specific to an enterprise. (Harrison

2009) also said it describes the development of technology architecture

for an architecture project.

13

VI. Opportunities and Solutions is the phase where an architect conducts

initial implementation planning while the delivery vehicles for the

architecture phases defined previously are identified (Harrison 2009).

VII. Migration Planning addresses how to move from "baseline" to "target"

architectures (Harrison 2009).

VIII. Implementation Governance: This phase provides an architectural

oversight of the implementation (Harrison 2009).

IX. Architecture Change Management establishes the procedures for

managing change to the new architecture (Harrison 2009).

2.7 Summary and Gaps in Literatures Reviewed

In this chapter, the relevant literature to the domain have been discussed

and put into context of the research objectives but this chapter will not be

completed without discussing the gaps in the literature. According to (Michigan

State University 2014) a gap in a literature or research is when any of the

following happens:

When a research is publishable

When there are some missing element in the existing literature

When it doesn’t conflict with your own research

Likewise a gap in literature can be referred to as something that hasn't been

researched on previously in the literature reviewed (Macintosh 2009).

In terms of filing the gap with results of this research; (Dongwoo et al.

2010) discussed the issues that an enterprise will face from not using ontology

in enterprise modelling and proposed a way out by using three levels of

enterprise architecture ontologies but did not use any of the tools (LEADing

Practice and Essential Project) that will be used in this research, which makes

this research fulfil a gap in the literature.

14

Another literature by (Shankararaman and Kazmi 2011) highlighted the

issues that arises when EA and BPM are not integrated but they did not

propose ontology and semantics as a way to solve this issues raised by them,

rather they propose a way out by using a synergistic framework.

In terms of the literature discussed on ontology and semantics, there are

no conflicts between them because they all agree on the benefits that ontology

and semantics will bring to an organisation.

15

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the method and strategy applied for this research will be

discussed. As discussed in the first chapter, the main aim of this research is to

understand how ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling is being aided

by LEADing Practice and Essential Project. There are different types of

research strategy and technique which varies based on the type of research

but because of the focus of this research there won't be time to explain all the

types of research methodology rather the focus of this section is to discuss the

chosen methodology and justify it as compared to other suitable methods.

The success of any research depends on the research method used

because a research should deliver its purpose and meet its objective. To

achieve this, the right methodology and technique must be used. Also in order

to maintain a valid research goal, a research needs to have a well-defined

research problem (Kothari 2004). These problems acoording to (Kothari 2004)

and how it is related to this research are identified below:

The problem must a group or an individual (Everyone related to the

enterprise architecture field in this case).

There must be some set of objectives to be achieved (The objectives

discussed in chapter one)

There must be alternatives for achieving this objectives

There must be a certain amount of doubt in the mind of the person

carrying out the research on how to select alternatives.

There must be an environment to which the difficulty is applied

(Enterprise Architecture Environment)

The above are the well- defined research problem according to (Kothari 2004).

3.2 Research Objectives

The objectives of this research are:

16

i. To investigate the concept of ontology and semantics in enterprise

modelling

ii. To investigate the contribution of LEADing Practice and Essential Project

to semantics and ontology in enterprise modelling

iii. To Compare enterprise modelling in LEADing Practice with Essential

Project

iv. To investigate the integration of business process management with

enterprise architecture.

3.3 Research Strategy

There is a common mistake among researchers that a research strategy

has to be either quantitative or qualitative because so many believe that it is the

research strategy that determines if their research is quantitative or qualitative.

Although it can be said that surveys are related to quantitative research and

case studies are related to qualitative research by students but that is not

always the case. It is not only the research strategy that determines if a

research is qualitative or quantitative, what determines this is your research

strategy, data collection techniques and the research objectives (Biggam 2011).

3.3.1 Case Study

For this research case study strategy will be applied. (Yin 2009)

described a case study method as a method that can be used in numerous

situations to contribute to knowledge of an individual group while Biggam (2011)

said a case study is the study of one or more example of a particular type of

something. (Yin 2009) further said that the case study method can be use if the

researcher is planning on investigating a phenomena within a certain group of

people. The main aim of research is to look into how ontology and semantics in

enterprise modellling is being fulilled with LEADing Practice and Essential

Project. The use of these two solutions made the type of case study in this

research a multiple case study because according to (Yin 2009) a case study

research can be a single case study or multiple case study but the benefits from

using a multiple case study is higher than that of a single case study.

After selecting the suitable case study research the next thing is to

choose the type of case study research that meets the purpose of my research

17

and according to (Biggam 2011) there are three types to choose from in a case

study research as shown in the diagram below:

Figure 4: The types of Case Study Research (Biggam 2011)

Descriptive case study is used when producing the full description of a

phenomenom with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of that particular

phenomenom.

From the above the type of case study research that willl be used in this

research is the descriptive case study because the aim of this research is to get

more understanding of how ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling is

being aided by the use of LEADing Practice and Essential Project.

3.3.2 Justification for the use of Case Study

The objectives of this research mentioned in the previous chapters will

be fulfilled using the case study strategy. According (Yin 2012) to there are

three situations where case study method could be used as a research method:

The first and most important decision to choose a case study method like other

research methods is determined by the kind of research question that the

research wish to address. Case study can be used when the research has a

descriptive question like ("what is happening or has happened") or an

explanatory question like (how or why did something happen). In contrast to this

the other type of question that relate to producing a particular outcome can be

done using experiments or quasi experiments.18

The second reason why a case study could be used according to (Yin

2012) is when the data is being collected in a natural setting like data from how

a particular phenomenon is impacting a group of people rather than derived

data like responses to questionnaire in a quantitative study or the response to

researcher's instrument in an experiment.

The third and final reason according to (Yin 2012)is when conducting

evaluations. Case study has been found very useful when doing evaluation

research because evaluation takes place within an organisational context.

The three reasons above are suited to this particular research because

the research question fits into the first reason as to when to use a case study

because neither experiment nor quasi experiment is going to be carried out in

this research. The second reason is that the data used in this research matches

the one described in (Yin 2012) for a case study research that is data collected

from a natural setting.

3.4 Sources of Data Collection

3.4.1 Case Study Data Collection

According to (Yin 2012) direct observations, interviews, archival records,

documents, participant-observation and physical artefacts are the six major

sources evidence that data could be collected from when doing case study

research. Classical case study research use data collection methods like

surveys, interviews and the rest but this research is based mainly on secondary

data and interview with subjects that have impacted on the case studies.

Secondary source of data include published journals, books, conference

papers, electronic resources and catalogues (Biggam 2011).

LEADing Practice and Essential Projects website was also used as these

represent authentic source of information about the two case studies being

discussed and were of great help in fulfilling the objectives of this research.

The major advantage of using secondary source of information is that the

information required is always readily available and makes the researcher

complete the research within a short period of time in cases where there is so

much to be covered within a short period of time. Secondary sources also offer

cheap form of data which reduces ethical considerations than other data

generation methods (Biggam 2011).

19

3.4.2 Interviews

Interview in case study research is slightly different from other types of

research strategy, in a case study research the aim of the interview is to get

more details about the phenomenon in study (Bryman 2012).

The kind of interview used in this research is a semi-structured interview

because this kind of interview offers flexibility and confirms what is already

known but offers room for learning. The questions asked were to substantiate

the discussion that was made during the case study report of this research.

3.5 Framework for Data Analysis

Analysing case study evidence is still a bit difficult because the methods

are not well defined unlike other kinds of research. According to (Yin 2009)

there are four analysis strategies and five techniques for analysing case

studies, these techniques and strategies could be used in combination because

they are not mutually exclusive.

For this research the analysis strategy that will be used is the "relying on

theoretical propositions" and "developing a case description". The relying on

theoretical propositions strategy will be used first because the data in this

research is based on theories so this strategy will be used as a guide to help

focus attention on the important data and ignore the less important one. This

will be followed by the developing a case description strategy which is a

descriptive framework for organizing the case study. To support this, a semi-

structured interview with subjects that have experienced knowledge on the case

studies will be carried out but this interview will be to substantiate the secondary

sources.

The diagram in figure 5 explains how the analyses will be done using the two

case studies (LEADing Practice and Essential Project).

20

Figure 5: Designing Case Studies (Andrews 2011)

The diagram above shows an adapted version of (Yin 2009) case study designs

for (Biggs 1999) in (Andrews 2011) and part of this can be applied in this

research. After using the two analysis strategies the next thing will be to apply

the technique for data analysis in case study and like the strategies the

techniques are mutually exclusive also but the technique that will be adopted in

this research is called "explanation building" and according to (Yin 2009) it is a

technique whereby the goal is to analyse the case study data by building

explanation about the case.

LEADing Practice Process framework will be analysed and will be explained as

the case study and then I will write the individual case report. This will be

followed by the case report of Essential Project Meta-Model. In doing this

objective 1 and 2 will be answered in the report being generated while objective

3 will be on the findings of the case report.

3.6 Limitations and Potential Problems

The use of the case study strategy in this research has been well thought

about. Although some might argue that a survey or an experiment research

strategy could answer the research question and fulfil the objectives of this

research because one of the limitations of case study according to (Kothari

2004) is that case studies are not comparable. Also (Yin 2009) said that the

case study is a method whereby theory is modified by conclusions from a series

of case studies. The issue here is that there has been a problem with using one

case study, however this research will be using two case studies (LEADing

Practice and Essential Project) to see how they both help in enterprise

modelling thereby making comparisons between them which will solve the

21

limitation mentioned by (Kothari 2004) and also conclusions can be made

because it is not a single case study.

