Acknowledgements
i
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of many people.
First of all, I wish to thank my advisor, Prof. Dr. Robert Winter. I greatly appreciate
his input and support during the last three and a half years – both in terms of scientific
and practice-oriented work. He created a structured but still open working environment
that enabled me to write and finish this thesis on time. I also wish to thank Prof. Dr.
Henderik A. Proper for co-supervision, his advice, and the many solid discussions we
had in terms of the thesis and the ACET project.
However, without great colleagues, more than three years can turn out to be a hard
time. Luckily, I never had to face such problems. I would like to thank Prof. Dr.
Stephan Aier for his feedback on many parts of my research and for being a project
manager who is able to balance the goals of the institution with those of the Ph.D. student. I also wish to say thanks to all colleagues (both in St.Gallen and Luxembourg)
and alumni, many of whom became friends during the last years. I will always remember how often we solved the essential problems of the world in just one single lunch
break.
Practice-driven research is not possible without practitioners who engage in cooperation with the university. For that reason, I would like to thank the many people I was
able to conduct interviews with and those who gave valuable feedback for my work.
Especially, I would like to thank the partners in the Competence Center Corporate Intelligence. I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Axel Uhl and the team of the Business
Transformation Academy for offering me a broad perspective on business transformation management.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends who have supported me in every
possible way. They have contributed greatly to the completion of this thesis.
Nils Labusch
Papers
iii
Papers
Paper A:
Labusch, N., and Winter, R. 2013. "Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise Transformation," in ECIS 2013 Proceedings, Utrecht, The Netherlands, Paper 137.
Paper B:
Labusch, N., Aier, S., Rothenberger, M., and Winter, R. 2014. "Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate
Practice," in Tagungsband Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2014, D.
Kundisch, L. Suhl, and L. Beckmann (eds.), Paderborn, Germany,
pp. 1048-1060.
Paper C:
Labusch, N. 2014. "Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations," in Architectural Coordination of Enterprise Transformation,
H.A. Proper, R. Winter, S. Aier, and S. de Kinderen (eds.),
accepted for publication, forthcoming.
Paper D:
Labusch, N., Aier, S., and Winter, R. 2014. "A Reference Model for the
Information-Based Support of Enterprise Transformations," in Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technologies (DESRIST 2014), M.C. Tremblay,
D. van der Meer, M. Rothenberger, A. Gupta, and V. Yoon (eds.), Miami,
FL, United States of America, pp. 194-208.
Paper E:
Labusch, N., Aier, S., and Winter, R. 2013. "Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to Support Enterprise Transformations?," in Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA 2013),
R. Jung, and M. Reichert (eds.), St. Gallen, Switzerland,
pp. 13-26.
Paper F:
Labusch, N., and Aier, S. 2014. "Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations," in Proceedings of the 8th TEE Workshop in conjunction with the 16th IEEE
Conference on Business Informatics, D. Aveiro, M. Bjekovic, A. Caetano,
A. Fleischmann, L. Heuser, S. de Kinderen, M.M. Komarov, Y. Koucheryavy, S.V. Maltseva, W. Molnar, A. Oberweis, H.A. Proper, M. Rappa, W. Schmidt, F. Schönthaler, J.-S. Sottet, C. Stary, and G. Vossen
(eds.), Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 141-148.
Summary of Contents
v
Summary of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ i
Papers ........................................................................................................................... iii
Summary of Contents ....................................................................................................v
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ vii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. xiii
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................xv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xvii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................... xix
Kurzfassung ............................................................................................................... xxi
Part A – Summary of the Thesis ..................................................................................1
1
Introduction ..................................................................................................1
2
Foundations ...................................................................................................9
3
State of the Art ............................................................................................17
4
Summary of the Contribution ...................................................................24
5
Discussion and Outlook..............................................................................32
Part B – Papers of the Thesis......................................................................................48
Paper A – Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise
Transformation ............................................................................................................48
Paper B – Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from
Corporate Practice ......................................................................................................62
Paper C – Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations ................77
Paper D – A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of Enterprise
Transformations ..........................................................................................................90
Paper E – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to
Support Enterprise Transformations? ....................................................................105
Paper F – Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support
of Enterprise Transformations .................................................................................120
vi
Summary of Contents
References .................................................................................................................. 137
Curriculum Vitae ...................................................................................................... 159
Table of Contents
vii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ i
Papers ........................................................................................................................... iii
Summary of Contents ....................................................................................................v
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ vii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. xiii
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................xv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xvii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................... xix
Kurzfassung ............................................................................................................... xxi
Part A – Summary of the Thesis ..................................................................................1
1
Introduction ..................................................................................................1
1.1
Motivation of the Research ............................................................................1
1.2
Problem Statement .........................................................................................2
1.3
Research Goals and Research Questions .......................................................3
1.4
Research Approach and Thesis Structure .......................................................5
Foundations ...................................................................................................9
2
2.1
Enterprise Transformation Management ........................................................9
2.2
Enterprise Architecture Management ...........................................................12
2.3
Reference Models of Information Requirements .........................................13
3
State of the Art ............................................................................................17
3.1
Requirements of Enterprise Transformation Managers ...............................17
3.2
Enterprise Architecture Management Support of Enterprise Transformation
Management .................................................................................................19
3.3
Design Objectives for the Solution Artifact .................................................21
viii
Table of Contents
4
Summary of the Contribution ................................................................... 24
4.1
Conceptual Design ....................................................................................... 24
4.2
Summary of Papers ...................................................................................... 25
4.2.1
Paper A: Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for
Enterprise Transformation ....................................................................... 25
4.2.2
Paper B: Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights
from Corporate Practice ........................................................................... 27
4.2.3
Paper C: Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations ...... 28
4.2.4
Paper D: A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of
Enterprise Transformations ...................................................................... 29
4.2.5
Paper E: Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the
Essentials to Support Enterprise Transformations? ................................. 30
4.2.6
Paper F: Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural
Support of Enterprise Transformations .................................................... 31
5
Discussion and Outlook ............................................................................. 32
5.1
Evaluation of the Solution Artifact .............................................................. 32
5.1.1
Evaluation 1 ............................................................................................. 33
5.1.2
Evaluation 2 ............................................................................................. 34
5.1.3
Evaluation 3 ............................................................................................. 38
5.1.4
Evaluation 4 ............................................................................................. 40
5.2
Critical Reflection ........................................................................................ 42
5.3
Implications and Future Work ..................................................................... 44
Part B – Papers of the Thesis ..................................................................................... 48
Paper A – Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise
Transformation ............................................................................................................ 48
A.1
Introduction .................................................................................................. 49
A.2
Related Work ............................................................................................... 50
A.3
Research Approach ...................................................................................... 51
Table of Contents
A.4
ix
Results ..........................................................................................................53
A.4.1
ETM Activities and Inputs .......................................................................53
A.4.2
EAM Outputs ...........................................................................................56
A.4.3
EAM Inputs for ETM Activities ..............................................................57
A.5
Discussion ....................................................................................................59
A.6
Summary & Implications .............................................................................60
Paper B – Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from
Corporate Practice ......................................................................................................62
B.1
Introduction ..................................................................................................63
B.2
Related Work ................................................................................................64
B.3
Research Design ...........................................................................................65
B.3.1
Data Collection .........................................................................................65
B.3.2
Coding ......................................................................................................66
B.3.3
Literature Validation ................................................................................67
B.3.4
Aggregation and Mapping ........................................................................68
B.3.5
Response Saturation .................................................................................68
B.4
Results ..........................................................................................................68
B.4.1
The EAM Perspective ..............................................................................68
B.4.2
The ETM Perspective ...............................................................................70
B.4.3
Fitting EAM and ETM .............................................................................71
B.4.3.1 Fit 1: Design of IT Components ...........................................................71
B.4.3.2 Fit 2: Governance .................................................................................71
B.4.3.3 Fit 3–5: Transformation Planning ........................................................72
B.4.3.4 Partial Fit 6: Project Management ........................................................73
B.4.3.5 Partial Fit 7–8: Analysis of Design Options.........................................73
B.4.3.6 Partial Fit 9: Design of Business Components .....................................73
B.4.3.7 Partial Fit 10: Change Management .....................................................74
B.4.3.8 Non-Fits: Controlling and External Relations Management ................74
x
Table of Contents
B.5
Discussion .................................................................................................... 74
B.6
Summary & Outlook .................................................................................... 75
Paper C – Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations ............... 77
C.1
Introduction .................................................................................................. 77
C.2
State of the Art ............................................................................................. 78
C.3
Dimensions of Information Requirements ................................................... 80
C.3.1
People: Consumers of the Information .................................................... 80
C.3.2
Structure: Organizational Scope of the Information ................................ 81
C.3.3
Task: Purpose of the Information ............................................................. 82
C.3.4
Technology: Detail of the Information .................................................... 82
C.4
Information Processing during Enterprise Transformations ........................ 82
C.5
Information Provision in the Context of ACET ........................................... 84
C.6
Summary and Discussion ............................................................................. 88
Paper D – A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of Enterprise
Transformations .......................................................................................................... 90
D.1
Introduction .................................................................................................. 90
D.2
Related Work ............................................................................................... 92
D.3
Research Approach ...................................................................................... 93
D.3.1
Identification of Contingency Factors and Information Requirements ... 93
D.3.2
Empirical Analysis ................................................................................... 94
D.4
Design Process ............................................................................................. 95
D.4.1
Identification of Enterprise Transformation Types .................................. 95
D.4.2
Design of an Enterprise Transformation Information Model .................. 98
D.5
Demonstration: EAM as a Configurable Information Provider for Enterprise
Transformations ......................................................................................... 100
D.6
Summary, Limitations & Outlook.............................................................. 103
Table of Contents
xi
Paper E – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to
Support Enterprise Transformations? ....................................................................105
E.1
Introduction ................................................................................................106
E.2
Related Work ..............................................................................................107
E.3
Research Design .........................................................................................108
E.3.1
Research Setting .....................................................................................109
E.3.2
Design Process .......................................................................................110
E.4
Towards a Framework for the Architectural Support of Enterprise
Transformations ..........................................................................................113
E.4.1
Overall Structure ....................................................................................113
E.4.2
Framework Application ..........................................................................117
E.5
Discussion ..................................................................................................117
E.6
Summary & Conclusion .............................................................................118
Paper F – Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support
of Enterprise Transformations .................................................................................120
F.1
Introduction ................................................................................................120
F.2
Related Work ..............................................................................................122
F.3
Research Approach .....................................................................................124
F.3.1
Overall Research Project ........................................................................124
F.3.2
Identification of Items ............................................................................124
F.3.3
Questionnaire Design .............................................................................125
F.3.4
Pilot Phase ..............................................................................................125
F.3.5
Roll-Out ..................................................................................................126
F.3.6
Resulting Dataset ....................................................................................126
F.4
Results ........................................................................................................127
F.4.1
General Findings about ETs ...................................................................127
F.4.2
Available Information and ET Success ..................................................128
F.5
Discussion ..................................................................................................131
xii
Table of Contents
F.5.1
Impact of Information Availability on ET Success ............................... 131
F.5.2
Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations ............................ 133
F.6
Summary & Conclusions ........................................................................... 135
References .................................................................................................................. 137
Curriculum Vitae ...................................................................................................... 159
List of Abbreviations
xiii
List of Abbreviations
CIRRM
Configurative Information Requirements Reference Model
DODAF
Department of Defense Architecture Framework
DR
Design Research
EA
Enterprise Architecture
EAM
Enterprise Architecture Management
ET
Enterprise Transformation
ETM
Enterprise Transformation Management
GERAM
Generalized Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology
IS
Information System
IT
Information Technology
OIPT
Organizational Information Processing Theory
RM
Reference Model
RQ
Research Question
SCOR
Supply Chain Operations Reference
TOGAF
The Open Group Architecture Framework
List of Figures
xv
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Overview of the research process (see Peffers et al. (2007, p. 54) and
Ahlemann and Gastl (2007, p. 82)) ............................................................6
Figure 2:
Dimensions of change (see Greenwood and Hinings (1996, p. 1024)) ...10
Figure 3:
Requirements in different ET phases (see Stiles et al. 2012) ...................17
Figure 4:
Evaluations in design research (see Sonnenberg and vom Brocke
2012) ........................................................................................................32
Figure 5:
ETM activities and necessary information needs .....................................55
Figure 6:
Consolidated EAM content elements .......................................................56
Figure 7:
Example of ETM information needs and related EAM content
elements ....................................................................................................57
Figure 8:
EAM support for ETM information needs ...............................................58
Figure 9:
Information provision by EAM ................................................................69
Figure 10:
Information inputs needed by ETM .........................................................70
Figure 11:
Organisational scopes of information ......................................................81
Figure 12:
Information characteristics .......................................................................85
Figure 13:
Information processing steps and EAM support (based on Corner et al.
1994) .........................................................................................................86
Figure 14:
Information demands in the different clusters..........................................96
Figure 15:
ET reference information model ..............................................................99
Figure 16:
EAM system support differentiated by ET type.....................................103
Figure 17:
Example of an activity............................................................................116
List of Tables
xvii
List of Tables
Table 1: Research questions .........................................................................................4
Table 2: EAM contributions to ETM .........................................................................19
Table 3: Solution design objectives ............................................................................22
Table 4: Contribution summary ..................................................................................25
Table 5: Evaluation 1 ..................................................................................................34
Table 6: Evaluation 2 ..................................................................................................37
Table 7: Clarity of type description ............................................................................38
Table 8: Robustness of clusters ..................................................................................39
Table 9: Evaluation 3 ..................................................................................................40
Table 10: Evaluation 4 ..................................................................................................41
Table 11: Bibliographical information of paper A .......................................................48
Table 12: Bibliographical information of paper B .......................................................62
Table 13: Bibliographical information of paper C .......................................................77
Table 14: EAM support of ETs: Reduction of the information processing need .........87
Table 15: EAM support of ETs: Increase of the information processing capability ....88
Table 16: Bibliographical information of paper D .......................................................90
Table 17: Overview of participating industries ............................................................95
Table 18: EAM support of ETs ..................................................................................101
Table 19: Bibliographical information of paper E .....................................................105
Table 20: Design partners ...........................................................................................109
Table 21: Design process ............................................................................................112
Table 22: Overall relation ...........................................................................................114
Table 23: Bibliographical information of paper F ......................................................120
Table 24: Surveyed industries ....................................................................................126
Table 25: Guiding departments ..................................................................................128
Table 26: Information availability and influence on ET success ...............................129
xviii
List of Tables
Table 27: Architectural support .................................................................................. 135
Abstract
xix
Abstract
Enterprises must occasionally go through radical and fundamental changes (oftentimes
referred to as enterprise transformations). Many of these enterprise transformation
(ET) efforts fail for different reasons – they run over budget, miss deadlines or do not
deliver functionalities or other required results. Managing ETs is a multi-faceted problem that is dealt with by responsible ET managers. These ET managers need to be
supplied with manifold information in order to manage the ET.
A discipline that claims the ability to provide valuable input to ET management
(ETM) is enterprise architecture management (EAM). However, EAM is currently not
often considered as a valuable partner in managing ETs. For this reason, this research
focuses on information requirements of ETM and the supply of information by EAM.
In a first step, the cumulative thesis explores the field of information provision during
ETs. In a second step, the gathered results are consolidated into a reference model.
This model aims at substantiating the discussions about the EAM support of ETs, and
provides guidance on the practice implementation. In a third step the model and its
constituents are evaluated.
To achieve this purpose, the thesis consists of six papers that analyze the relation between EAM and ETM using qualitative, quantitative and literature-based methods.
Furthermore, they describe and present the design of the reference model as guided by
the well-established design research process and address the evaluation of the designed
reference model. The reference model can be used as a foundation for methods that
aim at supporting ETs. To increase its applicability, different types of ET are identified
based on the required information.
The designed reference model provides a solid foundation for EAM practitioners to
analyze how they can contribute to occurring ETs and tailor existing EAM frameworks. It further provides a foundation for ET managers to identify gaps in their information gathering. The result contributes to the research body of knowledge by taking an ETM perspective on EAM. It further enables future research by providing a
condensed and structured view on the field of ET research and the architectural support of ETs in terms of information requirements and ET types.
Keywords: Enterprise Architecture Management, Enterprise Transformation
Management, Information Requirements
Kurzfassung
xxi
Kurzfassung
Unternehmen müssen sich gelegentlich grundlegend und radikal verändern. Dies wird
oftmals als Unternehmenstransformation (UT) bezeichnet. Viele dieser Anstrengungen
scheitern: Budgetgrenzen werden ignoriert, Fertigstellungstermine verpasst oder vereinbarte Ergebnisse nicht zufriedenstellend erbracht. UTs durchzuführen ist ein vielschichtiges Problem, mit dem sich die verantwortlichen Manager auseinandersetzen
müssen. Dazu sind sie auf eine funktionierende Informationsversorgung angewiesen.
Eine Disziplin, die zunehmend davon ausgeht wertvolle Beiträge zum UTManagement (UTM) liefern zu können, ist das Unternehmensarchitektur-Management
(UAM). Von Seiten des UTM wird UAM allerdings häufig noch nicht als wertvoller
Partner angesehen. Aus diesem Grund analysiert die vorliegende Arbeit die Beziehung
zwischen den beiden Disziplinen und fokussiert dabei auf die Informationsbedarfe des
UTM und deren Erfüllung durch UAM.
In der vorliegenden kumulativen Arbeit wird zunächst das Feld der Informationsbereitstellung in UTs analysiert. In einem zweiten Schritt werden die Erkenntnisse in
einem Referenzmodell konsolidiert, welches auf eine Substantiierung der Diskussion
sowie eine Vereinfachung der Implementierung von UAM-Unterstützung von UTM
abzielt. In einem dritten Schritt folgt die Evaluierung des vorgestellten Modells.
Die Arbeit besteht aus sechs einzelnen Beiträgen, die das Verhältnis von UAM und
UTM mit Hilfe qualitativer, quantitativer und literaturbasierter Forschung analysieren.
Das entwickelte Referenzmodell kann als Grundlage für Methoden eingesetzt werden,
die das Management der UT zum Ziel haben. Um die Anwendbarkeit zu steigern, werden verschiedene Typen von UT auf Basis der Informationsbedarfe identifiziert und
als Konfigurationsmöglichkeiten in das Referenzmodell integriert.
Das entwickelte Referenzmodel hilft Verantwortlichen für UAM bei der Analyse, wie
ihre Disziplin zum Erfolg der Transformation beitragen kann. Des Weiteren kann es
den Verantwortlichen für UTM als Instrument dienen, um Lücken in der eigenen Informationsversorgung zu erkennen. Die Arbeit trägt zum wissenschaftlichen Fortschritt durch eine UTM-Perspektive auf UAM bei. Durch die Zusammenfassung und
Strukturierung der relevanten wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten sowie der Ableitung von
Informationsbedarfen und UT-Typen werden weitergehende Forschungen ermöglicht.
Stichworte: Management Unternehmensarchitektur, Transformationsmanagement,
Informationsbedarfe
Part A: Introduction
1
Part A – Summary of the Thesis
1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation of the Research
Enterprises (see section 2.1) must occasionally go through major transformations that
are characterized as fundamental and radical changes, as opposed to simple, routine
change. These changes substantially alter an organization’s relationships with its key
constituencies (Rouse 2005a, p. 279). Examples are transformations of the business
model (Aspara et al. 2011), mergers and acquisitions (Johnston and Madura 2000) or
introductions and replacements of enterprise-wide information technology (IT) systems (see section 1.4) (Bhattacharya et al. 2010; Hock-Hai Teo et al. 1997; Sarker and
Lee 1999).
However, many enterprise transformation (ET) efforts fail. They run over budget, miss
deadlines, do not deliver functionalities, or other required results (Janssen et al. 2013,
p. 121). Ward and Uhl (2012, p. 30) identify 30% of all ETs to be total failures while
just 30% are considered to be a total success. Other sources consider nearly 70% of all
ET projects as being a failure (Kitching and Roy 2013, p. 6).
The reasons for failure are manifold. ETs heavily involve different stakeholders, disciplines and topic areas and therefore foster a great amount of complexity and uncertainty (Elliot 2011; Lengnick-Hall and Beck 2005). Oftentimes, a sense of urgency is not
established, a powerful leadership team does not exist, a vision is not created or communicated, improvements are not consolidated, new approaches are not institutionalized or planning is conducted insufficiently (Kotter 1995). Dietz et al. (2013, p. 92)
identify a lack of coherence and consistency among the various components of an enterprise as a reason of failure. In addition, information about the enterprise is needed in
different dimensions to create transparency and allow for holistic coordination of the
ET (Abraham et al. 2012a, p. 9).
The failure reasons above show that managing ETs is a multi-faceted problem in
which different stakeholders and corporate functions need to be involved. While some
are steering the ET, others are affected (Kotter 1995, p. 60). Managers in the enterprise
that steer the ET depend on the supply of different resources by many other involved
stakeholders. Recently, the role of ET management (ETM) was brought to the discussion (see Paper C). This discipline is supposed to have the best overview about the
2
Part A: Problem Statement
supply requirements that occur during ETs. To be successful, managers that are related
to this group need to understand the demands appropriately and be able to take suitable
actions to ensure successful ETs (Stiles et al. 2012, p. 20).
A discipline that more often claims the ability to address this problem and to provide
valuable input to ETs and especially ETM is enterprise architecture management
(EAM) (Asfaw et al. 2009, p. 18). Enterprise architecture (EA) is understood as (1) the
fundamental organization of an enterprise (or parts of it), either as a whole, or together
with partners, suppliers and customers as well as (2) the principles governing its design and evolution (see The Open Group 2011; Winter and Fischer 2007, p. 1). EAM
deals with the establishment and continuous development of EA. As such, the notion
of EAM goes beyond EA modeling and includes the management tasks of planning
and controlling business change from an architectural perspective (Aier et al. 2011,
p. 645; The Open Group 2011). Enterprise architects are oftentimes organized in a
corporate EAM function that conducts these tasks (Van der Raadt and Van Vliet 2008,
p. 105).
Many enterprise architects and consultancies that deal with EAM claim to be able to
support ETM. However, they regularly focus on software introductions and IT matters
(Gardner et al. 2012, p. 287) instead of discussing non-IT related support that EAM
could provide today or in the future. Asfaw et al. (2009, p. 20) claim that EAM has an
“image” problem, since as soon as people use the word enterprise architecture, “eyes
start to roll.” Lankhorst et al. (2013, p. 305) consider the term “architecture” and the
role of the architect as seriously overloaded and inflationary. Similar to IT artifacts
(Benbasat and Zmud 2003, p. 187), EAM only seems to add value to the ET when being a partner of ETM. Currently, there seems to be a chasm between EAM offers and
ET managers’ requirements.
1.2 Problem Statement
The relation between EAM and ETM is multi-faceted. ETM poses many requirements,
some of which can be fulfilled by EAM. EAM can be involved during ETs (Asfaw et
al. 2009; Winter et al. 2013) but does, in addition, provide resources to other stakeholders that are not necessarily relevant to ETM (e.g. managers of locally restricted
projects). EAM support of ETM can occur in different ways (see section 3.2). The architect can act as a boundary spanner who connects different stakeholders (Abraham et
al. 2013a, p. 38; Levina and Vaast 2005), EAM can actively manage ETs, and EAM
can be responsible for the governance provision during the ET (Harmsen et al. 2009;
Part A: Introduction
3
Op’t Land et al. 2009). Very often, however, EAM rather acts as an information provider that enables planning and the achievement of transparency about the organization (Bradley et al. 2012, p. 104; Bricknall et al. 2006, p. 6; Espinoza 2007, p. 33).
This information provision is mentioned as an important factor to conduct successful
ETs (Galbraith 1974, p. 28).
When steering an ET, a high number of decisions, some of them with major implications, have to be taken (McGinnis 2007, p. 127). To take these decisions on a sound
basis, a lot of information is required by responsible managers (Fry et al. 2005, p. 850;
Tichy 1983, p. 56). According to Laudon and Laudon (2006, p. 14), information is
“data that have been shaped into a form that is meaningful and useful to human beings”. An information requirement describes information that is needed by a user to
achieve an objective (see Paper C).
The availability of information at the right time to monitor and troubleshoot the ET is
described as a major success factor during ETs (Kitching and Roy 2013, p. 17). Dealing with information is one of the major tasks of EAM (Boh and Yellin 2007, p. 175;
Strano and Rehmani 2007, p. 386). The role of the enterprise architect is considered
“one of making order out of chaos by taking the overwhelming amount of information
available and presenting it in a manner that enables effective decision-making” (Strano
and Rehmani 2007, p. 392).
While governance structures or business processes tend to change often, information
remains more stable in their structure (Winter 2011a, p. 24). However, managerial information oftentimes falls short (Fredenberger et al. 1997, p. 717; Watson et al. 1997,
p. 21f). So far, there is no model or method that puts the focus on information requirements other than financial information (see paper C) during an ET. Such an artifact would allow an improvement in analyzing and understanding the information requirements that ET managers pose and would be a solid foundation to discuss and design the possible EAM support.
1.3 Research Goals and Research Questions
The main goal of this thesis is to enable the architect to identify information requirements that can be provided by EAM to ETM. In addition, the research conducted is
supposed to allow ET managers to better understand information requirements that
occur during ETs and those that EAM can provide.
4
Part A: Research Goals and Research Questions
Due to the complexity of the phenomenon, guiding methods are difficult to design.
Methods are usually based on different artifacts (such as method fragments or models)
that help to achieve the desired goal (Winter et al. 2009, p. 6). For this reason, the thesis aims at designing a reference model (RM) as a foundation for a method to provide
EAM support during ETs. Based on the objective to derive such an RM, the following
research questions (RQs) are derived and categorized (Table 1), as guided by Österle
et al. (2011).
Table 1:
Research questions
1. Analysis
RQ1a Which information requirements of ETM could be met by EAM?
RQ1b Which information requirements of ETM are currently met by EAM?
RQ1c What are conceptual foundations for information provision during ETs?
2. Design
RQ2a How can ET types be distinguished from an information requirements
perspective?
RQ2b How can a reference model for the determination of information
requirements during ETs be constructed?
3. Evaluation
RQ3a Is the conducted problem analysis concerning the EAM support for ETs
comprehensive and consistent?
RQ3b Does the taken design approach meet the derived design objectives?
RQ3c Does the instantiated solution meet the design approach?
RQ3d Is the instantiated artifact applicable and useful in practice?
Most related work (see sections 2.1 and 3.1) addresses ETM as a single block and does
not explicate sub-activities and information requirements that belong to it. Thus, related work is not detailed enough to design an RM. Therefore, an analysis about the information requirements of ETs (or ETM as a representative discipline) is necessary.
Furthermore, EAM’s information offerings need to be identified to gather a common
understanding of EAM for this thesis. Therefore, the current research in both fields
needs to be surveyed. This issue is resolved by RQ1a. Apart from the potential support, it is also important to cover how EAM and ETM already work together in practice. This is addressed by RQ1b. RQ1c aims at further elaborating the information perspective on ETs to understand related management mechanisms and how they could be
supported in practice. Based on RQ1a-c, objectives are derived for the following design steps.
Part A: Introduction
5
RQ2a and RQ2b aim at the design of the artifact. RQ2a addresses the identification of
different ET types. Since ETs are a complex phenomenon and information requirements differ, it is necessary to distinguish different types to provide appropriate guidance (see section 3.1). To finalize the design step, RQ2b addresses the design of an
RM that fulfills the objectives identified in RQ1a-c and can be configured according to
the ET types identified in RQ2a. This artifact is referred to as configurative information requirements RM (CIRRM).
After artifact design an evaluation needs to be conducted. RQ3a intends to evaluate the
problem perspective and thus is positioned already before starting the design step in
the overall research process (see section 1.4). RQ3b addresses whether the design approach addresses the derived design objectives. RQ3c addresses the general applicability of the RM, while RQ3d addresses its usefulness in practice.
1.4 Research Approach and Thesis Structure
In order to enable EAM to be a valuable support of ETM, a shared understanding
(Johnson and Lederer 2005; Preston and Karahanna 2009) between the two management disciplines needs to be created. Since many ETs include technology-related aspects (Lucas et al. 2013, p. 372) and are comprised of “wicked problems” (Hevner et
al. 2004, p. 81) such as huge complexity and interacting organizational components,
DR provides a valuable perspective on solving the problem.
In general, information systems (IS) research deals with IT, IT infrastructures and ITenabled business solutions as much as the immediate antecedents and consequences of
these IS (Benbasat and Zmud 2003, p. 184). Thus, the discipline is positioned at the
“confluence of people, organizations, and technology” (Hevner et al. 2004, p. 75).
Typically, two types of research are distinguished: behavioral and design research
(Hevner et al. 2004, p. 76). While the first stream aims at understanding organizations
and explaining their behavior (Van Aken and Romme 2009, p. 7), the design research
(DR) stream aims at utility or, in other words, “at the construction and evaluation of
generic means–ends relations” (Winter 2008, p. 470). The descriptive knowledge located in the knowledge base and generated by behavioral research is a valuable input
for the prescriptive solution design in terms of resulting artifacts (Gregor and Hevner
2013, p. 344). The research in the thesis at hand is aiming at providing a more appropriate solution for the information provision during ETs and thus positioned in the improvement quadrant (Gregor and Hevner 2013, p. 346) of DR. It targets achieving in-
6
Part A: Research Approach and Thesis Structure
strumental relevance by influencing real-world decisions (Nicolai and Seidl 2010,
p. 1266)
Peffers et al. (2007) and Hevner (2007) provide guidance on how to conduct DR projects while Ahlemann and Gastl (2007, p. 82) guide the RM construction. According to
Peffers et al. (2007), the general process is distinguished into phases of problem identification and motivation, objective definition, design and development, demonstration,
evaluation and, finally, communication. The phases of RM design are very similar (see
comparison in Figure 1).
RQ1a, RQ1b, RQ1c
DR
Process
RM
Construction
Identify
Problem &
Motivate
Define
Objectives of
a Solution
Problem
Identification
Planning
Figure 1:
RQ2a, RQ2b
Design &
Development
Demonstration
Model Construction
RQ3a, RQ3b, RQ3c, RQ3d
Evaluation
Validation
Practical
Testing
Communication
Documentation
Overview of the research process
(see Peffers et al. (2007, p. 54) and Ahlemann and Gastl (2007, p. 82))
To provide solid problem identification and a foundation for the design step, RQ1a is
treated with a structured literature analysis following guidance provided by Webster
and Watson (2002) and vom Brocke et al. (2009). This process allows covering a
broad perspective on the current knowledge existing in both the EAM and ETM domains. In addition, qualitative research is applied to answer RQ1b by conducting interviews with experts of the domain. Respective methods are especially valuable if the
number of informants is rather small, but the informants are highly knowledgeable.
(Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007, p. 28). According to Cao et al. (2006) and Van Aken
and Romme (2009), combining DR with techniques that are well-known in behavioral
research is possible and a valuable approach. RQ1c addresses conceptual foundations
of information requirements based on literature and aims at clarifying the terms and
possible understandings. Furthermore, the question aims at understanding how information is processed in enterprises and what changes occur during ETs.
To answer RQ2a and RQ2b the results from RQ1a and RQ1b are used as a foundation
for quantitative analysis and design. The identified information requirements are consolidated in a questionnaire and provided to ET managers. The resulting data is used to
identify different types of ETs based on the information requirements with the help of
a hierarchical cluster analysis. The CIRRM is constructed based on the identified types
and the identified design objectives (see section 3.3) to provide a model that strikes a
Part A: Introduction
7
balance between (economic) ‘one size-fits-all’ solutions and (most effective) problemspecific solutions (Winter 2011b, p. 22).
To deal with the evaluation (RQ3a-d), the process provided by Sonnenberg and vom
Brocke (2012) is applied. It extends the general understanding of Peffers et al. (2007)
by distinguishing different types of evaluation. It ensures an early but valuable dissemination of results (Sonnenberg and vom Brocke 2012, p. 392) and thus supports the
cumulative design of the thesis. For the purpose of the evaluation, additional studies
are conducted. The data is processed with regression techniques and an additional
cluster analysis. Furthermore, an approach is applied that is based on “Collaborative
Design Science Research,” as discussed by Otto and Österle (2012). Different workshops with practitioners are conducted that lead to an accumulation of knowledge.
Communication is ensured by publication of intermediary results and with the thesis at
hand. The thesis is structured in two main parts.
Part A summarizes foundations, state of the art, findings, evaluation and critical reflection: Section 2 introduces foundations of the thesis. The phenomenon of ET is explained and embedded in the research context. EAM is defined and explained as a
managerial discipline. The section closes with an explanation of RM configuration and
information requirements models. Section 3 addresses the state of the art. First, an
analysis of requirements that ET managers pose is conducted and the shortcomings are
explicated. This is succeeded by a discussion of the current EAM support of ETs. The
section closes with deriving design objectives for the artifact based on the sections before. Section 4 provides a summary of the findings of the thesis at hand and summarizes the motivation, content, research approach and findings of the single papers. Section
5 contains an evaluation of the developed artifact and a critical reflection of the conducted research. It provides implications for practice and future research.
Part B is comprised of the six papers that represent the foundation of this cumulative
thesis. The papers address the research questions stated above. Five papers are already
published in proceedings of international conferences, one is accepted for publication
as book chapter. The papers are consistently formatted for the publication in this thesis. A common citation style is applied; tables and figures are numbered consecutively.
References, tables and figures are summarized in consolidated directories. The list of
abbreviations only considers part A to avoid inconsistencies. The language of the papers is maintained. Papers A, B, D, E, F are written in American English and Paper B
is written in British English. Due to this reason the summary paper is also written in
8
Part A: Research Approach and Thesis Structure
American English. Each paper is introduced by bibliographical information and its
rating according to VHB-JOURQUAL 2.1 ranking (Verband der Hochschullehrer für
Betriebswirtschaft 2011).
Part A: Foundations
9
2 Foundations
The following section provides an overview of ETM (2.1), EAM (2.2) and the foundations of RMs, especially concerning information requirements models (2.3).
2.1 Enterprise Transformation Management
Change in general is the “movement away from a present state towards a future state”
(George and Jones (1995) in Fox-Wolfgramm (1998, p. 87)). In academic research,
change is oftentimes distinguished based on two paradigms (Lyytinen and Newman
2008, p. 593).
On the one hand, evolutionary views assume that organizational change is incremental
