Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Successful IT application architecture design: an empirical study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Information Systems and e-Business Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The technical architecture of an IT application is a critical determinant of its successful development. Complementing the software engineering viewpoint, this paper adopts a broader perspective to the design of IT applications and subsequent project success. It reports on a recent empirical study of factors that influence the design of IT application architectures. It identifies five influencing factors that are significantly associated with variation in the time-budget performance of the subsequent development project. Further, it finds that the projects can be classified according to these five attributes into four types that exhibit clear performance differences. The paper infers recommendations for good practice in IT application architecture design, contributes a detailed instrument for research into the area, compares with findings from software engineering, and raises issues for further study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aerts ATM, Goossenaerts JBM, Hammer DK, Wortmann JC (2004) Architectures in context: on the evolution of business, application software, and ICT platform architectures. Inf Manage 41:781–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballantine J, Bonner M, Levy M, Martin A, Munro I, Powell P (1996) The 3-D model of information systems success: the search for the dependent variable continues. Inf Resour Manage J 9(4):5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass L, Clements P, Kazman R (1998) Software architecture in practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrsin M, Mason G, Sharpe T (1994) Reshaping IT for business flexibility: The IT architecture as a common language for dealing with change. McGraw-Hill, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent M, Weill P (1997) Management by maxim: how business and IT managers can create IT infrastructure. Sloan Manage Rev Spring 1997:77–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent M, Weill P (1999) The implications of information technology infrastructure for business process redesign. MIS Q 23(2):159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent M, Weill P, Neo BS (1999) Strategic context and patterns of IT infrastructure capability. J Strateg Inf Sys 8(2):157–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewusi-Mensah K, Przasnyski Z (1991) On information systems project abandonment: an exploratory study of organizational practices. MIS Q 15(1):67–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein A, Kramer J (2000) Software engineering: a roadmap. In: Finkelstein A (ed) The future of software engineering, ACM Press, NY, pp 5–22; also at http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/A.Finkelstein/fose/finalfinkelstein.pdf last accessed August 2005

  • Fitzgerald G (1990) Achieving flexible information systems: the case of improved analysis. J Inf Technol 5:5–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B (1996) Formalized systems development methodologies: a critical perspective. Inf Sys J 6:3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B (1997) The use of systems development methodologies in practice: a field study. Inf Sys J 7:201–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald G, Philippedes A, Probert S (1999) Information systems development, maintenance and enhancement: findings from a UK study. Int J Inf Manage 19:319–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales R (2005) Developing the requirements discipline: software vs. systems. IEEE Softw 22(2):59–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris T, Rothwell JW, Lloyd PTL (1999) Experiences in reusing technical reference architectures. IBM Sys J 38(1):98–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber N (2003) Hitting targets? The state of UK IT project management. Comput Wkly 11/4/2003:22–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery M, Leliveld I (2004) Best practices in IT portfolio management. MIT Sloan Manage Rev Spring 45(3):41–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang JJ, Klein G, Hwang H-G, Huang J, Hung S-Y (2004) An exploration of the relationship between software development process maturity and project performance. Inf Manage 41:279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazman R, Bass L (2002) Making architecture reviews work in the real world. IEEE Softw 19(1):67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keider S (1984) Why systems development projects fail. J Inf Syst Manage 1(3):33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langdon CS (2003) Information systems architecture styles and business interaction patterns: toward theoretic correspondence. Inf Sys e-Bus Manage 1:283–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd PTL, Galambos GM (1999) Technical reference architectures. IBM Syst J 38(1):51–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K, Hirschheim R (1987) Information systems failures: a survey and classification of the empirical literature. Oxf Surv Inf Technol 4:257–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K, Mathiassen L, Ropponen J (1996) A framework for software risk management. J Inf Technol 11(4):275–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K, Mathiassen L, Ropponen J (1998) Attention shaping and software risk- a categorical analysis of four classical approaches. Inf Sys Res 9(3):233–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier MW, Rechtin E (2002) The art of systems architecting, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Maranzano JF, Rozsypal SA, Zimmerman GH, Warnken GW, Wirth PE, Weiss DM (2005) Architecture reviews: practice and experience. IEEE Softw 22(2):34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin A (2003) What drives the configuration of information technology projects?: exploratory research in ten organizations. J Inf Technol 18(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin A, Chan M (1996) Information systems project redefinition in New Zealand: will we ever learn. Aust Comput J 28(1):27–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Nidumolu S (1995) The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project performance: residual performance risk as an intervening variable. Inf Sys Res 6(3):191–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Norusis MJ (1985) SPSS-X advanced statistics guide. SPSS/McGraw-Hill

  • Paulk MC, Curtis B, Chrissis MB, Weber CV (1993) Capability maturity model, Version 1.1. IEEE Softw 10(4):18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto JK, Slevin DP (1987) Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage EM-34(1):22–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Remenyi D, Money A, Twite A (1991) A guide to measuring and managing IT benefits. NCC Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ropponen J, Lyytinen K (2000) Components of software development risk: how to address them? A project manager survey. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26(2):98–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross JW (2003) Creating a strategic IT architecture competency: learning in stages. MIS Q Exec 1(2):31–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer C, Willcocks LP (2002) The evolution of the organizational architect. MIT Sloan Manage Rev Camb 43(3):41–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Sewell MT, Sewell LM (2002) The software architect’s profession: an introduction. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw M, Garlan D (1996) Software architecture: perspectives on an emerging discipline. Prentice Hall, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Software Engineering Institute (2002a) CMMISM for systems engineering/software engineering, Version 1.1, continuous representation (CMMI-SE/SW, V1.1, Continuous), technical report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-001, and http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports/02tr001.html last accessed 31/8/2005