22

CHAPTER 4

CASE STUDY REPORT

Reason behind Choosing LEADing Practice and Essential Project

The literature review looked into the previous literature on the key concepts

around the enterprise architecture domain particularly on enterprise architecture

frameworks. These frameworks are used as guidance for coming up with

enterprise architecture models but over the years they have been issues within

the enterprise architecture domain that these frameworks are not meeting up

with the aim of enterprise architecture (Sessions 2008). This is why we have to

look beyond the traditional enterprise architecture frameworks hence the reason

for selecting LEADing Practice and Essential Project as the cases studies and

look at how they will help in enterprise modelling.

4.1 Case Study 1: LEADing Practice

4.1.1 Overview of LEADing Practice

Layered Enterprise Architecture Development (LEAD) called LEADing

Practice is "recognised as a paradigm shift" in the field of enterprise

architecture, enterprise modelling and enterprise engineering because it brings

all these fields together as a result of years of industry research and expert

consensus (LEADing Practice 2014).

As discussed in the literature review by (Buuren 2004) the problem of no

standard enterprise architecture description language for enterprise modelling is

really affecting enterprise architects and the enterprise architecture field as a

whole, this is one of the many areas LEADing Practice intend to come in and

help the enterprise architecture field as a whole.

The major strength of LEADing Practice goes beyond just using its

frameworks but the ability of its reference content to help using three major

principles according to (LEADing Practice 2014):

i. The way of Thinking: This is the starting point in LEADing Practice and

very essential. A LEAD expert should be able to analyse, appraise,

23

approximate, assess and capture objects while also being able to plan,

design, scheme and structure in order to understand the underlying

thought.

ii. The way of Working: This is the next step and it is equally important like

the way of working and in fact the LEAD expert should be able to

translate the way of thinking into the way of working. Due to this

dependency, it is important to perform the functions in the way of thinking

correctly so as to enable the LEAD expert to organize, classify, align,

arrange, quantify, recommend and select objects in a structured way that

will enable the objects to be de-composed or composed together.

iii. The way of Modelling: The way of modelling is the logical level where

uniform and formal description of the model objects and artefacts takes

place using decomposition and composition modelling techniques at the

different architecture layers. In LEADing Practice the three architecture

layers are:

Business Layer

Application Layer

Technology Layer

The layers above are similar to those of (The Open Group 2013) that

was discussed in the literature review; the only difference is that the information

system architecture layer in TOGAF has been replaced with the application

layer in LEADing Practice but they still have the same content.

The combination of these three principles is why LEADing Practice is

bringing about innovations in organizations, helping organizations to transform

and also making sure they deliver value.

(LEADing Practice 2014)

4.1.2 Ontology and Semantics in LEADing Practice

In chapter 2 the importance of ontology and semantics to enterprise

modelling was reviewed but this section will discuss how LEADing Practice

uses ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling.

Ontology and Semantics is the basis of all LEADing Practice enterprise

standards because these standards are independent of any vendor and are all

24

built on reusable and repeatable patterns which can be used by any kind of

organization (big or small) regardless of its services or products. LEADing

Practice currently has 94 different enterprise standards in 6 areas. The six

areas are:

i. Enterprise Management Standards: The enterprise management

standards in LEADing Practice is

ii. Enterprise Modelling Standards

iii. Enterprise Engineering Standards

iv. Enterprise Architecture Standards

v. Enterprise Information and Technology Standards

vi. Enterprise Transformation and Innovation Standards.

The above six are the enterprise standards that LEADing Practice comprises of

although there are also industry standards for various industries but the focus of

this research is not on that rather it is on enterprise modelling but because

ontology and semantics was the foundation for designing these standards, a

discipline in enterprise engineering can be used in enterprise modelling

standards to facilitate it (LEADing Practice 2014). This will solve the

interoperability issue that was raised by (Dongwoo et al. 2010) in the literature

review.

4.1.3 Enterprise Modelling in LEADing Practices

25

Figure 6: Enterprise Modelling, Enterprise Engineering and Enterprise Architecture

(LEADing Practice 2014)

4.1.3.1 Enterprise Modelling in LEADing Practice

Enterprise Modelling: The field of enterprise modelling is important as it

has been shown in the literature review section and a good enterprise

architecture will depends on how good the enterprise modelling is carried out.

In LEADing Practice, there are 18 enterprise modelling disciplines and

areas but because of the focus of this research only three will be discussed and

they are:

i. Drivers and Forces Modelling Reference Content: Capturing internal

and external forces as well as drivers is an important aspect when

modelling an enterprise. In LEADing Practice the external and internal

driver and force is often referred to as a condition that has an impact

(force) or motivates (driver) the organization to help them define their

direction.

Due to the explanation above, we cannot neglect the importance of this

discipline in enterprise modelling because it is the foundation of

enterprise modelling. The list of the Meta objects that the drivers and

forces relate to base on (LEADing Practice 2014) are:

Vision and Mission

Strategy (Strategic Business Objective)

Goal

Objective

Value Driver

Performance Driver

Business Area

Business Group

Business Service

Service Owner

Process Owner

Application/System Owner

Data Owner

Infrastructure Owner

26

ii. Requirement Modelling: Requirement modelling in LEADing Practice is

done through a lifecycle of requirement analysis, requirement design,

implementation and then the governance of these requirements which is

triggered by an insight, event or condition within the business (LEADing

Practice 2014).

What this means is that before the requirement modelling can be carried

out, it has to be activated by a business event within the organization.

The LEADing Practice Requirement Modelling Reference Content is

classified into two as stated below:

High-Level requirement: These are business specific requirements

Detailed requirements: These are function specific requirements

and are generally related to product requirement

The decomposition and composition of requirements is shown in appendix.

iii. Value Model Reference Content: The value model reference content is

used by practitioners working with value aspects so as to define the

modelling principles to make an objective assessment. While working

with the value aspects, LEAD practitioners must be able to translate the

"way of working" into "way of modelling" which always include part of the

following according to (LEADing Practice 2014):

Expressiveness: this is the degree to which the modelling

technique is able represent any number or kind of layered

domains which is business, application and technology in this

case.

Arbitrariness: this is the flexibility that someone has when

decomposing and composing different models on the same

domain. For example if we are decomposing the business area

into business compliance on the business architecture layer.

Comprehensibility: This is the way by which the participants

understand the way of working and the way of modelling. This

simply means every participant should be able to understand your

way of working and modelling.

27

Coherence: This is the extent to which sub-models of a way of

modelling constitute a whole.

Completeness: this is the extent to which all necessary

components of the application domain are represented in the way

of modelling. The emphasis is on the application domain here.

Efficiency: Like every other good practice, efficiency is an

important concept. This is the extent to which the modelling steps

uses resources like time, people and finance.

Effectiveness: this is the extent to which the modelling principles

achieve its goals

Audit: the extent to which the end results of the models achieve its

goal. i.e. meets the all the requirements of the enterprise in all the

layers (business, application and technology).

Relating the above concepts to information modelling in

(Scheruhn, Von Rosing and Fallon 2014) work the thinking has to be

done on how the other parts of enterprise modelling fits into information

modelling. Although data modelling is always said to be the only part of

information modelling but it was shown in (Scheruhn, Von Rosing and

Fallon 2014) that process modelling, value modelling or service oriented

modelling are brought together under information modelling because

information modelling according to (Scheruhn, Von Rosing and Fallon

2014) is not only made up of data modelling alone but also other aspects

of modelling mentioned above. This was much more explainable in

LEADing Practice because the enterprise modelling standard

encompasses information modelling, value modelling and service model

bringing them all under one standard which augments the ontology and

semantics in LEADing Practice. This also shows the enterprise standards

can work together.

28

4.2 Case Study 2: Essential Project Report

4.2.1 Overview of Essential Project

Essential project is an open source enterprise architecture tool

developed by Enterprise Architecture Solutions Ltd to help in designing,

implementing and managing enterprise architectures. In this case study, the

focus is on the essential meta-model and how it is being used in enterprise

modelling although there is also the essential architecture manager which is

more of a reference implementation of the essential meta-model as shown in

figure 7 (Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2014).

Figure 7: Components of Essential Project (Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2014)

The motivation to develop a tool that will be used in enterprise modelling

came because most organizations were using different methodologies and

frameworks to develop their enterprise architecture with most of these methods

not mature and incomplete meta-models. Also there was the need for a low

maintenance tool that will address all aspect of business and IT architecture,

much easier to learn and understand, that uses ontology and semantics in

enterprise modelling to provide efficient results within a short period of time.

These were the reasons that motivated Enterprise Architecture Solutions to

come up with Essential Projects as a tool used in developing and managing

enterprise operating models and strategies.

4.2.2 Ontology and Semantics in Essential Project

In the previous section the motivations behind the development of

Essential Project was discussed. Relating how Essential Project solves the

ontology and semantics issues that were raised in the literature review is also

an essential part of this research.

In designing Essential Projects it was discovered that most of the other

meta-models like Zachman for example always have a pre-defined building-

29

blocks and this will constrain the meta-model and make changes difficult which

is not the best because change is an essential part of an enterprise that has to

be considered highly when doing enterprise modelling. This is an important

aspect of Essential Project because it moved enterprise architecture tools away

from documentation and graphical based approach (like using the TOGAF ADM

phases to come up with document to model the enterprise) to knowledge

representation using Protégé which is an ontological knowledge representation

platform which is also open source (Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2013).

4.2.3 Enterprise Modelling in Essential Project

Enterprise Modelling in Essential Project is done using the essential

meta-model which is an ontology for the field of enterprise architecture and was

developed with the help of enterprise architecture frameworks although it has

been improved upon. Figure 8 shows the essential meta-model core concepts

and support concepts (Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2013).