and continuous. Fundamental differences result from the accumulation of small changes over long periods (Wischnevsky and Damanpour 2005, p. 208). The paradigm is
rooted in the idea of Darwinian mutations (Lyytinen and Newman 2008, p. 593). Even
universal change like the creation of a new species takes place through small additive
steps (Gersick 1991, p. 16). On the other hand, punctuated equilibrium models
(Gersick 1991, p. 11) assume that fundamental organizational change occurs in short
periods of discontinuous, revolutionary change, which punctuate long eras of relative
stability (Romanelli and Tushman 1994, p. 1141). Greenwood and Hinings (1996,
p. 1024) distinguish dimensions revolutionary vs. evolutionary and convergent vs. radical. The research about ET is rooted in the revolutionary and radical research stream
and thus, according to Rouse (2005a, p. 279), refers to major changes that are not routine, but instead fundamental, and substantially alter an organization’s relationships
with its key constituencies. It can involve new value propositions or change the inner
structure of the enterprise. Further, ET could involve old value propositions provided
in fundamentally new ways. In Figure 2 the dimensions of Greenwood and Hinings
(1996, p. 1024) are summarized and ET is positioned according to the above definition
in the upper right quadrant of revolutionary, radical change.
10
Part A: Enterprise Transformation Management
revolutionary
(swiftly, all parts of the
organization at the same
time)
Enterprise
Transformation
convergent
radical
(fine tuning of the
existing orientation)
(busting loose from an
existing orientation)
evolutionary
(slowly, gradually)
Figure 2:
Dimensions of change (see Greenwood and Hinings (1996, p. 1024))
According to the Open Group (2011, p. 5), an enterprise is any organization that has a
common set of goals (e.g. a government agency, a whole corporation, a division of a
corporation, a single department, or a chain of geographically distant organizations
linked together by common ownership). This definition excludes larger collaborative
networks, which is followed in the thesis to keep the scope of the research manageable. The concept of ET is also known as “business transformation” (Ash and Burn
2003; Ashurst and Hodges 2010; Daniel and Wilson 2003; Davidson 1993) or “organizational transformation” (Dixon et al. 2010; Hock-Hai Teo et al. 1997; Orlikowski
1996; Romanelli and Tushman 1994) in literature. However, the prefix “enterprise”
emphasizes a design and system theoretical perspective on the topic (e.g. Rouse
2005a); it implies purposeful design of the organization (Dietz 2008, p. 4) rather than
unmanaged evolution.
The enterprise is seen as a complex system that is, according to Simon (1962, p. 486),
“[…] made up of a large number of parts that interact in a non-simple way.” Such a
system can be distinguished in different layers, where a second layer (managerial system) controls and designs a first layer (work system). First order change is related to
changes in the work systems (production, operational processes, but also operational
management) and considered to be rather incremental (e.g. by continuous process improvements). Second order change, however, is related to changes in the building system/managerial layer (Bartunek and Moch 1987, p. 483; Lyytinen and Newman 2008,
p. 592). The environment of the organization is seen as a third layer where the others
are located in. To be considered as an ET, a change has to spread over the various lev-
Part A: Foundations
11
els (Lyytinen and Newman 2008, p. 592). This categorization may help to interpret
terms like “fundamentally” or “substantially” that are dependent on the context – what
might be a radical change for one enterprise may possibly be routine change for another.
Romanelli and Tushman (1994, p. 1150-1155) consider ETs to be conducted in a period of about two years, even if this number is not fixed and might be considered differently. In line with the discussion above, they identify an ET when enterprises conduct
strategy changes (e.g. concerning product lines), structure changes (in terms of general
reorganizations) and power distribution changes (e.g. high turnover of senior executives). Whenever all of these happened at the same time within two years, a transformation is considered to be revolutionary. Otherwise, if still substantial change occurs
in the above stated domains, the change is considered as transformation but a nonrevolutionary one.
In the thesis at hand, ET is understood as revolutionary and radical change. However,
due to pragmatic reasons, this understanding is handled less strictly by also considering non-revolutionary transformations. The implication of this constraint for the conducted research project is discussed in section 0. All considered ETs incorporate second layer changes apart from changes of the work system only.
According to Lahrmann et al. (2012, p. 265) and Kotnour and Bollo (2011, p. 259),
holistic and integrated approaches that cover a variety of management disciplines and
topic areas of ET are especially suitable for ETs: Österle and Winter (2003a) propose
the Business Engineering approach, the Business Transformation Academy proposes
the Business Transformation Management Methodology (Stiles and Uhl 2012); further
approaches are provided by various authors (e.g. Dixon et al. 2010; Keller and Price
2011; Kotnour and Bollo 2011; Nightingale and Mize 2002). However, these approaches do not differentiate between ET types.
Typologies of ETs can be built based on different criteria. Baumöl (2005; 2008) provides a configurative method that discriminates based on applied techniques. Once a
situation is identified (e.g. “Strategy Change or Extension”), Baumöl’s method provides guidance on how to deal with such an ET program. Safrudin et al. (2014) distinguish ETs by their degree of visibility to external parties and the degree of transformational change. Lahrmann et al. distinguish different types of ETM (Lahrmann et al.
2012). However, none of the above described approaches seem to be concrete enough
12
Part A: Enterprise Architecture Management
and suitable to guide the EAM support of ETM due to a lack of concreteness concerning the required information.
2.2 Enterprise Architecture Management
Architecture is defined as the “fundamental organization of a system, embodied in its
components, their relationships to each other and the environment, and the principles
governing its design and evolution” (International Standards Organization 2000).
Thus, EA is understood as (1) the fundamental organization of an enterprise (or parts
of it), either as a whole, or together with partners, suppliers and customers as well as
(2) the principles governing its design and evolution (see The Open Group 2011;
Winter and Fischer 2007, p. 1).
EAM is concerned with the establishment and continuous development of EA to consistently respond to business and IT goals, opportunities, and necessities (Aier et al.
2011). Thus, the notion of EAM goes beyond EA modeling and includes the management tasks of planning and controlling business and IT change from an enterprise-wide
perspective (Aier et al. 2011, p. 645; The Open Group 2011).
EAM is a management discipline (Aier et al. 2012, p. 15) that makes use of different
types of models, principles and reports. These can be deposited in terms of special
modeling languages, or in textual form. The models can especially be used to document current states and expected future to-be states. As described in Abraham et al.
(2012a, p. 9), EA principles allow for coordination by providing guidelines and rules
that help actors to take decisions that ensure consistency when implementing a strategy. Principles could be defined based on knowledge, experience, and opinions of various stakeholders in an organization. These stakeholders are the target audience of the
principles (Proper and Greefhorst 2010, p. 62). The restriction of design freedom by
the provision of principles is occasionally even regarded as the essence of architecture
(Dietz and Hoogervorst 2008, p. 575).
To guide the management of the EA and to establish EAM, different frameworks exist.
As the father of EAM frameworks, the Zachman framework (Sowa and Zachman
1992; Zachman 1987) is usually mentioned. It contains dimensions like data, time,
people, location, etc. that are presented in models addressing different stakeholders
like designers, business owners, planners, etc. Among other frameworks like the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DODAF) (Department of Defense
2012) or the Generalized Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology (GERAM) (IFIP-IFAC 2003), more recent approaches focus on an integration of the dif-
Part A: Foundations
13
ferent perspectives and views. An example of this approach is the TOGAF framework
that provides a whole method on how to establish EAM in an organization. The EAM
research from St. Gallen also aims at covering a holistic perspective (e.g. Aier et al.
2009).
EAM occurs in research contributions in different facets. Some would rather consider
it an IT-related discipline (Allen and Boynton 1991; Bradley et al. 2012; Ross 2003)
and others as management-oriented (Asfaw et al. 2009; Espinoza 2007; Radeke 2011;
Simon et al. 2014; The Open Group 2011; Winter and Fischer 2007). In corporate
practice, Aier et al. (2011) identify three types of EAM: a balanced and active approach (neither focused on IT nor business, but to a certain degree on both), a business-oriented approach, and an IT-oriented but rather passive approach.
Summarized, EAM became an established discipline in current enterprises that emerges more and more apart from its former IT focus. In section 3.2 its contribution to ET
management is discussed.
2.3 Reference Models of Information Requirements
Currently, two understandings of the term model exist; some consider models to be
direct representations of reality while others consider a model to be a construction by
one or more modelers (Ahlemann 2009, p. 20). As emphasized by most IS researchers,
the second perspective is taken as a foundation in this thesis. In this regard, models are
considered to be a resulting artifact of conducted DR processes (Gregor and Hevner
2013, p. 341; March and Smith 1995, p. 253).
Models in IS research describe processes (Becker et al. 2000), applications (Schaeffer
et al. 1993), data (Inmon 2000), information requirements (Jaffe 1979), and many
more aspects of an organization. Models are core vehicles to analyze, design, and deploy IS (Becker et al. 1995; Fettke and Loos 2003, p. 35). Ahlemann (2009, p. 20) distinguishes models that focus on the business problem rather than on technical aspects,
models that describe larger, technical building blocks, and models that are closely related to software programming.
The model that is developed in the thesis contains information requirements of ETs.
Information requirements are one side of a coin, while fulfilling them by information
14
Part A: Reference Models of Information Requirements
supply is the other.1 The model type is strongly related to information models described in the IDEF0 method (National Bureau of Standards 1993) and is understood
as a model that presents information needed in an organization. However, since some
confusion exists about the term “information model” (e.g. Becker and Delfmann
(2007) also use it for process models), in this thesis, the term information requirements
model is used. Such models are widely used, for example, with a focus on marketing
(Jaffe 1979) or accounting (Roy et al. 2011) issues.
Compared to models that are used in a single context for a certain purpose, reference
models (RM) are meant to be more generic (Luiten et al. 1993, p. 3) and thus enable
the reuse of generic designs (vom Brocke 2003, p. 36). Examples of these models are
the ISO OSI layer model (Zimmermann 1980), the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model (Supply Chain Council 2009), and RMs for project management
(Ahlemann 2009). While Thomas (2006, p. 491) considers RMs as being used “for
supporting the construction of other models,” Fettke and Loos (2007, p. 2) consider
them to be conceptual frameworks that can be used as a draft for IS design and development. Vom Brocke (2007, p. 49) considers an RM to be a special information model
that serves to be reused in the design process of other information models (definition
based on vom Brocke (2003, p. 38)). Thus, RMs aim at accelerating the design of IS,
reducing costs, helping to communicate innovation and best practices, reducing the
risk of failure (Ahlemann 2009, p. 20), or transferring domain knowledge in companies (Becker et al. 2010, p. 36). Apart from these economic advantages, RMs fulfill a
scientific purpose for the IS discipline by explicating knowledge and representing theory in terms of models (vom Brocke 2003, p. 37).
Two major processes can be identified concerning RMs: the construction process and
the application process (Ahlemann and Gastl 2007, p. 79). While the first aims at the
development of the RM itself, the latter aims at the development of enterprise-specific
models based on the RM. Vom Brocke (2003, p. 231) further distinguishes the construction process into the construction of different RM components that can be composed into a final RM (thus, the author adds an intermediary step before deriving the
enterprise-specific model to allow for a distributed RM construction).
1
For the sake of comprehensibility and based on the primary goal to research the EAM
support of ETs, the thesis will refer only to information requirements in the following
sections. This also includes potential information provided by EAM.
Part A: Foundations
15
Ahlemann and Gastl (2007), based on others (e.g. Schlagheck 2000; Schütte 1998;
vom Brocke 2003), summarize a process to construct RMs (see also section 1.4). They
start with planning the RM project, which includes problem identification and planning in a narrower sense. Planning is related to the model itself (problem domain), the
inter model relationships, the applied methods, organizational aspects, technological
planning and project planning. The next step is the model construction itself. This includes capturing existing domain knowledge, constructing a frame of reference, conducting a first empirical inquiry and constructing the initial model. The third step is the
validation. It is comprised of planning and executing a second empirical inquiry and
refining the model. The fourth step is practical testing, which includes an RM application in practice and further refinement. The fifth and the final step is documentation.
To be useful, RMs need to be adaptable to different situations in an efficient manner
and thus need to provide guidance on their adaptation (Becker et al. 2007a, p. 29). To
achieve this goal, different mechanisms of reuse can be applied to adapt the RM to the
specific conditions of a situation (Becker et al. 2007b, p. 3). Becker et al. (2007b,
p. 3f) differentiate analogy construction, specialization, and configuration as possible
means concerning RMs. Thereby, analogy construction describes using parts of the
model in situations that differ from the original model purpose. Specialization is supported when the RMs have a higher degree of abstraction than the models that are used
in the company. Configuration addresses modifying parts of the RM based on predefined rules that refer to specific situations. Vom Brocke (2007, p. 58-64), in addition, considers instantiation (integration of concrete enterprise-specific models into
placeholders in the generic RM) and aggregation (combining different RM components into a new RM or combining different RMs to an enterprise-specific model) as
suitable means to adapt and construct RMs.
All of these techniques are relevant concerning the development of enterprise-specific
models, but also concerning the construction of new RMs based on existing RM components. As a general problem, the conflict between effort to construct the RM (or RM
component) and the effort to adapt it has to be balanced. The different adaptation techniques pose different challenges. Configuration, for example, is seen as cost-efficient
when it comes to adaptation since different situations are already intended by the RM
designer. The costs of adaptation are lower, the higher the fit of the intended situation
of the RM with the reality is. In addition, the semantic accuracy is ensured because
parts of the reference model transferred to the enterprise-specific model in a one-toone manner (vom Brocke and Buddendick 2006, p. 23f). Such RMs have a tendency to
16
Part A: Reference Models of Information Requirements
become smaller and easier to handle (vom Brocke 2003, p. 315). However, the technique is mostly useful when final constructs can be foreseen during the build-time of
the RM (or RM component) and stay mostly stable over time (vom Brocke 2003,
p. 315). Aggregation (or composition, as a special form of it), as another example, describes the combination of different reference models to fulfill an overall purpose (e.g.,
providing an enterprise specific model). When this technique is supposed to be applied, the situation and purpose of the reused model do not need to be predefined.
However, integrating the components without changing them is a difficult task that
requires a lot of effort when it comes to the model reuse (vom Brocke 2003, p. 290).
The RM that is developed in this thesis incorporates the configuration concept to provide efficient guidance on necessary information requirements in ETs. Thus, it is universal and provides pre-configured types for configuration that can be further specialized. Configuration is the preferred means if the application domain can be described
fully in design time, including all relevant adaptations that have to be considered (vom
Brocke 2007, p. 69). Due to the many involved parts of the enterprise during ETs, further specialization is necessary in the practice application (vom Brocke 2007, p. 69).
Part A: State of the Art
17
3 State of the Art
The following section provides an overview of requirements that ET managers have
during ETs (3.1), introduces how related literature describes the EAM support of ETs
(3.2), and finally derives design objectives for a solution artifact (3.3).
3.1 Requirements of Enterprise Transformation Managers
ET managers have to deal with many requirements during the ET. Since change is radical in nature, requirements need to be fulfilled for many different stakeholders in a
short time period. Since ET managers cannot fulfill all of these requirements on their
own, they need to delegate them to other stakeholders in the organization, coordinate
other stakeholders, and take a man-in-the middle role (Stiles et al. 2012, p. 20). Specifically, ET managers identify requirements from ET stakeholders, convert and forward
these requirements to supporting disciplines, while keeping the responsibility for the
overall process (Stiles et al. 2012, p. 20). In other words, ET managers need to align
the interests and requirements of the different stakeholders of an ET.
Surprisingly, the set of requirements that ET managers pose is not well defined or
clearly communicated in current research. Basole et al. (2013, p. 331) claim that organizations need to focus on “organizations, people, knowledge, information, processes, strategy, and technology.” Stiles et al. (2012, pp. 17-19) identify requirements that
need to be considered in different phases of the ET (Figure 3).
Envision
Engage
Create case for change, sense of urgency, strategy/vision
Empower people to act on the vision and plan the effort.
Requirements:
• Analytical capability
• Creativity
• Foresight
Requirements:
• Detailed planning
• Alignment with business functions
Enhance transformation capability.
Change behavior, processes, technology, culture, values.
Requirements:
• Internalize, institutionalize, and optimize
transformation
• create stability.
Requirements:
• people’s understanding and commitment
• changing the IT successfully
Optimize
Figure 3:
Transform
Requirements in different ET phases (see Stiles et al. 2012)
Figure 3 indicates that a major differentiator of managing ETs, compared to incremental changes, is the significant effort in analysis and planning. As implied by the radical
nature of an ET, a lot of information needs to be available quickly and cannot first be
18
Part A: Requirements of Enterprise Transformation Managers
collected in single projects or survey initiatives. Kotnour and Bollo (2011, p. 258) confirm this finding by stating that conducting a successful transformation planning and
scenario assessment are of major importance. Disciplines like business engineering
(Österle and Winter 2003b) or enterprise engineering (Dietz et al. 2013) aim at such a
planning-driven ET management. Both approaches incorporate principles from engineering disciplines like the idea of purposefully designing organizations (Simon 1969,
p. 166), while at the same time incorporating social aspects (Dietz et al. 2013, p. 94).
Usually, the planned changes are operationalized in terms of projects and thus coordinated by program or portfolio management. However, these approaches focus on requirements concerning budget or resource availability (Project Management Institute
2004). In consequence, they are prone to local optimizations (since project managers
often only see the benefit of their own project), instead of striving for global optimization. Methods applied in project management like critical path or chain calculations
(Leach 1999) only address the problem from a resource perspective, but do not take
into account additional dependencies or redundancies. Aside from the project perspective, distinct departments like human resource management or management accounting
tend to focus on functional silos instead of taking a holistic perspective (Rouse 2005b).
The ET manager needs to be able to overcome this shortcoming and apply an integrated approach that covers the entire enterprise and not just local units during the ET
(Kotnour and Bollo 2011, p. 258).
To ensure such a holistic perspective, ET managers need to be supplied with information that is relevant for the ET. Such information concentrates on managerial aspects (see section 2.1) instead of day-to-day operational information processing. If information provision is dysfunctional, for example by purposefully withholding information, a successful ET is hardly possible (Kilmann 1995, p. 176).
When reflecting on these stated requirements, focusing on information requirements of
ETs is a reasonable perspective. However, the detailed analysis (Paper C) shows that
past approaches are scarce, mostly focus on financial information, and lack a sufficient
degree of detail. This gap needs to be closed to design a meaningful artifact.
Part A: State of the Art
19
3.2 Enterprise Architecture Management Support of Enterprise Transformation Management
Many EAM practitioners and scientists discuss the suitability of EAM concerning its
support to guide, steer or support ETs (Abraham et al. 2013b; Asfaw et al. 2009;
Simon 2009; Winter et al. 2012a). The potential that EAM can unfold concerning ETs
is seen differently.
Recently, EAM is seen as a comprehensive capability that is embedded as an organizational function (Lange et al. 2012). According to Gartner (2011, p. 12), the EAM function in organizations is increasingly acknowledged and adapted with a broader scope
than IT only. It is explicitly considered to be a function that applies methods to guide
effective transformations. Table 2 summarizes aspects of ET support that could be
provided by EAM according to the related literature.
Table 2:
Support Aspect
Alignment/
Coherence
Transparency
Planning
Assessment
Communication
Boundary
Spanning
Governance
Coordination
EAM contributions to ETM
Summary
Business-to-IT alignment, which implies using IT according to
the business goals, is a traditional task of EAM. More recently,
alignment between other organizational components is also in
focus.
By using models of the current state, EAM can provide holistic
transparency for an organization that is a foundation for the
planning and controlling of dependencies.
By using models and roadmaps, EAM can support the
planning process.
Enriching models with further information enables EAM to
conduct different assessments, e.g. of risks.
EA artifacts can be used to appropriately communicate the ET.
The architect as a person with a strong network can act as a
facilitator of the ET.
Provided that EAM is institutionalized in an appropriate
manner, it can act as a governance body.
While incorporating some of the above aspects, EAM can
contribute as a coordination mechanisms during the ET.
EAM is typically considered an IT topic aiming mostly at aligning IT landscapes with
business processes and strategy (Simon et al. 2014, p. 6). While this task is still considered important, the view on alignment has changed. Wagter et al. (2012, p. 79) propose the term “enterprise coherence” to describe an alignment that goes beyond busi-
20
Part A: Enterprise Architecture Management Support of Enterprise Transformation
Management
ness to IT but includes business processes, organizational culture, product portfolio,
human resources, etc.
Related to the alignment is the creation of transparency. Bradley (2012) describes ITdriven transformation in the health care industry where many different IT solutions
exist. To deal with these during the transformation process, an overview of the landscape needs to be achieved. Bricknal et al. (2006) describe a similar transformation,
where EAM is used to provide an overview of the application landscape and the transformation’s influence on the data flows between the applications. Apart from applications, transparency can also be achieved for other parts of the organization. EAM is
able to provide transparency about the complexity of the organization and to accomplish enterprise-wide goals, instead of (conflicting) local optimizations (Foorthuis et
al. 2010, p. 4). This is achieved by having an overview of many projects instead of a
local (e.g. project manager’s) perspective and knowing about the dependencies between them. Further, EAM is considered to be aware of interdependencies between the
culture and structure of the organization (Espinoza 2007, p. 33).
Another core strength that EAM can provide during ETs is planning. The to-be designs and change project roadmaps that EAM creates, are seen as an especially important input for ETM (Winter et al. 2013, p. 225) and help stakeholders to imagine
the future enterprise (Espinoza 2007, p. 33).
Simon et al. (2014, p. 32) see a high potential for EAM to support transformations
through assessments of the organization’s transformation readiness. Other authors see
risk assessments (Innerhofer-Oberperfler and Breu 2006) as an important contribution
of EAM.
EAM can be a facilitator of communication by providing artifacts that are understood
by different communities (Abraham et al. 2013a, p. 33; Espinoza 2007, p. 33). The
applied means are principles that document fundamental choices in an accessible form,
and thus facilitate communication with all affected stakeholders (Proper and
Greefhorst 2010, p. 59).
Architects often see themselves as moderators that connect the different stakeholders
who are involved in the transformation (Labusch et al. 2013, p. 113). When architecture models and principles are not automatically applied, architects need to foster their
use and overcome communication defects. This is referred to as being boundary span-
Part A: State of the Art
21
ners that actively communicate with many communities’ practices during the ET
(Abraham et al. 2013a, p. 38; Levina and Vaast 2005).
Oftentimes, EAM’s ability to provide governance during ETs is discussed. This means
that EAM is supposed to support necessary decision processes on multiple hierarchical
levels (Asfaw et al. 2009, p. 27). In some companies, architects are involved in transformation governance boards to analyze conformance with company standards or respective qualitative goals (Op’t Land et al. 2009; Winter and Schelp 2008). EAM
functions might even have the opportunity to initiate transformation projects (Schmidt
and Buxmann 2011). The applied means are usually principles. They ensure that the
EA is future directed, and guide design decisions, while preventing overly complex
analysis by focusing on the essence (Proper and Greefhorst 2010, p. 59).
Related to the governance is the ability of EAM to support the coordination during an
ET. EAM provides information that enable groups to interpret related issues for their
purposes (Pulkkinen et al. 2007, p. 1609). EA principles allow for coordination by
providing guidelines that help actors to take decisions and lead the enterprise in the
same direction of action (Abraham et al. 2012a, p. 3; The Open Group 2011). In addition, EAM enables the coordination efforts in organizations by providing solid documentation of standards and principles (Abraham et al. 2012a, p. 9).
The section above shows that EAM is able to support ETM in many different ways.
However, related literature stays on a rather vague level without showing in detail how
the ET could be supported by EAM. This gap needs to be closed by focusing on certain aspects of the ET support and analyzing those more in detail. This is done for the
information provision in the thesis at hand. The perspective of information provision is
especially related to planning, transparency and communication steps. The perspective
is in the scope of the thesis, since it connects especially well with the planning demands of ETM illustrated in section 3.1.
3.3 Design Objectives for the Solution Artifact
Based on the sections above, objectives are derived that the solution artifact should
fulfill. According to Hevner et al. (2004, p. 80), DR needs to incorporate relevance and
rigor. Thus, the design objectives are distinguished in these two dimensions (see Table
3).
22
Part A: Design Objectives for the Solution Artifact
Table 3:
Relevance
Rigor
Solution design objectives
O1
O2
Appropriate coverage of the phenomenon
Appropriate level of detail
O3
O4
O5
Incorporated “customer” perspective
Understandability for users
Situational adaptability
O6
Empirically and theoretically grounded research process
O7
Structured design process
O8
Inclusion of model quality criteria
The appropriate scope (O1) addresses the core goal of leveraging EAM support of
ETM. This requirement addresses the current vagueness of what ET relevant information EAM is able to provide and what information the ET manager requires (see
sections 3.1 and 3.2). Thus, this objective aims at identifying what needs to be described in the artifact from both perspectives. So, the artifact should not only contain
requirements but also information delivery opportunities and incorporate a holistic
perspective (Kotnour and Bollo 2011, p. 259; Lahrmann et al. 2012, p. 265).
An appropriate level of detail (O2) is important to fulfill the purpose of bridging the
gap between ETM and EAM. An overly detailed description of information requirements could be confusing, while a certain level of detail is necessary for appropriate
analysis. This requirement is rooted in the current shortcomings of research to describe
EAM support of ETs in detail (see section 3.2).
To understand how EAM can support ETs, a “customer,” (i.e., an ETM perspective),
needs to be taken (O3). Information requirements should not be guessed by architects
but instead be confirmed or directly included based on ET manager’s perceptions.
The intended users (thus architects and ET managers) need to understand the artifact to
use it in a valuable manner (O4).
The discussion about requirements of ETM shows that these are not clearly defined
and occur in different shades (section 3.1). Thus, it is necessary to distinguish different
types of ETs based on the occurring information requirements (O5).
Objectives O6 – O8 are related to the rigor of the design process. In consequence, the
designed artifact is supposed to incorporate an empirically and theoretically grounded
research process (O6) lisle outlined in section 1.4. Further, the development of the
model should be handled in a structured process (O7). This includes involving poten-
Part A: State of the Art
23
tial users of the RM as much as experts of the domain under consideration (Ahlemann
and Gastl 2007, p. 78). The research further needs to include established quality criteria (O8) on models in general and RMs in particular (e.g. Becker et al. 1995;
Rosemann and Schütte 1997).
24
Part A: Conceptual Design
4 Summary of the Contribution
In the following section the conceptual design is introduced and a summary of the papers included in the thesis is provided.
4.1 Conceptual Design
The thesis aims at designing a CIRRM that can be used as the foundation of a method
to support ETM by means of EAM. To achieve this goal, the RQs stated in section 1.3
are addressed by the design research process like illustrated in section 1.4. The papers
that are part of the thesis contribute to different parts of this overall research process.
RQ1a addresses the potential support of EAM during ETs. Section 3.2 discusses the
potential support in an abstract way, while Paper A provides a detailed analysis of the
field and identifies concrete information requirements and supply opportunities. An
additional, literature-based discussion is provided in Papers B (additional overview of
the field) and C (focus on processing mechanisms). RQ1b (current support in practice)
is completely addressed by Paper B that provides interviews with experts of both disciplines. Conceptual foundations are provided in Paper C and chapter 2. Based on the
first RQs, design objectives for the artifact are stated in section 3.3.
The design of the artifact incorporates the information requirements and potentially
supplied information identified in papers A and B. These are necessary for the type
identification in RQ2a that is actually conducted in Paper D. The design of the CIRRM
and the CIRRM itself are also presented in Paper D.
The evaluation is presented as a coherent process in section 5.1. Paper E provides a
detailed description of the consortium which participated in many evaluation steps.
Paper F provides a part of the second evaluation addressed in RQ3b. Paper D includes
demonstration steps that contribute to RQ3c.
The design research process described in section 1.4 is completely addressed by the
papers that are included in the thesis and part A of the summary paper. An overview of
the coverage is provided in Table 4.
Part A: Summary of the Contribution
Table 4:
25
Contribution summary
Potential
Practice
Foundation
ET Types
Design
Eval 1
Eval 2
Eval 3
Eval 4
RQ1b
RQ1c
RQ2a
RQ2b
RQ3a
RQ3b
RQ3c
RQ3d
# Paper Title
A Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural
Support for Enterprise Transformation
Evaluation
RQ1a
Analysis Design
B Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate
Practice
C Information Requirements for Enterprise
Transformations
D A Reference Model for the InformationBased Support of Enterprise Transformations
E Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling –
What are the Essentials to Support Enterprise
Transformations?
F Information Provision as a Success Factor in
the Architectural Support of Enterprise
Transformations
Thesis Part A
RQ not covered
Single RQ aspects covered in detail
All RQ aspects covered partially
All RQ aspects covered fully
4.2 Summary of Papers
The following section provides a brief summary of the papers that are part of the cumulative thesis. The summary is guided by the motivation, the paper content and research approach, and the paper results in the context of the overall thesis.
4.2.1 Paper A: Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support
for Enterprise Transformation
Motivation
A thorough survey of the detailed information requirements of ET management is
needed since it does not exist in current research (see section 3.1). ET managers re-
26
Part A: Summary of Papers
quire information, and enterprise architects are able to provide information. However,
when talking to the latter, they often do not clearly know how to support ET managers
and which information is exactly needed. The other way round, many ET managers are
not aware, how EAM might support their effort or how EAM could be further extended to do so. While current research usually analyses in an abstract way, how EAM can
support ETM (see section 3.2), the paper needs to examine this relation in more detail.
Content and Approach
To gain a broad perspective on the information requirements of ET managers, a literature review is considered to be the most appropriate means because it avoids reinvestigation of what is already known (Webster and Watson 2002) and increases the rigor
and relevance of the research (vom Brocke et al. 2009). Information requirements of
ET managers are derived and grouped into eight overall groups: ET Meta Management, ET Performance Management, ET Strategy Management, ET Execution Management, ET Human Resource Management, ET Information Technology Management, ET Structure Management, and ET Relationship Management.
In a second step, information that EAM could provide is identified based on the
TOGAF content meta model (The Open Group 2011) and additional sources.
In a third step, both ETM information requirements and information possibly provided
by EAM, are compared to each other. Afterwards, the ET literature is checked to determine if the information provided by EAM is sufficient to satisfy the information
requirement, or if additional information sources besides EAM need to be used. The
need for additional sources is rated on a five point scale ranging from one, which signifies “ET activity nearly not supported by EAM,” to five, which states, “full support”.
Results
A detailed, state-of-the-art analysis concerning information requirements by ET managers and potential support by EAM based on literature sources is provided. In addition, discussions regarding ET activities that can potentially be well supported and
those that can rather not be supported by EAM are delivered. The research in Paper A
provides one part of the foundation for the development of the CIRRM. Paper A is
thus mostly related to RQ1a, but also provides input to RQ2a and b.
Part A: Summary of the Contribution
27
4.2.2 Paper B: Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations:
Insights from Corporate Practice
Motivation
More detail about the current practice of EAM supporting ETM is needed to confirm
and extend the findings of Paper A. The perceptions of practitioners may add valuable
knowledge that is not documented in current literature. Since the field of research is
not well-structured so far, a qualitative study is considered to be most suitable to solve
the research problem and understand the social phenomenon of ET support (Myers
2002).
Content and Approach
In the study, information obtained from two groups of experts, who have experience in
either EAM (ten informants) or ETM (eight informants), is compared. Two semistructured interview questionnaires (one for the EAM experts and one for the ET experts) comprised of open-ended questions are developed. Interviews are conducted via
phone or face-to-face.
The EAM experts’ and the ETM experts’ responses are coded into two separate lists:
Potential contributions of EAM and the needs of ETM, with each distinct item on
these lists representing one code (open coding (Miles and Huberman 1994; Strauss and
Corbin 1990)). These two lists represent potential EAM contributions to ET, as viewed
by the EAM experts, and information that is required to conduct ETs, as viewed by the
ETM experts.
The ET and EAM codes are grouped based on their semantic similarity (Bailey 1994).
Guided by the codes and the underlying statements of the informants, the EAM inputs
to the ETM information requirements are mapped. A great fit is identified concerning
the design of IT components, governance, and transformation planning. Results indicate partial fits concerning project management, analysis of design options, design of
business components and change management. Results indicate no fit concerning
management accounting (controlling) and external relations management.
Results
Paper B provides a mapping of the EAM information provision and ETM requirements
in current corporate practice. In addition, it provides an analysis of the fits between
both. Paper 2 mostly refers to RQ1b. In addition, the codes that are generated during
the interview analysis are input for the CIRRM design (RQ2a and b).
28
Part A: Summary of Papers
4.2.3 Paper C: Information Requirements for Enterprise
Transformations
Motivation
The information perspective needs to be understood and analyzed in detail. To consider the perspective appropriately, a definition of information requirements and an analysis of related dimensions is necessary. Furthermore, the management mechanisms
related to information processing during ETs need to be understood to better apply the
CIRRM in this context.
Content and Approach
Paper C is based on explorative literature analysis on the topics of information requirements and the related organizational information processing theory (OIPT).
It becomes apparent that information is needed during ETs, but details are not explicitly stated. Instead, existing frameworks and related literature concerning information
requirements provide a rather financials-oriented perspective and seldom focus explicitly on ETs.
Different dimensions of information requirements are described. First, stakeholders of
information are identified and described concerning their requirements during an ET.
The most important stakeholder that is considered is the ET manager. Second, the
scope of the information is introduced. This relates to the described extent, such as
single stakeholders, groups, organization, transformation, or environment. Third, the
purpose of the information during the ET is described. Here, the distinction between
information for steering and those for decision input is considered important. Fourth,
the degree of detail is distinguished.
The OIPT and its management mechanisms is introduced and discussed in relation to
EAM. Organizations regularly process information. During an ET, the information
processing need increases and has to be handled by the ET manager. The theory provides different mechanisms about how the information processing need can be handled
or reduced. An analysis is provided on how and if EAM can support these mechanisms.
Results
Paper C provides definitions and classifications that are helpful to design the RM and
to describe its scope. Further, Paper C provides insight, how the information provided
Part A: Summary of the Contribution
29
by EAM and denoted in the CIRRM is embedded in the overall ET management process. Thus, it contributes to answering research questions RQ1a and RQ1c.
4.2.4 Paper D: A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support
of Enterprise Transformations
Motivation
To present the results of the above papers in a comprehensive, compact form, a
CIRRM is an appropriate means (see section 2.3). In addition, different types of ET
based on the information requirements of ET managers and the information potentially
provided by EAM need to be incorporated to support configuration of the model. The
types need to be based on information requirements because the key perspective is the
information provision by EAM (see section 1.3).
Content and Approach
First, relevant contingency factors and information requirements (as much as information potentially provided by EAM)2 are identified to design a questionnaire and
provide it to domain experts. The questionnaire is comprised of three parts: the environment of the ET (“the organization”), the ET itself (goals, reasons, figures, etc.) and
the information requirements of ET managers. While the first and the second parts are
derived from a structured literature review, the information requirements are based on
a consolidated list derived from papers A and B. The respondents are asked which information was important in their ET.
Based on the answers concerning the importance of the information, a hierarchical
cluster analysis is conducted. The clusters (and thus ET types) are described by incorporating the questionnaire part of the ET itself.
The analysis revealed four different types of ETs. These are: Strategic Alignment,
Market Alignment, Management Driven and Operational Optimization. The four types
imply different information requirements that are illustrated in the CIRRM.
Furthermore, Paper D provides a discussion on how the model could be used, e.g., to
tailor EAM to the needs of a certain type of ET. For this purpose, a matching is conducted that reveals different support for all of the four clusters, e.g., very low support
probability for EAM in the Management Driven cluster, because transformations of
this type do not request much information.
2
The paper uses the term “information items” for both.
30
Part A: Summary of Papers
Results
Paper D identifies different types of ET and provides the actual design step in the research project. It provides a CIRRM as a resulting artifact. In addition, the paper
demonstrates how the model could be used to analyze if EAM could provide information that is actually required. Thus, the paper refers to RQ2a, RQ2b and RQ3c.
4.2.5 Paper E: Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are
the Essentials to Support Enterprise Transformations?
Motivation
The evaluation of the CIRRM requires input from practice to learn about its applicability, advantages and disadvantages. For this reason, the model is presented in a group of
practitioners that deals with the topic (see section 5.1). The paper aims at introducing
the group and providing an overview of the working mode.
Content and Approach
In Paper E, a consortium research approach is taken that involves a group of practitioners. In the group, the topic of supporting ETM with EAM is discussed and ideas
are developed on how the support could be conducted. The group aims at developing a
framework for the EAM support of ET managers; the information perspective that is
considered in the thesis at hand is part of this endeavor.
Paper E describes exemplarily, how the group of practitioners works and gathers new
findings. As an example, the group analyzes areas of action, where EAM potentially
can support ETs. This results in four major areas (1) roles, skills and communication,
(2) governance and control, (3) planning and requirements management and (4) organizational culture.
Statements and findings from the described process are applied to evaluate the CIRRM
(section 5.1).
Results
Paper E highlights the relevance of the problem perspective. In addition, the paper describes the group of practitioners that is referred to in the evaluation of the CIRRM.
Further, it describes the work that is conducted in this group. Thus, the paper provides
input to RQ3a-d and is related to the evaluation of the CIRRM.
Part A: Summary of the Contribution
31
4.2.6 Paper F: Information Provision as a Success Factor in the
Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations
Motivation
The CIRRM is designed based on information requirements that are considered important by ET managers. An analysis on whether these information requirements are
appropriate, i.e., if they contribute to the success of an ET, is missing. This knowledge
would provide input to the evaluation of the model and the overall approach by showing that its parts are valuable.
Content and Approach
In the questionnaire that is used in Paper D, two additional questions are asked: first, if
the ET was, or most probably will be successful, and second, if each of the information
requirements was or is fulfilled. These two questions are used to conduct analysis
based on linear regressions to identify which information, when being available, is
related to the ET success.
Strongest influences can be attributed to information about business requirements,
business functions, projects, communications strategy, trainings, ET history, qualitative and quantitative success measures, master agreements, risk assessments, legal
regulations, and internal guidelines/standards. A discussion is provided if the information that contributes strongly to the success of the ET can be provided by EAM.
The data shows that an EAM that supports ETs needs to focus on business aspects rather than on IT architecture.
Results
Paper F analyzes the relation between the availability of information and the influence
on the ET success. The significant relations confirm the assumption that availability of
information contributes to ET success. Further the paper shows the suitability of the
considered information requirements since none of them has negative influence on the
ET success. The results contribute to RQ3b and thus are part of the evaluation process.
32
Part A: Evaluation of the Solution Artifact
5 Discussion and Outlook
This section evaluates the designed artifact and discusses the lessons learned for the
next step (5.1), critically reflects the research process (5.2) and extracts implications
for practice and research (5.3).
5.1 Evaluation of the Solution Artifact
Evaluation is an important part of any DR project (Peffers et al. 2007). While early
work on DR emphasizes evaluation as one block, targeting the practical application of
the artifact (Hevner et al. 2004), more recent research distinguishes ex ante and ex post
evaluations of the design (Klecun and Cornford 2005, p. 230; Pries-Heje et al. 2008).
Based on this understanding, Sonnenberg and vom Brocke (2012), provide different
evaluation steps during the DR process (see Figure 4).
Ex Ante Evaluation
Identify
Problem
Evaluation
1
Evaluation
4
Use
Design
Evaluation
2
Evaluation
3
Construct
Ex Post Evaluation
Figure 4:
Evaluations in design research (see Sonnenberg and vom Brocke 2012)
For each of the evaluations, the authors state criteria and necessary outputs that depend
on these criteria. The framework is applied in the following section for the evaluation
of the CIRRM. Thus, criteria that the authors especially relate to the evaluation of
