Enterprise Architecture for Higher Education

This assignment examines the implementation of Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems within higher education institutions. It analyzes a case study, highlighting potential benefits for institutions and addressing challenges such as resistance to change due to departmental silos. The plan emphasizes the importance of considering resource availability and mitigating false assumptions during implementation.

Enterprise Architecture Solutions
Assignment 2

Project definition
As a competitive edge, business organizations are aligning their business models to enterprise
architecture (Pigneur & Fritscher, 2011). Connecting business to an IT infrastructure revolves
around the end user because people are important in determining the success of a model.
Although IT is a common practice in different areas, there are common user needs that are
important. Among these are the adaptation to change and effective interaction with the new
technology. Technology users want speed, better storage and data backup, bandwidth and
user benefits.
New services keep the consumer interested in the innovation. Therefore designing business
models using an EA leveraging of core business and technology needs is critical. It aligns
business-modelling solutions that supports and transforms business. The University of
Technology (UT) has a vision to incorporate students, staff and graduates in its business. The
engagement of people is strategic because it creates a positive image and enhances
professionalism. Individuals also benefits in this interaction. The EA provides a platform for
the realization of this business model through changes to spearhead the University of
Technology to strategic direction (Goldratt-Ashlag, 2010).
Purpose Statement
This EA provides solutions to the University of Technology’s challenges of an integrated
system to capture its objectives and values while providing a platform for people to interact.
It does this within the cost factors in consideration for the unexplored resources and the
existing ones.
Enterprise Architecture
Integration comes with standardization of the systems for the institutions shared vision. The
following options are available for UT. Important considerations are the operating model,
which needs to the core processes. Progressive developments need a unification model.
Zachman framework
The Zachman framework is an archimate structural model that captures the business,
application and technology factors. Each of the layers has subcategories with actors and roles.
It uses a unique Model Language (UML) for creating and operating the value chain. It covers
internal and external activities in a business and illustrates. Its bottom up approach helps

UT
business
Archimate
]e
Device
Software
Service
Infrastructure
Student
segments
Departmental
segments
Individuals
Technology Benefits
Value Data
Processes Application
function
Roles
Business
service
Business
object
Application
service
Application
component
University of Technology Business model Business Application
Cost Factor
infrastructures hence would be best for the University of Technology business model. The
figure below highlights this multivariable structure.
Figure 1: Architecture model blending the business model and IT business needs (Using
flying logic diagram)

Current reality tree
Currently UT is starting its EA program with social and technical challenges in this new
adoption. Built on a complex system, it lacks a synchronized approach that has a plan. This
makes it hard to manage and operate because of its rigid mechanism. Department conflicts of
interest arise because of the planned restrictions on IT purchasing and development (Schleier
& Cox, 2010, p. 571). The figure below describes this situation under the current reality tree
with UT’s undesirable effects.
Figure 2: Current reality tree for UT
This situation trickles down to the need for a united system across different departments as
shown under the figure 3 below. There is a need for a unified system that speaks the same
language.
Lack of
sycnchronization
( UDE)
Technical
Challenges
Rigid System
with limited
support
Departmental
Budget
constraints
Social
hinderances with
no limited
interaction
User disconnect
Core Problem ( IT animosity )

Figure 3: University of Technology need for an integrated system
UT Technical challenges
Technical challenges at the institution include the need for better agile OS, standardization,
reuse, ability to share information, less complex but integrated system. Ability to give new
business opportunities, improved innovation, improved security, governance, analytics,
automation, better user experience and satisfaction
Replacing the Silo based model
This is a silo-based model, which has been in use for departments and faculties in a non-
standardised model. It does not support and end-to-end process. It also has fragmented data
hindering a united system as figure 4 highlights. Its closed system means it is not an agile
operating system. This hinders information sharing, collaboration and teamwork. This system
reduces efficiency, motivation and organizational culture (Gleson, 2013). This approach is
also costly and hard to manage.
Department B
Department C
Department D
UT system
Department A

Figure 4: Getting rid of the Silos framework that is individualistic (Tracx, 2017)
New Business model
The quest for a new approach calls for a model that caters for departments and UT business
needs. Its implementation is in line with government regulations and customer needs. A
sustainable approach that supports reduced costs and fewer risks also has improved
productivity. In recognition to the continuous changes in technological innovation, the
business considers upgrades, new capabilities, and new inexperienced users. It looks at
challenges in unclear usage, multiple licensing, and costs.
The current system is undergoing effects of immature software engineering, which needs
improvisation. The constant maintenance and fixing requires replacement with a new
approach that is controlled and budget friendly for a unified system. The figure below shows
how to overcome constraints in UT system which shows arising conflicts (Schleier & Cox,
2010, p. 578)