Figure 8: Essential Concepts (Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2013)

From the above diagram there are four core concepts and six support concepts

in the meta-model. The core concept comprises of four architectural layers with

each layers having an abstraction level of conceptual, physical and logical. The

Essential meta-model will be described in detail with examples because they

30

are the basis for enterprise modelling in Essential Project and also the ontology

and semantics cannot be achieved by neglecting the meta-model

i. Business Modelling: In this layer every knowledge that is related to the

objectives capabilities, people and processes of the enterprise is

captured. The business layer in Essential Project is divided into three

abstraction views:

Business Conceptual: This is the place where the "what" in

terms of business is defined like "what is the business capability".

The business objective is also defined in this stage up until the

role types in the enterprise. In the pre-defined meta-model, there

are seven business role types but this can be edited and new

roles can be added using the instance browser on protégé

(Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2009).

An example of the business conceptual is shown in figure 9:

Figure 9: Snapshot of Essential Project Business Conceptual modelling in Protégé.

In the above diagram the conceptual model of the business has 9

areas under it. The business role type has seven roles pre-defined

but can be modified if there is need providing more flexibility.

Business Logical: The business logical layer is where the "how"

in business terms is defined. This is the layer where "how" the

31

"what" will be achieved. This layer consists of 12 important

concepts including but not limited to business role, business

process and business rule (Enterprise Architecture Solutions

2009).

Figure 10: Snapshot of Essential Project Business Logical modelling in Protégé.

Figure 10 shows the section covered by the logical layer. There

are 12 concepts in all but business event is sub-divided into two

which are "external business event" and "time based business

event". The business process type is sub-divided into 3 which are

business activity, business process and business task. The

business role is sub-divided into two which are group business

role and individual business role. The logical business model is

where the business process flow is created.

Business Physical: In this layer this where the actual

implementation takes place. Based on business, this is where the

logical processes mentioned earlier are implemented and who

(individuals or teams) will perform them. (Enterprise Architecture

Solutions 2009).

32

Figure 11: Snapshot of Essential Project Business Physical modelling in Protégé.

Figure 11 shows the concepts under the business physical modelling in

Essential Project. There are three concepts in all: the actor, the physical

process type and the site.

Figure 12: The Business Modelling Overview within the three layers

(Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2009)

33

ii. Application Modelling Layer: Modelling in the application layer has to

deal with the behaviour of the systems that are in use in the enterprise

and the functionality they provide to support the enterprise. Just like the

business layer, the application layer is split into three views too which will

be explained below.

Application Conceptual: Here the "what" in terms of the application

is defined for example what application is required within each

business domain described in the business layer (Enterprise

Architecture Solutions 2009).

Figure 13: Snapshot of Essential Project Application Conceptual modelling in Protégé.

Figure 13 shows the application conceptual modelling

environment in Essential Project. The first part is the application

architecture objective which deals with the strategic goal

associated with the application architecture of the enterprise. The

second part is the application architecture principle and this has to

deal with how applications are delivered to the enterprise whether

they build it in-house or purchase packaged applications. The third

part is the application capability that deals with providing the

abstract perspective of the functional behaviour that is required to

support the business. The last part is the application driver.

Application Logical: This where "how" is defined in terms of

application used to support the enterprise. This is also the layer

that shows "how" the "what" will be achieved. Primarily it will 34

consist of the functions that applications need to provide to realise

capabilities and the detail of the application that provides these

functions (Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2009).

Figure 14 shows the application logical modelling environment.

The application service is used to model a logical grouping of

application functions. The application function is the functional

behaviour of an application. The Application family is the place

where an application with the same provider is grouped, for

example SAP R/3 has different application modules like HR, SD,

FI, CO and MM will be grouped under SAP.

Figure 14: Snapshot of Essential Project Application Logical modelling in Protégé.

Application Physical: This has to deal with the actual

implementation of the application that provides functions and

services to the enterprise. Figure 15 shows the application

physical modelling environment in Essential project. There are two

sub-categories under the application physical: application

deployment and application deployment group.

35

Figure 15: Snapshot of Essential Project Application Physical modelling in Protégé.

Figure 16: The Application Modelling Overview within the three layers


iii. Information Modelling Layer: This is where the elements relating to

information and data are captured in Essential Projects. Just like the

36

previous meta-models, information modelling is also divided into three

view which will be explained below:

Information Conceptual: This is the first stage and it is where the

"what" is defined in terms of information concepts that are

required within each business domain. Figure 17 shows the

information conceptual modelling environment in Essential

Project. There are five key areas under it: The information

architecture objective is a strategic goal associated with the

information architecture. The information architecture principle is

the high level rule that governs the way information concepts are

managed by the enterprise. The information concept is referred to

as the information element that is used by the enterprise in

running its business (Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2009).

Figure 17: Snapshot of Essential Project Information Conceptual modelling in Protégé.

Information Logical: This is the area where we define "how". It is

where we define "how" information concepts are used. Figure 18

shows the information logical modelling environment in Essential

Project. The information view is the logical view of an information

concept. The information representation means using a specific

technology like relational database, XML schema, NoSQl etc. The

primitive data object deals with the kind of data object like string,

37

integer, float and Boolean (Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2009)

.

Figure 18: Snapshot of Essential Project Information Logical modelling in Protégé.

Information Physical: In this layer the physical information view

captures the store where a particular view of information is

managed. Figure 19 shows the information physical modelling

environment in Essential Project. The information store describes

the physical instance of an information representation and the role

that particular information store plays. The information store

defines the physical deployment of an information representation

and captures the deployment role for that particular store. The

physical data object defines the physical data that is stored in an

information store.

38

Figure 19: Snapshot of Essential Project Information Physical modelling in Protégé.

Figure 20: The Information Modelling Overview within the three layers


iv. Technology Modelling: This is concerned with the technology (both

software and hardware technology) that provides and support the

systems that are in use within the enterprise. Just like the other meta-

models the technology layer is also divided into three (Enterprise

Architecture Solutions 2009):

39

Technology Conceptual: This is the area where we define the

what. In technology terms this refers to the capabilities that are

required to provide the appropriate technology infrastructure for

the enterprise. For example server virtualization is a technology

capability that describes what is needed but it does not go further

than this. Technology architecture objective is the strategic goal

associated with the technology architecture of an enterprise.

Technology architecture principle refers to the high level rules that

govern the way in which the technology capabilities are delivered

by the enterprise. The technology domain provides a way of

grouping technology into different areas (Enterprise Architecture

Solutions 2009). Figure 21 shows the technology conceptual

modelling environment in Essential Project.

Figure 21: Snapshot of Essential Project Technology Conceptual modelling in Protégé.

Technology Logical: This is where the "how is defined. It is "how"

the "what" will be achieved. In terms of technology, this deals with

the classes of technology and the technology products that will be

used to achieve the "what" explained in technology conceptual.

The technology component is used to describe a particular class

of technology that is used to provide a technology capability. The

technology function is used to describe the functionality that a

technology component should/can provide. The technology 40

provider is used to capture a technology product that is being

used to provide technology components in the architecture

(Enterprise Architecture Solutions 2009). Figure 22 shows a

technology logical modelling environment in Essential project.

Figure 22: Snapshot of Essential Project Technology Logical Modelling in Protégé.

Technology Physical: This layer captures all the implementations

and deployments of technology in the enterprise. It captures the

instances of technology products and where they are physically

deployed. Figure 23 shows the technology physical modelling

environment in Essential Project.

41

Figure 23: Snapshot of Essential Project Technology Physical modelling in Protégé.

Figure 24: The Technology Modelling Overview within the three layers


Enterprise modelling in Essential project has to go through all the layers

described in this section to produce the enterprise model but there are still the

support concepts that depend on the core concepts.

The support concepts explained below are also important because this is mainly

used to explain things to people outside the architectural world.

42

i. Strategy Management: Strategy management has to deal how the future

state of an organization is managed and the road map for achieving it.

ii. Change Management: This has to deal with how the dependencies that

impact the people, processes, and IT of an enterprise are managed

during change.

iii. Service Delivery: This has to deal with managing the dependencies that

exist between people, processes and IT in support of the on-going

operation of an enterprise.

iv. Security Management: Security is an important aspect of any enterprise

so this deals with managing the requirements, design and

implementation of the security policies of an enterprise.

v. Standards Management: This provides the ability to manage data quality,

ownership, application, technology, process standards across the

organization.

vi. Cost management: this offers support for managing the cost of elements

in the core meta-models like the application or business contract cost.

The above are some of the support concepts in Essential Project but the job of

Essential Project is not finished here as it has the capability to do reporting and

a special tool called Essential Viewer for producing decision-support views for

any stakeholder. However the objective of this research is not tailored towards

that aspect and it gives a room for future work that could be done in this area

because the meta-model concepts discussed in this research serves as a basis

for constructing the views.

4.3 Cross-Case Findings and Discussion

This section will discuss the findings in this research. The findings from the two

case studies were substantiated by a semi-structured interview, the full

interview questions and transcript is added in appendix C. The interview serves

as a form of primary data but not in the form of a full qualitative method because

the use of interviews in case studies can serve as a support to the other data

collection sources used in the case study report (Yin 2009).

43

Interview Results

Questions First Participant (LEADing Practice Based)

1: What is your view on ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling?

It is an important concept and so many project

implementations fail within an enterprise because they

lack ontology and semantics. It also aids

communication because ontology can be discussed

from one subject perspective and cross- subject

perspective.