models (based on March and Smith (1995)) are primarily considered but complemented by further ones that Sonnenberg and vom Brocke introduce. The final artifact that is
considered for the evaluation is the CIRRM.
Gregor and Hevner (2013) discuss different goals for DR. The research in the thesis at
hand is positioned in the improvement cluster because it aims at improving the infor-
Part A: Discussion and Outlook
33
mation supply during ETs. The evaluation needs to show that an improvement compared to existing approaches is achieved. This step is already included in evaluation 1.
5.1.1 Evaluation 1
Sonnenberg and vom Brocke (2012, p. 394) state that in the beginning of a DR project,
the researcher needs to demonstrate the importance of the problem for practice, its
novelty and the appropriateness of the constructs that are supposed to be used.
The importance of the handled problem is outlined in sections 1.1 and 1.2. ETs oftentimes fail due to their high complexity and the lack of overview that ET managers
have over this complexity. The support of ETM by EAM is a comparably new phenomenon compared to other research that deals with transformations ((e.g. Jackson
1978; Jenkins 1977; Tichy 1983; Zald and Denton 1963)). It is highly relevant for
practice as can be seen by many practitioner initiatives that are conducted by consultancy companies or industry groups (e.g. Detecon 2013; IBM 2014; The Open Group
2014)). In addition, academic and practitioner publications deal with the topic (e.g.
Gardner et al. 2012; Winter et al. 2013). The interest of architects in the topic can especially be seen in the group of practitioners introduced in Paper E, which is comprised of researchers and practitioners who are working on the EAM support of ETs.
Still, many ETs fail (see section 1.1) and an improvement of their management would
thus be desirable.
A lot of research discusses the topic in rather abstract terms (see sections 3.1 and 3.2).
Explicitly considering details in terms of a demand (ETM) and supply (EAM) perspective takes the relation of the two disciplines into consideration. Taking an information
perspective on this topic is rather novel. Information perspectives on ETM were already taken (see Paper C) but do not have a holistic perspective (they rather focus on
singular aspects like financials). EAM frameworks specify information that can be
provided in general (e.g., the TOGAF Content Meta Model). However, a combined
perspective does not exist.
The design objectives for the artifact are summarized in section 3.3. These are derived
based on the shortcomings identified in the sections before. The design objectives have
not been directly evaluated by an explicit interview or focus group. However, in the
group of practitioners (see Paper E), design objectives concerning a similar framework
(that not only aims at taking an information perspective, but aims at being more holistic) have been discussed.
34
Part A: Evaluation of the Solution Artifact
Table 5 summarizes the applied evaluation criteria and rates whether they have been
fulfilled completely, partially, or have not been applicable.
Table 5:
Output
Justified
problem
statement
Justified
research
gap
Justified
design
objectives
Criteria
Importance ()
Novelty
()
Suitability ()
Economic
Feasibility ()
Applicability ()
Evaluation 1
Summary
Review of practitioner initiatives and the expert perceptions of ET managers show the importance of the
research for practice.
Related work has not addressed the EAM support of
ETs on a detailed level but rather in terms of abstract
discussions. No artifact for this purpose existed.
The design objectives lack an explicit evaluation,
e.g. by means of interviews or studies. They can still
be considered suitable, feasible and applicable since
they are derived from shortcomings identified before
and incorporate best practices of design research.
() Criterion fulfilled () Criterion partially fulfilled () Criterion not applicable
Based on evaluation 1 further improvements would have been possible concerning the
research project. An analysis of existing RMs related to the CIRRM might have revealed further design objectives or input to the overall design process. Such new and
the design objectives stated in the thesis could have been evaluated by means of expert
discussions or structured surveys to provide a more solid foundation for the following
design step. Another analysis could have been taken, if the considered “demand vs.
supply” or “requirements vs provision” perspective is suitable. Furthermore, the considered construct of “information” could have been compared with other possible ones
in a structured way. Thus, more learnings about the taken perspective and the composition of the design objectives could have been derived from evaluation 1 for the research process.
5.1.2 Evaluation 2
Evaluation 2 checks if the stated design objectives (see section 3.3) are appropriately
considered by the design specification. The artifact as such is not yet instantiated and
thus, the stated design objectives are briefly compared with the planned means to
achieve them (Sonnenberg and vom Brocke 2012, p. 394).
The CIRRM is specified as the foundation for a method that is appropriate to implement the stated design objectives. The RM design is based on the information re-
Part A: Discussion and Outlook
35
quirements of ETM and the information that EAM is able to supply as identified in
papers A and B. It can be configured for different ET types. The design objectives are
discussed below and evaluation 2 is summarized in Table 6.
Design objective O1 is achieved when the RM is designed based on foundations that
incorporate the large body of knowledge about the phenomenon. To achieve as much
completeness as possible, saturation needs to be accomplished in the empirical work or
in literature searches. This saturation is finally reached in the papers that are provided
in the thesis:
 In expert interviews (Paper B) enough responses have been collected to reach a
point at which it is unlikely that further responses would yield additional results
(Eisenhardt 1989, p. 545).
 In the quantitative study (Paper D) the “additional” item has been added to care for
missing items. No statement was made that could not be mapped to one of the existing items.
 Another evaluation step was conducted in Paper F to determine if the considered
information requirements are relevant concerning the success of the ET. Evidence
of the paper shows that this is the case for most of them.
O2 refers to the appropriate level of detail. The information requirements need to be
represented in the CIRRM in a way that is neither too generic nor overly detailed (see
section 2.3). Since both EAM and ETM are disciplines that cover a wide range of topics (see sections 3.1 and 3.2), a broad coverage of information requirements is preferred over aiming for a very detailed investigation. However, whether or not this
completely fulfills the design objective is not further evaluated due to a lack of additional research, e.g. interviews.
Design Objective O3, incorporating a “customer” perspective has been addressed
mostly by the selection of interview partners and informants in the surveys. ET managers (see Paper B, Paper D, and Paper F) have been interviewed whenever the ETM
perspective should be incorporated. To further integrate the customer perspective
(Frank 2007, p. 127), the configuration types of the model are not designed based on
information requirements that were available in the ET but instead based on those that
ET managers perceive as important. Thus, customer orientation is supposed to be provided.
36
Part A: Evaluation of the Solution Artifact
O4 aims at the understandability of the artifact for its potential users (Frank 2007,
p. 129). On the one hand (and most important in the thesis), these are architects that
plan to further emerge their discipline towards the support of ETs. Architects are keen
on modeling in general, and thus, a high affinity to understand an RM can be assumed.
To cover the understandability for ET managers, a pre-study of the model questionnaire (see Paper D) was conducted with ET managers employed with one enterprise.
Criticisms that came up in the discussion were mostly related to wording issues and
could be resolved quickly.
Design objective O5 is addressed in Paper D where different types of ETs are derived
based on the information requirements. RMs allow for the integration of such classification via configuration mechanisms (see section 2.3).
O6 is incorporated by applying a DR process as described by Peffers et al. (2007).
Such a process is very similar to the design processes of RMs as shown in section 1.4.
Further discussion of the research process is provided in section 5.2.
O7 is incorporated by applying the approach for the design of situational methods provided by Winter (2012). Since both method design and reference modeling have much
in common and may be considered “two sides of a coin” (Winter et al. 2009), the approach is adapted for the RM design and the distinction of different ET types in this
context.
O8, the inclusion of model quality criteria, is partially covered by taking an approach
that incorporates different levels of abstraction and uses a simple graphical representation. However, systematic requirements concerning the optical representation have not
been considered and could be taken into consideration in future design iterations.
Part A: Discussion and Outlook
37
Table 6:
Evaluation 2
Output
Criteria
Validated
Completeness
design
(/)
specification
Level of detail
()
Internal
consistency
()
Summary
The design specification almost incorporates the
complete set of design objectives, thus the completeness criterion is almost fulfilled.
An RM is able to implement the design objectives up
to the intended level of detail.
The internal consistency of the planned model elements (thus, the identified information requirements)
is basically given due to a research process with multiple researchers coding the findings. However, even
stronger results could have been achieved by an additional study.
Understandability Understandability should be given for the target
()
groups since they have been involved in the research
steps before.
Justified de- Economic
Approach is feasible since preparation work at that
sign tool/
Feasibility
stage of the DR process has already been conducted
methodology ()
(Paper A and B).
Operationality RMs are established concepts that have many ad()
vantages (see section 2.3) that are valuable for the
research goals.
Applicability
Type identification based on Winter´s method applied
()
multiple times, effort can be estimated.
Accessibility () Focus in this iteration of the design process is rather
Simplicity () on model content than on representation. Thus criteria
Elegance
() that refer to representational aspects are out of scope.
Clarity
()
() Criterion fulfilled () Criterion partially fulfilled () Criterion not applicable
Based on evaluation 2 further improvements would have been possible concerning the
research project. The research about the relation between ET success and provided
information (related to O1) could have been extended and would have provided an
even higher applicability of the CIRRM. Furthermore, representational aspects related
to the CIRRM could have been incorporated by testing these aspects. In addition, alternatives to an RM could have been explicitly evaluated, e.g. by expert discussions.
Thus, learnings that could be derived from this evaluation step are twofold. First, the
design specification should be explicated to identify gaps. Second, the search for the
artifact type should be conducted based on this specification.
38
Part A: Evaluation of the Solution Artifact
5.1.3 Evaluation 3
The third evaluation activity aims at investigating, how well the artifact performs
when being confronted with single organizational elements. In addition, the evaluation
step is supposed to evaluate whether or not the artifact instance is consistent with the
specification (Sonnenberg and vom Brocke 2012, p. 395).
To identify if users are able to distinguish between the identified ET types, the descriptions that are provided in Paper D have been handed out to the audience of a practitioner conference, mostly comprised of enterprise architects and project managers
(N=69). The practitioners have been asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (Likert
1932) how appropriately the clusters describe their ET. Multiple clusters could be selected at the same time. A hierarchical clustering has been conducted based on the
types that the respondents selected for their ET – aiming at identifying a one-to-one
mapping of the clusters used in the RM and those chosen by the respondents. In an
ideal case, each ET described by a respondent would map with one single cluster of
the RM (as shown in the left part of Table 7). The real as-is result is shown in the right
part of Table 7.
Table 7:
Strategic Alignment
Market Alignment
Management Driven
Operations Optimization
Clarity of type description
Illustrative “to-be”
T1
T2
T3
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
T4
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
Empirical “as-is”
T1
T2
T3
3.9
3.7
3.0
2.2
4.4
2.0
1.9
3.2
4.1
3.8
1.9
2.7
T4
4.8
4.1
4.1
4.6
The table illustrates that the results do not fully match with the illustrative to-be case.
The clearest result can be seen in type T3 that best matches to the “management driven” type. T2 and T3, however, are mapping to two clusters at the same time while T4
matches almost all. At least all of the original clusters could be mapped. In consequence, the cluster descriptions need to become more sophisticated and better understandable. How this could be achieved is discussed in section 5.3.
Since the types could not clearly be identified, it is necessary to analyze their robustness. The classification that realizes the design goal of different types was conducted
based on a set of 19 ETs. An additional 19 cases could be collected to conduct the
clustering again with a sample of 38 ETs. In this step it is of major interest to find out
Part A: Discussion and Outlook
39
if the previous results can be reproduced. The applied procedure is the same as provided in Paper D. A four and five cluster solution was compared with the former clusters;
five performed better concerning the similarity. The results based on the squared Euclidian distances (the lower the number, the closer the clusters to each other) show that
four clusters are very similar (N1 to N4) and one new one emerged (N5). The clusters
are comprised of cases out of the former data (applied in Paper D) and the additional
data. Only N2 is still comprised of cases from the original dataset only. This explains
the distance value of 0. See Table 8 for the details, grey fields refer to the closest distance between clusters.
Table 8:
Robustness of clusters
Clusters Strategic Alignment
Paper D Market Alignment
(N=19)
Management Driven
Operations Optimization
New Clusters (N=38)
N1 N2 N3 N4
0.9 39.7 7.2 12.5
5.9 84.4 15.1 1.4
50.5 0.0 53.5 92.1
6.1 74.2 3.2 5.6
N5
24.2
8.1
95.8
27.3
The findings show that the identified clusters are suitable from an information requirements perspective. However, the occurrence of the fifth cluster raises the assumption that even more clusters are available.
Paper D demonstrates that the model is suitable (Frank 2007, p. 126) for its purpose .
In this paper a first discussion based on the model is conducted, how EAM can support
different types of ETs. Further, the model is used to configure the framework that is
developed by the practitioner group described in Paper E.
A summary of the evaluation concerning the relevant criteria is provided by Table 9.
40
Part A: Evaluation of the Solution Artifact
Table 9:
Output
Validated
artifact
instance
in an
artificial
setting
Criteria
Fidelity with
real world
phenomenon
()
Operationality
()
Evaluation 3
Summary
Fidelity with real world phenomenon is given at a high
level of abstraction. More details are almost impossible
to cover in a single overview model.
Evaluated by testing if types could be identified: this
was successful for two types only and needs to be improved.
Robustness
Robustness of types evaluated by adding more data.
(/)
Additional type occurred, former ones stay robust.
Suitability
Model applied for discussion of EAM support
()
(Paper D/ group of practitioners)
Feasibility () Instantiation feasible since it was conducted as described in evaluation 2.
Effectiveness () Effectiveness is very similar to suitability; no additional
Efficiency () evaluation is conducted. Efficiency evaluation would
Ease of use () require comparison with other very similar solutions,
which is not possible due to novelty. Ease of use partially covered by operationality evaluation, no further
focus on this aspect.
() Criterion fulfilled () Criterion partially fulfilled () Criterion not applicable
Based on evaluation 3 further improvements would be possible concerning the research project by refining the identified clusters and increasing their understandability
for the prospective users.
5.1.4 Evaluation 4
The fourth evaluation activity shows that the artifact is both applicable and useful in
practice. It is supposed to use the artifact in a real organizational setting (Sonnenberg
and vom Brocke 2012, p. 395).
The evaluation of the fourth type is difficult to conduct due to restrictions in time and
resources. Some implications about the practice utility are drawn based on discussions
with experts. Findings are discussed below and summarized in Table 10.
In the group of practitioners (see Paper E) the CIRRM was introduced to derive a configuration of the ET support framework that this group currently develops. Thus, the
CIRRM is influencing practice design work and poses relevance. In the discussions
with the practitioners, important utility for practice was seen. Since the group of prac-
Part A: Discussion and Outlook
41
titioners was mostly comprised of architects, they considered the model a means to
provide “self-marketing” for EAM services. They considered the different types as
valuable, to competently talk to ET managers. However, the group agreed that this
would only be the first step. To apply the framework that they develop, a more detailed typology of ETs would be required
For architects, the CIRRM is useful to reflect their activities in the company and to
identify which type of ET they can support and which not. Gaps between the external
and internal perception of EAM services can be identified and discussed. The participants considered it important that the CIRRM is based on successful ETs (which is the
case, the average rating is “almost successful”).
The practitioner discussions further revealed hints on increasing the applicability of
the model artifact. The presented types (see Paper D) were considered too abstract to
appropriately understand them. In a second workshop, a distinction based on discriminators like amount of affected employees or ET triggers was considered to be more
suitable.
The group further agreed that considering information as unimportant as stated in Paper D is not suitable. Rather a prioritization should be taken. Concretely, this means
that e.g. the model in Paper D should not contain information requirements that are
considered “not important” but rather “less important.”
Table 10:
Output
Validated
artifact instance in a
naturalistic
setting
Criteria
Applicability
Fidelity with real world
Phenomenon
Evaluation 4
Summary
() Applicability, e.g. for the purpose of being input to larger methods or frameworks possible.
Applied in discussion in the context of
() EAM support of ETM. No critiques
about the content collected.
Internal consistency not criticized, speci() fication implemented almost one to one.
() Criteria could not be assessed due to lim() ited amount of interviews or real practice
() application.
Internal
consistency
Generality
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Impact on artifact
environment and user
()
External consistency
()
() Criterion fulfilled () Criterion partially fulfilled () Criterion not applicable
42
Part A: Critical Reflection
Based on evaluation 4 further improvements would be possible concerning the research project by further increasing the applicability as a stand-alone model that can be
used directly in an ET. Further it needs to be applied in such a setting to gather more
learnings about its design and reiterate the research process.
5.2 Critical Reflection
Due to the application of a DR design right from the beginning, the research process
applied in the thesis at hand is considered stringent. The evaluation above shows that
the findings are valuable and relevant. The RQs stated in section 1.3 are answered appropriately by the parts of the thesis. However, DR projects are affected by risks and
shortcomings (Baskerville et al. 2008). If not already discussed during the evaluation,
they should be reflected in this section.
A concern may be raised about the chosen research perspective. The considered unit of
analysis is the transformation. In consequence, the information requirement-based
clustering assumes different types of ETs as the resulting unit. To describe the information requirements that occur in these different ETs, ET managers were interviewed
(see a discussion about the role in Paper C). This group of informants is considered
capable to describe the information demands that occur in the different ETs. However,
it could be argued that different perceptions of managers rather than information demands of transformations were researched. To reduce this bias, ET managers have
been asked to not state their own requirements but those of the ET in total.
The ET understanding in the thesis refers to ET as revolutionary and radical change
but also considers non-revolutionary transformations for pragmatic reasons (e.g. finding enough informants for the research). A critical question could be, what changes, if
this understanding is handled differently. When also considering incremental changes,
the effort that is taken to document and manage the ET might be higher than local
planning. Thus, the general necessity of holistic information provision could be questioned. If only revolutionary transformations are considered, the EAM support may be
limited in providing rules, standards or information about current structures. In this
case, EAM should be used to provide information about the as-is state because the tobe state might be so much different from the current as-is, that information is not that
necessary, and instead, a gut-feeling is applied.
The determined ET types are based on information requirements that have been identified during an explorative study with coding steps. They were grouped into information areas by two independent coders who achieved an agreement and were further
Part A: Discussion and Outlook
43
consolidated by the same coders afterwards. Due to the amount of collected questionnaires, it was not possible to test the determined groups (e.g. a factor analysis could
not be conducted). Thus, the eleven information groups are prone to be subjective. To
mitigate this problem, the ET types were determined based on a total clustering of all
identified (50) information requirements.
Criticisms could also be raised concerning the cluster variables. The transformations
are clustered based on the information that was requested. However, the perspective
taken is considered the most suitable for the purpose of the model. The main subject
under investigation is the support of EAM for ETM. Thus, it is considered important to
know if the target group of ETM requests the information. Asking if the requested information really contributes to the ET success is considered subordinate for this purpose. However, in the evaluation, the success contribution of the information items has
been researched to provide more adequate input to ET managers.
The evaluation of the CIRRM is limited in some dimensions (see the discussion in section 5.1). Evaluation 4 was especially not possible to be conducted to the full extent
due to limited opportunities to apply the designed model in a practice setting. However, it is questionable if such a one-to-one application and evaluation is possible anyway
due to the context dependency of all ETs.
The focus of the research at hand is on how EAM can support ETM. In addition, ET
managers could use the research to identify which information requirements their colleagues state and check, if they forgot relevant information requirements for managing
their ET. However, the focus of the research is limited, in a way, because it assumes a
dedicated ETM function, and a dedicated EAM function. Yet, in reality, both ETM
and EAM may transcend various organizational units and functions. Recent work on
EAM, for example about the concept of “architectural thinking”, postulates a participation of all stakeholders in EAM (Winter 2014).
Questions could also be raised about the different degrees of abstraction of the information requirements. One could argue that e.g. “assessed risks” and “projects” differ
in the level of abstraction. However, for two reasons it seems to be unsuitable, if not
impossible, to align the level of abstraction. First, to determine if the level of abstraction is the same, clear criteria would be needed. These criteria would need to allow
comparison between the different requirements. It already seems to be a research project on its own determining such criteria. Second, the information requirements should
be described as similar to the descriptions that ET managers and EA managers used in
44
Part A: Implications and Future Work
the explorative interviews. This was supposed to increase the understandability by the
stakeholder groups. Thus, the different levels of abstraction exist, but this is a trade-off
intentionally made to stay closer to the language of the target groups of the CIRRM.
5.3 Implications and Future Work
Based on empirical work that explicitly incorporates the information requirements of
ET managers, a CIRRM was developed to analyze how EAM can support ETs in general and different types of ETs in particular. The CIRRM can be applied as part of a
method to analyze information requirements and potential information provision or as
a fragment of larger methods and frameworks.
The presented research deals with a problem relevant for practice. Thus, some implications for the support of ETs by EAM can be derived. The model can be used for different tasks. EAM departments can use it as a foundation to identify which information
they are able to provide. They can use it as a tool to determine how they want to develop their EAM in the future. In addition, the model could be used by ET managers to
analyze if they considered all information requirements that their colleagues in similar
situations also considered important. They can further use the research to analyze if the
information that they consider important is actually related to the ET success. The
CIRRM can be applied by following the subsequent steps:
 Determine the type of the ET and configure the CIRRM concerning this type.
 Information requirements that the model highlights should be discussed with experts from the organization where it should be applied to make sure that the fit of
the CIRRM with the concrete corporate environment is given.
 Once this step is conducted, both ETM and EAM experts can use the result to analyze where gaps occur, what information they are able to provide by themselves
and what needs to be gathered elsewhere. Furthermore, the CIRRM can be used to
configure other frameworks that do not allow for configuration by themselves (as
described in evaluation 4 in section 5.1.4).
 Finally, determine which management mechanisms are applied concerning the information processing in the concrete ET, and determine where and how the identified relevant information should be supplied (see Paper C).
Summarized, EAM needs to provide business-related and detailed information to support ETM. Good candidates are documented risks and business requirements that are
requested oftentimes and contribute to the ET success.
Part A: Discussion and Outlook
45
Different implications can be derived from the presented research for the scientific
community and future research. A foundation for research concerning the EAM support of ETs and especially ETM is provided, based on a more detailed level than related literature has provided so far. The CIRRM can be taken as a fruitful foundation for
research (Aier and Fischer 2011, p. 153). For example, it can be used to analyze, how
and if other IS like ERP systems can support ETs.
The presented work shows a first attempt to identify different types of ET based on an
information requirements and provision perspective. The evaluation showed that the
clusters identified in Paper D remain robust but can only partially be identified by the
expected user group. Further analysis during the evaluation showed that ET size
(measured in full time equivalents of affected employees) and the trigger have a strong
impact on the information requirements. This finding is intended to be a part of future
work and needs to be confirmed or corrected.
Managers have different working styles that influence the design of IS (Mayer et al.
2012). This finding could be incorporated in future research concerning the relation
between EAM and ETM. Research questions could be: Which ET managers consider
EAM? How do different ET managers use EAM?
The model and the identified ET types can become a foundation for a maturity model,
showing the maturity level of EAM regarding ET support on the one hand, and the
level of understanding of ET managers regarding their information requirements on
the other hand For example, such a model could be designed based on the approach by
Lahrman et al. (2011) and could identify which information requirement is difficult to
fulfill and which is rather simple. Such a maturity model should incorporate the idea of
“architectural thinking” (e.g. Ross and Quaadgras 2012; Winter 2014) and aim at establishing the concepts and ideas of EAM in every decision maker’s mind. Future research should analyze how this concept influences ET managers and the general ways
to approach ETs.
The thesis contributes to the grounding of ETM support by EAM in informationrelated theory, concretely the OIPT. Paper C provides a discussion, in which the theoretical framework EAM could contribute to the ET success. Further detailed research
that relates the different information requirements to the identified mechanisms (Paper
C) should be conducted.
The CIRRM covers a broad perspective on the architectural support of ETs and shows
the partial aspects that belong to the field. Such a consolidated overview is one of the
46
Part A: Implications and Future Work
major contributions of the thesis. The CIRRM and the related research in the thesis
provide a foundation to further dive into the detailed parts of managing ETs. The
CIRRM enables two different types of research concerning this aspect. First, researchers can investigate single aspects of the model in more detail (e.g., information about
risks). Second, researchers can conduct research about the connections between the
information requirements. Such research was not possible due to a lack of a broad and
detailed overview of the field so far.
In addition, the thesis provides a user- or customer-oriented view on EAM. Research
conducted from an ETM perspective oftentimes did not consider EAM at all. In contrast, EAM research deals with ET support but oftentimes does not consider the user’s
(in this case ETMs) perspective. The thesis at hand is a foundation for such a userdriven perspective on the architectural support of ETs.
This user-driven perspective provides the foundation for research concerning the architectural support of ETs that goes beyond information modeling. Rather, researchers
should analyze how EAM can safeguard the coordination that is necessary in ETs and
how local and global interests can be balanced.
48
Paper A – Introduction
Part B – Papers of the Thesis
Paper A – Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise Transformation
Table 11:
Title
Authors &
Affiliations
Publication
Outlet
Year
Rating
Abstract
Bibliographical information of paper A
Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise Transformation
 Labusch, Nils
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
nils.labusch@unisg.ch
 Winter, Robert
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management,
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
robert.winter@unisg.ch
ECIS 2013 Proceedings, Utrecht, Netherlands, Paper 137.
2013
B
Enterprise architecture management (EAM) is supposed to be a
helpful means to support the management of enterprise transformations, i.e., fundamental changes. However, in current corporate
practice, there seems to be no regular application of EAM as leading
authority or support service for enterprise transformation. Thus, we
examine, which activities need to be conducted in order to manage
enterprise transformation. We further identify the needed information inputs for these activities. Based on this foundation, we analyze, which of the information inputs can be provided by EAM. We
identify eight major activity areas of enterprise transformation management (ETM). We further identify information inputs that these
ETM activities need. Additionally, we identify content elements that
EAM can provide by analyzing EAM meta models. Comparing the
demand by ETM and the supply by EAM shows that EAM in general provides valuable inputs to the ETM activities but shows weaknesses when it comes to information about individual actors or environmental information. ETM information needs that are strongly
supported are e.g. organizational goals, roles and actors. ETM information needs that are weakly supported are e.g. organizational
culture, resistances or organizational rituals.
Part B – Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise
Transformation
49
A.1 Introduction
While enterprise architecture (EA) describes the fundamental structures of an enterprise (e.g. company, government agency), EA management (EAM) is concerned with
the establishment and coordinated development of EA in order to consistently respond
to business and IT goals, opportunities, and necessities. According to the Open Group
(2011), the notion of EAM goes beyond EA modeling and includes the management
tasks of planning and controlling business and IT change from the afore mentioned
enterprise-wide perspective.
From time to time, enterprises need to pass through major transformations that are not
routine “but fundamental change that substantially alters an organization’s relationships with one or more key constituencies (Rouse 2005b)”. Enterprise transformation
(ET) can involve new value propositions or change the inner structure of the enterprise. Further, ET could involve old value propositions provided in fundamentally new
ways (Rouse 2005b). Examples are significant mergers & acquisitions, replacements
of legacy IT systems or business model changes (Uhl and Gollenia 2012).
EAM is believed to support the management of such ET`s (Asfaw et al. 2009) by guiding the necessary coordination efforts (Abraham et al. 2012a; Harmsen et al. 2009;
Pulkkinen et al. 2007) and providing information for top management support or strategy development (Asfaw et al. 2009). EAM can further prove useful as a discipline
that provides necessary support for communication during transformations since it can
provide EA models and principles that are understandable by manifold stakeholders
(Asfaw et al. 2009). EAM is also supposed to support necessary decision processes on
manifold hierarchical levels (Asfaw et al. 2009) and is able to provide design principles that safeguard the transformation process and restrict design freedom in a purposeful manner (Greefhorst and Proper 2011; Hoogervorst 2009).
However, in current corporate practice, there seems to be no regular application of
EAM as leading authority or support service for transformations – even more, Lankhorst (2009a) considers the term ‘architecture’ and the role of the ‘architect’ as heavily
overloaded and facing serious inflation. Asfaw et al. (2009) state that EAM has kind of
an “image” problem, since as soon as people use the word enterprise architecture,
“eyes start to roll”. Possible reasons are that EAM is considered to be a discipline that
is located in the IT departments and mostly about IT (Winter et al. 2012a). In addition,
the coordination support by EAM currently performs worse than expected (Abraham
50
Paper A – Related Work
et al. 2012a). Concluding, there seems to be a difference between the information that
EAM offers and the demand that transformation managers have.
When talking to architects, we often experience that, on the one hand, architects do not
clearly know how to support ET managers – and on the hand these managers are not
aware, how EAM might support their effort. While current research usually analyses,
how EAM can support ET, we first need to understand, what ET managers need as
inputs for their decisions in order to lead transformations. Subsequently, we can analyze, if EAM can offer this information and thus provide a first step towards a detailed
conceptualization of EAM support for ET. This leads to the research question:
RQ:
Which management activities of enterprise transformation can be supported by
EAM?
In order to answer the question, we proceed as follows. We first introduce related work
and go on with illustrating our research approach. We present the results and provide a
discussion. We close with a summary and implications.
A.2 Related Work
Many partial problems within ET can be addressed by EAM. Harmsen et al. (2009)
propose to use EAM as a governing function for ET since a portfolio of transformation
steps needs to be well aligned in order to be successful and EAM has the potential to
ensure this. The authors see potentials especially in areas like strategic direction (investigate alternatives), gap analysis, tactical planning (identify intermediate milestones), operational planning, selection of partial solutions e.g. based on standards
(Boh and Yellin 2007) or solution crafting (identify tasks for projects). Radeke (2011)
discusses, how EAM can contribute to the strategic change process. He claims potentials of EAM to improve the strategic fit with the market environment, business-IT
alignment and the preparedness for change by standardization and modularization of
parts of the enterprise. According to Pulkkinen et al. (2007) who are focusing on the
coordination capability of EAM, “EA enables groups to interpret the related issues for
their purposes. The guidelines and EA principles agreed on and mediated with the collaborative EA work facilitate plans and designs for interoperability and synergy of systems.” Lankhorst (2009a) points out that due to IT-driven transformation the scope of
EAM changes from single enterprises to a business network point of view which fosters concentrating on roles rather than actors and linkages between the network partners. Therefore, the architect needs to be firm with communication and negotiation
with different stakeholders in order to be beneficial for the enterprise.
Part B – Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise
Transformation
51
There is a certain stream of research that discusses benefits of enterprise architecture
without a focus on ET. Foorthuis et al. (2010) identify for example benefits when it
comes to the achievement of key business goals, management of organizational complexity, integration and standardization, communication or project success. Lange et
al. (2012) identify artifact quality, infrastructure quality, service quality, culture and
use of EA as major success factors. However, they do not distinguish, which of these
benefits are explicitly linked to transformation.
In order to provide a more holistic overview of the ET support by EAM, Asfaw et al.
(2009) divides ET into three categories (communications, management support and
structure as much as process). Within these categories they identify success factors
like communications, stakeholder involvement and guided application development.
However, the authors conclude that architecture as such cannot cope with all challenges and e.g. change management is also needed. Winter et al. (2012a) discuss how
EAM and ET management (ETM) differ and what both have in common. Especially
the to-be designs and change project roadmaps that EAM creates, are seen as an integrated implementation component and input for ET. However, neither Asfaw et al.
(2009) nor Winter et al. (2012a) identify necessary management activities that guide
transformations before analyzing its support by EAM.
Summarized, related work focusses on how EAM can support ETM from an EAM
point of view (e.g. Harmsen et al. 2009; Lankhorst et al. 2009b; Pulkkinen et al. 2007).
The demand perspective (e.g. transformation managers) of ET is not available in the
current discussion. We investigate, which information inputs the demand side needs
and elaborate, if current EAM is able to provide them.
A.3 Research Approach
In order to assess, which ETM activities can be supported by EAM, we need to identify those. Since no existing source explicitly provided the activities and the necessary
information inputs, we applied a structured literature search process. We applied the
guidance given by Webster and Watson (2002) in order to avoid reinvestigation of already known and thus increasing rigor and relevance of the research (vom Brocke et
al. 2009). In line with Elliot (2011) we had to be strict with our search terms since a
huge body of literature from academic and non-academic sources is available in the
topic area. Hence, we concentrated our search on top journals of information systems,
management and organizational science based on the Jourqual ranking (Schrader and
52
Paper A – Research Approach
Hennig-Thurau 2009) and the AIS basket of eight in order to include the mature and
established knowledge. We further conducted a database search in the major management databases (Web of Knowledge, Springerlink, Ebsco) to include more recent or
practise-based sources. We further added specific journals and conferences (e.g.
“Journal of Enterprise Transformation” or the PRET conference proceedings) to the
survey. We identified articles in the journals based on the title keyword “transformation” and in the databases based on the title search term “(organizational OR strategic OR business OR enterprise OR corporate OR large-scale) AND transformation
AND management”. Based on the abstract we decided if the article was relevant concerning the research goal. Our search revealed 561 articles in total and 85 articles for
further analysis.
We started with the identified research papers and used the software ATLAS.ti to assign codes for identified ETM activities. We consolidated 271 codes during multiple
iterations based on their semantic similarity (Bailey 1994). We further identified information objects that are input of these groups. We reflected our consolidated activities using two ETM frameworks (Baumöl 2008; Uhl and Gollenia 2012) to ensure validity and reliability. When the frameworks added activities or information inputs that
did not emerge from the other data, we added those.
In a second step, we conceptualized the information inputs that EAM can provide to
the ETM activities. We started our conceptualization with the content meta-model of
TOGAF (The Open Group 2011) because it is a mature industry standard that on the
one hand is maintained by companies and research partners and on the other hand is
used as a foundation for many corporate EAM frameworks. The meta-model provides
a conceptual overview of the information that EAM can provide without being on the
level of detailed individual reports (like capability maps or application landscapes) and
thus allows for a more generic discussion. Again we ensured reliability and validity by
comparing the identified content elements with other meta-models like ARCHIMATE
(The Open Group 2012), GERAM (Bernus and Noran 2010), Zachman (Chen and
Pooley 2009), DODAF (Department of Defense 2012) and IEEE (IEEE 2000). We
further conducted an additional literature review in order to include latest developments of EAM. We considered the same sources like in the first step (including additional EAM specific journals) but applied the keywords “(enterprise or business) and
architecture” in the journal title search and “Abstract: (literature or survey or review)
and Title: (enterprise or business) and architecture” in the database search. In the latter
Part B – Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise
Transformation
53
we focused on literature surveys on EAM in order to efficiently identify relevant concepts. The search revealed 55 relevant articles for further analysis.
After identifying the needed information inputs of ET and the available information
outputs of EAM, we mapped both in a third step. Major challenges were the different
languages apparent in both disciplines that inhibited a straightforward one-to-one
mapping. Therefore, we first decided based on the meta-model specification and additional literature, which of the information that EAM can provide is part an ETM information need. We afterwards analyzed by checking back with the ET literature, if
the information provided by EAM is sufficient to satisfy the requested information
input of the activity or if additional information besides EAM is necessary. We rated
this on a five point scale ranging from one “ET activity almost not supported by
EAM” to five “full support”.
A.4 Results
A.4.1
ETM Activities and Inputs
We identified eight major groups of ETM activities: ET Meta Management includes
the management of the ET itself. It includes activities like managing the overall process and governance, identifying transformation drivers, managing risks and communication (Kotnour and Bollo 2011). ET Performance Management includes the financial performance but also additional progress and performance control (Ward et al.
2012). The ET Strategy Management deals with the conformance of the ET with the
corporate strategy (Uhl et al. 2012). The ET Execution Management includes the overall project and program management of the ET (Rosemann et al. 2012). Furthermore,
identifying unplanned issues and stable intermediate steps is part of this group
(Baumöl 2008). ET Human Resource Management is concerned with managing the
employee’s skills and concerns (Fry et al. 2005) during the ET. It needs to take care
about cultural issues (Morgan and Ogbonna 2008) and training of necessary skills
(Pimmer et al. 2012). ET Information Technology Management takes care of managing
the transformation of the IT landscape (Basole et al. 2012), while ET Structure Management is concerned about the horizontal structure in terms of processes (Caverlee et
al. 2007) and the vertical structure in terms of the hierarchy (Hellström and Peterson
2006). ET Relationship Management is concerned with including customers (Madu
and Kuei 1994) and suppliers (Ashurst and Hodges 2010) into the ET.
54
Paper A – Results
In Figure 1 we illustrate the different activity groups and information needs of ETM.
Whenever it is not especially mentioned the inputs are related to the transformation
(e.g. “strategy” is the transformation strategy while “organizational strategy” is the
overall corporate strategy).
Part B – Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise
Transformation
55
A.
ET Meta Management
1. Manage Overall Transformation Process
 Applicable methods (Baumöl
2008, Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
 Barriers to change
(Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
 Benefits (Ward et al. 2012,
Stiles and Uhl 2012b)
 Budget (Uhl et al. 2012)
 Current organizational roles
(Baumöl 2008)
 Customers
(Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
 Degrees of freedom
(Baumöl 2008)
 Employee skills
(Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
 Generic strategy process
(Baumöl 2008)
 Goals (Stiles and Uhl 2012a)
 KPIs (Stiles and Uhl 2012a)
 Organizational processes
(Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
 Organizational capabilities
(Borgers et al. 2009)
 Organizational culture
(Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
 Organizational products
(Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
 Organizational services
(Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
 Organizational structure
(Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
 Period under consideration
(Baumöl 2008)
 Promoters (Uhl et al. 2012,
Lawrence et al. 2012)
 Responsibilities
(Ward et al. 2012)
 Stakeholder affectedness
(Uhl et al. 2012)
2. Manage Transformation Principles & Governance
 Benefits (Kohnke et al. 2012)
 Effects of former transformations
(Harmsen et al. 2009)
 Organizational principles
(Cross et al. 1997)
3. Identify Transformation Drivers
 Capability gaps
(Baumöl 2008)
 Internal capabilities
(Baumöl 2008)
 Current organizational roles
(Baumöl 2008)
 Scope (Kohnke et al. 2012)
4. Manage Risks
 Organizational
capabilities
(Borgers et al. 2009)
 Market information
(Ashurst and Hodges
2010)
 Stakeholders
(Romanelli and Tushman 1994)
 Strategy (Kohnke et al. 2012)
5. Manage Communication
 Pitfalls
(Furneaux et al. 2012)
 Risk drivers
(Furneaux et al. 2012)
 Communication channels
(Baumöl 2008)
 Existing communication
material (Kohnke et al. 2012)
 Stakeholders (Baumöl 2008)
C.
ET Strategy
Man.
B.
ET Performance
Management
1. Ensure a Transformation Supporting Management Accounting
 Budget (Cross et al. 1997)
 Business case (Ward et al. 2012)
 Duration (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Actual costs (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Program plans (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Organizational business model
(Aspara et al. 2011)
 KPIs
(Ward et al. 2012, Kotnour and Bollo
2011, Aspara et al. 2011)
 Milestones (Kohnke et al. 2012)
 Program activities
(Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Project results (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Projects (Rosemann et al. 2012)





2. Measure Transformation Performance & Progress
 Actions conducted and outstanding
(Ward et al. 2012)
 Benefits (Ward et al. 2012)
 Deliverables (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Goals (Kohnke et al. 2012)
 Incentives
(Kohnke et al. 2012,
Swapna and Raja 2012)
 Long-term objectives
(Rosemann et al. 2012)
1. Define Goals of the Transformation and Establish Vision
 Benefits (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Organizational goals
(Uhl et al. 2012, Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
 Organizational strategy (Uhl et al. 2012)




Quality metrics (Rosemann et al. 2012)
Roles (Kohnke et al. 2012)
Skills (Kohnke et al. 2012)
Stakeholders (Rosemann et al. 2012)
Strategy (Rosemann et al. 2012)
2. Analyze Core Value Proposition of own Company
Customer needs (Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
Organizational capabilities (Uhl et al. 2012)
Organizational structure (Baumöl 2008)
Stakeholders (Baumöl 2008)




Activities (Cross et al. 1997)
Business model (Baumöl 2008)
Drivers (Uhl et al. 2012)
Market information (Uhl et al. 2012)
D.
ET Execution
Management
1. Conduct Overall Project Management







Assumptions (Rosemann et al. 2012)
Benefits (Rosemann et al. 2012)
Budget (Cross et al. 1997)
Constraints (Rosemann et al. 2012)
Contracts (Rosemann et al. 2012)
Costs (Rosemann et al. 2012)
Deliverables (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Dependencies (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Employees (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Current frame agreements
(Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Locations (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Goals (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Invoices (Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Current organizational roles
(Baumöl 2008)
 Employees (Baumöl 2008)
 Limiting factors (Baumöl 2008)
 Organizational structure
 Business network
(Hock-Hai Teo et al. 1997,
(Hock-Hai Teo et al. 1997)
Dixon et al. 2010)
 Organizational processes
(Hock-Hai Teo et al. 1997)
 Relationships between
 Organizational change history
Stakeholders
(Ashurst and Hodges 2010)
(Morgan and Ogbonna 2008)
 Stakeholder ideologies
 Organizational context
(Beer 1997)
(Breu 2001)
 Organizational strategy
(Hock-Hai Teo et al. 1997)
Benefits (Baumöl 2008)
Communication plan (Ash and Burn 2003)
Drivers (Uhl et al. 2012)
Incentives (Armenakis et al. 2007)
Organizational context (Armenakis et al. 2007)
Promoters (Uhl et al. 2012
Lawrence et al. 2012, Kohnke et al. 2012)
 Stakeholder agenda (Baumöl 2008)
 Stakeholder relations (Lawrence et al. 2012)
 Strategy (Ash and Burn 2003)






3. Manage Emotions & Leader Support
 Common language
(Lawrence et al. 2012)
 Feelings about work
(Dehler and Welsh 1994)
 Feelings of work
(Dehler and Welsh 1994)
 Goals (Cross et al. 1997)
 Organizational principles
(Baumöl 2008)
 Resistances (Fry et al. 2005,
Clemons and Hann 1999)
 Stakeholders (Baumöl 2008)
 Top managers (Dixon et al. 2010)
 Roles (Daniel and Wilson 2003)
G.
ET Structure
Management
 Organizational rituals (Baumöl 2008)
 Resistances (Baumöl 2008)
 Compensations (Roskies et al. 1988)
 External capabilities (Cross et al. 1997)
 Future organizational roles
(Pimmer et al. 2012)
 Goals (Pimmer et al. 2012)
 Locations (Pimmer et al. 2012)
 Mentors & Trainers (Swapna and Raja 2012)
 Organizational capabilities (Baumöl 2008)
 Organizational roles (Pimmer et al. 2012)
 Organizational structure
(Pimmer et al. 2012)
 Skills
(Cross et al. 1997, Pimmer et al. 2012
Sitalaksmi and Zhu 2010, Beer 1997)
 Successful business units
(Beer 1997, Aspara et al. 2011)
 Successful change leaders (Beer 1997)
 Successful practices (Beer 1997)
1. Manage IT Transformation
 Applications (Winter et al. 2012c)
 Organizational processes (Basole et al. 2012)
 Data (Basole et al. 2012)
 IT inventory (Basole et al. 2012)
 IT principles (Winter et al. 2012c)
 Organizational strategy (Basole et al. 2012)
1. Manage Organizational Processes
H.
ET Relationship
Management
 Applicable methods
(Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Transformation strategy
(Rosemann et al. 2012)
 Unplanned events
(Rosemann et al. 2012)
4. Manage Skill Training
2. Manage Culture Readiness
1. Explain the Transformation
E.
ET HR Management
Milestones (Baumöl 2008)
Objectives (Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
Program plans (Rosemann et al. 2012)
Resources (Rosemann et al. 2012)
Skills (Rosemann et al. 2012)
Duration (Rosemann et al. 2012)
2. Manage Unplanned Issues and Stabilizing Factors
 Communication channels
(Baumöl 2008)
F.
ET IT
Man.