  • Software Engineering Institute (2002b) CMMISM for systems engineering/software engineering, Version 1.1, staged representation (CMMI-SE/SW, V1.1, Staged), technical report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-002, and http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports/02tr002.html last accessed 31/8/2005

  • Software Engineering Institute (2005) Capability maturity model integration (CMMI) overview. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/adoption/pdf/cmmi-overview05.pdf Last accessed 31/8/2005

  • Sommerville I (2004) Software engineering, 7th edn. Pearson Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorogood A, Yetton P (2004) Reducing the technical complexity and business risk of major systems projects. In: 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

  • Truex D, Baskerville R, Travis J (2000) Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Acc Manage Inf Technol 10:53–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace L, Keil M, Rai A (2004) How software project risk affects project performance: an investigation of the dimensions of risk and an exploratory model. Decis Sci 35(2):289–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weill P, Broadbent M (2000) Managing IT infrastructure: a strategic choice. In: Zmud RW (ed) Framing the domains of IT management: projecting the future ... through the past, Pinnaflex, pp 329–353

  • Weill P, Subramani M, Broadbent M (2002) Building IT infrastructure for strategic agility. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 44(1):57–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Yetton P, Martin A, Sharma R, Johnston K (2000) A model of information systems development project performance. Inf Sys J 10(4):263–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the helpful advice of Maureen Meadows and Clare Morris with respect to aspects of the statistical analysis, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

    Andrew Martin

Authors
  1. Andrew Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Martin.

Appendix 1: Rotated component matrix

Appendix 1: Rotated component matrix

Factor question

Mature

Maintainable

NFR

TA_influence

Review

Pattern

Change

Portable

External

It behaved

Difficult

Rou tine

Conservative

Time pressure

PM_influence

Novel

Formal

Size_governance

A5 pursue tech

            

−0.65

     

log totsize

        

0.46

        

0.46

B6 TA_exp

0.59

                 

B7_Clear

      

−0.45

           

B8_Risk

           

−0.54

      

B9 complex

           

−0.66

      

B10 novel

               

−0.87

  

B11 support

                  

B12_planned

      

−0.55

    

0.52

      

B12_TURN

      

0.59

           

BSPK_SCL

     

0.67

            

C3 novel arch

−0.43

                 

C5_custom

       

−0.44

    

0.52

     

C5_pattern

            

−0.46

     

C5_RESIL

 

0.66

                

C6_FUNC

                  

C6_TIME

             

0.91

    

C6_COST

           

0.82

      

C6_ORGIT

              

0.63

   

C6_EXTIT

          

0.56

    

A

  

C6_EXPMT

          

0.67

       

C6_REUSE

                  

C6_EXPER

     

0.43

            

C6_skills

        

−0.43

   

−0.47

     

C6_stfdev

                  

C6_RISK

0.46

                 

C6_FLEX

 

0.74

                

C6_SUPP

   

−0.57

         

0.53

    

C6_consult

   

−0.47

    

0.54

         

C6_client

      

0.46

           

C6_POL

−0.49

                 

C6_LEGAL

                  

C9_FUNC

                  

C9_AVAIL

                  

C9_FLEX

−0.54

       

0.42

         

C9_GEOG

 

0.48

     

0.44

          

C9_INTEG

         

0.42

        

C9_extinterf

        

0.74

         

C9_intinterf

      

0.47

           

C9_MOD

 

0.71

                

C9_PERF

  

0.72

               

C9_PORT

       

0.78

          

C9_REL

  

0.92

               

C9_REUSE

 

0.76

                

C9_SCALE

                  

C9_SEC

  

0.74

               

C11 difficult

          

0.85

       

C12_AGG

                 

0.41

C13_AGG

−0.43

  

−0.43

              

C15_AGG

                  

C16_FUNC

  

0.46

   

0.45

           

C16_PERF

      

0.79

           

C16_devund

                  

C16_COMP

         

0.72

        

C16_ARCH

         

0.89

        

Proj_Perf

                  

C21_GOV

                 

0.89

D1_pm_infl

              

0.87

   

D1_ta_infl

   

0.84

              

D1_cparch_infl

            

0.82

     

D1_itrep_infl

 

0.74

                

D1_swrep_infl

                  

D1_user_infl

                  

D1_cons_infl

     

0.43

            

D2_FORM

                

0.42

 

D2_DET

                  

D2_CONS

                  

D2_DOC

  

0.518

      

0.559

        

D2_ITER

                  

D4_intuit

             

0.582

    

D4_pastexp

   

0.438

 

0.659

            

D4_rulethumb

             

−0.46

    

D4_formal

                

0.925

 

D4_AUTO

      

−0.428

0.526

          

D6_memexp

        

−0.785

         

D6_itenabl

       

0.764

          

D6_itarchstd

   

0.625

              

D6_docprior

   

0.772

              

D7_riskanal

0.748

                 

D7_riskmit

0.626

                 

D7_formal

0.436

  

0.41

              

D7_PEER

0.859

                 

D7_change

0.6

 

0.464

               

D7_itarch

0.8

                 

D7_CTA

0.476

 

0.467

               

D7_ANTIC

   

0.406

              

D7_DOC

             

−0.44

    

D7_pattern

     

0.813

            

D7_ADL

     

0.588

            

D8_diff_process

          

0.666

−0.4

      

D9_METH

0.745

                 

D11_OPEN

       

−0.498

          

D11_logged

    

0.48

             

D11_review

    

0.517

             

D11_PERF

    

0.857

             

D11_PROC

    

0.876

             
  1. Using Principal Components Analysis and the Varimax rotation method with Kaiser normalisation. Factor loadings of less than 0.4 are suppressed for clarity.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, A. Successful IT application architecture design: an empirical study. ISeB 4, 107–135 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-005-0029-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-005-0029-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation