- 1 - $Q2YHUYLHZRI (QWHUSULVH$UFKLWHFWXUH)UDPHZRUN'HOLYHUDEOHV Frank Goethals Frank.Goethals@econ.kuleuven.be Naamsestraat 69 B-3000 Leuven SAP-leerstoel ‘Extended Enterprise Infrastructures’ $EVWUDFWA number of enterprise architecture frameworks do exist. In this paper, we differentiate between two classes of frameworks: classic enterprise architecture frameworks, and federated enterprise architecture frameworks. From each class, a number of reputable frameworks are presented. Conclusions are made concerning what these frameworks learn us for setting up an Extended Enterprise architecture framework. - 2 - ,QWURGXFWLRQ During the years to come, the research at the SAP-leerstoel will focus on the creation of an Extended Enterprise architecture framework. Not much research has been done towards this specific topic yet. However, a number of enterprise architecture frameworks are available. In order to develop a framework, useful for the Extended Enterprise LQWHJUDWLRQexercise, we should first investigate the existing frameworks. TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework, [1]) defines an architecture framework as follows: “$QDUFKLWHFWXUHIUDPHZRUNLVDWRROZKLFKFDQEHXVHGIRUGHYHORSLQJDEURDGUDQJHRI GLIIHUHQWDUFKLWHFWXUHV[architecture descriptions].,WVKRXOGGHVFULEHDPHWKRGIRU GHVLJQLQJDQLQIRUPDWLRQV\VWHPLQWHUPVRIDVHWRIEXLOGLQJEORFNVDQGIRUVKRZLQJKRZ WKHEXLOGLQJEORFNVILWWRJHWKHU,WVKRXOGFRQWDLQDVHWRIWRROVDQGSURYLGHDFRPPRQ YRFDEXODU\,WVKRXOGDOVRLQFOXGHDOLVWRIUHFRPPHQGHGVWDQGDUGVDQGFRPSOLDQW SURGXFWVWKDWFDQEHXVHGWRLPSOHPHQWWKHEXLOGLQJEORFNV” Besides this, TOGAF states that two of the key elements of any enterprise architecture framework are: - a description of the method by which the architecting activity should be done, and - a definition of the deliverables this activity should produce. However, the majority of the existing enterprise architecture frameworks focus on the second of these only [1]. In the literature review at hand, we present a selection of existing frameworks. This selection contains a number of frameworks mentioned by TOGAF [1] and by van den Heuvel and Proper [2]. Please, note that we only present the GHOLYHUDEOHV that the frameworks suggest. In future papers, we will also discuss methods to produce these deliverables. In what follows, we first set forth some basic concepts and terminology. Next we present the different frameworks, and finally, we draw some conclusions that could serve as a basis for further research. %DVLFFRQFHSWV Through the years, the idea behind Architecture Descriptions (ADs) has evolved, producing the IEEE 1471-2000 standard on ‘Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems’. IEEE 1471-2000 defines an ‘architectural description’ as D FROOHFWLRQRISURGXFWVWRGRFXPHQWDQDUFKLWHFWXUH, whereas ‘an architecture’ is defined as WKHIXQGDPHQWDORUJDQL]DWLRQRIDV\VWHPHPERGLHGLQLWVFRPSRQHQWVWKHLUUHODWLRQVKLSVWR HDFKRWKHUDQGWRWKHHQYLURQPHQWDQGWKHSULQFLSOHVJXLGLQJLWVGHVLJQDQGHYROXWLRQ[3]. While we are convinced about the accurateness of these definitions, many authors do not use these terms in this sense! In this literature review, we will stick to the terminology used by the specific authors. The reader should keep in mind that in an overwhelming part of the literature the word ‘architecture’ is used when ‘architectural description’ is meant. Describing a software-intensive system is not straightforward. Before one can start drawing up ADs, the scope of the architecture activity should be determined. TOGAF [1] mentions four dimensions on which the scope may be defined and limited: - 3 - - The HQWHUSULVHscope, i.e., what is the `enterprise' that will be described? This question is of particular interest in the Extended Enterprise (EE) setting: it has to be determined whether eac