 Organizational processes
(Caverlee et al. 2007)
 Current business rules (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
 Common language (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
 Constraints (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
 Enabling technology (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
 Goals (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
 KPIs (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
1. Manage Supplier Relations





Contracts (Baumöl 2008)
Interfaces (Ash and Burn 2003)
Practices (Ashurst and Hodges 2010)
Standards (Cross et al. 1997)
Suppliers (Cross et al. 1997)
Figure 5:
2. Manage Organizational Structure








Organizational units (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
Process objects (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
Process owner (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
Risks (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
Organizational roles (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
Requirements (Kotnour and Bollo 2011)
Scope (vom Brocke et al. 2012)
Used media (vom Brocke et al. 2012)




Locations (Romanelli and Tushman 1994)
Organizational structure (Romanelli and Tushman 1994)
Responsibilities (Hellström and Peterson 2006)
Roles (Uhl et al. 2012)
2. Manage Customer Relations
 Customers (Baumöl 2008)
 Customer needs (Baumöl 2008, Madu and Kuei 1994)
ETM activities and necessary information needs
56
Paper A – Results
A.4.2
EAM Outputs
After identifying the information inputs for the ETM activities, we illustrate, which
information EAM can provide by following the basic structure of the TOGAF content
meta-model (The Open Group 2011). It contains general elements that are connected
to all other elements in the meta-model in a one-to-one manner. The other elements are
differentiated into business, data, application and technology architecture. We summarize the consolidated content elements in Figure 6.
General Layer








Principle
Constraint
Assumption
Requirement
Concern
Gap
Undertaking
Capability
Business Architecture












Meaning
Value
Product
Business service
Service Quality
Contract
Driver
Goal
Vision
Mission
Objective
Measure
Figure 6:
Data Architecture










Organizational Unit
Actor
Role
Skill
Location
Function
Process
Control
Event
Business Object
 Data Entity
 Logical Data Component
 Physical Data Component
Application Architecture
 Information System Service
 Logical Application Component
 Physical Application Component
Technology Architecture
 Platform Service
 Logical Technology Component
 Physical Technology Component
Consolidated EAM content elements
The general layer contains principles. Further it contains constraints like standards
(Bradley et al. 2012) or common vocabulary (Van der Beek et al. 2012). Included are
assumptions that need to be taken, if validated information or objectives are not available at that point of time (The Open Group 2011). Requirements express specific
needs, based on their character. This also includes “critical success factors” that are
explicitly modeled in the Zachman framework`s meta-model (Chen and Pooley 2009).
The concept of gaps needs to be understood in wider terms – according to the TOGAF
definition, a gap provides “a statement of difference between two states (The Open
Group 2011)”. Thus, it includes further concepts like time, states, plans (Chen and
Pooley 2009) or scenarios (Van der Raadt and Van Vliet 2008). We replace the concept of work packages by undertakings in order to cover different aggregation levels
that other authors explicitly provide (e.g. projects (Bernus and Noran 2010; Van der
Raadt and Van Vliet 2008) or programs (Winter and Fischer 2007)). Capabilities are
“a business-focused outcome that is delivered by the completion of one or more work
packages (The Open Group 2011)” and aggregated into “domains”.
Part B – Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise
Transformation
57
The business architecture contains the TOGAF content elements product, business
service, service quality, contract, driver, goal, objective, measure, organizational unit
(includes further organizational refinements (Chen and Pooley 2009)), actor, role (also
covers stakeholders (IEEE 2000) or performers (Department of Defense 2012)), location, function, process (including activities (Chen and Pooley 2009)), control (including authority (Chen and Pooley 2009)) and event. Based on the analysis of further
sources we added vision (Chen and Pooley 2009), mission (Chen and Pooley 2009),
meaning (The Open Group 2012), value (De Kinderen et al. 2012; The Open Group
2012) and skill (Chen and Pooley 2009). Further information objects like business
model and strategy (Mikaelian et al. 2011) or decisions (Chen and Pooley 2009) are
covered implicitly by combinations of existing objects.
The data architecture contains according to TOGAF (The Open Group 2011) highlevel data entities, logical data components and physical data components. The application architecture contains physical application components, logical application
components and the information system service that directly automates parts of the
business service. The technology architecture contains the physical technology components, logical technology components and the platform service.
A.4.3
EAM Inputs for ETM Activities
Based on the descriptions in the EAM meta-models and the ETM sources, we analyzed
for each ETM information need the extent to which it can be provided by EAM. During this analysis, it became apparent that some ETM information needs can be (almost)
Figure 7:
Physical Technology Component
Logical Technology Component
Platform Service
Physical Application Component
Logical Application Component
Physical Data Component
Logical Data Component
Data Entity
Business Object
Event
Control
x
Process
x
x
Function
Skill
x
x
Location
Role
Organizational Unit
Measure
Objective
Mission
Vision
Goal
Driver
Contract
Service Quality
Business Service
Product
Value
Meaning
Capability
Undertaking
Gap
Concern
Requirement
Assumption
Actor
Organizational rituals
Promoters
Process owner
Constraint
ETM Information
Need
Principle
EAM Content
Element
Information System Service
fully provided by EAM, some almost not. A huge group can be provided partially. In
Figure 7 we provide an example for an ETM information need of each of the three
groups (please contact the authors for additional material that could not be presented
for space reasons).
x
Example of ETM information needs and related EAM content elements
58
Paper A – Results
Organizational rituals like illustrated above are not part of the content provided by
EAM since they are usually hidden within the organization (Baumöl 2008). Thus,
EAM support for this information input is not possible. In order to identify promoters,
EAM can partially support this process since it is able to provide potential actors, roles
and skills that potential promoters need to have as an input for further in-depth analysis. However, it lacks information about the character of promoters and thus is not able
to provide information about the final adequacy of the person (Kohnke et al. 2012;
Lawrence et al. 2012). The situation is different with inputs like process owners (vom
Brocke et al. 2012) – here EAM can fully provide the requested input. In Figure 8 we
summarize the findings of the mapping process, focusing on the information needs that
can be well supported (rated five during the analysis) by EAM and those that can be
less supported (rated one or two during the analysis).
Minor Support by EAM
Major Support by EAM






















Applications
Benefits
Common language
Contracts
Current organizational roles
Data
Deliverables
Drivers
Employee skills
Employees
Goals
Interfaces
Internal capabilities
IT inventory
IT principles
KPIs
Locations
Long-term objectives
Mentors & Trainers
Milestones
Objectives
Organizational capabilities






















Organizational goals
Organizational principles
Organizational processes
Organizational products
Organizational services
Organizational structure
Organizational units
Process objects
Process owner
Program activities
Program plans
Project results
Projects
Quality metrics
Requirements
Responsibilities
Roles
Scope
Skills
Standards
Suppliers
Top managers
Figure 8:
Applicable methods
Communication channels
Compensations
Customer needs
Effects of former transformations
Enabling technology
Existing communication material
External capabilities
Feelings about work
Feelings of work
Generic strategy process
Incentives
Invoices
Organizational context
Organizational culture
Organizational rituals
Practices
Relationships between
stakeholders
 Resistances
 Stakeholder affectedness
 Stakeholder agenda






















