Enterprise Reference Architecture - Origin, Structure, Advantages, and Disadvantages - Case Study Example

Enterprise Reference Architecture Student’s name Institutional Affiliation Enterprise Reference Architecture Introduction Enterprise architecture is a tool used to lead enterprise reactions to disruptive forces. It identifies and analyzes the effectiveness of the change in the achieving of business visions and goals. The enterprise architecture presents to business management recommendations and options to consider when there has been a disruption to business operations. The recommendations are geared towards adjusting policies in an effort to capitalize on the disruptions. It is used in decision-making and stating the business to safety in times of turmoil. Enterprise Architecture is an approach to planning and systems development. It allows the business management to think in terms of solutions that are wide oriented. The approach does away with individual systems and programs in an effort to profit the most from business, technology, and human resources. Enterprise architecture supports management planning and decision-making. It provides the management with a coordinated and integrated view of the enterprise as a whole (Bernard, 2012). Enterprise Reference Architecture is part of Enterprise architecture. It provides standards, documentation and template solutions for architecture for a particular domain. The reference architecture provides an avenue to discuss implementations and to stress commonality. It is a framework that provides principles and practices for creating and using the architecture description of a system. There are examples of well-known enterprise reference architecture. One is CIMOSA; this is Computer Integrated Manufacturing open System Architecture. PERA, this is The Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture and its associated Purdue Methodology. Three is GRAI-GIM, this is short for Graphs with Results and Actions Interrelated, and the further developed GRAI Integrated Methodology (GIM). Four is Zachman, the Zachman Framework and five is TOGAF, The Open Group Architecture Framework (Fowler, 2012). Origin CIMOSA is an enterprise modeling framework that intends to support the enterprise integration of people, machines, and technology. CIMOSA is based on the system life cycle concept. CIMOSA provides supporting technology, methodology, and the modeling language to support the business goals. CIMOSA was developed by the AMICE (European Computer Integrated Manufacturing Architecture) Consortium under the ESPRIT (European Strategic Program for Research in Information Technology). This is a program of the European Union PERA, on the other hand, is a reference architecture method that can create the enterprise in multiple layers and multiple steps of the architectural life cycle. It was developed by Theodore J. Williams and members of the Industry – Purdue University Consortium for Computer Integrated Manufacturing. In the early and late 1990, PERA contributed massively to the development of the Generic Enterprise Reference Architecture (WoodWorth, 2013). GERAM was developed by the GRAI Laboratory of the University of Bordeaux. Bordeaux, France. It was a product of its research. The research was for production management systems. The development of GRAI – GIM was done with the assistance of ESPRIT (European Strategic Program for Research in Information Technology) of the European Union. The modeling method can represent and analyze the operation of a product activity in part or whole. It creates an effective and efficient model to facilitate decision making in the organization. GERAM is composed of four types of views. The four types of views are the functional views, physical views decisional views and the information systems views. Structure CIMOSA provides a tool that guides designers in the implementation of CIM systems. Vendors are assisted in the development of the CIM system so that components can be added and removed when needed. CIMOSA provides a descriptive rather than a prescriptive methodology. The structure of CIMOSA can be understood through a cube model. The model provides a three-dimensional framework of the CIMOSA reference architecture. The cube has three dimensions. The dimensions are; the dimension of genericity, the dimension of modeling and the dimension of views. The dimension of genericity is involved with the degree of particularization. It starts from generic building blocks and moves to their integration into a model of a specific enterprise domain ( Williams, 1992). The dimension of modeling is concerned with providing modeling support for the system. The support provided includes statements of requirements and the description of the system implementation. The third dimension provides the possibility of working with sub-models representatives of the enterprise (Raj, 2013). GERAM is composed of several components. GERA is the Generalized Enterprise Reference Architecture. It identifies concepts of enterprise integration. EEM is Enterprise Engineering Methodology that describes processes of enterprise engineering. EMLs are Enterprise Modeling Languages that provide modeling constructs for modeling of human role, processes, and technologies. Other components of GERAM include PEMs, GEMCs, EETs, EMs, EMOs, and EOS. Partial Enterprise Models provide reusable reference models and design of human roles processes and technologies. Generic Enterprise Modeling Code explains the meaning of enterprise modeling constructs. Enterprise Engineering Tools support enterprise engineering. Each of the components of GERAM functions to make the methodology better and more effective. Advantages CIMOSA supporting tools could be integrated into enterprise information system. It allows for the structuring of interface architecture into generic and partial modeling levels. CIMOSA can support the function, information, resource and organization of modeling levels. CIMOSA is also able to specify the processes and exchange of information using domain processes, events and objects views. The main advantage of CIMOSA is the quality of the structure (Giachetti, 2011). The PERA methodology has some unique advantages over other methodologies. PERA can specifically address the Human and Organizational goals of the enterprise. PERA is also designed to provide a holistic approach in address the enterprise. It will address from the operation, planning and renewal levels. It also incorporates facility engineering and Information Technology management in its approach. PERA can address both process industries and discrete manufacturing ( Graves, 2009). One advantage of GERAM is its enabling nature, it makes is possible to relate and combine areas such as business process reengineering, total quality management, and concurrent engineering. The human dimension in this modeling technique is more developed than in the CIMOSA model. There is the presence of decisional structure in the GERAM methodology. This decisional structure is not clear in the CIMOSA methodology (Woodworth, 2013). The GERAM methodology provides avenues that allow for the addition of a decisional view. The GERAM methodology has a fully developed reference model used in designing the system. This reference model is not present in the CIMOSA methodology. The main advantage of the GERAM methodology is the complete definition of the decisional model. Another advantage id the ability of the methodology is its ability to detect inconsistencies and to correct them. Disadvantages CIMOSA lacks a human dimension in the integration of enterprise information system. The block definitions are not clear in the structuring into generic and partial modeling levels. There are also no reference models to design the system involved in the exchange of information. The GERAM methodology requires definition modeling that is not so clearly defined. Another disadvantage is that the success and quality of modeling depend on the knowledge of the expert involved. GERAM supporting tools cannot be integrated with an enterprise software tool and the process view of GERAM methodology is less efficient than CIMOSA process view. Literature Review Use of the Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology in industry (the Fluor Daniel example) The Fluor Daniel Company is a big and established consulting and construction firm. They have considered using the Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology (PERA) in their project work. The company has put in place the method in a wide variety of sectors where the company does business. They have applied the PERA method to create a framework in which most of their current work procedures can be observed. These will inform the case study described in this literature review. The earliest work in PERA had been conducted by the Industry-Purdue University Consortium for Computer Integrated Manufacturing (Consortium, 1992). This is a group of ten major companies. They came together and collectively established one PERA system during the 1989-92 periods. The results of this methodology were very impressive. The clients of Flour Daniel Incorporation include governments, telecommunication companies, and highway construction companies. The company also addresses other infrastructural needs by the clients. The main services provided by the company include engineering, construction and procurement. The clients come from all sorts of industries like processing and discrete manufacturing. The PERA system in the company was prepared by employees who were conversant with the system. After careful study of the system, they came up with factors that made PERA the best-suited method for the company. One reason is that the method provided an overview of the full “life cycle” of projects developed by the company. The method also provided a means for handling organizational and human factors important in the said projects. The third reason is that the method provided a ‘phased approach’ in company projects. This assisted in reducing rework in projects. The method has an advantage as it presents a detailed understanding of the interplay between engineering and its concepts and management. The method presents a phase by phase report to enhance understanding of the progress, and how far of the job is done. The main factor that influenced the employee’s decision is that the PERA system presents a systematic life history of the project in progress. The system follows the project from its conception to its very end (Khan et a,l 2012). The method PERA as used in the Flour Daniel Incorporation is followed by several assumptions that would be applied throughout the project. The first assumption is that all tasks in the project can be classified into two major processes. One is informational manufacturing and the second is physical manufacturing. The second assumption is that the tasks performed during the project can all be classified under specific headings. Examples of these subheadings include the tasks of planning, scheduling, control and data management. The same applies to the tasks requiring energy and transformation. Such tasks can also be categorized under subheadings like plant operations and physical production (Nielman, 2007). Under normal