A Conceptual Framework to Analyze Enterprise Business Solutions from a Software Architecture Perspective

The architectural aspects of software systems are not always explicitly exposed to customers when a product is presented to them by software vendors. Therefore, customers might be put at a major risk if new emerging business needs come to light that require modification of some of the core business processes within their organizations. So they might need to replace their existing systems or re-architect old ones to comply with new architectural standards. This paper describes a proposed framework that helps organizations to build a comprehensive view of their system architecture prior to dealing with vendors. Consequently, every organization can have a reference model that facilitates negotiation and communication with software vendors. The paper applies the proposed framework to an organization in the region of Saudi Arabia to validate its applicability and generates an architectural design for their software systems.

💡 Research Summary

The paper addresses a common challenge faced by enterprises when acquiring or upgrading software solutions: the lack of explicit architectural information provided by vendors. This opacity can expose organizations to significant risk, especially when emerging business needs demand changes to core processes. To mitigate this, the authors propose a structured conceptual framework that enables organizations to develop a comprehensive, vendor‑independent view of their system architecture before entering negotiations.

The framework consists of four interrelated components. First, business‑process modeling uses standardized notations (e.g., BPMN) to capture the organization’s core workflows and identify the points where software systems intervene. Second, functional and non‑functional requirements are elicited and classified; functional needs are expressed as user stories or use cases, while quality attributes such as performance, security, scalability, and maintainability are documented separately. Third, an architecture‑layer mapping aligns each requirement with a specific layer of a chosen architectural style—ranging from classic four‑tier designs to modern micro‑service, event‑driven, or serverless patterns—thereby clarifying boundaries, interfaces, and data flows. Fourth, a decision‑support matrix quantifies trade‑offs among layers, quality attributes, cost, and risk, allowing a side‑by‑side comparison of alternative vendor proposals against the organization’s strategic objectives.

To validate the approach, the authors applied the framework to a mid‑size manufacturing firm in Saudi Arabia. Through interviews and document analysis, they uncovered that the company’s existing ERP and CRM systems were siloed, with limited integration and no unified architectural blueprint. By applying the framework, they produced a reference architecture that recommended refactoring core business logic into micro‑services, migrating data storage to a cloud‑based data warehouse, and establishing a governance process for future changes. The decision‑support matrix was then used during the Request for Proposal (RFP) phase, resulting in a 30 % increase in requirement‑match scores and a clearer basis for negotiating cost, timeline, and post‑implementation support.

The study demonstrates several key benefits: (1) a common language bridging business and IT stakeholders; (2) enhanced negotiating power with vendors through transparent, quantifiable criteria; (3) early identification of architectural blind spots that could become costly redesigns later; and (4) a reusable artifact that can be leveraged for subsequent system evolution projects. The authors acknowledge limitations, notably the need for internal modeling expertise and the potential effort required to map complex legacy environments. They suggest future work on automated metadata extraction and AI‑assisted requirement‑to‑layer mapping to streamline the process. Overall, the framework offers a pragmatic pathway for enterprises to gain architectural insight, align technology choices with business strategy, and reduce the risk associated with software procurement.