Stakeholder ideologies
Stakeholder relations
Unplanned events
Used media
EAM support for ETM information needs
Transferred to the identified activity groups (figure 1), the conducted analysis shows
that EAM can contribute to each of them. However, the intensity differs (like illustrated in Figure 7). Based on the meta-model descriptions, the areas ET IT Management,
ET Structure Management and ET Performance Management are well supported and
most of the necessary inputs can be provided by EAM. In the other areas we need to
differentiate more: The ET Meta Management is well supported concerning governance, principles and drivers but rather weak supported when it comes to communication management. Managing the overall ET process is well supported, however many
necessary inputs are generated by other ET activities. The situation is similar for ET
Strategy Management were EAM can provide central corporate goals and vision but
additional information e.g. about culture is needed. In comparison to the former ones,
ET Execution, HR and Relationship Management are less strongly supported. While in
Part B – Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise
Transformation
59
ET Execution Management the project management is well supported, there are lacks
in identifying unplanned issues and stabilizing factors. In ET HR Management the activities about management and training of skills are very well supported, however,
gaps are apparent when it comes to explaining the transformation, ensuring leadership
support or ensuring organizational culture readiness (e.g. when ideologies of stakeholders need to be known). In the area of ET Relationship Management, EAM can
contribute by providing e.g. lists of the stakeholders. Gaps occur when it comes to
concrete relations or practices that emerged over the time.
We based the former results on investigating if the meta-model elements contribute to
providing the necessary ETM activity input. This reveals some meta-model elements
that are more important for ET support than others. Especially knowledge about actors,
roles and processes is needed for almost half of all transformation activities that we
identified. Sometimes they are directly requested (e.g. in terms of employee lists),
sometimes in combination with the general EAM elements like principles or constraints. Elements that are less often needed are constructs like drivers, meaning or the
especially IT-related elements like physical application or technology components.
However, how often the elements are used does not imply information about their importance.
A.5 Discussion
The findings in general show that EAM has the potential to support the management of
ET or even to manage parts of ET by itself. This support is not limited to the traditional area of business-IT alignment but rather focused on the general layer and the business architecture (see Figure 6). Our results further show that there are some information components that EAM can provide with comparably low efforts since the relevant information output exists directly and is maintained regularly (e.g. goals or roles).
Other information inputs need more analysis by the architects in order to be a valuable
input to the requesting ETM activity.
Activities that are well supported by EAM share some commonalities: First, they do
not focus on individuals (e.g. individual agenda, resistances) but cover a broad perspective (e.g. IT landscape, skillset within the enterprise). Activities that take a narrower focus would be better supported by other disciplines like human-focused management or psychology. Second, the activities have a strong focus to the internal perspective of the enterprise. They are about the hierarchies, structures, existent IT foun-
60
Paper A – Summary & Implications
dation, etc. Therefore, information that needs to be collected outside the company like
market opportunities, enabling IT opportunities, external capabilities offered by outsourcing providers, etc. are not part of the current EAM portfolio. Such external information is comparably hard to collect for EAM (due to the limitations in the metamodels) and thus should be rather conducted by other disciplines like corporate marketing departments or special projects that sense for such information. Third, EAM
mostly supports ETM activities that are based on formal requirements. Inputs that are
related to informal or cultural aspects are usually not supported and provided by EAM.
Having these theoretical potentials, the identified mismatch of EAM supply and ETM
information demands surprises. The reasons might be that the theoretical potentials of
EAM are not yet realized in practice (thus EAM departments are focusing on aspects
that are not that much relevant for ET). Further, we were surprised that the meta-model
does not include an element like “methods” that formalizes the method support and
guidance which EAM could provide to ETM. We would expect that enterprise architects can especially provide this input to the ETM because they are familiar with manifold methods and frameworks. Furthermore, explicit communication channels are not
part of the EAM meta-models. Therefore, on the one hand, the architect is considered
to be in need of communicating the transformation (Asfaw et al. 2009; Winter et al.
2012a). On the other hand such communication is difficult since the formal support in
the method is weakly given.
A.6 Summary & Implications
We discussed which ETM activities EAM can support. We contribute a detailed literature survey to identify ETM activities and the needed information inputs in order to
understand, what ET actually is comprised of and to provide a solid foundation for
further research in the topic area. We further provide a consolidated overview of EAM
outputs. The results of our comparison show that EAM in general is well-suited to
support the different ETM activities (especially concerning ET performance management, ET IT management and ET structure management). However, EAM is lacking
support when it comes to activities that need input focusing on stakeholders` individual needs or activities that need inputs that deal with the environment (e.g. market or
regulation) of the transforming enterprise.
Some limitations became apparent during the research project. The meta-models reflect the information that current EAM can provide but do not integrate specific further
potentials for topic areas that EAM could additionally cover. We took mitigation steps
Part B – Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural Support for Enterprise
Transformation
61
for this limitation by including additional EAM literature during the mapping procedure. Further, we considered EAM as much as ETM as two monolithic blocks and did
neither differentiate different types of ET (e.g. business model change vs. large-scale
IT replacement) nor different types of EAM (e.g. strategic vs. IT-driven). We also did
not compare ETM and EAM based on the relations between the activities or information components. In the paper at hand, we concentrated on the core concepts by
themselves. Therefore, the paper at hand is a foundation for further iterations that include the differentiation of different ET situations and relations. We concentrated on
EAM`s potentials to support ETM and did not discuss the question, if the inputs currently are provided by EAM, or why they are not provided. Now that we reduced the
overall complexity of the field by identifying the potentially supported activities and
providing the conceptual foundations in this paper, further research can be conducted
in terms of surveys that elaborate on the actual EAM support of ET as much as success
and hindering factors.
The inputs that EAM can successfully provide should be maintained by architects with
priority when striving after supporting ET. The ET manager further should request
such information from the company’s architects since they can provide it with relatively low efforts. In contrast, architects should carefully consider whether to provide information inputs that EAM supports less strong. It might make more sense to concentrate on the strengths in order to shape the service of EAM within the company.
62
Paper B – Summary & Implications
Paper B – Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate Practice
Table 12:
Title
Authors &
Affiliations
Publication
Outlet
Year
Rating
Abstract
Bibliographical information of paper B
Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations:
Insights from Corporate Practice
 Labusch, Nils
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
nils.labusch@unisg.ch
 Aier, Stephan
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
stephan.aier@unisg.ch
 Rothenberger, Marcus
University of Nevada Las Vegas, Lee Business School
4505 S. Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV, United States
marcus.rothenberger@unlv.edu
 Winter, Robert
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management,
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
robert.winter@unisg.ch
Tagungsband Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2014,
D. Kundisch, L Suhl, and L Beckmann (eds.), Paderborn, pp.
1048-1060.
2014
D
Enterprise architecture management (EAM) is considered a
means to contribute to fundamental change (enterprise transformations) in organizations. Based on qualitative interview data,
we investigate how EAM contributes to meeting the information
needs of transformation managers during an enterprise transformation (ET). We identify the type of information EAM can provide to ET management. We further identify the activities conducted during ETs that foster information needs. Our results differentiate between information that EAM can provide, can partially provide, or cannot provide, to an ET effort.
Part B – Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate
Practice
63
B.1 Introduction
Organizations go regularly through major transformations that represent fundamental
changes substantially altering their relationships with their key constituencies (e.g.,
customers, suppliers, regulators). These enterprise transformations (ET) may result in
new value propositions, they may provide old value propositions in fundamentally new
ways, or they may change the inner structure of the enterprise (Rouse and Baba 2006).
Examples for such fundamental changes are transformations of the business model
(Aspara et al. 2011), mergers & acquisitions (Johnston and Madura 2000), or introductions and replacements of large enterprise information systems (Sarker and Lee 1999).
The concept is also known as “business transformation” (Ash and Burn 2003) or “organizational transformation” (Hock-Hai Teo et al. 1997). However, many transformations fail for a variety of reasons (Kotter 1995; Sarker and Lee 1999). Flyvbjerg et
al. (2012) recently found that large IT projects have an average cost overrun of 27%.
In addition, one in six IT projects exceeds estimated cost by about 200% for reasons
like underestimated technical complexity, or shortcomings in either portfolio or benefits planning.
When transforming an enterprise, a many decisions, some of them with major implications, have to be taken. In order to make such decisions diligently, manifold information needs to be collected and consolidated (Klein and Krcmar 2003; Singh et al.
2011; Tichy 1983). Processing information and achieving transparency of organizational dependencies is considered a major task of enterprise architecture management
(EAM) (Boh and Yellin 2007). While enterprise architecture (EA) describes the fundamental structures of an enterprise, EAM is concerned with the establishment and
coordinated development of EA in order to consistently respond to business and IT
goals, opportunities, and necessities (The Open Group 2011). Thus, EAM is often
found to support the management of ETs (Asfaw et al. 2009; Dorsch and Haeckel
2012) by guiding the necessary efforts (Abraham et al. 2012a; Harmsen et al. 2009).
EAM is considered a valuable source for top management information support and for
strategy development (Asfaw et al. 2009; Venkatesh et al. 2007). EAM is also supposed to support ET decision processes on various hierarchical levels (Asfaw et al.
2009).
However, in current corporate practice, there seems to be no regular application of
EAM as a leading authority or as a support service for ETs (Asfaw et al. 2009;
Lankhorst et al. 2009a). This mismatch might be a major inhibitor to EAM’s efficacy
64
Paper B – Related Work
to support ETs. In order to investigate the interplay between the two disciplines and
identify their points of contact, we pose the following research question:
RQ:
How does enterprise architecture management contribute to the management of
enterprise transformations?
To investigate this issue, we employ a qualitative research design. The paper is structured as follows: In the next section we discuss related work about the relation of
EAM and ETM. Then, we illustrate our research design, present results, and discuss
the findings. Finally, we provide a summary and outlook.
B.2 Related Work
There is little prior work that investigates the relation between ET and EAM in detail.
Harmsen et al. (2009) propose the use of EAM as a governing function for ET, because a set of transformation steps needs to be well aligned in order to be successful
and EAM has the potential to ensure this alignment. The authors see potential in areas
such as strategic direction (investigate alternatives), gap analysis, tactical planning
(identify intermediate milestones), operational planning, selection of partial solutions
e.g. based on standards (Boh and Yellin 2007) or solution crafting (identify tasks for
projects). Radeke (2011) discusses how EAM can contribute to the strategic change
process. He claims potentials of EAM to improve the strategic fit with the market environment, business/IT alignment and the preparedness for change by standardization
and modularization of parts of the enterprise. Simon et al. (2014) also see a high potential of EAM to support transformations, by assessing the organizational transformation readiness. In order to provide a more holistic overview of the ET support by
EAM, Asfaw et al. (2009) divide ET into three categories (communications, management support and structure, and process). Within these categories they identify success
factors such as communications, stakeholder involvement and guided application development. However, the authors conclude that EAM as such cannot cope with all
challenges and that other means such as change management are also needed.
In summary there is evidence that EAM can successfully support ET. However, related
work either focusses on very specific parts of EAM and ET or surveys the relationship
in an explorative way.
Part B – Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate
Practice
65
B.3 Research Design
In order to investigate how EAM can contribute to an ET effort, we have conducted a
qualitative study that compares information obtained from two groups of experts, with
experience in either EAM or ETM.3 The results from both perspectives are further triangulated using information from the literature. Finally, the two result sets are consolidated into a list of items that detail the fit of what EAM and ETM experts agree on.
B.3.1
Data Collection
The empirical part of this research contributes to elaborating on existing theory. Participants are included through purposeful selection, rather than through random sampling
(Miles and Huberman 1994; Seawright and Gerring 2008). The participants were selected for their expertise in EAM and ET, respectively.
We interviewed eight transformation managers in the insurance industry based on personal contacts of the researchers and additional snowball sampling (thus, participants
recommended further contacts for interviews that have been included whenever they
provided the necessary qualification) (Noy 2007). We decided to limit participants to
the insurance industry, as this industry currently faces extensive transformation issues,
and thus, responses obtained from this industry are based on the most recent experiences, which makes it most suited for our investigation. All informants are located in
departments that allow for a broad overview of the transformation and hold positions
like strategy coordinator, member of the board or head of business engineering. We
refer to these informants with the abbreviations InETM1 to InETM8.
From a supplier perspective, we aim to identify the information that EAM can contribute to ETM from participants working in multiple industries; this inclusive approach
ensures that we do not miss those information processing capabilities that EAM can
provide, but currently does not provide in the insurance industry, thus allowing for
new insights. The EAM experts were identified by searching social business networks
3
Results that were derived based on interviews with a part of the ETM experts are also
published in (Labusch and Winter 2012). Results that were derived based on the interviews with EAM experts are also published in (Labusch et al. 2013). The full literature
review is published in (Labusch and Winter 2013). The original contribution of this
paper is to analyze qualitatively, how both perspectives fit together.
66
Paper B – Research Design
(XING and LinkedIn) using the search terms “Enterprise Architect” and “Transformation Architect”. After analyzing the profiles, 68 potential informants in German
speaking countries remained, ten agreed to participate in the study. Our informants
hold positions such as enterprise architect, business architect, and IT architect. We refer to these experts with the abbreviations InEAM1 to InEAM10. Details of the research process and a first evaluation of this data set is also available in (Labusch et al.
2013; Labusch and Winter 2012).
Two semi-structured interview questionnaires (one for the EAM experts and one for
the ET experts) comprised of open-ended questions have been developed. The design
of the questionnaires was informed by related literature. While basing a questionnaire
on existing literature may be contradicting the early practice in grounded theory research (Glaser and Strauss 1967), more recently, this clean slate approach to theorybuilding research has been succeeded by the understanding that prior theory should
inform the interview questions (Eisenhardt 1989; Strauss and Corbin 1990). Hereby,
the use of open ended questions and a flexible interview questionnaire that permits the
interviewees to contribute additional themes to the results, allows for additional findings to emerge that were not part of prior literature (Eisenhardt 1989). Participants
were assured confidentiality of their own and their company’s identities in order to
allow for honest answers. More than 16 hours of interviews were recorded and transcribed.
B.3.2
Coding
Two researchers independently coded the EAM experts’ and the ETM experts’ responses into two separate lists: Potential contributions of EAM, and the needs of ETM,
with each distinct item on these lists representing one code. Codes were not defined in
advance, but they emerged based on the information provided in the interview data
(open coding) (Miles and Huberman 1994; Strauss and Corbin 1990). After the two
researchers had completed the coding step, they consolidated their results by resolving
any differences in their coding. Occurring discrepancies were resolved after one round
of discussion, resulting in agreement between the two coders. This process resulted in
two separate lists representing potential EAM contributions to ET, as viewed by the
EAM experts, and information that is needed in order to conduct ETs, as viewed by
the ETM experts. Only those codes were added that occurred in at least two interviews
of the respective group (ET or ETM experts).
Part B – Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate
Practice
B.3.3
67
Literature Validation
In the next step, the results were triangulated with findings from the ETM and EAM
literature. We have included this step to ensure that the ET as much as the EAM codes
are consistent with a common understanding of both disciplines. Such consistent terminology is important, since we are interested in investigating the common fit between
both. Further this ensured to reduce potential biases that might have been induced by
focusing our investigation on the insurance industry. Thus, we have conducted a systematic literature search. In line with Elliot (2011) we had to be strict concerning our
search terms since a large body of literature from academic and non-academic sources
is available in both of the topic area of EAM and ET. Hence, we focused our search on
well-regarded journals in information systems, management and organizational science. We further conducted a database search in the major management databases
(Web of Knowledge, Springerlink, Ebsco) to include more recent or practice-based
sources. We further added specific journals and conferences (e.g. “Journal of Enterprise Transformation” or the ICIS and ECIS conference proceedings) to the survey.
We identified articles based on the title keyword “transformation” and in the databases
based on the title search term “(organizational OR strategic OR business OR enterprise
OR corporate OR large-scale) AND transformation AND management”. Based on the
abstract we decided if the article was relevant concerning the research goal. Our search
revealed 561 articles in total and 85 articles for further analysis. In addition, we have
conducted a literature review in the topic area of EAM. We considered the same
sources like in the ET literature review (including additional EAM specific journals)
but applied the keywords “(enterprise or business) and architecture” in the journal title
search and “Abstract: (literature or survey or review) and Title: (enterprise or business)
and architecture” in the database search. In the latter we focused on literature surveys
on EAM in order to efficiently identify relevant concepts. The search revealed 55 relevant articles for further analysis. We used the identified ET and EAM articles for a
triangulation with the empirical data (Jick 1979) in a later step. The results of the literature search were also used in (Labusch and Winter 2013).
Whenever we could match a code from either the list of EAM and ET with at least two
sources from this literature pool, we considered it as a common and well-known part
of the discipline.
68
B.3.4
Paper B – Results
Aggregation and Mapping
In order to keep the mapping manageable, the ET and EAM codes were grouped based
on their semantic similarity (Bailey 1994). This grouping was again conducted by two
independent researchers and consolidated in the first iteration. Based on the codes
within the groups and the underlying statements of the informants, the two researchers
independently mapped the EAM inputs to the ET information needs. The results were
almost identical; two of the groups needed further discussion. After one iteration, an
agreement among the researchers was achieved.
B.3.5
Response Saturation
In qualitative research with multiple respondents that incrementally contribute towards
one result set, it must be determined whether a sufficient number of responses were
collected, so that all important information has been captured. While it is impossible to
ensure that every potential response has been obtained, such research seeks to include
enough responses to reach a point at which it is unlikely that additional responses
would yield additional results (Eisenhardt 1989). We achieved such saturation with
both expert groups. After processing two thirds of the interviews in each group, additional interviews added almost no new codes. Thus, both coders independently concluded that the set of codes was saturated.
B.4 Results
B.4.1
The EAM Perspective
Figure 9 summarizes the results of the EAM interviews. The information that EAM
experts process or provide to ET have been grouped into eight categories using the
process described earlier.
Part B – Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate
Practice
EAM1: IT Transparency
EAM2: Governance
•
•
•
•
•
Data
(Bradley et al. 2012)
Applications
(Boh and Yellin 2007)
IT Infrastructure
(Boh and Yellin 2007)
Security
(Tamm et al. 2011)
EAM5: Cross Cutting
Transparency
• Redundancies
(Schmidt and
Buxmann 2011)
• Dependencies
(Schmidt and
Buxmann 2011)
•
•
Principles
(Bricknall et al. 2006)
Standards
(Bradley et al. 2012)
Governance
(Tamm et al. 2011)
EMA6: EA Method
Competence
• EA Methods
(Tamm et al. 2011)
• Sourcing Support
(Winter and Fischer
2007)
Figure 9:
69
EAM3: General Target
Description
• Target
Architecture
(Schmidt and
Buxmann 2011)
• Roadmaps
(Tamm et al. 2011)
EAM4: Specific Target
Description
• Business
Requirements
(Boh and Yellin 2007)
• Solution Design
(Tamm et al. 2011)
• Costs
(Foorthuis et al. 2010)
EAM7: Business
Transparency
• Business
Processes
(Tamm et al. 2011)
• Capabilities
(Bradley et al. 2012)
• Business Strategy
(Bradley et al. 2012)
EAM8: Lateral
Coordination Services
• Stakeholder
Coordination
(Schmidt and
Buxmann 2011)
• Common
Language
(Peristeras and
Tarabanis 2000)
Information provision by EAM
IT transparency that EAM provides to ET is one group. This includes information
about data, applications, IT infrastructure and security aspects. The second information
group is governance. The third group provides the general target description. The specific target description in the fourth group covers details, such as business requirements, solution designs, and cost. The fifth group provides cross-cutting transparency,
i.e. information about redundancies and dependencies. This is usually considered one
of the strengths of EAM. The sixth group highlights the method competences that architects have. Architects can provide insights on the application of EA methods (e.g.
process modeling) or can apply such methods e.g. in order to allow for sourcing support. However, this information cannot be provided ad-hoc but needs processing beforehand. EAM can further provide business transparency (EAM7) and thus information about business processes, capabilities and the business strategy. It is important
here to mention that architects agree that EAM is not developing the strategy but has a
profound knowledge about strategy. The last block highlights the communicative nature of EAM. Often EAM is able to provide information about acting stakeholders and
can provide them to ETM. It further is able to establish a common language by providing artifacts that are used by many stakeholders (e.g. process models, capability maps,
etc.).
70
B.4.2
Paper B – Results
The ETM Perspective
Similar to the EAM groups, we identified nine groups of activities that ET is comprised of and that need different information inputs. These are summarized in Figure
10.
ETM1: Transformation
Planning
• Target State
(Lawrence et al. 2012)
• Priorities
(Klein and Krcmar 2003)
• Goal Clarification
(Cross et al. 2000)
• Requirements
(Singh et al. 2011)
• Legal Requirements
(Newman 2000)
ETM2: Change Management
ETM3: Project Management
•
•
ETM4: Design of IT
Components
• Data (Ash and Burn 2003)
• Applications
(Cross et al. 1997)
ETM5: Analysis of Design
Options
• Outsourcing Potentials
(Ash and Burn 2003)
• Technology Assessment
(Rosenbloom 2000)
• Consolidations
(Daniel and Wilson 2003)
ETM6: Design of Business
Components
• Design of Organizational
Structure
(Hock-Hai Teo et al. 1997)
• Business Processes
(Daniel and Wilson 2003)
• Products (Newman 2000)
ETM7: External Relations
Management
• Partnering
(Ash and Burn 2003)
• Customer (Newman 2000)
ETM8: Controlling
ETM9: Governance
•
•
•
Figure 10:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stakeholder Analysis
(Thorogood et al. 2010)
Change Management
(Ash and Burn 2003)
Cultural Change (Tichy 1983)
Common Language
(Elliot 2011)
Communication Strategy
(Beer 1997)
Training
(Thorogood et al. 2010)
Benefits Measurement
(Tichy 1983)
Costs (Singh et al. 2011)
•
•
•
•
•
Stakeholder Coordination
(Singh et al. 2011)
Projects (Cross et al. 2000)
Dependencies
(Lawrence et al. 2012)
Ownership (Elliot 2011)
Roles (Lawrence et al. 2012)
Skills (Cross et al. 2000)
Standards (Cross et al. 2000)
Governance
(Singh et al. 2011)
Information inputs needed by ETM
A major part of ET is transformation planning. This includes necessary information
about the intended target state, the priorities, clear goals, requirements and legal requirements. The second important group is change management – thus, focusing on
the individual’s perspective of the transformation. This includes stakeholder analysis,
change management in the narrower sense, change in the culture, an established common language, a detailed communication strategy and training, e.g. of changed tasks.
Project management (ETM3) includes all aspects of actually conducting the transformation in form of a project portfolio. This includes coordination of the stakeholders,
the projects, dependencies between them, ownership definitions, roles and skills that
employees in the projects need. In order to design IT components, ETM is interested in
data as much as applications. Another part of ETM is the analysis of design options.
This is comprised of outsourcing potentials, technology assessments and potential for
Part B – Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate
Practice
71
consolidations. The next group is the actual design of business components, which includes the design of the organizational structure, the business processes and the products of the enterprise. External relations management describes cooperation with partners and dealing with customers. Group eight describes the controlling of transformations, including benefits measurement and cost control. The last group is governance, which includes governance in its narrower sense (like decision boards) and
standards that need to be followed during the transformation.
B.4.3
Fitting EAM and ETM
Based on the groups introduced above and the statements of our informants, we have
analyzed the fit between the provided information of EAM and the needed information
of ETM. This analysis yields three classes of fit: information needs that EAM fulfills,
information needs that EAM partially fulfills, and those that EAM does currently not
fulfill.
B.4.3.1
Fit 1: Design of IT Components
The analysis shows that EAM is very capable to provide necessary transparency when
it comes to IT topics and new IT components that need to be designed (F1). The concerns that ET managers most frequently pointed out are related to applications and data. Transformation managers in the business departments also see the complexity that
these impose, e.g. in a complex application landscape with many applications it can
happen that dependencies are not completely visible.
Enterprise architects can provide almost perfectly fitting solutions, be it in form of a
documentation of the application landscape (InEAM4), the status of data flows and
data stores (InEAM7), further information about the IT infrastructure (InEAM3), or IT
security (InEAM2). For that reason, we consider the information demand for the design
of IT components as fulfilled by the IT transparency part of EAM.
B.4.3.2
Fit 2: Governance
A second fit is prevalent between the governance groups on both sides. Experts in both
groups considered standards as a necessary means in order to ensure appropriate governance (InEAM1, InEAM2, InETM2). For some transformations, standardization is
even the most important reason to actually conduct the transformation and establish
cost-savings. Our informant InETM2 was involved in a large software standardization
project where processes and procedures needed to be standardized. Many stakeholders
72
Paper B – Results
were involved in order to develop the common standards. On the EAM side, the informant InEAM1 was involved in a similar transformation where EAM supported the
achievement of a global audit standard. These examples illustrate that the information
processing need concerning governance can be fulfilled by EAM.
B.4.3.3
Fit 3–5: Transformation Planning
Further fits occur between ETM and EAM about transformation planning. Architects
consider planning as one of their core competences. For that reason two subgroups
emerged during the coding and consolidation procedure: General (F3) and specific
target description (F4). Also involved is cross cutting transparency realization by EAM
(F5). From our informants in the ET area, we learned that planning of the transformation is a very important first step. For example, needs to clarify goals and other strategic issues (InETM6). Furthermore, having rough ideas of the target state in the beginning is necessary in order to see, how single projects contribute to its achievement
(InETM8). The architects used different wording but referred to the same task by discussing roadmaps (InEAM9).
EAM can also provide necessary information for detailed planning. The topic area is
especially concerned with requirements. On the ET side these are seen as major drivers
for success and need to be handed in early (InETM4). Especially legal requirements
need to be considered (InETM3). For the enterprise architects, requirements are a wellknown artifact. Requirements are seen as a means to overcome misunderstandings between business and IT (InEAM7). Another part of EAM is the provision of cross cutting transparency. This means to illustrate, where dependencies or redundancies in the
IT systems but also in processes and capabilities of different units occur (InEAM2,
InEAM3, InEAM10). This is important for the former mentioned draft of the target
state and the priority setting and goals. The architect InEAM2 could support the ET by
investigating systems and practices that already existed in other subsidiaries and could
be reused.
Based on the statements of our informants and the evidence given above, we can conclude that ET planning can be also well supported by the architects.
Part B – Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate
Practice
B.4.3.4
73
Partial Fit 6: Project Management
The cross-cutting transparency is also valuable in order to fulfill parts of the information needs that project management has. Especially when transformations are not
locally bounded but globally (InETM8), it is important that interaction occurs and dependencies as much as redundancies get eliminated. However, project management
cannot fully be supported by EAM since further aspects are necessary. These are for
example ownership clarification (InETM1) or staffing options concerning the needed
skills (InETM2).
B.4.3.5
Partial Fit 7–8: Analysis of Design Options
In the group “analysis of design options” we summarize the ETM activities like assessing outsourcing potentials or technology options as much as potential consolidations of organizational units or systems. Such activities can be supported by the cross
cutting transparency and EA method competence. The information contained in crosscutting transparency can be directly provided while those prevalent in EA method
competence (e.g. methods that provide sourcing support or support the post-merger
integration) need further inputs. For example, when first thinking about outsourcing,
EAM could provide already valuable information which parts of the IT systems and
which organizational units might be affected (InEAM2). It can also provide more direct guidance through method knowledge (e.g. by assisting in process modeling (InEAM5) or guiding through workshops (InEAM7)). Thus, for this area of ETM we can
identify partial support by EAM. Further information e.g. about legal issues would be
necessary and are out of EAM’s scope.
B.4.3.6
Partial Fit 9: Design of Business Components
Once the analysis is completed, new business components need to be designed (including the organizational structure, business processes, and products). The supporting actions of EA can be found mostly in the area of business transparency. Here EA is able
to quickly provide information about capabilities (InEAM4), business processes (InEAM3, InEAM5) or the business strategy (InEAM1). However, the actual design of new
business components requires more than these information artifacts. For example
products cannot be designed by EAM (even not in the insurance sector) and further
information for that is necessary.
74
B.4.3.7
Paper B – Discussion
Partial Fit 10: Change Management
Change management, “including all the soft aspects” (InETM8) is another important
part of transformation management. It is about influencing the culture (InETM1), involving the stakeholders (InETM4), explaining the change (InETM8), communication
(InETM8) or training (InETM7). Can a discipline like EAM contribute information to
this sector? Our data shows, that EAM can indeed contribute. On the EAM side we
call the information cluster “lateral coordination services”. This includes information
about stakeholders and their areas of expertise. Architects know many people in the
organization and can bring those people together. It is part of the work to make sure
that these people talk to each other and move in the same direction (InEAM4).
Further information can be provided by offering a common language, which sometimes is a necessity of EAM. When, e.g., process models are designed that should be
valid for the whole organization, common language is necessary to have consistent
models (InEAM4). Since such language is also a requirement of the ETM, a good fit
exists. However, further information that EAM cannot provide is necessary for change
management (e.g. knowledge about the culture). Hence, the fit is only a partial one.
B.4.3.8
Non-Fits: Controlling and External Relations Management
Two of the ETM groups have no (or almost no) information inputs from EAM. First, is
controlling. ETM informants were always very keen about costs (e.g. InETM5), in
most cases that was the driver for transformations. Some also considered benefits or
their measurement (e.g. InETM2). However, the EAM informants did not consider this
topic. The second group with no inputs is the external relations management. In this
group ETM deals with relations with the organization’s customers (InETM1) and their
satisfaction (that should not be affected by the transformation). Further partnering with
other companies is a topic in this area (InETM7). Again, EAM’s focus rather seems to
be an internal perspective. Environmental analysis is provided by other disciplines.
B.5 Discussion
In the previous section we have identified specific information needs that occur during
ETs. We further identified areas, where EAM provides this information or supports
creating and processing it. Our initial question was how EAM contributes to ET.
We are aware that EAM in practice differs in extent and scope in each individual organization. While some organizations focus their EAM function on IT issues only,
others also assign business-related planning and information gathering activities to
Part B – Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate
Practice
75
EAM. In some organizations architects also have authority to give directions without
further consultation with other line managers. However, no matter what scope the
EAM function has, they all contribute to successful transformations. In general the ITrelated architecture can provide the necessary input about applications and data, the
business-related one even more to business planning and project management.
There seem to be some areas where EAM could extend its usefulness when it wants to
be a transformation oriented discipline. It might be a good idea, to first focus on areas
that already have partial fits. In these areas an extension of the service seems to be easier and the risk of collision with other disciplines that are prevalent in each organization is lower. When this extension is done, people responsible for EAM may think
about an extension in areas where there is currently (almost) no EAM application. Can
EAM contribute to controlling? Can EAM contribute to manage external relations?
There may be overlaps, especially concerning modeling techniques or governance experience that could extend the range of EAM.
B.6 Summary & Outlook
In this paper we have investigated the potential of enterprise architecture management
contributing to the management of enterprise transformation. We have conducted a
qualitative study to get insights as to how EAM can contribute to the management of
ETs. Our results show ten fits between EAM and ET concerning the information needed and the information provided. Three of these fits, those relating to the design of IT
components, governance, and transformation planning are particularly strong. Further,
the analysis revealed ET information needs that cannot be met by EAM. These are related to controlling and the management of external relations in particular.
Some limitations of our study need to be addressed. We focused on one direction of
information flow: how EAM can contribute to ET. We did not consider the other direction of information flow or other disciplines apart from EAM that contribute to ET
(e.g. controlling, financials, etc.). Further, ET experts interviewed for our study all belong to the insurance sector. Other industries might have other practices concerning
transformations than the ones our informants stated. However, during our triangulation
of the identified codes with literature, no such industry bias became apparent.
In future work, we aim at building design research artifacts based on the findings
above. We aim at designing approaches for EAM that explicitly support transformations. In order to conduct such research, it is important to understand, what EAM is
76
Paper B – Summary & Outlook
currently able to achieve and where the most appropriate potentials for further development are. This study provides a foundation for that.
Acknowledgement
This work has been funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).
Part B – Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations
77
Paper C – Information Requirements for Enterprise
Transformations
Table 13:
Title
Authors &
Affiliations
Publication
Outlet
Year
Rating
Abstract
Bibliographical information of paper C
Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations
 Labusch, Nils
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
nils.labusch@unisg.ch
Architectural Coordination of Enterprise Transformation,
H.A. Proper, R. Winter, S. Aier, and S. de Kinderen (eds.),
accepted for publication, forthcoming.
2014
Not rated
Considering an information perspective during an ET is a necessary task. The paper analyses different dimensions of information
requirements and highlights related work that deals with information processing in ETs. In addition, the organizational information processing theory (OIPT) is introduced as a foundation
for the information handling during the ET. Based on this theoretical foundation, the paper further discusses how EAM can increase the information processing capability and reduce the information processing need.
C.1 Introduction
Transformation managers are concerned with many challenges (Labusch and Winter
2013; Uhl and Gollenia 2012; Ward and Uhl 2012) that are oftentimes induced by the
complexity of the transformation task (Purchase et al. 2011), the uncertainty involved
(Huy 1999), and the high amount of decisions that need to be taken during the cause of
the enterprise transformation (ET) (McGinnis 2007). In order to deal with these challenges, ET managers need to be provided with different inputs of which they need to
be aware. One of those inputs is information. An appropriate information provision
enables dealing with complexity and uncertainty by purposefully providing information to take necessary decisions.
According to Laudon and Laudon (2006, p. 14), information is “data that have been
shaped into a form that is meaningful and useful to human beings.” In contrast, data
“are streams of raw facts representing events occurring in organizations or the physical
78
Paper C – State of the Art
environment before they have been organized and arranged into a form that people can
effectively understand and use” (Laudon and Laudon 2006, p. 14). Thus, when referring to information in this section, the understanding is not limited to technical aspects
of information processing. A requirement is defined by the IEEE (1990, p. 62) as “(1)
A condition or capability needed by a user to solve a problem or achieve an objective.
(2) A condition or capability that must be met or possessed by a system or system
component to satisfy a contract, standard, specification, or other formally imposed
documents. (3) A documented representation of a condition or capability as in (1) or
(2).” In consequence, an information requirement describes information that is needed
by a user to achieve an objective. The most substantial objective in terms of ACET is
to take meaningful decisions that enable the success of the ET.
Managerial information provision can face serious problems. Fredenberger et al.
(1997) mention examples like piecemeal information formats, faulty presentations,
information irrelevant to problems, or non-timely information provisioning.
Processing information and providing an overview of organizational dependencies is
one of the major tasks of enterprise architecture management (EAM) (Boh and Yellin
2007; Strano and Rehmani 2007). For this reason, the information perspective is valuable in terms of the ACET research. The role of the enterprise architect is considered
“one of making order out of chaos by taking the overwhelming amount of information
available and presenting it in a manner that enables effective decision-making” (Strano
and Rehmani 2007, p. 392). Solid foundations have emerged about information processing mechanisms in organizations, most considerably the organizational information processing theory (OIPT) (Clark et al. 2006; Galbraith 1974; Premkumar et al.
2005; Tushman and Nadler 1978).
This section proceeds as follows: In the second part, an overview of the related state of
the art is provided. Dimensions of ET-relevant information are introduced in the third
part. Part four emphasizes the information processing in the organization. Part five
asks how EAM can contribute to information processing and thus provides a foundation for the following book chapters.
C.2 State of the Art
When transforming an enterprise, a high number of decisions need to be taken
(McGinnis 2007). To take these decisions, manifold information has to be collected,
consolidated and processed (Fry et al. 2005; Singh et al. 2011). A major success factor
during an ET is being aware of the importance of information requirements. A McKin-
Part B – Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations
79
sey study with more than 2000 participants (Kitching and Roy 2013) finds that having
information about the progress of an ET accounts for a four times higher likelihood of
success. Kilmann (1995) recognizes a dysfunctional information provision, for example, by purposefully withholding information as a major hinderer of transformation.
He considers the willingness to exchange information as a prerequisite to conduct successful ETs. McAdam (2003) identifies sharing and exchanging information as an important part in the human resources management during an ET. Rouse and Baba (2006,
p. 69) state that decision-making processes in ETs “can be substantially improved by
making them evidence based or data driven, thereby enhancing the quality and timeliness of resource allocation decisions.”
Information requirements have been a topic in IS for a long time, especially in the context of Executive or Management Information Systems. For this purpose, frameworks
exist that strive after helping to determine the appropriate information requirements
(Byrd et al. 1992; Gordon and Miller 1976; Gorry and Scott Morton 1971; Yadav
1985). The claimed goal in this research stream is “determining correct and complete
information requirements” (Byrd et al. 1992, p. 118). Early analysis of requirements is
considered to be a success factor for IT implementation by many top-level managers
(Byrd et al. 1992). However, determining such requirements is described as a difficult
challenge since managers have not much time to articulate their information requirements (Watson and Frolick 1993).
Nevertheless, the mentioned frameworks provide rather abstract guidance. In addition,
they focus mainly on financial aspects of managerial tasks and on supporting the daily
business instead of ET. Fredenberger et al. (1997) provide a framework that is more
specifically designed for the purpose of ET. Its focus is on the analysis of information
requirements that intermediary managers (thus, managers that are responsible to turn
around a company being in a crisis) pose. According to the authors, dealing with crisis
management differs from regular management: partners are less benevolent (due to the
financial losses incurred), and time is scarce. Therefore, different planning and control
processes are needed. Fredenberger et al’s (1997) framework still puts a focus on financial information requirements and identifies, among others, information about financials, expenses, costs, personnel, market working capital, and assets as important.
Summarized, the existing frameworks and related literature on information requirements provide a rather finance-oriented perspective and seldom focus explicitly on
ETs. Information about strategy, structure, systems, people, and culture especially
needs to be processed and available to lever the transformation process (By 2007).
80
Paper C – Dimensions of Information Requirements
Thus, information requirements should be identified while keeping this purpose in
mind. In the following part, dimensions of information requirements in ETs are discussed.
C.3 Dimensions of Information Requirements
Information requirements can be posed in different dimensions during an ET. A clarification is necessary to understand how the term “information” should be interpreted in
the ACET context. Rough guidance for this discussion is drawn from socio-technical
systems theory (Bostrom and Heinen 1977) that distinguishes people, tasks, technology and structure as important constructs of a socio-technical system (like the organization that is affected of the ET).