Q2: How do you think LEADing Practice Contribute to Ontology and Semantics in enterprise modelling?

In LEADing Practice, there are 94 enterprise standards

in 6 areas and all these standards are built first by

defining the ontology of that standard. We then use

semantic relations to define the semantic nature

between two objects and their relationship within the

enterprise standards so ontology and semantics is an

important part of LEADing Practice.

Q3: What is your view on information and process modelling being of help in enterprise modelling

The LEAD concept can be used to connect information

models with process models. SAP is already using this

for execution in their ERP package so it is valid and it

works because it is already being applied in the market.

Q4: To what extent will LEADing Practice bridge the gap between EA and BPM

The use of LEADing Practice will totally bridge the gap

between EA and BPM because the concepts (ontology

and semantics) we discussed earlier will facilitate this.

Table 1: First Participant Interview Summary

44

Question Second Participant (Essential Project based)

Q1: What is your view on ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling

For many years people have been creating models

to try and describe what it is they want to do and

what it is they are doing and a lot of the time they

have used some sort of graphical tools as a way of

doing that but the problem is that there is a mix-up

between the captured information and the

information presented.

The use of ontology and semantics in enterprise

modelling is important in terms of how we capture

whatever it is about our enterprise because it

separates the captured information from the

presented information

Q2: How do you think Essential Project contribute to ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling?

A lot of EA frameworks have some sort of meta-

models which encode semantics. The essential

meta model started with 40 meta-classes but it's

over 500 now and this happened because of

semantics. Essential meta-model is the richest

among all EA frameworks now.

Q3: What is your view on information and process modelling being of help in enterprise modelling

Process modelling in my view has to do with the

process of what people or systems do in order to

get things done in the enterprise.

Information modelling is also very important for the

business and applications because applications

uses data to create information

Q4: To what extent will Essential Project bridge the gap between EA and BPM

This is more of a noise than the actual fact but

essential project through its meta-model will bridge

the gap between EA and BPM.

Table 2: Second Participant Interview Summary

45

The above tables’ shows the results of the interview carried out; it is used as a

form of primary data to substantiate the evidence on the case study report.

Finding 1

Enterprise Modelling in LEADing Practice is more of a reference content to help

in building the enterprise model with the help of the detailed processes of its

framework. In the LEADing Practice based interview, it was discovered that the

enterprise standards in LEADing Practice were built by first "defining the

ontology of that standard". This was used to develop each of the six enterprise

standards then the objects were defined, followed by the groups, categories and

the areas involved. After this was done, they started finding the relationships

between different objects among the enterprise standards; this was done using

semantic relations to find the semantic nature between two objects and their

relationship.

There is a relationship between LEADing Practice, Essential Project and

TOGAF (The Open Group 2009) explained in the literature review but LEADing

Practice and Essential Project can be used for not only enterprise architecture

but also business process management because not only will LEADing Practice

identify the need for change, it also has the ability to make this change actualize

through its reference content.

Finding 2

Essential Project is a complete enterprise modelling tool because it provides

both the framework in its meta-model and the environment to use this

framework. The protégé environment as shown in the case study report is

where the essential meta-model is loaded unto to begin enterprise modelling.

Essential project currently has 500 meta-classes embedded into their meta-

model as compared to other enterprise architecture methodologies with an

average of 40.

In the Essential Project based interview, it was discovered that there are three

main questions that come up in enterprise modelling

i. Where do I start modelling?

ii. When do I stop?

iii. How do I know if it is enough?

46

The above three questions come up because people just want to capture

everything and put it in their repository but the problem with this is that they

won't get any value from it so the best way is to start from what you need to

understand now and what questions do I need to be able to answer. If these

two are understood properly then you can work out what you need to show on

the enterprise model that will answer those questions which will eventually

guide us on what to capture thereby solving the issue of capturing everything.

This will them give us a good enterprise model that can be used to support

business processes.

Essential Project also provides guidance on how to implement or develop

specific architectures as shown in the case study report above where each

architecture layer is explained. This will improve on the issue that (Minoli 2008)

raise about enterprise architecture frameworks not providing guidance on how

to implement or develop specific architecture.

Finding 3: Comparison of LEADing Practice with Essential ProjectLEADing Practice Essential Project

It does not have its own environment for modelling but its enterprise modelling standard can be used within the essential modelling environment

It is a complete package with its meta-model and an environment to implement this meta-model

Enterprise Modelling is based on its enterprise modelling standard explained in the case study report.

Enterprise Modelling is based on the essential meta-model

The enterprise modelling standard can be used to together with the essential meta-model to provide a better enterprise model. This will not take away from the meta-model but will only improve the outcome.

Table 3: Summary of Comparison between LEADing Practice and Essential Project

Finding 4

In Buuren (2004) it was said there is no standard enterprise architecture

description language that can be used in enterprise modelling and that

enterprise architect always come up with their own modelling techniques. This

is an area that both Essential Project and LEADing Practice intend to solve

because there is a common language to describe the enterprise in the

47

reference content of LEADing Practice and in the meta-models of Essential

Project.

Summary of Findings

The findings in this section have been able to integrate the data from the

interviews and the case study report. The interviews have been analyzed and

only key information have been presented in the tables above due to the length

of the interviews, however full transcripts of the interviews is available in the

appendix.

48

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

This research started with the introduction chapter the background into

the research was discussed. The research focus highlighted the problem which

this research tends to solve and also the reason behind the research question

with the research objectives. This chapter is followed by the literature review

where literatures' relating to the domain of enterprise modelling is discussed

and the gap in the literature that this research will address was also mentioned.

This research has also been able to use the descriptive case study to

describe in detail ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling according to

the salient concepts of LEADing Practice and Essential project with the aim of

gaining a deeper understanding of how these concepts improve enterprise

modelling.

This section of the research looks at how the objectives of this research have

been carried out and if the research question was answered and also a

reflection on the process of this research.

5.1 Research Objectives

Objective 1: To investigate Ontology and Semantics in Enterprise ModellingThe need and importance for ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling

was first brought up in the literature review of this research putting them into

context. In the case study report, each case was used to explain how they use

semantics and ontology.

Objective 2: To investigate the contribution of LEADing Practice and Essential Project to semantics and ontology in enterprise modellingAfter explaining the role of ontology and semantics in enterprise modelling, the

next thing was to see how the two case studies use semantics and ontology in

enterprise modelling.

For LEADing Practice, the way in which their enterprise standards are built with

specific emphasis on enterprise modelling proves this and the interview session

also confirms this.

49

For Essential Project, the use of knowledge representation and its over 500

meta-classes confirms its foundation of ontology and semantics while using it in

enterprise modelling.

Objective 3: To compare enterprise modelling in LEADing Practices with Essential ProjectThe comparison between LEADing Practice and Essential Project can be found

in findings one and two where it clearly highlights the results from the case

study and the private interview likewise finding 3 shows a table overview of the

comparison and similarity.

Objective 4: To investigate the integration of business process management with enterprise architectureThis is the last objective and it is also an important one because of the noise it

generates within the enterprise architecture community nowadays. From the

result of the interviews the gap will be bridged using LEADing Practice and

Essential Project.

5.2 Evaluation of ThesisThis section is based on different issues and reflections that happened during

the different stages of this research.

The first part was choosing the right methodology for doing this research.

Although it was pretty straight forward that the case study methodology will be

used because the objectives of the research does not require an experiment or

survey to be carried out by the researcher. The majority of the data was

collected through secondary sources even though primary data was collected in

form of interviews but of the three subjects to be interviewed only two was

actually done. This is because the subjects are not geographically located in the

same area as the researcher which proved difficult to get a hold of them and

there was no alternative within the time frame of the research. The information

from the two participants was very helpful and it provided a better

understanding of the case studies and also supports what has been written in

the reports.

It was also difficult finding supporting evidence on the case study strategy for

the field of computing because the few published books on case study is on

social science although some academic theories from Yin, Biggam and

50

Flyvberg helped with the theoretical explanation and the use of case studies but

compared with other research strategies it was not enough.

5.3 Future Research IdeasThis research has looked at how ontology and semantics in enterprise

modelling is aided by LEADing Practices and Essential Project using a

descriptive case study with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding as to

what extent they help in enterprise modelling which is what a descriptive case

study is most suitable for but there is still room for future work to improve on this

research.

For further research ideas, the enterprise standards and the essential

meta-models can be used in an industry like example (SAP Global Bike

Industry) to help with producing a model of the enterprise with ontology and

semantics incorporated. This will also show a practical example of how the gap

between BPM and EA is bridged using LEADing Practices and Essential

Project. LEADing Practices has 94 enterprise standards in 6 areas but this

research has only been able to look into only one area in detail which is

enterprise modelling. The future work will look into the other areas in detail and

how they complement enterprise modelling standard that was discussed in this

research.

Essential Project meta-model will then be used in conjunction with LEADing

Practice to implement it, this will provide a much richer enterprise model.

Although a work has been done with the LEADing Practice concept by

(Scheruhn, Von Rosing and Fallon 2014) but it was implemented in ARIS which

is total BPM tool.

The use of essential meta-model in conjunction with LEADing Practices will

generate a good business process model and notation of the process captured

in the meta-model. This will make it easy not to neglect the business

architecture and bridge the gap between BPM and EA.

Also Essential Project has a concept called Essential Viewer which is used to

help business and IT stakeholders view and analyse reports and also in

decision making. Making the views is something that will depend on the concept

of ontology and semantics within the essential meta-model discussed in this

51

case study report which sets this aspect into an important area for further

research.