circumstances, information in this system will have to pass through several stages of transformation. This means that the information to be gotten from the project in the Flour Daniel Company will be transformed severally. The end product would be one that fulfills the requirements of an enterprise. The changes observed in the information form a series of pattern or network. Another concept informing the approach is that, in each case the networks involved can be integrated in order to make one major network of each heading or subheading. Such headings include Informational Transformations or Energy Transformations. The purpose and reasoning behind this integration would be to define the purpose of the company or business being investigated. (Minoli, 2008). Every network in the system can be created or constructed independently of each other. The exceptions to this rule are only two related networks. One of the networks is the one that creates operating variable status from the process of manufacturing. The second network is the network that places the operational commands to the units of operations. These two networks have to be developed together. Their related components that have effects on other networks also have to be developed together and not independently. The case study also assumed that all tasks can be defined functionally without reference to their method of implementation. It is irrelevant to the case study if the different tasks are conducted by humans or by machines. The how or what equipment was used in the performance of the tasks is irrelevant until after all other tasks have been defined. Any discussion of the implementation details is suspended during the case study. There is a difference in the case study between the implementation processes conducted by humans and those conducted by machines. The differences are defined by political reasons, technical considerations, and human based relationships. The two types of implementation in the manufacturing system must be distinguished. There are three major components in the definition of the implementation process. One is the Information System Architecture; two is the Human and Organizational Architecture, and three is the Manufacturing architecture. As described above, the implementation details are not to be considered. However, this is subject to the fulfillments of requirements on time and condition. The differences in the functions of human and machines can be presented in a diagram called an Extent of Automation line. The case study provides that all the important tasks are to be presented in a modular fashion. The presentation will also be accompanied with all the tasks interconnections. This will enable the tasks to be interchanged with other different tasks that carry out similar functions but in a different manner. Not only will the task be presented in a modular manner, but will be implemented in a modular fashion too. The purpose of this is to allow substitution with other tasks that perform the same function but in a dissimilar manner. The decision on the implementation methods is informed by the various project requirements. The independent design and optimization techniques of the project are also used in deciding the implementation methods to be applied. The case study concludes with the various findings observed by Flour Daniel Company after the project. The project assisted the company in determining the implementation methods to be applied in various projects. It was important as the company developed ways that could be used in place of each other. This provides the company with options to choose from. The company can decide on the cheapest and most convenient one. The methodology assisted the Flour Daniel Company in reducing rework, improving communications, improving quality and reducing costs Summary Enterprise reference architecture is very important in every organization. Its usefulness cannot be understated or overlooked. There are different types of Architecture reference architecture. The management is left to the discretion of choosing among the different options. The goals and aspirations of the organizations, as well as its special needs, should be the assisting factors in the determination. As illustrated in the Flour Daniel case study, every organization has what suits it best. References Bernard, S. (2012). ‘An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture: Third Edition.' AuthorHouse, Fowler, M. (2012). ‘Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture.' Addison-Wesley Giachetti, R. (2011). ‘Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Architecture, and Methods.' CRC Press Grave, T. (2009). ‘Handbook of Enterprise Architecture.' CRC Press Kołodziej, J, Khan, S and Burczy, T (2012). ‘Advances in Intelligent Modeling and Simulation: Artificial Intelligence-Based Models and Techniques in Scalable Computing.' Mc Govern, J. (2004). ‘A Practical Guide to Enterprise Architecture.' Prentice Hall Professional MInoli, D. (2008). ‘Enterprise Architecture A to Z: Frameworks, Business Process Modeling, SOA, and Infrastructure Technology.' CRC Press Nielman, K, (2007). ‘From Enterprise Architecture to IT Governance: Elements of Effective IT Management.' Springer Science & Business Media Raj, P. (2013). ‘Cloud Enterprise Architecture’. CRC Press Springer Williams, J. (1992). ‘The Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture: A Technical Guide for CIM Planning and Implementation’. Instrument Society of America Woodworth, P. (2013). ‘Reference Architecture for Enterprise Architecture: According to EA3, Documented in EA3.' Phil Woodworth Read More