C.3.1
People: Consumers of the Information
During the course of an ET, a lot of stakeholders require information. In general terms,
those who are leading the ET and those who are affected can be distinguished (Stiles et
al. 2012).
Concerning the latter, traditional change management strongly emphasizes appropriate
change communication (Kotter 1995). Establishing communication plans and stories is
part of almost all change frameworks (e.g. Keller and Price 2011; Uhl and Gollenia
2012). The information that stakeholders may need differs depending on their position
(Prosci 2014): Employees first need to be informed about the reasons of the change,
direct consequences for themselves, the change process and later on about the details.
Supervisors and middle-managers, in addition, need to be informed about roles during
the ET. For senior management, the information has to be more aggregated. For example, details about the ET are only relevant on an aggregate level instead of very detailed process or procedure-related information. Aside from the internal stakeholders,
customers and other external parties need information to adapt their processes and behaviour (Davidson 1993).
The stakeholders that are, apart from the senior management, in charge of the ET
could be subsumed as ET management (ETM). Stakeholders of this group deal with
managing the ET (Stiles et al. 2012). This group needs a holistic overview and is responsible for managing the information provision to other groups. If information does
not exist, the ETM needs to collect, consolidate and generate it. While in large enterprises this role might exist strictly separated from others (like portfolio management,
project management, business engineering), in medium to small enterprises, such a
Part B – Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations
81
strict distinction does usually not exist. Thus, in practice, the role of the ET manager is
often not directly mentioned – a search on LinkedIn in July 2014 revealed a total of
8.314 transformation managers but almost five million project managers on the platform. Thus, our understanding of the ET manager (or the ET management team) includes people that have the best overview of the ET. It heavily depends on the specific
ET, who the best person is that should be addressed and who has information requirements that come closest to the information requirements of the role ETM. Addressing
such managers and collecting their information requirements in practice is a challenging task due to the usually high workload that these experts have to perform (Watson
and Frolick 1993).
C.3.2
Structure: Organizational Scope of the Information
ET-relevant information may be required concerning different organizational scopes,
some of which are illustrated in Figure 11.
Environment
Organization
Transformation
Group
Stakeholder / Individual
Figure 11:
Organisational scopes of information
Information concerning the environment of the organization (also referred to as external information (Watson and Frolick 1993)) may include regulatory standards, customer related information, etc. Such information may traditionally be received by trade
journals, contacts in industry, customers, etc. (Watson and Frolick 1993). Information
concerning the organization may include lots of pieces that are related to the current
state. Some examples are the current organizational units, processes, the culture, ET
history, etc. Such information is oftentimes collected by conducting meetings (Watson
and Frolick 1993). On the ET level, a multitude of relevant information may be collected, such as planned changes, projects, etc. Information about groups may focus on
different departments, teams and other sub-groups of the organization that are affected
by an ET (Gersick 1991). Information about stakeholders is comparably hard to gather,
but ETM still needs to cover this perspective up to a certain degree.
82
C.3.3
Paper C – Information Processing during Enterprise Transformations
Task: Purpose of the Information
Information is required for different tasks during ETs. Abraham et al. (2013b) consider
enterprises as systems in which several feedback loops run in parallel. Based on
Åström and Murray (2008) they consider management as a cyclic feedback loop that
involves transforming an enterprise. Based on this perspective, the organization can be
described by observable variables. Information about these variables flows to the responsible organizational actors. During the ET, a subset of the observable variables,
the controllable variables of the enterprise, are changed. This means, information
about the necessary changes is provided as feedback to the organization. In the described case, the information has a steering function. It is not used to form a decision
but it already represents the final decision (see Yadav (1985) for an explication of the
decision process).
The information could already be relevant during an earlier stage in the decision process – when the decision is not yet taken but information is required to thoroughly take
the decision and consider different scenarios. Here information conducts rather an informing task. The information could be further differentiated into those that directly
have an effect on how to take the decision (e.g., a standard that needs to be applied)
and those that only support the decision process (e.g., the number of affected employees).
C.3.4
Technology: Detail of the Information
Information can be required in different levels of detail. The technology dimension is
related to this degree of detail that the information is comprised of. Available information could be very detailed, e.g. down to single technical attributes. In terms of the
ACET project, it seems to be appropriate to rather consider a wide and, thus, less detailed perspective on ET. Information is rather addressed on a high degree of abstraction containing less detail. This abstract information needs to be broken down to the
level of a specific ET or specific systems that are supposed to be developed.
C.4 Information Processing during Enterprise Transformations
After explicating possible dimensions of information requirements, special attention is
needed on explicating how information is shared and value is created. The ET manager
needs to understand how information is processed in the enterprise during the ET and
Part B – Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations
83
he or she needs to know which of these information is relevant for the management
tasks.
The well-established organizational information processing theory (OIPT) (Galbraith
1974; Galbraith 1977) stresses three important issues: an organization’s information
processing need, its information processing capability, and the fit between both. The
OIPT applies to large organizations that are comprised of many specialist groups and
resources who provide the output. These groups perform group-interdependent subtasks. However, the task performers are not able to communicate with all other dependent tasks performers in the organization. Thus, mechanisms need to be established
that allow for a coordination of the different groups and handling uncertainty. Some
basic mechanisms are prevalent in almost every organization: (1) Coordination by
rules or programs, suitable for routine tasks that occur in a very predictable manner
and can be precisely described, (2) hierarchy, suitable for higher levels of uncertainty,
(3) coordination by targets and goals, suitable for very high levels of uncertainty.
The described mechanisms become problematic when uncertainty increases and too
many exceptions occur (e.g., during transformations). Rules, for example, are only
efficient if situations are foreseen and already documented. Hierarchy may become
overloaded when too many exceptions occur (since supervisors are overloaded with
decision workload). Coordination by goals and sub goals only works well when these
are properly defined.
When transformation occurs, uncertainty increases and so does the amount of information that needs to be processed (Galbraith 1974). How far information needs to be
processed depends on the individual corporate environment and organizational structure. Tushman and Nadler (1978) differentiate the tasks that need to be conducted by
different properties: subunit task characteristics (are the tasks predictable?), subunit
task environment (is the environment often changing?), inter-unit task interdependence
(how dependent is the subunit from others?). They further argue that organismic (and
thus more self-organizing) structures can better cope with an increased information
processing need than mechanistic ones. However, this comes at the costs of less control and potentially slower response time.
No matter how well the organization is able to deal with a certain level of information
processing need, if an ET occurs, the current configuration of processing need and capability needs to be adjusted. The theory provides mechanisms that help to reduce the
processing need and those to increase processing capability. The first mechanism to
84
Paper C – Information Provision in the Context of ACET
reduce the processing need is the creation of slack resources. This may include increasing budgets to decrease the interdependence of business units. The result would
be a planned redundancy. The second proposed mechanism is the creation of selfcontained tasks (e.g., change organization from resource-based to output-based by organizing the hierarchy by products instead of functions).
When the information processing need cannot be lowered and no longer handled by
the existing structures, the capability of the organization to deal with the new circumstances needs to be increased. For this purpose, two mechanisms are proposed by the
theory. First, the organization could conduct investments in vertical information systems. This means, to introduce systems that allow transferring decision relevant information faster to decision makers that are positioned higher in the hierarchy. Such systems can be IT systems but also organizational roles like assistants or support departments. The mechanism works especially well with information that is easy to quantify
and formalize. The second introduced mechanism is the creation of lateral relationships (establishing joint decisions by establishing teams, task forces or direct contacts
that range across the lines of authority but do not escalate necessary decisions within
the hierarchy). The mechanism attempts to avoid overloading of the hierarchy by increasing the information processing capability on lower levels. This mechanism is especially realized in matrix organizations that have different lines of authority.
To decide which mechanisms to apply, detailed information about the current information processing and the anticipated information processing need are necessary.
Hereby not only the sheer mass of information is important, but also information that
reduces equivocality (Daft and Lengel 1986) (i.e., reducing the amount of different
interpretations). Managers need to apply their experience to interpret the information
cues or discuss them to achieve a common understanding of the situation (Daft and
Lengel 1986).
C.5 Information Provision in the Context of ACET
In this section, the potentials of EAM to support the described information provision
during ET are elaborated. Not every kind of information is suitable to be provided by
EAM. Figure 12 provides a first draft on how information requirements that are supported by EAM might be limited.
Part B – Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations
85
Information
Consumers
All via ET Management
Scope
Focus on organisation and
transformation
Purpose
Mostly informing, partially
steering
Details
Different degrees of detail.
On average less detailed.
Figure 12:
Information characteristics
Basically, information that is provided by EAM arrives, in some sort, for all stakeholders in the end. However, in the first place, the ET management seems to be the
primary consumer during a transformation. Since the steering mandate is oftentimes
given to the ET management, information in most cases serves the purpose of being
informative rather than directly steering. The scope of EAM is on the organisation and
the transformation initiative rather than on the environment or individual stakeholders
or groups. Information may be provided with different amounts of details depending
on the topic area. For example, information about IT systems might be provided in a
very detailed way while information about business goals is less available.
Information provision is not a simple task. Information is not just handed over at a certain point of time from the supplier to the consumer. Instead, the information supplier
(in this case EAM), is involved during many process steps of information processing.
Corner et al. (1994) as well as Clark et al. (2006) distinguish different steps that information processing is comprised of. While the first authors describe a strategic context and distinguish encoding, storage/retrieval, decision, action and outcome; the latter suggest information generation, dissemination and interpretation. Thus, information
processing is not one single activity, but a complex process that needs different supportive means. Figure 13 discusses how information processing is conducted and
where EAM could be involved.
86
Paper C – Information Provision in the Context of ACET
Interpreting and understanding information, risk of bias due to
individually existing knowledge.
Encoding
Storage/
Retrieval
EAM is able to support the encoding of information by communicating with
many stakeholders and collecting information about business and IT
structures.
Preservation of interpreted information and retrieval if strategic
decision is necessary. Risk of lost information due to insufficient
storage mechanisms.
Due to manifold modelling and documentation techniques that were
developed, EAM is very mature in storing and retrieving information.
Based on information retrieved from storage, decisions emerge from
former process steps.
Decision
EAM is involved in decisions but is not supposed to be the decision taker.
The final decision is with the ET management.
Enactment of a strategic decision.
The responsibility for the “action” is not with EAM but with the
transformation management.
Action
Result of the decision enactment, for example, performance
evaluations or individual feedback.
Outcome
EAM could be involved in qualitative evaluations of the outcome. These
could be documented as lessons learned in the encoding step again.
Well supportable
by EAM
Figure 13:
Less supportable
by EAM
Almost not supportable by
EAM
Information processing steps and EAM support
(based on Corner et al. 1994)
EAM can be used to overcome the information processing issues to support some of
the mechanisms that OIPT proposes. When referring to the reduction of information
processing need, the creation of slack resources cannot be supported by EAM – here
the strategy is simply “add more resources.” The creation of self-contained tasks,
however, provides more opportunities for EAM. The goal is reshaping the tasks in the
enterprise during the ET. Such a restructuration would require deep and fundamental
knowledge about the organization itself. Here EAM seems to be able to provide input.
The core of the discipline is the knowledge about fundamental structures of the organ-
Part B – Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations
87
ization – business or IT structures. The third proposed mechanism is managing the
environment. The mechanism refers to influencing media or politics to achieve the organization’s goal to reduce information processing. Here EAM seems to be unable to
provide valuable support.
Table 14:
EAM support of ETs: Reduction of the information processing need
Mechanism
EAM Support
Creation of
slack resources
Creation of selfcontained tasks
Mechanism in general seems not to be efficient and rather to be
an emergency solution. Thus, not suitable for EAM support.
Mechanism is not trivial to establish since a lot of knowledge
about corporate structures and conducted tasks is necessary.
Since EAM is able to provide plenty of information about the
corporate structures (e.g. applications, processes, goals), the
mechanism has the potential to be supported by EAM.
Rather influenced by public relations or lobbying, not the domain of EAM.
Management of
the environment
On the other side, to increase the information processing capability, the organization
could invest in vertical information systems. To support this mechanism, an EAM
would be required that collects information and provides them to the management.
Enabling other stakeholders in the organization to take their own informed decisions
would not be in focus. EAM could also be involved by providing foundations for IT
systems that enable the faster information transfer.
The second introduced mechanism is the creation of lateral relationships. To support
the introduction of the second mechanism, EAM would need to enable not only the
top-management to take decisions but also line managers or even lower-level employees. Such a source of information for everybody could be used as foundation for the
necessary coordination (Abraham et al. 2012a). See a summary in Table 15.
88
Table 15:
Paper C – Summary and Discussion
EAM support of ETs: Increase of the information processing capability
Mechanism
EAM Support
Investment in
vertical information systems
EAM collects information and quickly provides information to
top management. In addition, EAM could provide information
that is necessary to introduce information technology that also
aims at providing top management information.
For this mechanism, a business-oriented EAM would be necessary. Based on capability or process documentations, EAM
could help to determine how teams should be staffed and guide
their coordination without intervention by higher levels of the
hierarchy.
Creation of
lateral relationships
C.6 Summary and Discussion
In this section, information requirements as a concept were analysed and the organizational information processing theory was introduced. Further, the section examined,
where and how EAM could occur in the information processing in organisations. On
the one hand, the analysis provides understanding about the challenges and mechanisms that occur during a transformation from an information perspective. On the other hand, the analysis raises further questions about the role that EAM plays or might be
able to play.
In general, determining the information requirements is a difficult task. Lohman et al.
(2003) identify different pitfalls in this endeavour: data availability and quality does
not meet requirements, requested and provided information are unrelated, information
needs are poorly assessed, information is used in a non-performance increasing manner. To address some of these problems, an RM for information requirements is developed in section 4.3.3.3. Such models lower efforts since they are reusable and contain
best-practices (Fettke and Loos 2007).
In addition, the analysis reveals three major areas where EAM could be able to provide
ETM support from an information perspective. First, EAM is involved in the general
information processing that an organization conducts all the time (and not just during
ETs) in addition to other departments and disciplines. Especially concerning information encoding and storage/retrieval, EAM seems to be able to provide value. Second, in terms of lowering the information processing need that occurs during a transformation, EAM can be involved in designing better suited tasks. For this purpose,
information about processes, projects and relations between stakeholders need to be
provided by a business-oriented EAM. Third, when the information processing need
Part B – Information Requirements for Enterprise Transformations
89
cannot be lowered any longer, EAM is able to provide value to both proposed mechanisms that increase the information processing capability of the organization.
However, while the theoretical analysis shows the value of EAM for the management
of ETs in general, concrete guidance for practitioners or scientists cannot be derived at
the current state. The theoretical lens instead raises questions: Which information can
EAM exactly provide? Which information do ET managers in specific types of ETs
exactly need? Is the same information always needed, or is different information requested in the different types of transformation? What can architects do in addition to
the currently known EAM approaches to further extend the value of EAM? The book
at hand is going to provide answers and thoughts in the following chapters.
90
Paper D – Introduction
Paper D – A Reference Model for the InformationBased Support of Enterprise Transformations
Table 16:
Title
Authors &
Affiliations
Publication
Outlet
Year
Rating
Abstract
Bibliographical information of paper D
A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of
Enterprise Transformations
 Labusch, Nils
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
nils.labusch@unisg.ch
 Aier, Stephan
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
stephan.aier@unisg.ch
 Winter, Robert
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management,
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
robert.winter@unisg.ch
Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Design Science
Research in Information Systems and Technologies (DESRIST
2014), M.C. Tremblay, D. van der Meer, M. Rothenberger, A.
Gupta, and V. Yoon (eds.), Miami, FL, United States, pp. 194208., M.C. Tremblay, D. VanderMeer, M. Rothenberger, A. Gupta, and V. Yoon (eds.), Miami, FL, pp. 194-208.
2014
C (Lecture Notes in Computer Science)
Enterprises from time to time have to go through radical changes,
oftentimes referred to as enterprise transformations (ETs). Depending on the type of ET that is conducted, different information
requirements exist. In order to support ETs, a reference information model should therefore distinguish different ET types.
Based on the empirical analysis of ETs that is used to determine
four ET types with different information requirements, we construct such a reference model in the paper at hand. The application of the model is exemplified with the case of enterprise architecture management as an information provider.
D.1 Introduction
Enterprises from time to time have to go through changes that are not routine but fundamental and radical. These changes are designated as enterprise transformations
Part B – A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of Enterprise
Transformations
91
(ETs) (Rouse 2005b). ETs substantially alter an organization’s relationships with its
key constituencies like customers or suppliers (Rouse 2005b). Examples of such fundamental changes are adaptions of the business model (Aspara et al. 2011), mergers
and acquisitions (Johnston and Madura 2000), or introductions and replacements of
enterprise-wide information technology (Bhattacharya et al. 2010; Hock-Hai Teo et al.
1997; Sarker and Lee 1999). Conducting ETs is challenging and many efforts fail
(Kotter 1995; Sarker and Lee 1999). ETs are also discussed under the terms “business
transformation” (Ash and Burn 2003; Ashurst and Hodges 2010; Daniel and Wilson
2003; Davidson 1993) or “organizational transformation” (Dixon et al. 2010; HockHai Teo et al. 1997; Orlikowski 1996; Romanelli and Tushman 1994).
Research concerning ETs is conducted since decades in different research disciplines;
including information systems (IS) research. However, Besson & Rowe (2012) conclude that past and current work mostly focusses on psychological and socio-cognitive
inertia (e.g., employee resistance) – socio-technical and economic inertia are underestimated, or seem to be overlooked in ET research. We thus consider ETs a topic that
offers huge research potentials for IS researchers due to the holistic perspective that IS
can offer about people, tasks, and technology. Supporting ET managers with this perspective also provides significant potentials for practice.
During an ET, many stakeholders are involved which have extensive and diverse information requirements. These oftentimes need to be fulfilled by ET managers (e.g.,
program managers, C-level executives). Providing decision relevant information for an
ET is a mission critical task (Galbraith 1974) and the availability of information at the
right time to monitor and troubleshot the ET is described as a major success factor
(Keller et al. 2010).
ET information requirements can be met by sourcing and integrating information from
many different information systems. Since ETs affect the entire enterprise, the most
important information is usually sourced from enterprise-wide information systems
like transactional (ERP) systems, data warehouses, function-specific information systems (e.g., Human Relations), or project/program management IS. Important sources
of information are systems that are already build to support enterprise-wide coordination – like, e.g., Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) information systems. In
order to utilize these systems in an ET, an information reference model would be helpful, that allows identifying the relevant information requirements.
92
Paper D – Related Work
However, depending on their drivers, their criticality, affected functions, and other
contingencies, ETs are very different. As a consequence, the information requirements
of ETs are different. Therefore we need to understand the different types of ET from
an information perspective in order to provide appropriate and tailored information
support. Our goal therefore is not to propose a ‘one size fits all’ information reference
model for ET support, but instead to leverage the knowledge prevalent in design science research to construct a reference information model that allows distinguishing
different ET types. Thus, we pose the following research question:
RQ:
How can information requirements in ETs be structured in a reference
information model that allows distinguishing different ET types?
We proceed as follows: We discuss related work in section two. We go on with introducing our research and design approach. We present results from the classification
process of ETs from an information requirements perspective in section four. A
demonstration based on EAM as an information provider is presented in section five.
The paper is concluded with a summary and limitations in section six.
D.2 Related Work
In academic research, typically two understandings of change are prevalent
(Wischnevsky and Damanpour 2005): On the one hand, evolutionary views assume
that organizational change is incremental and continuous. Fundamental differences
result from the accumulation of small changes over long periods. On the other hand,
punctuated equilibrium models (Gersick 1991) assume that fundamental organizational
change occurs in short periods of discontinuous, revolutionary change, which punctuate long eras of relative stability represented by incremental, convergent changes
(Romanelli and Tushman 1994).
ET research is rooted in the latter research stream. Examples of such fundamental
changes are ETs of the business model (Aspara et al. 2011), mergers & acquisitions
(Johnston and Madura 2000), or introductions and replacements of enterprise-wide IT
systems (Bhattacharya et al. 2010; Hock-Hai Teo et al. 1997; Sarker and Lee 1999).
Especially because of the latter example and the assumed potential of IT to impose
ETs (Cooper 2000), the topic gains attention in the IS community (e.g., Sammon and
Adam 2008; Thorogood et al. 2010).
When transforming an enterprise, a high number of decisions, some of them with major consequences, have to be taken. In order to take these decisions on a thorough
Part B – A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of Enterprise
Transformations
93
foundation, manifold information has to be collected and consolidated in short time
(Fry et al. 2005; Klein and Krcmar 2003; Singh et al. 2011; Tichy 1983). Thus, a fit
between the information requirements and the information provision is crucial
(Galbraith 1973; Galbraith 1974; Galbraith 1977; Galbraith 2002).
However, what is missing in order to take appropriate design decisions for the information provision are details about the information needed most. Thus, a classification
is valuable that allows distinguishing different types of ETs and explicates the occurring information demands. While very few classifications exist in order to distinguish
ETs (e.g., Rouse 2005b), none of them classifies ETs from an information requirements perspective. We aim at closing these gaps by understanding, which types of ET
exist from an information requirements perspective and providing an information reference model for ETs.
Reference models are well-known in IS research. Such a model is considered to be a
conceptual framework that can be used as a draft for IS design and development
(Fettke and Loos 2007). Reference models exist for different areas, e.g., logistics
(Holten and Melchert 2002) or quality management (European Foundation for Quality
Management 1999). In order to be useful, reference models need to be adaptable to
certain situations in an efficient manner and thus need to provide guidance on their
adaption (Becker et al. 2007a). We aim at integrating the determined ET types in order
to simplify the adaption and configuration of the proposed model.
D.3 Research Approach
Existing classifications of ETs focus on the respective goals, not on information requirements. However, to allow for a tailoring of information systems concerning the
information requirements of an ET, we need a classification that is based on these requirements (and not, e.g., the ET goals). In order to derive such a classification and to
identify ET types based on the information requirements, we base our research process
on the guidance given by Winter (2011c) and Bucher et al. (2007).
D.3.1
Identification of Contingency Factors and Information Requirements
In order to understand the diversity of ETs, we need to identify relevant contingency
factors and information requirements. Basically, these are differentiated into three
94
Paper D – Research Approach
groups: the environment of the ET (“the organization”), the ET itself (goals, reasons,
figures, etc.) and the information requirements of ET managers.
In order to identify contingency factors concerning the ET and the organization, we
conducted a literature survey in databases (EBSCO and ISI) and top journals of information systems and management science. We followed the Basket of Eight
(Association for Information Systems 2011) (eight journals) and the European JOURQUAL ranking (Schrader and Hennig-Thurau 2009) (journals ranked equal or higher
than B in the partial rankings information systems (26 journals) and management (21
journals)). We applied the search term “(((organizational OR enterprise OR business
OR radical) AND transformation) OR “radical change“)” in the title in combination
with the term “(type* OR archetype* OR class* OR categor* OR taxonom* OR segment* OR dimension*)“ in the abstract. The search revealed 397 results in total, after
reviewing the abstracts; we considered 23 papers relevant for further analysis. We further included sources from forward and backward analysis. We surveyed these sources
(mostly empirical studies or cases) in detail, in order to extract concrete contingency
factors for the analysis. Examples are goals of the ET (Baumöl 2005), affected departments (Porter 1985), reasons for the ET (Romanelli and Tushman 1994), and figures like the involved resources (e.g. eurostat 2008).
In order to analyze the information requirements during ETs, we incorporate work that
we conducted earlier. In two papers we identified information needs that ET managers
potentially would have. One study is based on literature (Labusch and Winter 2013)
the other on interviews with experts (Labusch et al. 2014a). We consolidate the identified information items from the studies above in one list (see the provided information
model in figure 2 for details) with different groups of information and the single information requirements. This list is provided to the ET experts as part of the study.
The goal is to identify, whether all of these information requirements were existing
during all ETs, or if differences could be identified.
D.3.2
Empirical Analysis
We provided the contingency factors and information objects to four practitioners in
one organization in order to evaluate if they were comprehensible and if major aspects
were missing. The participants had different job positions that deal with ETs (e.g., project managers, process manager). We wanted to make sure that the contingency factors
and information objects are unambiguous and can be judged in reasonable time. During this pilot phase we noticed that filling in the questionnaire takes about 30 minutes.
Part B – A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of Enterprise
Transformations
95
Due to the complexity of the problem domain we consider this amount of time reasonable.
During the pilot phase some information objects needed to be rephrased to increase
their clearness and to preserve the meanings from the source papers. In addition, this
pretest was meant to identify further contingency factors or information objects that
we would need to add. Interestingly, no more factors were added by the experts, which
might serve as a quality indicator for the ones we originally choose.
After the pre-test, we provided the questionnaire to a total of 30 highly knowledgeable
informants that are able to describe ETs as the unit of analysis. These were for example ET managers, CEOs, or program managers. The informants were asked to rate the
items based on a five point Likert scale (Likert 1932). We were able to collect data
from a variety of industries (see Table 17, multiple answers allowed). We consider
including multiple industries an advantage due to avoiding industry-specific bias and
thus increasing the general applicability of the artifact.
Table 17:
Overview of participating industries
Industry
Amount
Education
Power Supply
Financial Services
Healthcare
Information & Communication
Production
Transport & Logistics
Insurance
Other
1
7
6
3
8
4
1
2
3
D.4 Design Process
D.4.1
Identification of Enterprise Transformation Types
We conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward’s method, squared Euclidian distance) based on the information requirements illustrated above (see the concrete information items in Figure 15). In order to use as many cases as possible for the analysis, we handled missing values by replacing the missing with column (variable) means.
96
Paper D – Design Process
If more than 10% of values were missing, we omitted the case. This procedure left us
with 21 ETs that were used for the cluster analysis.
An important challenge when designing a reference model is to determine the number
of configurations it supports. Whenever too many configurations exist, the number of
organizations decreases were a particular configuration can be applied. A ‘one size fits
all’ model or a model that supports too few configurations, on the other hand, is not
considered to be useful because specific requirements cannot be met to a sufficient
extent (Becker et al. 2002; vom Brocke and Thomas 2006). We determined the number of configurations for our model based on the goal to provide meaningful guidance
for the ET support but at the same time adhere to statistical criteria.
A two cluster solution would have been most appropriate concerning the cluster distance (measured by the squared Euclidian distance). However, with this configuration,
cluster one would contain two cases while the second cluster would contain the others.
With a three cluster solution, clusters would not be a helpful foundation for design
since differences of information requirements among the clusters were not concise. In
the four cluster solution, clusters are more differentiated concerning their information
requirements and hence provide more appropriate guidance for the design step. Five or
six cluster solutions do not provide enough differences to warrant another differentiation in the following model design. In consequence, we choose a four cluster solution
to guide the following design steps. Figure 14 provides an overview of the summarized
mean values in the respective groups of information.
IT Structure
Risks
Strategy
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Goals
Business Structure
Stakeholders
Project Portfolio
C1: Strategic Alignment
C2: Market Alignment
Performance
Social Factors
Figure 14:
Design Options
Methods
C3: Management Driven
C4: Operational Optimization
Information demands in the different clusters
Part B – A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of Enterprise
Transformations
97
Cluster one, strategic alignment, represents ETs that are driven by strategic changes or
the introduction of new products and necessary changes in the IT. Corporate management, but also IT departments guide these ETs. The strongest goal is optimization
(thus, achieving more efficiency, e.g., in processes or IT systems). A second goal is
increasing the flexibility of the company (thus, being able to react to future changes in
the market environment). Information that was considered most important in this cluster is related to strategy (e.g., business strategy, ET drivers) or goals (e.g., goal descriptions). Information that was considered least important is about locations, information relevant to outsourcing, information about affected stakeholders. Furthermore,
information about shareholders, suppliers, internal guidelines, and IT security were of
least importance. The average level of information considered necessary, is rather in
the middle (compared to the other clusters).
Cluster two, market alignment ETs, represents ETs that are driven by the introduction
of new products and services or by changes of the addressed market segments. ETs are
guided by corporate management and marketing departments. It seems to be consequent that goals of these ETs are mostly repositioning in the market and optimization
of internal structures. Thus, in this cluster, the changes in the market environment already happened and triggered a respective reaction by the organization. On average,
the information requirement in cluster two is higher than in the first one. Information
that is considered to be important in this cluster is similar to the strategic alignment
cluster concerning the top-most important ones – especially concerning strategy and
goals. However, some information is important that is highly related to the clusterspecific goals, e.g., skills of employees, product portfolio, legislative rules, customers,
etc. Less important information is about benefits, current costs as much as quantitative
and qualitative monitoring of the success.
Cluster three, management-driven ETs, represents ETs that are driven by changes in
corporate management and changes of the company structure. They are guided by corporate management. The strongest goal is repositioning. For this kind of ETs the market environment, an overview of projects, redundancies between those projects, etc.
were considerably important. However, most values about the importance of the information are very small compared to the other clusters and the overall average of the
dataset. ETs in this cluster do not need much information because they are conducted
by managers that rely solely on their experience implementing their vision about the
98
Paper D – Design Process
organization. Thus, from an information perspective, the support in this cluster can
only occur on a very low level.
The ETs represented by cluster four, operational optimizations are driven by changes
of the environment (e.g., legal-wise) and by necessary adaptations of supporting IT
systems. Additional drivers are performance crises or structural changes in the company. It is not surprising that such ETs are guided by the technology/IT departments and
the corporate management. The main goal is optimization, partially also repositioning.
Most important information that is specific in this cluster is about applications,
IT infrastructure, redundancies between projects, capabilities of employees, processes,
etc. What are considered least important information are ET drivers, market environment, and most information about external stakeholders. Thus, the ETs that are described in this cluster are mostly internally visible and external impact is less considered.
Based on the findings from literature and the empirical analysis, we are able to design
a reference model that consolidates these findings.
D.4.2
Design of an Enterprise Transformation Information Model
We used the clusters above, in order to provide guidance, which information are most
considerable in which ET type. We found the median to be an appropriate decision
criterion due to its stability concerning outliers. When the information item was rated
with the median value itself, it was included in the ET type. Thus, the model below
(Figure 15) allows for configuration of information systems concerning the four differentiated ET types. This allows for a much more efficient application of the model
depending on the ET type, the organization has to conduct.
The model is comprised of eleven information groups that contain more detailed information items. For each information item an indicator label is assigned that provides
configuration guidance. Each ET is supposed to mostly belong to one of the clusters
introduced above. Once the ET type is determined, the indicator color next to the information item provides guidance about the relevance of the information item for this
specific ET type. When the indicator is colored white, the information item is not relevant for the corresponding cluster. Consider for example the information item “important steps” in the “strategy” information group. It is relevant for all types of ET,
except the management-driven (Cluster 3) ones.
Part B – A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of Enterprise
Transformations
Strategy
Goals
Important steps
(e.g. roadmap)
Market situation
Drivers
Business Strategy
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
Transformation goal
description
Business requirements
Plan costs (budget)
Business case for the
transformation
Business Structure
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
Processes
Organizational
structure
Product portfolio
Locations
Business functions
Design Options
Project Portfolio
T1
T2
T3
T4
Redundancies among
projects
T1
T2
T3
T4
Dependencies
between projects
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
Projects
Project roles
Skills of employees
Solution ideas
Outsourcing potentials
Evaluated technology
Consolidation
potentials
Cultural change
(necessary activities)
Common language
Communication
strategy
Trainings
Transformation
history
Organizational culture
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
Performance
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
Methods
Transformation
methods
Business partners
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
(qualitative) success
metrics
T1
T2
T3
T4
(quantitative) success
metrics
T1
T2
T3
T4
As-Is costs
Stakeholder
characteristics
Capabilities of the
organization
T1
Stakeholders
Benefits of the
transformation
Social Factors
99
Risks
Assessed risks
Legal regulations
Security aspects
Internal guidelines/
standards
Suppliers
Customers
(Frame-) Contracts
Internal stakeholders
of the transformation
IT Structure
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
Data structures
Applications (incl.
interfaces)
IT-Infrastructure
IT-Security aspects
Information important for this type
T1: Strategic ALignment
T3: Management Driven
Information not important for this type
T2: Market Alignment
T4: Operational Optimization
Figure 15:
ET reference information model
100
Paper D – Demonstration: EAM as a Configurable Information Provider for Enterprise
Transformations
Due to the level of abstraction in the model, we do not provide detailed relations between the information groups, since information needs to be combined and exchanged
in many ways that are depending on the concrete ET in the concrete organization. In
very broad terms, the information groups relate together as follows: In order to prepare
a sufficient strategy for the ET, the transformation’s most important steps, its market
environment, its drivers, and the business strategy are needed to be known. Based on
the ET strategy, ET managers need to determine the goals of the ET. Strategy and
goals of the ET define how the ET changes business and IT structures. Based on the
goals, strategy, and existing structures, different design options can be proposed and
evaluated. Operationally, the ET has to be broken down in projects and project portfolios that leverage the available skills and resources. During the ET, the performance
needs to be monitored. Different stakeholders that are involved in the ET need to be
known and addressed. They impose social factors that heavily influence the ET. In
order to ensure the success of the ET, risks need to be assessed and handled. All of the
above aspects can be improved by applying methods that are designed in order to support ETs.
In concrete ETs, however, organizations need to further discuss and evaluate the model concerning their particular ET. In addition, organizations need to determine, which
departments, disciplines, or information systems can provide which information that is
considered to be necessary. On the other hand, designers of, e.g., information systems
can use the model to analyze, in which ETs their system could be applied and add value. We use the IS enterprise architecture management (EAM) in order to demonstrate
its role for the information supply in different ETs in the next section.
D.5 Demonstration: EAM as a Configurable Information
Provider for Enterprise Transformations
In this section, we demonstrate, how the model designed before can be used in order to
determine, if an IS could be used to support an ET. Further, we demonstrate how it can
contribute to the information provision. We take EAM as an example for an IS artifact
that can be tailored concerning different ET information requirements.
Enterprise architecture (EA) as such is understood as (1) the fundamental structure of a
government agency or a corporation, either as a whole, or together with partners, suppliers, and/or customers as well as (2) the principles governing its design and evolution
(The Open Group 2011; Winter and Fischer 2007). Enterprise architecture manage-
Part B – A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of Enterprise
Transformations
101
ment (EAM) is concerned with the establishment and continuous development of EA
in order to consistently respond to business and IT goals, opportunities, and necessities
(Aier et al. 2011).
Since ETs occur, when the deep structure of an organization is changed (Besson and
Rowe 2012), the relation between the two disciplines becomes obvious: enterprise
transformation means to change the structures of the enterprise, while EAM can provide information about these structures (Gardner et al. 2012). In general, huge potential is seen for EAM to support ETs (Winter et al. 2012a).
We took the information objects presented in the model above and evaluated, if they
can be provided solely by EAM, partially by EAM, or not at all by EAM. We applied a
five point-Likert-Scale in order to rate the support based on the content meta-model of
the Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) (The Open Group 2011) and additional literature sources (see Labusch and Winter (2013) for more details about the
rating procedure and the used literature). See Table 18 for the results of the analysis
concerning the general EAM support of ETs.
Table 18:
EAM support of ETs
Information
EAM Support
Strategy
Support differs, business strategy and drivers could be provided
very appropriately, market situation rather partially, important
steps (e.g. in terms of a roadmap) could be provided very well.
Goals and requirements are direct meta-model elements of
EAM, information to determine budgets and develop business
cases could be partially provided.
Knowledge about structures is often considered the core of
EAM, thus these are all direct part of the content meta-model
and the support is very strong.
Information about projects and skills are also considered core of
EAM.
EAM can partially contribute in providing design options, however, many more stakeholders need to be involved.
The content meta-model does not consider ET methods, minor
support could be possible since architects are often keen on
methods.
Social factors are usually not contributed by EAM. Establishing
and designing a common language is part of EAM.
EAM is able to collect benefits of ETs and additional qualitative measures. Financial side is out of EAM scope.
Goals
Business
Structure
Project Portfolio
Design Options
Methods
Social Factors
Performance
102
Paper D – Demonstration: EAM as a Configurable Information Provider for Enterprise
Transformations
Information
EAM Support
Stakeholders
Concerning Stakeholders, EAM is able to provide information
about contracts, suppliers and internal stakeholders of the ET
since these are content meta-model elements.
Guidelines/standards can be provided.
Providing Information about IT structures is core of EAM.
Risks
IT Structure
Based on the table above and the ET information model, we can distinguish the EAM
support for the different ET types.
ETs of the type “strategic alignment” is only partially be supported by EAM. The required information in terms of strategy and goals can be provided very well. Information about business structure, project portfolio and IT structures are in general not
strongly requested within this ET type. Thus, lots of the information that EAM could
provide would not be necessary for this type. The EAM support thus would be much
focused (e.g., on business requirements, processes, or capabilities).