BibliographyADEOGUN, Zaid (2014). Research Proposal. Assignment, Sheffield,

AIAI (2001). Enterprise Modelling: A Declarative Approach for FBPML. [online]. Last accessed 30 August 2014 at: http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~jessicac/psfiles/wf-fbpml.pdf

ANDREWS, Simon (2011). Aligning the Teaching of FCA with Existing Module Learning Outcomes. In: International Conference on Conceptual Structures, 25-29 July 2011. Springer, 394-401.

ANDREWS, Richard (2003). Research Questions. London, Continuum.

BCS (2013). Enterprise and Solution Architecture Syllabus. [online]. Last accessed 22 April 2014 at: http://certifications.bcs.org

BIGGAM, John (2011). Succeeding with your Master's Dissertation. 2nd ed ed., Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education.

BIGGS, J (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham, Open University Press.

BRYMAN, Alan (2012). Social Research methods. 4th ed., New York, Oxford University Press.

BUUREN, Van R. (2004). Concepts of Modelling Enterprise Architectures. [online]. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13 (3), 257-287. last accessed 30 April 2014 at: http://shu.summon.serialsolutions.com

DIETZ, Jan L. G. (2006). Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. New York, Springer.

DONGWOO, Kang, et al. (2010). An ontology-based Enterprise Architecture. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (2), 1456-1464.

DONGWOO, Kang, et al. (2010). An Ontology-Based Enterprise Architecture. [online]. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (2), 1456-1464. Article from Pergamon-Elsevier Science LTD last accessed 24 July 2014 at: http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SOLUTIONS (2009). Application Modelling. [online]. Last accessed 19 August 2014 at: http://enterprise-architecture.org/application-architecture-tutorials/57-application-architecture-overview

52

http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~jessicac/psfiles/wf-fbpml.pdf

http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~jessicac/psfiles/wf-fbpml.pdf

http://certifications.bcs.org/

http://shu.summon.serialsolutions.com/

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/

http://enterprise-architecture.org/application-architecture-tutorials/57-application-architecture-overview

http://enterprise-architecture.org/application-architecture-tutorials/57-application-architecture-overview

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SOLUTIONS (2009). Business Modelling. [online]. Last accessed 19 August 2014 at: http://enterprise-architecture.org/business-architecture-tutorials/55-business-architecture-overview

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SOLUTIONS (2014). Essential Project Background. [online]. Last accessed 17 August 2014 at: http://enterprise-architecture.org/about/background

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SOLUTIONS (2013). The Essential Project. [online]. Last accessed 18 August 2014 at: http://www.enterprise-architecture.org

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SOLUTIONS (2009). Information Modelling. [online]. Last accessed 20 August 2014 at: http://enterprise-architecture.org/information-architecture-tutorials/56-information-architecture-overview

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SOLUTIONS (2009). Technology Modelling. [online]. Last accessed 20 August 2014 at: http://enterprise-architecture.org/techology-architecture-tutorials/58-techology-architecture-overview

FLYVBERG, Bent (2004). Five Misunderstanding about Case-Study Research. [online]. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219-245. last accessed 08 August 2014 at: http://shu.summon.serialsolutions.com

HANSCHKE, Inge (2010). Strategic IT Management: A Toolkit for Enterprise Architecture Management. New York; Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.

HARRISON, Rachel (2009). TOGAF 9 Foundation study guide: preparation for the TOGAF 9 part 1 examination. Zaltbommel, Van Haren.

JANSSEN, Cory (2010). Enterprise Modelling. [online]. Last accessed 30 August 2014 at: http://www.techopedia.com/definition/28051/enterprise-modeling

JENSEN, C. T. (2011). Integrating EA and BPM Synergistically: Methodologically Combining Planning and Delivery. [online]. In: IEEE 13th Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing, IEEE, 279-285. last accessed 12 July 2014 at: http://shu.summon.serialsolutions.com

KOTHARI, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International Publishers.

LEADING PRACTICE (2014). About Us. [online]. Last accessed 16 August 2014 at: http://www.leadingpractice.com/about-us/

LEADING PRACTICE (2014). Drivers and Forces Modelling Reference Content. [online]. Last accessed 16 August 2014 at:

53

http://enterprise-architecture.org/business-architecture-tutorials/55-business-architecture-overview

http://enterprise-architecture.org/business-architecture-tutorials/55-business-architecture-overview

http://enterprise-architecture.org/about/background

http://enterprise-architecture.org/about/background

http://enterprise-architecture.org/information-architecture-tutorials/56-information-architecture-overview

http://enterprise-architecture.org/information-architecture-tutorials/56-information-architecture-overview

http://enterprise-architecture.org/techology-architecture-tutorials/58-techology-architecture-overview

http://enterprise-architecture.org/techology-architecture-tutorials/58-techology-architecture-overview


http://www.techopedia.com/definition/28051/enterprise-modeling

http://www.techopedia.com/definition/28051/enterprise-modeling


http://www.leadingpractice.com/about-us/

http://www.enterprise-architecture.org/

http://www.enterprise-architecture.org/

http://www.leadingpractice.com/enterprise-standards/enterprise-modelling/driver-forces/

LEADING PRACTICE (2014). Enterprise Standards. [online]. Last accessed 14 August 2014 at: http://www.leadingpractice.com/enterprise-standards/enterprise-engineering/

LEADING PRACTICE (2014). Introduction to LEADing Practices. [online]. Last accessed 16 August 2014 at: http://www.leadingpractice.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Introduction-to-LEADing-Practice.pdf

LEADING PRACTICE (2014). Requirement Modelling Reference Content. [online]. Last accessed 16 August 2014 at: http://www.leadingpractice.com/enterprise-standards/enterprise-modelling/requirement-modelling/

LEADING PRACTICE (2014). Value Model Reference Content. [online]. Last accessed 16 August 2014 at: http://www.leadingpractice.com/enterprise-standards/enterprise-modelling/value-model/

MACINTOSH, Robert (2009). Finding a Gap in the Literature. [online]. Last accessed 29 July 2014 at: http://doctoralstudy.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/finding-gap-in-literature.html

MENTZAS, Gregoris and FRIESEN, Andreas (2010). Semantic Enterprise Application Integration for Business Processes. Hershey PA, Business Science Reference.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY (2014). What is a Research Gap? [online]. Last accessed 29 July 2014 at: https://www.msu.edu/course/aec/891/whatisagap.htm

MINOLI, Daniel (2008). Enterprise Architecture A to Z: Frameworks, Business Process Modelling, SOA, and Infrastructure Technology. Boca Raton, CRC Press.

O'LEARY, Daniel E. (2010). Enterprise Ontologies: Review and an activity theory approach. [online]. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 11 (4), 336-352. Article from Elsevier last accessed 30 August 2014 at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S1467089510000722

OXFORRD UNIVERSITY PRESS (2014). Oxford Dictionaries. [online]. Last accessed 30 August 2014 at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

ROSENBERG, Ann (2011). Applying real-world BPM in an SAP Environment. Bonn, Galileo Press.

54



http://www.leadingpractice.com/enterprise-standards/enterprise-engineering/

http://www.leadingpractice.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Introduction-to-LEADing-Practice.pdf

http://www.leadingpractice.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Introduction-to-LEADing-Practice.pdf

http://www.leadingpractice.com/enterprise-standards/enterprise-modelling/requirement-modelling/

http://www.leadingpractice.com/enterprise-standards/enterprise-modelling/requirement-modelling/

http://www.leadingpractice.com/enterprise-standards/enterprise-modelling/value-model/

http://www.leadingpractice.com/enterprise-standards/enterprise-modelling/value-model/

http://doctoralstudy.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/finding-gap-in-literature.html

http://doctoralstudy.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/finding-gap-in-literature.html

https://www.msu.edu/course/aec/891/whatisagap.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S1467089510000722

http://www.sciencedirect.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S1467089510000722

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

ROSS, Jeanne W. (2004). Enterprise Architecture: Depiciting a Vision of the firm. [online]. 4 (1B), 1-4. Article from Center for Information Systems Research last accessed 22 April 2014 at: http://cisr.mit.edu/blog/documents/2004/03/12/2004_03_1b_entarchvisfirm.pdf/

ROSS, Jeanne W., WEILL, Peter and ROBERTSON, David (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy. Boston, Havard Business School Press.

SCHERUHN, Hans-Jurgen, VON ROSING, Mark and FALLON, Richard L. (2014). Information Modelling and Process Modelling..

SESSIONS, Roger (2007). A comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies. [online]. Last accessed 14 July 2014 at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx

SESSIONS, Roger (2008). Simple Archutectures for Complex Enterprise. Washington, Microsoft Press.

SHANKARARAMAN, V. and KAZMI, P. (2011). Unifying EA, BPM and SOA Through a Synergestic Framework. [online]. In: IEEE 13th Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing, IEEE, 286-293. last accessed 16 July 2014 at: http://shu.summon.serialsolutions.com

THE OPEN GROUP (2013). Introduction to the ADM. [online]. Last accessed 18 July 2014 at: http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/index.html

THE OPEN GROUP (2009). TOGAF 9 Introduction. [online]. Last accessed 18 July 2014 at: http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/index.html

ULF, Seigerroth (2011). Enterprise Modelling and Enterprise Architecture: The constituents of transformation and alignment of business and IT. [online]. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance (IJITBAG), 2 (1), 16-34. last accessed 14 July 2014 at: http://shu.summon.serialsolutions.com

YIN, Robert K. (2012). Applications of Case Study Research. California, SAGE Publications.

YIN, Robert K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Los Angeles, California, SAGE.