Figure 5 : TOC layers for UT adopted from (Schleier & Cox, 2010, p. 578)
People factor
The conflict of interest between stakeholder groups at UT is about the systems rigidity and
the people’s factor. It also raises the role of and need for academic freedom in innovation,
flexibility for individuals and departments. The EA system gives people the ability to follow
their own paths without losing the central control. Need to look at stakeholders as individuals
and common group. However, people have differences in social, cultural, educational and
professional status hence it is difficult to incorporate (Lankhorst, 2009)
Business model
This EA incorporates products and services. It comprises of a practice based learning and
significant stakeholders. The marketing aspect includes a student attraction element that
targets marketing, and delivery. This channels public and private services and a reliable
learning experience. Global outsourcing and commoditised IT is one way to reduce costs for
shared services. Concern for student services, student relationships, and personalization is
part of the marketing strategy. Retention or loyalty calls for strategic models and value
chain. The simulation process in the model exchange aides in the code generation for the
agile system.
Problem definition ( focus on systems enegagement with systems
reliability)
Layer 1 (disagreement on the Problem)
Solution defined ( exploiting core enterprise apps and avoiding "lock
in", information needs, eary adopters and not bleeding edge)
Layer 2 ( Disagreement on way forward)
Implimentation approach (Suatainable, flexible, and agile model.
Using cloud, acuisition and building to reduce complexity, leverage
and independent maintenance)
Layer 3 (Diagreement on details of implimntation)

Agile operating system
EA continuous use ensures that there is no dead end (Bente, Bombosch, & Lanade, 2012). It
does this by embracing change and the need to upgrade as the process advances. This is
necessary for an ever-changing environment. EA supervises the transformation process.
Dealing with rogue or shadow IT systems starts with acceptance. Its growth focus is on
people (Guis, 2015). A competent system addresses IT animosity at UT and its stakeholders.

Figure 6: Intermediate Objective Map for UT
University of Technology
Business
unification
Student
participation
Workforce
engagement
Reduced
cost
Timely
service
Quality User
value
In place
Needs
Change
User
experie
nce
Learni
ng
platfor
m
Continu
ous
improv
ement
Constrai
nt
Manage
ment
Functio
ns
Freedom
in
impleme
ntation
Low conflict
of interest
Reliable
Global
standard
Unified
public
and
private
services
Synchronise
d for people
centred
demand
Implement
continuous usage
Implement
new approach Implement
flexible agile
system
Implement
conflict
resolution
Success
factors

Designing business solutions for a complex system calls for a socio-scientific approach (De
Jong, et al., 2012). The CRT content includes entities that address an integrated approach that
determines the root cause for identification. The EA addresses both technical and social gaps
created by the silo approach. It provides a global freedom based system that has less control
(Jansen, 2012).
Technical needs at UT include what was formerly used in acquisition and tactical integration
of its rigid system. The UT system upgrade needs reliability, sustainability and agility like
other contemporary systems. This includes the use of a causal mechanism on programs
(Astbury & Leeuw, 2010).
Evaporating Cloud
Figure 7: Evaporating cloud for UT EA approach
The evaporating cloud provides a platform for conflict resolution in an EA (Tulasi, Rao, &
Tirupati, 2012). Figure 6 represents a logical relationship between costs, budget constraints
and the enterprise architecture. This conflict is visible in UT where other entities like people
feature. In order to overcome this, an implementation strategy addresses both sides for a
balanced approach. People are important in the effective design and development of the IT
services. Resource availability also dictates and defines the implementation process.
Effective EA
Cost control
Within
budget
People
Service
delivery
Implementation by
global standards

False Assumptions
The false assumption in this plan is that the staffs at UT consider a unified system a challenge
because of the institutions different departments. However, synchronizing the system is for
the benefit of the whole system hence may encounter resistance during implementation
(Schleier & Cox, 2010, pp. 571-581). It addresses the cost concerns raised by the workforce.
The ERP solution prioritizes on higher education needs.
Figure 8: ERP showing the benefits of EA for higher education settings (CloudEms, 2017)

References
Astbury, & Leeuw. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in
evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3).
Bente, S., Bombosch, U., & Lanade, S. (2012). Enriching EA with Lean, Agile and
Enterprise 2.0 practices. Morgan Kaufman.
CloudEms. (2017, March 29). iCloudEMS-Campus ERP solution for students, parents and
institutions. Retrieved from Medium: https://medium.com/@Cloud_EMS/icloudems-
campus-erp-solution-for-students-parents-and-institutions-4ab181ebfce6
De Jong, T., Weinberger, A., Girault, I., Kluge, A., Lazonder, A. W., Pedaste, M., et al.
(2012). Using scenarios to desin complex technology-enhanced learning
environments. Educational technology research and development, 60(5), 883-901.
Gleson, B. (2013, October 2). How to break down barriers. Forbes.
Goldratt-Ashlag, E. (2010). The layers of resistance-The buy-In process according to TOC.
Retrieved from Pages from Theory of Constraints:
file:///C:/Users/BAT/Downloads/1781015_1563643805_PagesfromTheoryofConstrai
ntsHa.pdf
Guis, I. (2015, February 28). The 5 stages of shadow IT: How to cope with rogue technology.
Retrieved from It portal: https://www.itproportal.com/2015/02/28/5-stages-shadow-it-
how-cope-rogue-technology/
Jansen, M. (2012). Socio political aspects of enteroperability and entreprise architecture in e-
government. Social Science Computer Review, 24-36.
Lankhorst, M. (2009). Enterprise architecture at work. Springer Science and Business Media.
Pigneur, Y., & Fritscher, B. (2011). Business IT alignment from business model to enterprise
architecture. International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering
CAiSE (pp. 4-15). Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops.
Schleier, J., & Cox, J. (2010). Theory of Constraints Handbook. McGraw Hill.
Tracx. (2017). Breaking Social Out of its Silo. Retrieved from Tracx.com:
https://www.tracx.com/resources/webinars/breaking_social_out_of_its_silo/