Augmented Reality-enabled Enterprise Architecture Management

Augmented Reality-enabled Enterprise Architecture Management

No entries found.

Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) is a management discipline that provides a wide range of processes, methods, models, and tools to symbiotically manage an organization’s IT and business structure [1–3]. Organizations develop Enterprise Architecture (EA) artefacts that describe their current and possible future states to help stakeholders make decisions [4, 5]. Examples of EA artifacts are: business strategies, process models, standards, data flow diagrams, network diagrams, and roadmaps [6]. EA artifacts are considered useful for a better decision quality [5, 7].

However, current investigations show low usage of EA artifacts in decision making [8, 9, 7]. In sum, researchers report that stakeholders perceive EA artifacts as too complex [10], containing unnecessary information [11], or as too abstract [12, 13]. Insufficient tool support [12] and poor collaboration between stakeholders [14] also foster the inefficient use of EA artifacts. 

We want to address these challenges by proposing applying augmented reality (AR) to visualize and interact with EA artifacts and as an intuitive and easy-to-use approach to EA decision making. AR combines the real and the virtual world by displaying virtual objects in a real-world scenario by, for example, using a head-mounted display (HMD), or a smartphone [15–17]. AR takes a decision maker’s spatial ability into account, which decreases his or her cognitive load, thus enabling a better overall understanding of complex causal relationships [17–19]. The following figure shows the current status of the prototype. 

Research questions

We address the novel idea of combining AR and EAM to enhance EA decision-making in organizations by asking the following research questions:

  • What are the benefits of augmented reality for EAM?
  • What should an augmented reality-enabled EAM user interface look like?
  • How can organizations implement AR for EAM?
  • How can AR EAM become an accepted EAM tool?


2017 – ongoing


No entries found.


  1. Ahlemann, F., Stettiner, E., Messerschmidt, M., Legner, C.: Strategic Enterprise Architecture Management: Challenges, Best Practices, and Future Developments. Springer, Berlin ; New York (2012).
  2. Aier, S., Gleichauf, B., Winter, R.: Understanding Enterprise Architecture Management Design – An Empirical Analysis. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik Proceedings 2011 (2011).
  3. Simon, D., Fischbach, K., Schoder, D.: Enterprise architecture management and its role in corporate strategic management. Information Systems and e-Business Management. 12, 5–42 (2014).
  4. Opengroup: TOGAF Version 9. Van Haren Publishing (2009).
  5. Tamm, T., Seddon, P.B., Shanks, G., Reynolds, P.: How does enterprise architecture add value to organisations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 28, 141–168 (2011).
  6. Kotusev, S., Singh, M., Storey, I.: Investigating the Usage of Enterprise Architecture Artifacts. ECIS 2015 Research-in-Progress Papers. (2015).
  7. Hiekkanen, K., Korhonen, J.J., Collin, J., Patricio, E., Helenius, M., Mykk\änen, J.: Architects’ Perceptions on EA Use – An Empirical Study. In: 2013 IEEE 15th Conference on Business Informatics. pp. 292–297 (2013).
  8. Löhe, J., Legner, C.: Overcoming implementation challenges in enterprise architecture management: a design theory for architecture-driven IT Management (ADRIMA). Information Systems and e-Business Management. 12, 101–137 (2014).
  9. Abraham, R.: Enterprise Architecture Artifacts as Boundary Objects-A Framework of Properties. ECIS 2013 Proceedings. (2013).
  10. van der Raadt, B., Schouten, S., Vliet, H. van: Stakeholder Perception of Enterprise Architecture. In: Morrison, R., Balasubramaniam, D., and Falkner, K. (eds.) Software Architecture. pp. 19–34. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2008).
  11. Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: How to make your enterprise architecture management endeavor fail! Presented at the Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (2009).
  12. Nowakowski, E., Farwick, M., Trojer, T., Häusler, M., Kessler, J., Breu, R.: Enterprise Architecture Planning: Analyses of Requirements from Practice and Research. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2017 (HICSS-50). (2017).
  13. Vieira, R., Cardoso, E., Becker, C.: A Traceable Maturity Assessment Method Based on Enterprise Architecture Modelling. Presented at the 18th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops and Demonstrations September (2014).
  14. Banaeianjahromi, N., Smolander, K.: Lack of Communication and Collaboration in Enterprise Architecture Development. Information Systems Frontiers. (2017).
  15. Azuma, R.T.: A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments. 6, 355–385 (1997).
  16. Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., Kishino, F.: Augmented Reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Telemanipulator and telepresence technologies. 2351, 282–292 (1994).
  17. Rehman, U., Cao, S.: Augmented-Reality-Based Indoor Navigation: A Comparative Analysis of Handheld Devices Versus Google Glass. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems. 140–151 (2016).
  18. Sommerauer, P., Müller, O.: Augmented reality in informal learning environments: A field experiment in a mathematics exhibition. Computers & Education. 79, 59–68 (2014).
  19. Wang, X., Love, P.E.D., Kim, M.J., Wang, W.: Mutual awareness in collaborative design: An Augmented Reality integrated telepresence system. Computers in Industry. 65, 314–324 (2014).