ZACHMAN, John A. (2008). The Zachman Framework: The Official Concise Definition. [online]. Last accessed 18 July 2014 at: http://www.zachman.com/

55

http://cisr.mit.edu/blog/documents/2004/03/12/2004_03_1b_entarchvisfirm.pdf/

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx


http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/index.html



http://www.zachman.com/

Appendix A: Research Proposal

INTRODUCTIONThis report is a dissertation proposal that has to be undertaken in partial

fulfilment of a master's program in "Enterprise Systems Professional". This

report will identify and articulate the research questions and objectives, followed

by this is a section that will critically evaluate literature in the field of this

research. Finally, the proposed research methodology and the data collection

method will also be discussed with potential outcome of this research.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Research Topic: "Semantics and Ontology in LEADing Practices: Capturing

and Enhancing the SAP Global Bike Inc. (GBI) case study in Essential Project"

Research questions might take some time to be formulated but they are the

starting point for a focused research. In some fields and in some projects, their

aim might be to work towards a research question over the years but if the

assumption is that you need to get a research question within weeks or months

then there are two ways according to Andrews (2003). The first one is to work

hard and fast to generate the research question and refine it along the way. The

second one is that the research question might emerge from the literature

review (Andrews 2003).

The research question in this proposal can be said to have come up using the

two ways Andrews (2003) described.

The main aim of this research is to model and enhance the SAP Global Bike

Inc. (GBI) case study which is based on a bike manufacturing organization

(SAP AG 2010) in the Essential Projects software. It was discussed in Ross

(2004) what good modelled enterprise architecture can bring to an organization

no matter the size using the Delta Airline and MetLife case study. Nowadays

Organizations do not pay so much attention to modelling enterprise

architecture, from this reasoning, the research question originated:

56

Main Research Question: "How can Essential Project be used to enhance

modelling in Enterprise Architecture?"

RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVESAfter identifying a suitable research question, the next thing is to come up with

the aims and objectives of this research. The aim of this research is to model

the SAP Global Bike Inc. case study which is based on a bike manufacturing

organization (SAP AG 2010) in the Essential Project software with the ultimate

aim of enhancing it as compared to the one done with LEADing Practice.

Research objectives To capture and model the SAP Global Bike Inc. case study using

Essential Project

To enhance the SAP Global Bike Inc. case study model generated by

Hans-Jurgen (2014) in Essential Project.

To compare Hans-Jurgen (2014) comprehensive SAP Global Bike Inc.

(GBI) case-study demonstration of LEAD in ARIS with how it might better

be captured in Essential Project.

To put in detailed record and evaluate the process, challenges and

limitations of modelling with Essential Project.

To make recommendations and develop guidelines on the use of

Essential Project to model in enterprise architecture.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Enterprise ArchitectureThere are differing definitions as to what enterprise architecture is but they are

all trying to achieve the same goal which is aligning business with information

technology.

The British Computer Society (BCS 2013) defines Enterprise Architecture as "a

strategic approach to architecture that addresses a whole enterprise". Another

definition is from Ross, Weill and Robertson (2006) and they define Enterprise

Architecture to be the organizational logic for business processes and IT

infrastructure which reflects the integration and standardization requirements of

57

the companies operating model. This definition is one of the most widely

accepted definitions in the field of enterprise architecture because the authors

have a whole section in Massachusetts Institute of Technology that is dedicated

to research on enterprise architecture.

Enterprise Architecture is connected to the operating model of companies

hence the need for proper enterprise architecture modelling cannot be over-

emphasized.

A reasonable description of enterprise architecture will provide insight, enable

better communication among stakeholders and also guide complicated change

process but unfortunately, there is no standard enterprise architecture

description language that can be used in modelling (Buuren et.al.2004). It was

further said in Buuren et al. (2004) that enterprise architects always come up

with their own modelling techniques and concepts for each architectural domain

they are working on. This was also established in Ross (2004) where she used

the Delta airline case study to establish the important benefit that a good

enterprise architecture model can bring to an organization.

Enterprise Architecture FrameworksAccording to Open Group (2011) enterprise architecture framework is a tool that

can be used to develop a broad range of different architectures. These

frameworks also serve as a guide towards implementing enterprise architecture.

The main reason why enterprise architecture was initially design was to manage

the rapid rate at which distributed systems are being developed (Sessions

2007). Every important issue in an enterprise from every perspective is shown

graphically on the framework with ultimate goal of aligning IT with business

needs.

58

Fig 1: Summary of EA Frameworks and their benefits with emphasis on

TOGAF

The above diagram summarizes the major enterprise architecture frameworks.

The emphasis is on TOGAF because it is the framework that will be made use

of in this research. This is because it divides its framework into bits that will be

useful for this research. It is also the result of contributions from many

enterprise architecture professionals. TOGAF framework is divided into four

main categories: business architecture, application architecture, data

architecture, technical architecture (Open Group 2011)

This is also backed up by Sessions (2007) where it is discussed that TOGAF

views enterprise architecture as a continuum of architectures by using the

Architecture Development Method (ADM) as a process from moving from

general architecture to specific architecture.

Semantics and Ontology in Enterprise ArchitectureThe use of object-oriented has improved the way real world data semantics are

modelled, but it is insufficient in terms of providing a modelling construct for

engineering semantic models (Taniar and Rahayu 2006).

59

Top

4 EA

Fra

mew

ork The Open Group

Architectural Framework (TOGAF)Zachman Framework for Enterprise ArchitectureFederal Enterprise ArchitectureThe Gartner methodology

Bene

fits

of E

A Fr

amew

ork Cost effective IT

solutionReliable Operational ModelResource Portfolio OptimizationOrganizational Alignment

TOG

AF F

eatu

res Architecture

Development Method (ADM)Speeds Up architecture DevelopmentSimplifies architecture development

Previously the word "ontology" was used in World-Wide web especially in the

context of semantic web. There are various definitions of ontology but a widely

accepted definition of ontology is "a formal, explicit specification of a shared

conceptualization" (Gruber 1995).

Enterprise ontology is the study that describes a well-founded method of how to

model the essence of an organization in a coherent, consistent, concise and

comprehensive way (Dietz 2006). It is focussed on the essence of operation of

an enterprise; this means that it is fully independent of the current realization

and implementation of the enterprise

Service Oriented ArchitectureService Oriented Architecture (SOA) is the biggest idea to come out of the

concept of web services which is what enterprise systems run on (Woods and

Mattern 2006). SOA recognises the limitations in existing enterprise applications

that have been built using large functional silos. SOA provides an "operational

architecture" that makes development of component based software for

enterprise systems easy, it is also different from object-oriented approach

because each component in SOA is centred on providing a service for example

an Model View Controller (MVC) parcel tracking web application providing web

services to its users (Polovina 2013).

Conceptual GraphsConceptual Graphs (CG) are used to provide powerful knowledge

representation and inference environment while exhibiting object-oriented and

database features of contemporary enterprise and web applications (Polovina

2007). This is an important concept that will be used in this research.

Transaction Oriented ArchitectureOrganizations around the world risk their business transactions on information

system that are incomplete, misleading or inaccurate; this is because about 80-

85% of their corporate information is outside their processing scope. With this

the majority of information is unstructured and it makes it difficult for systems to

process but this information which must be taken into account if the system is to

60

provide effective and reliable support (Polovina 2013). With SAP acknowledging

that 65-70% of the entire world transaction runs using their system, we can say

that computer technology is becoming more and more dominant (Forbes LLC,

2011).

As discussed in (Polovina 2013) Transaction Oriented Architecture (TOA) offers

a framework for orchestrating business processes using the Transaction

Concept (TC).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY and TOOLSThis section is about research methodologies and techniques that I will use in

this research. There are different types of research methodology and technique

which varies based on the research type. The success of this research is

dependent on the method used because a research should deliver its purpose

and meet its objectives, to do this the right methodology and technique must be

used.

Also according to (Kothari 2004) to maintain validity of the research goal, a

research needs to have a well-defined research problem. These problems and

how it is related to this research are stated below:

The problem must concern a group or an individual (Enterprise

Architecture in this case).

There must be some set of objectives to be achieved.

There must be alternatives for achieving the objectives(SAP enterprise

systems workplace in this case)

There must be a certain amount of doubt in the mind of the person

carrying out the research on how to select alternatives.

There must be an environment to which the difficulty is applied

(Enterprise Architecture Frameworks in this case).

In this research, the proposed methodology to achieve the aims and objectives

is "case study" methodology which according to Yin (2003) can be used in

numerous situation to contribute to knowledge of an individual group. The case

in this research is to look at how modelling of enterprise architecture can be

enhanced using Essential Project which is an Enterprise Architecture software

hence the reason for the "case study" method.

61

Objective four of this research will be looking at alternative Enterprise

Architecture software that has been used in modelling the GBI case study and

how this can be improved upon using Essential Project based on the outcome

generated from modelling the Financial Trading case study.

Another justification for using the case study approach in this research can be

found in Kemanusiaan (2007) who said that the case study methodology is

better than the quantitative approach because it provides an holistic and in-

depth explanations of the behavioural problems.

Also according to (Flyvbjerg 2004) there are five major misunderstanding of the

case study method and they are:

i. "General theoretical (context-independent) knowledge is more valuable

than concrete practical knowledge".

ii. "One cannot generalize on the basis of individual case; therefore, the

case study cannot contribute to scientific development".

iii. "The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, that is, in the

first stage of a total research process, while other methods are more

suitable for hypothesis testing and theory-building".

iv. "The case study contains a bias towards verification, that is, a tendency

to confirm the researcher's preconceived notions".

v. "It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and

theories on the basis of specific case studies".

From the above misunderstanding, it was indicated that the issue with case-

study research is theory, reliability and validity. These misunderstanding were

proved wrong in (Flyvbjerg 2004) and the case study approach was proven to

be a necessary and sufficient method for certain important research task in

social sciences because a case study contains a lot of raw data (Flyvbjerg

2004). An example of this research task is the one am about to undertake for

my dissertation which requires a real world scenario to be modelled using a

software called "Essential Project".

Essential project is the collective name that is used for a set of free open source

enterprise architecture support tools that have been developed for use in

conjunction with a variety of Enterprise Architecture framework (Enterprise

Architecture Solutions 2014). In this proposed research, TOGAF is the

framework that will be used with Essential Project.

62

The diagram below shows the full phases of the TOGAF ADM but in this

proposed research, I will be dealing with the architecture phases alone. The

business architecture is the SAP GBI case study while the information systems

architecture and technology architecture will be modelled using the SAP

enterprise systems workplace which is an SAP maintained collaborative

repository of enterprise services ranging from individual entities like business

objects, business process components and accessible as web services

integration scenarios right through to solution maps for whole industry (SAP A.G

2012).

Fig 3: TOGAF ADM Phases (The Open Group 2013)

Target audience and evaluation of potential outcome

The overall outcome of this research will be to be able to capture and generate

an enhanced model of the SAP GBI case study using Essential Project. This will

improve on Hans-Jurgen(2014) model of the GBI case study. The Hans-Jurgen 63

(2014) model was a good one so this proposed research will be looking at

enhancing it using another a different software (Essential Project) from what

Hans' (2014) used.

I have decided to take that forward because the successful completion of this

research will have a great impact on the enterprise architecture field as a whole

in terms of coming up with good models so that enterprise architecture can fulfil

the ultimate goal of aligning business with information technology as mentioned

in this proposal.

OBJECTIVES METHODS Potential Outcome

To capture and

model the SAP

Global Bike Inc.

case study using

Essential Project

The use of conceptual

graphs, essential project

and SAP Enterprise

Systems WorkPlace

A model of the

SAP GBI case

study is

generated.

To enhance the

SAP Global Bike

Inc. case study

model generated by

Hans-Jurgen (2014)

in Essential Project.

This will be achieved by

applying the advance

functionality in Essential

Project to the model

generated in the first

objective.

An enhanced

model of the SAP

GBI case study.

To compare Hans-

Jurgen

comprehensive SAP

Global Bike Inc.

(GBI) case-study

demonstration of

LEAD in ARIS with

the one modelled

using Essential

This will be achieved by

comparing the LEADing

Practices model done by

Hans-Jurgen with the

one done in objective two

of this proposed

research.

The difference

between LEADing

Practices and

Essential Project

as regard to

modelling

Enterprise

Architecture.

64

Project.

To put in detailed

record and evaluate

the process,

challenges and

limitations of

modelling with

Essential Project.

This will be achieved

after all the previous

objectives have been

successfully

accomplished.

Documentation on

the process,

challenges and

limitations of

modelling in

Essential Project.

To make

recommendations

and develop

guidelines on the

use of Essential

Project to model in

enterprise

architecture.

I will make

recommendations and

guidelines based on the

process I have followed

in achieving my results.

Written

recommendations

and guidelines on

using Essential

Project

Table 1: Research Objectives, Methods and Potential Outcome.

Research EthicsResearch ethics is an integral part of a research proposal because according to

the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC 2012), ethics issues must

be address in a proposal so this proposal will not be an exception.

In this research, I will be handling copyrighted software that will be used to

collect sensitive data therefore ethical consideration is of uttermost importance.

According to (Lathrop and Foss 2005) it is important to acknowledge and give

due credit to the owners of all external materials used in a research.

This research is going to be carried out using licensed software, permission has

also been granted by the software company for the use of their tool. Also

because the case study in this research is based on a financial situation, data

65

privacy will be strictly adhered to and no information will be published without

approval.

REFERENCES

ANDREWS, Richard (Richard J. ). (2003). Research questions. [online].

London, Continuum. Last accessed 22 April 2014 at:

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com.

BCS (2013). Enterprise and Solution Architecture Syllabus. [online]. Last

accessed 22 April 2014 at: http://certifications.bcs.org/upload/pdf/sd-esa-

syllabus.pdf

BUUREN, R. van, et al. (2004). Concepts for modeling enterprise architectures.

[online]. International journal of cooperative information systems, 13 (3), 257-

287. Last accessed 22 April 2014 at: http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/ .

DIETZ, Jan L. G. (2006). Enterprise ontology: Theory and methodology.

[online]. New York; Berlin, Springer. Last accessed 22 April 2014 at:

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/.

ESRC. (2012). Framework for Research Ethics. [online]. Last accessed 23 April

2014 at:

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/about-esrc/information/research-ethics.aspx

FLYVBJERG, Bent (2006; 2013). Five misunderstandings about case-study

research. [online]. Qualitative inquiry, 12 (2), 219-245. Last accessed 22 April

2014 at:


FORBES LLC. (2011). It Doesn't Take Two Years to Create a Good Strategy.

[online]. Last accessed on 19 April 2014 at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/10/07/sap-bill-mcdermott-it-doesn't-take-

two-years-to-create-a-good-strategy/

66

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/10/07/sap-bill-mcdermott-it-doesn't-take-two-years-to-create-a-good-strategy/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/10/07/sap-bill-mcdermott-it-doesn't-take-two-years-to-create-a-good-strategy/

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2AwNtIz0EUrE5LNTZPMzc0TUw0tkkxSTQ1SjdISQUe3GxubpaUYGCSiHGPAgyjH3IQYmFLzRBlk3FxDnD10izNK46HDGvFJhuYGFiag02LEGHgTQcvB80rA28ZSAAdWIOg

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwXZ1LCgIxEESDa90IeotI0pnOZy0OHkAPUJnuXs5q7o8zIohe4kFB1SvnEl2C_2PCVLiXUqCx9kE5KBk2dXtK2SQE_GgM9l_OjUe30_nknuPtcb37zz-A19iYvWkVi8i9kkS00qRTIUxpDQXSglUWETAGSwoom8qKa0bLHZoqxbM7YOuRz8t7byYvvm4wrA

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2AwNtIz0EUrE5LNTZPMzc0TUw0tkkxSTQ1SjdISQUe3GxubpaUYGCSiHGPAgyjf3IQYmFLzRBlk3FxDnD10izNK46HDGvFJhqYWwPoRWD-LMfAmgpaD55WAt42lAAAITSDv

GRUBER,T. (1995). Towards Principles for the design of ontologies used for

knowledge sharing. [online]. International journal for Human-Computer studies,

43 (5/6): 907-928. Last accessed 23 April 2014 at:

http://www.theenterprisearchitect.eu/blog/2009/10/10/modeling-an-organization-

using-enterprise-ontology/

HANS-JURGEN, Scheruhn(2014). Online Process Management GBI. [online].

Last accessed on 25 April 2014 at:

http://scn.sap.com/community/uac/blog/2014/01/17/online-process-

management-at-gbi-blog-5

KEMANUSIAAN, Jurnal (2007). Case Study as a research method. [online].

Last accessed on 23 April 2014 at:

http://eprints.utm.my/8221/1/ZZaina/2007-Case_study_as_a_Research.pdf.

KOTHARI, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. 2nd

ed. New Age International Publishers.

LATHROP, Ann and FOSS, Kathleen (2005). Guiding students from cheating

and plagiarism to honesty and integrity: Strategies for change. [online].

Westport, CT; London, Libraries Unlimited. Last accessed 22 April 2014 at:

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com.

POLOVINA, Simon (2007). An Introduction to Conceptual Graphs. International

Conference on Conceptual Structures, 15 (2007), 1-14.

POLOVINA, Simon (2013). A Transaction-Oriented Architecture for Enterprise

Systems. International Journal of Intelligent Information Technologies, 9 (4), 69-

79.

ROSS, Jeanne W., WEILL, Peter and ROBERTSON, David (2006). Enterprise

architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution. [online].

Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Last accessed 22 April 2014 at:


67

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2AwNtIz0EUrE5LNTZPMzc0TUw0tkkxSTQ1SjdISQUe3GxubpaUYGCSiHGPAgyjP3IQYmFLzRBlk3FxDnD10izNK46HDGvFJhiamoPPiLAzFGHgTQcvB80rA28ZSAAhNIPQ

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2AwNtIz0EUrE5LNTZPMzc0TUw0tkkxSTQ1SjdISQUe3GxubpaUYGCSiHGPAgyjX3IQYmFLzRBlk3FxDnD10izNK46HDGvFJhubA_roBsHAVY-BNBC0HzysBbxtLAQAIOiDw

http://eprints.utm.my/8221/1/ZZaina/2007-Case_study_as_a_Research.pdf

http://scn.sap.com/community/uac/blog/2014/01/17/online-process-management-at-gbi-blog-5

http://scn.sap.com/community/uac/blog/2014/01/17/online-process-management-at-gbi-blog-5

ROSS, Jeanne W. (2004). Enterprise Architecture: Depicting a Vision of the

Firm. [online]. Center for Information Systems Research, 4(1B), 1-4. Last

accessed 19 April 2014 at:


SAP A.G. (2010). Global Bike Inc. [online]. Last accessed 25 April 2014 at:

http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/e01b8d27-

ff8b-2d10-5483-a44659b649a2?

QuickLink=index&overridelayout=true&48752174280003

SAP A.G. (2012). Enterprise Services Workplace. [online]. Last accessed 20

April 2014 at:

http://esworkplace.sap.com/

SESSIONS, Roger (2007). A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-

Architecture Methodologies. [online]. Last accessed 21 April 2014 at:


TANIAR, David and RAHAYU, Johanna Wenny (2006). Web Semantics and

Ontology. Idea Group Inc.

The OPEN GROUP (2013). Introduction to the ADM. [online]. Last accessed 20

April 2014 at:


The OPEN GROUP (2013). TOGAF 9 Introduction. [online]. Last accessed 20

April 2014 at:


WOODS, Dan and MATTERN, Thomas (2006). Enterprise SOA. [online].

O'Reilly Media. Last accessed 22 April 2014 at:


68

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2AwNtIz0EUrE5LNTZPMzc0TUw0tkkxSTQ1SjdISQUe3GxubpaUYGCSiHGPAgyiv3IQYmFLzRBnk3FxDnD10ixPTgD3IeFD7szgedHEM6OABYBkrxsCbCFoQnlcC3jiWAgBFWSFX




http://esworkplace.sap.com/


YIN, Robert K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. [online]. Los

Angeles, California, SAGE. Last accessed 22 April 2014 at:


Appendix B: Sheffield Hallam University Research Ethics Checklist

Faculty of Arts, Computing, Science and Engineering

Research Ethics: Checklist for Approval

This form is designed to help students and staff to complete an ethical scrutiny of proposed research. The SHU Research Ethics Policy should be consulted before completing the form (available at http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/downloads/ethicspolicy2004.pdf).

Answering the questions below will help you decide whether your research proposal requires ethical review by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee (FREC). The majority of research proposals will not need further scrutiny after completion of this form. In cases of uncertainty, members of the FREC can be approached for advice.

The final responsibility for ensuring that ethical research practices are followed rests with the supervisor for student research and with the principal investigator for staff research projects.

Note that students and research staff are responsible for making suitable arrangements for keeping data secure and, if relevant, for keeping the identity of participants anonymous. They are also responsible for following SHU guidelines about data encryption.

The form also enables the University and Faculty to keep a record confirming that research conducted has been subjected to ethical scrutiny.

− For student projects, the form may be completed by the student and the supervisor and/or module leader (as applicable). In all cases, it should be counter-signed by the supervisor and/or module leader, and kept as a record showing that ethical scrutiny has occurred. Students should retain a copy for inclusion in their theses, and staff should keep a copy in the student file.

− For staff research, the form should be completed and kept by the principal investigator.

69

http://shu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2AwNtIz0EUrE5LNTZPMzc0TUw0tkkxSTQ1SjdISQUe3GxubpaUYGCSiHGPAgyi_3IQYmFLzRBlk3FxDnD10izNK46HDGvFJwLa0kYmxmbmhGANvImg5eF4JeNtYCgAHwiDw

Please note it may also be necessary to conduct a separate risk assessment for the proposed research. For information, contact the Faculty Safety Co-ordinator.

General details

Name of student (or of principal investigator)

ZAID AYOTUNJI ADEOGUN

Name of supervisor (if applicable)

DR SIMON POLOVINA

Title of research proposal A Descriptive Analysis of Semantics and Ontology in Enterprise Modelling according to the Salient Concepts of LEADing Practice and Essential Project

Outline of proposed research

Human participants

Question Yes/No

1.

Notes

Does the research involve human participants? This includes surveys, questionnaires, observing behaviour etc.

If YES, then please answer questions 2 to 5.

If NO, please go to question 6.

Yes

2.

Note

Will any of the participants be vulnerable?

‘Vulnerable’ people include young people under 18, people with learning disabilities, people who may be limited by age or sickness or disability from understanding the research, etc.

No

3.

Note

Is there any reasonable and foreseeable risk of physical or emotional harm to any of the participants?

Harm may be caused by distressing or intrusive interview questions, uncomfortable procedures involving the participant, invasion of privacy, topics relating to highly personal information, topics relating to illegal activity, etc.

No

4. Will anyone be taking part without giving their informed consent? (E.g. Research involving covert study, coercion of subjects, or where subjects have not fully understood the research etc.)

No

5. Will the research output allow identification of any individual who has not given their express consent to be identified?

No

Note If you answered YES to any of questions 2 – 5, then the research proposal must be submitted to the FREC for approval unless it falls into a category/programme of research that has already received category approval.

6. Does the research involve the use of live animals?

Note If you answered YES to question 6, then the research proposal must be submitted to the FREC for approval unless it falls into a category/ programme of research that has already received category approval.

No

7. Does the research require approval from any external ethics committee, e.g. the NHS? For NHS research, this includes any service evaluation work, work concerning NHS Patients (tissues, organs, personal information or data), NHS staff, volunteers, carers, NHS premises or facilities.

No

Note If you answered YES to question 7, then the research proposal must be submitted to the relevant external body. For advice on NHS-relevant research, please contact the FREC Chair or Secretary without further delay.

70

Organisations

Question Yes/No

8. Will the research involve working with/within an organisation (e.g. business, charity, museum, government department, international agency, etc)?

No

9. If you answered YES to question 8, do you have granted access to conduct the research?If YES, please show evidence to your supervisor.

10. If you answered NO to question 9, is it because:

A. you have not yet asked

B. you have asked and not yet received and answer

C. you have asked and been refused access.

A/B/C

Note You will only be able to start the research when you have been granted access.

11.

Notes

Is it covert research?

‘Covert research’ refers to research that is conducted without the knowledge of participants.

If you answered YES, the research proposal must be submitted to the FREC for approval unless it falls into a category/programme of research which has already received category approval.

No

Products and artefacts

Question Yes/No

1. Will the research involve working with copyrighted documents, films, broadcasts, photographs, artworks, designs, products, programmes, databases, networks, processes?

Yes

2. If you answered YES to question 1, are the materials you intend to use in the public domain?

Yes

Notes

‘In the public domain’ does not mean the same thing as ‘publicly accessible’.

− Information which is 'in the public domain' is no longer protected by copyright (i.e. copyright has either expired or been waived) and can be used without permission.

− Information which is 'publicly accessible' (e.g. TV broadcasts, websites, artworks, newspapers) is available for anyone to consult/view. It is still protected by copyright even if there is no copyright notice. In UK law, copyright protection is automatic and does not require a copyright statement, although it is always good practice to provide one. It is necessary to check the terms and conditions of use to find out exactly how the material may be reused etc.

If you answered YES to question 15, be aware that you may need to consider other ethics codes. For example, when conducting Internet research, consult the code of the Association of Internet Researchers; for educational research, consult the Code of Ethics of the British Educational Research Association.

3. If you answered NO to question 2, do you have explicit permission to use these materials as data?If YES, please show evidence to your supervisor.

4. If you answered NO to question 3, is it because:

A. you have not yet asked permission

B. you have asked and not yet received and answer

C. you have asked and been refused access.

A/B/C

71

Question Yes/No

Note You will only be able to start the research when you have been granted permission to use the specified material.

Adherence to SHU policy and procedures

Personal statement

I can confirm that:

− I have read the Sheffield Hallam University Research Ethics Policy and Procedures (available at http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/downloads/ethicspolicy2004.pdf))

− I agree to abide by its principles.

Student / Researcher/ Principal Investigator (as applicable)

Name: ZAID AYOTUNJI ADEOGUN Date:

Signature:

Supervisor or other person giving ethical sign-off

Name: Dr. SIMON POLOVINA Date:

Signature:

Ethical approval

Approval type (to be completed by the supervisor) Please tick

Standard approval

This project does not require specific ethical approval by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee (FREC) or an NHS or other external REC.

Category approval

In my opinion this work falls within the category of ……………………………………………………… projects which has been previously approved by the FREC and it does not therefore need individual approval.

Approval awaited

This project must be referred to the FREC for individual consideration – the work must not proceed unless and until the FREC gives approval.

Approval granted The FREC has granted approval.

Approval refused The FREC has refused approval.

72

Appendix C: Semi-Structured Interview Questions

The full interview recordings have been attached in a disk.

Participant One: LEADing Practice Based

Hello,

I am looking into how semantics and ontology in enterprise modelling is being aided by LEADing Practices. It is a semi structured open ended interview and the questions are:

1. Semantics and Ontology are important in enterprise modelling. What is your viewpoint on semantics and ontology in enterprise modelling?

2. How do you think LEADing Practices contribute to semantics and ontology in enterprise modelling?

3. What is your view on information and process modelling being of help in enterprise modelling?

4. To what extent do you think LEADing Practices will bridge the gap between enterprise architecture and business process management?

Participant Two: Essential Project BasedHello

I am looking into how semantics and ontology in enterprise modelling is being aided by LEADing Practices. It is a semi structured open ended interview and the questions are:

1. Semantics and Ontology are important in enterprise modelling. What is your viewpoint on semantics and ontology in enterprise modelling?

2. How do you think Essential Project contribute to semantics and ontology in enterprise modelling?

73

3. What is your view on information and process modelling being of help in enterprise modelling?

4. Do you think Essential Project will bridge the gap between enterprise architecture and business process management?

Appendix D: Composition and Decomposition of Requirements

The requirement modelling discussed under LEADing Practice has a

composition and decomposition of requirements and it is in the disk attached to

this work. This is important because it makes the requirement modelling across

the three architecture layers in LEADing Practice more understandable.

The decomposition is from High-Level Requirement Specification to Detailed-

Level Requirement Specification while the composition is vice-versa.

74