The ET type “market alignment” is much stronger supported. In these ETs the enterprise needs to be realigned with the market, thus, plenty of information about the current structures is needed. This information can be very well provided by EAM. Since
these ETs occur very sudden, the information needs to be available quickly – thus, it is
very valuable if it is already documented. In consequence, EAM can provide information about strategy, goals, business structures, IT structures as much as the project
portfolio and further ones. Of course, the necessary information could neither exclusively nor completely be provided by EAM – when it comes to stakeholder or social
factor related information, EAM can only provide minor support.
The ET type “management driven” is almost not supported by EAM. The only information that can be provided is about the market situation. Since this information can
anyway only partially be provided by EAM, the model shows that EAM is not the preferred discipline/information system to support the ET type.
For “operational optimizations” EAM again can provide valuable information. According to the model, strategic aspects are almost not important and ETs of this type
rather require fundamental knowledge about the business and IT structure of the company in order to realize optimizations. Thus, these ETs directly address again the core
of EAM.
Part B – A Reference Model for the Information-Based Support of Enterprise
Transformations
103
Figure 16 illustrated the summary of the EAM system support differentiated by ET
type.
Type 1:
Strategic
Alignment
Type 2:
Market
C2
Alignment
C1
Information
about strategy
& goals
provided.
Information
about
business and IT
structures are
not strongly
requested, information about
stakeholders and social aspects
cannot be provided sufficiently.
Information
about social
aspects &
stakeholders
SchwarzInformation
not provided.
about strategy,
Weiss goals, projects
and structures
available via
EAM.
Almost no information requested.
Information
about social
aspects not
provided.
Information
Information
about, goals,
about strategySchwarz
or
projects and
design options
structures
Weiss
not
available via
requested
EAM.
Type 3:
Management
Driven
Figure 16:
Weiss
C4
C3
Market
Environment
Schwarz
Type 4:
Operational
Optimization
EAM system support differentiated by ET type
D.6 Summary, Limitations & Outlook
In the paper at hand we provide a reference information model that allows distinguishing different types of ETs based on the information that ET managers require. The
model distinguishes four different ET types that have been identified with an empirical
analysis of ETs. Based on the model, we demonstrate how the information provision
by EAM needs to be configured, in order to fulfill ET-type dependent information requirements. The demonstration shows that certain types of ET can be much better supported by IS than others. Our contribution to the body of ET literature therefore is a
Schwarz
Weiss
104
Paper D – Summary, Limitations & Outlook
model that allows for providing information during ETs much more focused. Further,
the model provides a dense overview of information that is necessary in ETs.
In order to identify, how the best information support for the identified ET types can
be assured, the demonstration that we conducted should be repeated with other information systems beyond EAM. Candidates are ERP systems, business intelligence systems, or other enterprise-wide IS.
Some limitations occur in the presented research. It could be the case that further clusters exist that we did not identify due to a limited amount of transformation cases. This
problem occurs whenever complex real-world phenomena are researched and abstracted in a model. Future work and an increased empirical foundation of the model will
show, if the identified types need to be revised or if they will be confirmed. Due to the
highly knowledgeable informants that we collected the responses from, we are reasonably confident to assume the latter. Further, each ET in the evaluated set of data is described by one respondent. Due to the manifold roles that conduct ET management
(e.g., program managers, C-level executives), role-specific differences about required
information could occur. Based on the current amount of data collected, we are not
able to account for these differences. However, such different information requirements by different roles provide an interesting field for future research.
Additional future work planned in the project is to provide the model to practitioners
that deal with EAM during ETs. Focus groups or interviews with these experts will
provide valuable feedback and input to the model in order to further increase its applicability and utility, especially in the domain of EAM. We invite researches that
primarily deal with other IS to extent and apply the model in their domains.
Part B – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to Support
Enterprise Transformations?
105
Paper E – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling –
What are the Essentials to Support Enterprise Transformations?
Table 19:
Title
Authors &
Affiliations
Publication
Outlet
Year
Rating
Abstract
Bibliographical information of paper E
Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to Support Enterprise Transformations?
 Labusch, Nils
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
nils.labusch@unisg.ch
 Aier, Stephan
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
stephan.aier@unisg.ch
 Winter, Robert
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management,
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
robert.winter@unisg.ch
Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Enterprise
Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA
2013), R. Jung, and M. Reichert (eds.), St.Gallen, Switzerland,
pp. 13-26.
2013
C (Lecture Notes in Informatics)
In recent years, many different modeling techniques and languages were developed in order to allow for an efficient and appropriate enterprise architecture management (EAM). Recently,
EAM is no longer only seen as a means to ensure business/IT
alignment but further as a means to support fundamental changes
of the organization, often called enterprise transformation (ET).
In a joint project with a group of practitioners we aim at developing a framework that provides guidance on how EAM can support such ETs and thus leverage the benefit of modeling. Our design results after more than one year of research reveal different
types of EAM, areas of action in ETs and ET activities that can
be supported by EAM. The findings show that modeling techniques or languages should focus on constructs like transitions,
benefits or risks in order to increase their value for ET support.
106
Paper E – Introduction
E.1 Introduction
While enterprise architecture (EA) describes the fundamental structures of an enterprise, EAM is concerned with the establishment and coordinated development of the
EA in order to consistently respond to business and IT goals, opportunities, and necessities (The Open Group 2011). Core of EAM are manifold modeling techniques and
models that document and consolidate the relevant information and allow for understanding cross-company relations (Lankhorst et al. 2013; Steinhorst et al. 2012; Winter
and Fischer 2007).
In recent years, many different modeling techniques and languages were developed in
order to allow for an efficient and appropriate EAM (e.g. the Archimate language as a
standard (The Open Group 2012) or vendor dependent languages). The traditional task
of EAM is providing guidance on the achievement of business to IT alignment (Boh
and Yellin 2007), many frameworks aiming at this task exist (e.g. TOGAF (The Open
Group 2011)). However, EAM increasingly claims to support tasks that are beyond
traditional and often limited business to IT alignment challenges. One major example
is the support of complex and large scale changes in an organization.
These changes, often called enterprise transformations (ET), are not routine since they
substantially alter an organization’s relationships with its key constituencies like customers, suppliers or regulators. ETs may result in new value propositions, they may
provide old value propositions in fundamentally new ways or they may change the
inner structure of the enterprise (Rouse and Baba 2006). Examples are transformations
of the business model (Aspara et al. 2011), mergers & acquisitions (Johnston and
Madura 2000) or introductions and replacements of enterprise information systems
(Bhattacharya et al. 2010; Hock-Hai Teo et al. 1997; Sarker and Lee 1999). Many
transformations fail for a variety of reasons (Kotter 1995; Sarker and Lee 1999) like
underestimated technical complexity, or lacks in either portfolio or benefits planning
(Flyvbjerg and Budzier 2012).
For these reasons, EAM is believed to support the management of ETs (Asfaw et al.
2009) by guiding the necessary coordination efforts (Abraham et al. 2012a; Harmsen
et al. 2009; Pulkkinen et al. 2007) and providing information for management support
or strategy development (Asfaw et al. 2009). IT is often an important part of the ET
but further aspects are as important or even more important.
Part B – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to Support
Enterprise Transformations?
107
Thus, in the research project that we conduct with partners from corporate practice, we
aim at investigating what the important parts of managing an ET are and how they can
be supported by the models and techniques that EAM provides. Thus, we are guided in
the project by the following research question:
RQ:
How can the management of enterprise transformations be supported by EAM?
We proceed as follows: We present related work that explores the link between EAM
and ET management (ETM). We go on with presenting our design approach and provide a brief description of the current work status concerning our designed framework.
In section five we discuss the achieved state of work and conclude with a summary
and implications for future work in the last section.
E.2 Related Work
Winter et al. (2012a) illustrate the relation of EAM and ETM. Their main findings
show that current EAM is primarily conducted in the IT and operations departments
(whereas ETM is often part of the business departments), EAM primarily focusses on
current and target states (whereas ETM focusses on the process in between these
states) and EAM requires experts with analytical experience (whereas ETM requires
people with very mature communication and politics skills). Keller and Price (2011)
take a managerial perspective and include “architect” as one of five transformation
stages (within “aspire”, “assess”, “act” and “advance”). They describe activities like
breaking down the transformation initiative into a manageable portfolio, identifying
skills or setting up formal reinforcement mechanisms as part of the “architecting”.
Authors that deal explicitly with EAM identify similar potentials. Harmsen et
al. (2009) propose to use EAM as a governing function in order to streamline a portfolio of transformation steps that need to be well aligned in order to be successful. The
authors consider EAM suitable to ensure this – especially in areas like strategic direction (investigate alternatives), gap analysis, tactical planning (identify intermediate
milestones), operational planning, selection of partial solutions, e.g. based on standards (Boh and Yellin 2007), or solution crafting (which describes the identification of
tasks in projects). Radeke (2011) discusses, how EAM can contribute to the strategic
change process. He finds that EAM has the potential to improve the strategic fit of an
enterprise with its market environment, to improve business/IT alignment, and to improve the preparedness for change through standardization and modularization of the
respective enterprise. According to Pulkkinen et al. (2007), EAM allows groups to in-
108
Paper E – Research Design
terpret the related issues for their purposes. The guidelines and principles agreed on
with the collaborative EAM work facilitate plans and designs for interoperability and
synergy of systems.
Focusing on a modeling perspective, Aier and Gleichauf (2010) describe what is necessary in order to not only model to-be and as-is states but to model the transformation
between these states. They describe different types of necessary intermediary transformation models. Steinhorst et al. (2012) describe an approach that allows for an
analysis of models on a structural and semantic level. The approach allows for a detection of weakness and best practice patterns concerning transformations in existing
models. McGinnis (2007) provides conditions that models need to fulfill in order to be
used in ETs. He claims that such models facilitate the education of employees and can
be used as a foundation for large-scale IT implementations (like ERP or CRM systems). In addition they can be used to predict how the enterprise reacts to future scenarios or assess alternative processes, customer or supplier relations. He further states
that such models need to be based on syntax and semantics that are driven from a
business and non-IT implementation perspective.
Summarized, EAM is considered to have a high potential to support ETs. Lots of research about EAM is conducted and many practitioners are dealing with the topic. So
far, however, EAM is mostly concentrating on business/IT alignment issues. Evidence
for these problems can be found in the formal specifications of the EAM frameworks
currently available. For example the content meta-model of TOGAF (The Open Group
2011) is comprised half of IT related and half of business related elements. Other aspects beyond business/IT alignment that may be relevant to ET, e.g. skill development
or role definitions, are less explicitly illustrated. Identifying these aspects and opening
up the field of ET for EAM and its modeling core would leverage the manifold research in the modeling domain.
Thus, together with consortia partners, we aim at designing and consolidating a
framework that prescribes where and how models and techniques from EAM can support the management of enterprise transformations. Such a framework aims at bringing
together the ET and the EAM perspective and it aims at alleviating communication
defects between the stakeholder groups involved.
E.3 Research Design
In the paper at hand we focus on the description and discussion of the design research
process (Peffers et al. 2007). Our research approach follows the general design cycle
Part B – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to Support
Enterprise Transformations?
109
idea as introduced by Hevner et al. (2007) and particularly follows the more recent
understanding of design science that assumes alternating core activities of design and
evaluation within one and the same cycle (Sein et al. 2011; Winter and Albani 2013).
E.3.1
Research Setting
We conducted the design process in a consortium of researchers and practitioners
(Otto and Österle 2012) that met four times during the years 2011 and 2012 in order to
develop the framework and to apply it within their organizations later on. The group
was comprised of eleven experts being employed with seven organizations located in
different industries (public sector, insurance, utilities). The participants had long-time
experience in their domains and access to further experts within their companies (Otto
and Österle 2012). Table 20 provides an overview about participants and their organizations.
Table 20:
Company
A
Industry
Insurance
B
Insurance
C
D
E
Public Sector
Utilities
Insurance
F
G
Utilities
Insurance
Design partners
Informants
Head Enterprise Architecture
IT Project Manager
Head of IT Service Management
Head of Enterprise Architecture
Head of IT Strategy
Enterprise Architect
Head of Enterprise Architecture
Data Architect
Enterprise and Data Warehouse Architect
Enterprise Architect
Vice President Enterprise Architecture
The meetings contained four major elements: First, keynotes in which one of the informants reported about practices from his organization. Second, external input by experts that where not participating regularly in the meetings but could provide the core
group with new and challenging perspectives – we especially invited external experts
to avoid biases and to ensure reliability. Third, academic input: the researchers presented findings and implications from theory. Finally, workshop sessions: the participants were asked to conduct different tasks and discussions moderated and supported
by the research team. The meetings usually took two days.
110
Paper E – Research Design
In the time between the meetings with the practitioners, our research team conducted
internal workshops and discussions in order to provide input to the practitioners. In
order to avoid biases for the design decisions by the research team, one person – similar to the external experts in the practitioner workshops – was taking the role of a devil’s advocate (Herbert and Estes 1977) and thus purposefully provided an opposite
opinion.
E.3.2
Design Process
The process itself contained four major iterations. In a first iteration, we identified the
problem as stated above and ensured its relevance during discussions with the partners.
Thus, EAM is perceived to support ET, but current approaches seem not to be fully
sufficient to achieve this goal due to their focus on business/IT alignment. We conducted a first design-cycle in the research team where we surveyed the EAM
knowledge base for appropriate kernel theories in order to allow for an approach “informed by theory” (Gregor 2006). Based on its explicit link to transformation and the
focus of the project, we identified the body of knowledge about dynamic capabilities
as a very helpful means. Barreto (2010) summarizes a dynamic capability as “the
firm’s potential to systematically solve problems, formed by its propensity to sense
opportunities and threats, to make timely and market-oriented decisions, and to change
its resource base.” Teece (2007) subdivides dynamic capabilities into the areas of sensing, seizing and transformation and thus includes the fundamental change as core.
Abraham et al. (2012b) consider EAM as a dynamic capability and thus link the areas
of ET and EAM on a sound theoretical foundation. According to Abraham et al.
(2012b) each type of change needs a different type of EAM: A fast but lean type for
unpredictable changes and a rather traditional type of EAM for planned changes. We
further distinguished the traditional type into a business-related and a rather ITfocused type of EAM since these are the ones regularly mentioned in theory
(e.g. Lankhorst et al. 2009a) or seen in practice like in our group of practitioners. We
applied the wording and content used in the theories also for the discussions during the
practitioner discussions. For example, the theoretical view helped to understand that
transformation activities could be distinguished into sensing, seizing and actually implementing the changes.
The theoretical findings were discussed and further refined in the group of practitioners. Thus, with this step we were able to reduce the size of the relevant EAM
Part B – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to Support
Enterprise Transformations?
111
knowledge base into smaller pieces, depending on which type of EAM should be considered in more detail.
In a second iteration we identified areas of action, where EAM potentially can support
ETs. We first conducted this step openly in the group of practitioners to collect their
experiences and perceptions. This resulted in four major areas: (1) Rolls, skills &
communication deals with the question, which roles and skills are necessary during a
transformation from the point of view of EAM and how communication with other
stakeholders being involved in transformations can be improved. (2) Governance &
control deals with the governance-processes that are necessary for transformations and
can be supported by EAM. (3) Planning & requirements management is concerned
with techniques and tasks that are relevant for planning ETs. The fourth identified area
was (4) organizational culture that was considered to be an important context factor.
In the third iteration, we refined the results. For example, we considered the area of
roles and communication. In the research team, we identified the kernel theory of
boundary objects (Doolin and McLeod 2012) as a helpful means to explain, how EA
can foster the communication among different stakeholder groups. The theory shows
that certain objects like models, commonly used frameworks etc. overcome barriers
like different language between different areas of business or between business and IT.
In the practitioner group boundary objects from the different companies were identified, e.g. capability maps, application landscapes but also more unusual objects like a
project interaction room (a fixed room that is used to discuss a certain topic by different stakeholder groups).
While the design process up to this point was driven a lot by an architectural perspective on ET, we shifted the perspective towards a more business oriented approach in
the fourth iteration by inviting external experts that deal on the one hand with a holistic transformation perspective and on the other hand with soft factors and a changecentered perspective. The overall goal for this meeting was to become more specific
about activities that are necessary during transformations and could potentially be supported by EAM. We further aimed at integrating those in a consolidated framework.
As a foundation we used the BTM2 framework (Uhl and Gollenia 2012) that aims at
covering the management of transformations, based on a holistic perspective. In the
team of researchers we discussed, which of the given activities in the framework could
be supported by EAM. In the next step, we handed over this discussion to the EAM
practitioner group. In here, we even went one step further and asked, if EAM could
112
Paper E – Research Design
support the transformation activities depending on the EAM type (lean, traditional,
business) that we investigated in the first iteration. We conducted three cycles in total
in this workshop session, in each cycle the groups were mixed again in order to ensure
a direct evaluation of the findings (world-café method (World Café Community
Foundation 2013)). As the result, some of the activities were marked as not supportable by any of the types, some only by one type and some by all three types of EAM.
The overall design process that we conducted so far is illustrated in Table 21.
Table 21:
Design process
Iteration
Event
Meeting Program
1
Whole Group
Meeting
 EAM for ET: Idea and Necessities (speech, researcher)
 Exchange of experiences (workshop, all)
 Consolidation of challenges and experiences
(workshop, all)
 Learning from dynamic capabilities
2
3
Research team
internal discussion
Whole Group
Meeting
Research team
internal discussion
Whole Group
Meeting
Research team
internal discussion
 Identification of EAM capabilities for ET (workshop, all)
 Mapping of EAM capabilities to solution areas
(workshop, all)
 Derivation of “areas of action”
 Learning from boundary objects
 Architectural Support of ET – The perspective of
transformation management (speech, researcher)
 Boundary objects: roles, skills and communication
(speech, informant)
 Boundary objects: roles, skills and communication
(workshop, all)
 Controller and IT: the changing roles (speech, external expert)
 Governance processes (speech, informant)
 Governance processes (workshop, all)
 EAM planning processes (workshop, all)
 Pre-consolidation of the framework
Part B – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to Support
Enterprise Transformations?
113
Iteration
Event
Meeting Program
4
Whole Group
Meeting
 BTM2: Overview, development and application
(speech, external expert)
 Capability models as a management tool (workshop, all)
 Value management as a connection to the business
(workshop, all)
 Change management: a practical view behind the
scenes (speech, external expert)
 Theoretical perspectives on culture and acceptance
(speech, researcher)
 Consolidating the Framework: Transformation
from an architectural perspective (workshop, all)
 Refinement of the framework
Research team
internal
discussion
E.4 Towards a Framework for the Architectural Support of
Enterprise Transformations
In the following section we provide a brief overview of the results that we achieved so
far with our partners in order to allow for an understanding of the framework.
E.4.1
Overall Structure
The main constructs in the framework are the identified types of EAM, the respective
areas of action concerning ETM and the ETM activities that according to our research
process (described above) can be supported by EAM. Like described above, we identified a lean type of EAM to deal with rather sudden transformations, a traditional type
of EAM for planned changes concerning mostly IT issues and a business-related type
of EAM. The framework is further comprised of areas of action that can be supported
by EAM during a transformation. These are “rolls, skills & communication”, “governance & control”, “planning & requirements management” and “organizational culture”. In order to deal with the complexity, each ETM activity belongs to one ET area
of action but can, of course, be supported by more than one type of EAM. This is
summarized in Table 22.
Paper E – Towards a Framework for the Architectural Support of Enterprise
Transformations
Setup communication
X
X
Establish communities of
practice
X
X
Manage training
X
X
Orchestrate skills & disciplines
X
X
Manage and measure
principles
X
X
Conduct lifecycle management
X
X
Monitor change
X
X
Develop roadmap plan
X
Analyze cultural environment
X
Establish common language
X
X
X
Conduct stakeholder management
X
X
X
Establish transformation
lifecycle
X
X
X
Establish potentials for further benefits
X
X
X
Analyze initial situation
X
X
X
Develop integrated transformation plan
X
X
X
Analyze needs & maturity
level
X
X
X
Develop detailed business
case
X
X
X
Organizational
culture
Planning &
requirements
management
Control
ET Area of Action
Lean EAM
EAM Type
IT oriented
EAM
Transformation Activity
Overall relation
Rolls, skills &
communication
Governance &
Table 22:
Business
oriented EAM
114
X
X
Part B – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to Support
Enterprise Transformations?
Define overall goals
X
X
Develop high-level business
case
X
X
Define KPIs and benchmark
X
X
Plan benefit realization
X
X
Perform 360° strategic risk
assessment
X
X
Define risk strategy
X
X
Conduct program planning
X
X
Manage program scope
X
X
Assess change readiness
X
X
Analyze & set cultural environment
X
Orchestrate skills & disciplines: propose experts
X
X
Evaluate risk for transformation business case
X
X
Planning &
requirements
management
X
Control
X
Lean EAM
X
Manage requirements
Organizational
culture
Rolls, skills &
communication
Governance &
ET Area of Action
Business
oriented EAM
EAM Type
IT oriented
EAM
Transformation Activity
115
X
X
X
Manage communication and
translation
X
Review and evaluate results
X
X
Conduct ex-post program
alignment
X
X
X
X
X
Conduct risk monitoring
X
Manage communication
X
X
X
Align with risk management
X
X
X
X
Assess as-is capabilities
X
X
X
X
Design to-be architecture
X
X
X
X
X
Paper E – Towards a Framework for the Architectural Support of Enterprise
Transformations
Organizational
culture
X
Planning &
requirements
management
X
Control
X
Rolls, skills &
communication
Governance &
ET Area of Action
Lean EAM
Perform gap analysis
EAM Type
Business
oriented EAM
Transformation Activity
IT oriented
EAM
116
X
Consider, for example, the activity “Manage Communication”. In the table above we
can see that it was considered important concerning all three types of EAM and belongs to the “rolls, skills & communication” area of action. At the current stage of the
research project, we aim at investigating, how EAM can support ETM in terms of currently available techniques and models. Thus, we discussed this issue in the workshop
and documented the findings in a structured way. We used a structure that is similar to
Bucher & Dinter (2012) and the TOGAF framework (The Open Group 2011). The
most important parts are the actual activities (what is done) and techniques (how is it
done). Figure 17 provides an example of the “manage communication” activity.
Manage
Communication
Title: Manage Communication
Necessary
Principles, stakeholders, goals of the
inputs
transformation, available media
Roles
Architect, management, communications
department
Sub-Activities Develop communications plan, identify
stakeholders, define communication media
Techniques
Stakeholder analysis, communication
analysis, feedback analysis
Results
Communications matrix, elevator pitch,
communication process plan
Figure 17:
Example of an activity
The example shows that transformation managers need inputs like principles, stakeholders etc. in order to successfully conduct the activity. EAM can offer support by
e.g. using models that include the stakeholders and provide those to ET managers or,
depending on how EAM is established in the organization address the stakeholders by
themselves.
Part B – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to Support
Enterprise Transformations?
117
Summarized, the framework provides two degrees of abstraction: (1) The overview
level with types and areas of actions shows where the EAM knowledge and models
could be used in order to support ETM. (2) The concrete activities and the included
details illustrate how EAM could be used in detail.
E.4.2
Framework Application
The proposed framework can be further customized for single organizations and the
scope of the future EAM in the specific company can be determined. If e.g. a company
has an EAM rooted in the IT department and dealing with IT questions only, the information that such EAM can provide are relevant for most transformations. However,
the department should focus on supporting ET activities that they are familiar with
(e.g. development of roadmaps). The situation is different, if EAM should be set up as
an ET supporting discipline, rooted in the business departments. Further activities, like
defining key performance indicators (KPI), should be considered relevant. These two
examples illustrate that an incorporation of the framework differs on the concrete enterprise it is applied in. The artifact can provide guidance in both (and more) cases by
providing direction on techniques and results that the EAM knowledge base can provide.
An implementation in one specific enterprise requires workshop sessions with the
most important stakeholders in this organizational environment in order to get insights
about necessary priorities and preferences.
E.5 Discussion
In the paper at hand we ask, how important parts of managing enterprise transformations can be supported by EAM and thus, how the potential of the manifold existing
modeling techniques and languages can be leveraged in a promising field.
Our research shows that EAM can provide useful inputs to the management of transformations – not just business/IT alignment but also business/business alignment. In
the group discussions it became clear that “the business” is not a monolithic unit and
their interests are heterogeneous. The term business to business alignment might be
sufficient when it comes to transformations. It became clear during the discussions that
certain transformation activities are supported rather natively by EAM. These are
characterized by a utilization of “native” EAM outputs like risk assessments, IT-
118
Paper E – Summary & Conclusion
application landscapes etc. Concerning these activities it is straight forward for EAM
to support the ET and provide appropriate models.
Concerning other ET activities, EAM has a high development potential in order to become a supportive means. Such activities can be the support of staffing (by providing
capability and skill information on an employee level) or establishing a common language crossing organizational boundaries (e.g. by providing catalogues or corporate
languages). Further, EAM could focus on the assessment and modeling of benefits that
certain stakeholders want to achieve during the transformation. Such models could
support the early identification of conflicts.
Some activities that ET management needs to conduct however, are hardly supported
and will be hard to support by future EAM. These are especially related to psychological aspects like management of employee’s perception of work or further ones. Modeling such aspects might be an interesting future field for the development of new modeling languages and techniques.
The field of enterprise transformation seems to represent a significant potential for
modeling research. So far, most languages focus on the different states during an ET.
What is still lacking are approaches that allow for modeling the transformation itself,
including factors like risks, benefits and other critical issues. When conducting a
search on modeling and transformation literature on Google Scholar, most approaches
found focus on transforming models by themselves. Solid work on specifics of transformations and their documentation are underrepresented. This offers an interesting
and relevant field for future work.
Apart from the potential that new modeling languages or methods might have, the existing ones could be leveraged further by understanding the activities that are conducted during transformations and the capabilities that are needed. The results of the first
design iterations that we present in this paper could be a helpful means for practitioners in order to identify, which activities they might be able to support with enterprise
models. In consequence, the framework provides guidance where “self-marketing”
activities can be applied or in which areas the internal EAM approach could become
improved.
E.6 Summary & Conclusion
In the paper at hand we presented results from a research project that aims at the development of a framework for the architectural support of enterprise transformations.
Part B – Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling – What are the Essentials to Support
Enterprise Transformations?
119
We focused on the presentation of the design process itself and presented some of the
recently achieved results.
Of course, some limitations occur. Some colleagues might consider the lack of a onetime large-scale evaluation of the presented artifact. Nonetheless, due to the chosen
one-cycle approach of design science research, the single steps were evaluated intermediately and immediately during design. Thus, the validity and reliability of the artifact is ensured. In addition, two of the research partners are planning to incorporate a
version of the framework in their companies. We will report on the experiences in future work. We are aware that the details presented in the paper at hand can only be part
of the whole artifact description and result. However, such reduction is necessary due
to space limitations and the current state of the project. The industry mix of the research partners might also have an influence on the result. Nevertheless, not only partners that are primarily dealing with information (e.g. banks or insurances) but also
more production oriented companies like utilities participated.
The next steps in the research process will be a more detailed catalogue that includes,
how exactly (e.g. by which EAM artifacts) the identified ET activities can be supported. Further we aim at identifying context factors that lead to favor one introduced
EAM approach over the other.
120
Paper F – Introduction
Paper F – Information Provision as a Success Factor in
the Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations
Table 23:
Title
Authors &
Affiliations
Publication
Outlet
Year
Rating
Abstract
Bibliographical information of paper F
Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural
Support of Enterprise Transformations
 Labusch, Nils
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
nils.labusch@unisg.ch
 Aier, Stephan
University of St.Gallen, Institute of Information Management
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, 9000 St.Gallen, CH
stephan.aier@unisg.ch
Proceedings of the 8th TEE Workshop in conjunction with the
16th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics, D. Aveiro, M.
Bjekovic, A. Caetano, A. Fleischmann, L. Heuser, S. De
Kinderen, M.M. Komarov, Y. Kou-cheryavy, S.V. Maltseva, W.
Molnar, A. Oberweis, H.A. Proper, M. Rap-pa, W. Schmidt, F.
Schönthaler, J.-S. Sottet, C. Stary, and G. Vossen (eds.), Geneva,
Switzerland, pp. 141-148.
2014
Not rated
Enterprise transformations (ET) fail in many cases or do not accomplish the expected goals. Enterprise architecture management
(EAM) is often considered to be an appropriate means to tackle
this problem by providing information that is relevant to ET
managers. Therefore, we analyze, which types of information
provided during an ET contributes to its success. In addition we
discuss if EAM can appropriately support ETs by providing relevant information. The results show that value can be provided to
ET management when business-related information on a detailed
level is offered. Examples are business requirements, business
functions, or qualitative measures. We find information that can
be provided by EAM to be an important success factor for ETs.
F.1 Introduction
Enterprises from time to time have to go through changes that are not routine but fundamental and radical. These changes are designated as enterprise transformations
Part B – Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support of
Enterprise Transformations
121
(ETs) (Rouse 2005b). ETs substantially alter an enterprise’s relationships with its key
constituencies like customers or suppliers (Rouse 2005b). Examples of such fundamental changes are adaptions of the business model (Aspara et al. 2011), mergers and
acquisitions (Johnston and Madura 2000), or introductions and replacements of enterprise-wide information technology (Bhattacharya et al. 2010; Hock-Hai Teo et al.
1997; Sarker and Lee 1999).
Managing ETs is a difficult task and many efforts fail (Flyvbjerg and Budzier 2012;
Kotter 1995). Thus, the topic should be in the scope of current research as the relevance for improving related management methods and research perspectives is given.
As such, research concerning ET is conducted for decades in different research disciplines; including information systems (IS) research. However, Besson & Rowe
(Besson and Rowe 2012) conclude that past and current work mostly focuses on psychological and socio-cognitive inertia (e.g., employee resistance)—socio-technical and
economic inertia are underestimated, or even seem to be overlooked.
In order to deal with the complex challenge of transforming an enterprise, oftentimes
enterprise architecture management (EAM) is seen as a valuable means (Abraham et
al. 2013b; Asfaw et al. 2009). While enterprise architecture (EA) describes the fundamental structures of an enterprise, EAM is concerned with the establishment and continuous development of EA in order to consistently respond to business and IT goals,
opportunities, and necessities (Aier et al. 2011; The Open Group 2011). Thus, EAM is
often found to support the management of ETs (Asfaw et al. 2009; Dorsch and
Haeckel 2012) by guiding the necessary efforts (Abraham et al. 2012a; Harmsen et al.
2009; Pulkkinen et al. 2007) and eliminating flaws like local optimizations (as opposed to global perspectives) or expensive redundancies (Foorthuis et al. 2010). We
refer to this support capability of EAM as the architectural support of ETs.
A prominent means for architectural support of ETs is the provision of decisionrelevant information to ET managers. In line with Laudon & Laudon (2006, p. 14) we
consider information as “data that have been shaped into a form that is meaningful and
useful to human beings”. The role of the enterprise architect is considered “one of
making order out of chaos by taking the overwhelming amount of information available and presenting it in a manner that enables effective decision-making” (Strano and
Rehmani 2007, p. 392).
However, in order to design an EAM function that is able to provide valuable ET support, we need to know, which information is available for planning and managing an
122
Paper F – Related Work
ET and which impact such information has on the ET’s success. Since there seems to
be no regular application of EAM as a leading authority or as a support service for ETs
yet (Asfaw et al. 2009; Lankhorst et al. 2009a), we aim at understanding the requirements that such a service has to meet. We pose the following research questions:
RQ1: Which information provided for planning and managing an ET contributes to
its success?
RQ2: Can EAM provide this information?
We proceed as follows: We discuss related work on the relation of ET management
(ETM) and EAM in section two. We describe our research approach and survey design
in section three. We present the results of the study in section four and discuss these
results in section five4. The paper ends with a summary and conclusions in section six.
F.2 Related Work
There are only a few articles that explicitly discuss the architectural support of ETs.
Asfaw et al. (2009) analyze enablers and challenges in driving ETs using EA concepts.
They decompose ETM in three components: communications, process, management
support, and structure. Within these components they identify success factors like
stakeholder involvement or guided application development. However, the authors
conclude that architecture as such cannot cope with all challenges and thus, additional
capabilities like change management are also needed. Radeke (2011) discusses, how
EAM can contribute to the strategic change process. He discusses the potential of
EAM to improve the strategic fit of the enterprise with the market environment, business-IT alignment, and the preparedness for change by standardization and modularization of parts of the enterprise. Simon et al. (2014) also recognize a high potential of
EAM to support ETs, e.g., by assessing the enterprise’s ET readiness.
Aier et al. (2012) focus on the discipline of EAM and discuss past and future developments. Thereby, the authors distinguish EAM functions in stage one (basic IT architecture), stage 2a (passive IT EAM), stage 2b (proactive IT EAM), and stage 3 (strategic EAM). The latter is more differentiated and focuses on supporting business matters. For this purpose, not only aspects like business processes or organizational units
4
Additional parts of the survey are presented and applied in Labusch et al. (2014b).
The original contribution of this paper is the analysis of data related to the success of
the ETs and the available information.
Part B – Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support of
Enterprise Transformations
123
are put into models, but instead the vocabulary of business units needs to be adopted
and integrated in an EAM approach. Abraham et al. (2013b) explicate that architecture
contains descriptive aspects (establishing transparency) as much as prescriptive aspects (restricting design freedom). Smolander et al. (2008) describe different understandings of architecture by discussing various metaphors: (1) architecture as blueprint
(high level description of a system, directly guiding more detailed implementation),
(2) architecture as language (enabling a common understanding about the system
among stakeholders), (3) architecture as decision (architecture represents decisions
about design trade-offs) and (4) architecture as literature (documenting and transferring information over time).
In line with the second and the fourth metaphor, Strano & Rehamni (2007) point out
that architects are dealing a lot with information that needs to be processed and presented in a meaningful way. Information handling is also considered of major importance in the ET literature. When transforming an enterprise, a high number of decisions, many of them with major implications, need to be taken. In order to take these
decisions on a sound basis, manifold information needs to be collected and consolidated (Fry et al. 2005; Klein and Krcmar 2003; Singh et al. 2011; Tichy 1983). Thus, a fit
between the information demands and the information provision capability is crucial.
This issue of information processing fit is discussed from a theoretical perspective in
the organizational information processing theory (OIPT) (Galbraith 1973; Galbraith
1974; Galbraith 1977; Galbraith 2002) and its extensions for more specific problems
(e.g., Gattiker and Goodhue 2005; Premkumar et al. 2005). The central concepts of the
theory is the reduction of uncertainty—a concept that is also central to ETs (Elliot
2011; Lengnick-Hall and Beck 2005; Morgan and Ogbonna 2008). Core elements of
the theory are design decisions that allow for a reduction of information processing
needs on the one hand and that allow to increase the information processing capability
on the other hand (Galbraith 1974).
Summarizing, the related work indicates that EAM is supposed to support ETs in different ways. An information perspective on ET is beneficial and especially from an IS
point of view relevant. However, related work does not provide deeper insights about
the details of the required and provided information, and about their impact on ET
success. We aim at closing this gap.
124
Paper F – Research Approach
F.3 Research Approach
Our main goal is to identify, the information that is provided during ETs and whether
it has a significant impact on ET success.
F.3.1
Overall Research Project
The paper at hand is the final step in a research project that is comprised of three steps
in total. In a first step, we conducted a literature survey (Labusch and Winter 2013) in
order to understand the relation between EAM and ET management (ETM). The survey identifies activities conducted by ETM and the potentially necessary information
that could be provided by EAM. In a second step, we conducted a qualitative study
based on interviews with EAM and ETM experts (Labusch et al. 2014a). The study
provides a better understanding of current architectural support of ETs. The results of
both steps were consolidated in order to develop the questionnaire for the study at
hand. This study aims at analyzing the topic on a broader empirical foundation and at
deriving insights from a larger set of ETs.
F.3.2
Identification of Items
We differentiate three groups of items: those describing the environment of the ET
(“the organization”), the ET itself (goals, reasons, figures), and the ET support concerning the information provisioning. The unit of analysis is the single ET.
In order to identify items concerning the ET and the influence factors in the enterprise,
we conduct a literature survey in databases and top journals of information systems
and management science. We follow the Basket of Eight (Association for Information
Systems 2011) and the JOURQUAL ranking (Schrader and Hennig-Thurau 2009). We
apply the search term “(((organizational OR enterprise OR business OR radical) AND
transformation) OR “radical change“)” in the title in combination with the term
“(type* OR archetype* OR class* OR categor* OR taxonom* OR segment* OR dimension*)” in the abstract. The search delivered 397 results in total, after reviewing
the abstracts; we consider 23 papers relevant for further analysis. Additionally we include sources from forward and backward analyses. We examine these sources in detail, in order to extract concrete items for the questionnaire.
In order to analyze the architectural support of ETs, we incorporate work that we conducted earlier (see section F.3.1). Thus, we consolidate the identified items from the
studies above in one list. Finally, we end up with a list of information items that are
Part B – Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support of
Enterprise Transformations
125
potentially needed during an ET. This list is provided to the ET experts as part of the
study at hand. The goal is to examine, which of the identified information contribute to
ET success.
F.3.3
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire starts with generic questions about the respondent. If consultants fill
in the questionnaire, we ask them to provide information on a specific ET at a specific
customer. We further collect data about the enterprise that has been transformed.
In the next section of the questionnaire, we collect facts about the ET itself. We ask the
experts, whether the ET is already finished and if so, whether it has been successful. If
the ET still is in progress, we ask for the respondent’s prediction, whether it will be a
success. In this case (and whenever possible later on), we employ five point Likert
scales (Likert 1932). In addition, we ask how long the ET took or is going to take. We
ask for the drivers of ETs. Most of the respective items are provided by Romanelli &
Tushman (1994), stating that ETs usually are driven by strategic issues, changes in the
power structure, or changes of the corporate structure. Due to the IT-centered understanding of EAM in many cases, we added “necessary changes in IT systems” which
are also considered to be a driver of ETs (Lyytinen and Newman 2008).
In the next section, we ask the experts to state, which part of the enterprise is leading
the ET and which parts are affected. We derive the items from Porter’s value chain
(Porter 1980). We add the “corporate management” as a separate part (instead of leaving it included in the corporate infrastructure, as defined by Porter) since other studies
(Kotter 1995; Lahrmann et al. 2012) name leadership support as a success factor in
ETs. We further ask the respondents, how many employees were executing the ET,
how many external personnel was involved, and how many personnel was affected by
the ET.
In the third part of the questionnaire, we ask for the actual availability of required information in the specific ET (similar to Fredenberger et al. (1997)). In addition we
provide an explanation sheet for the items.
F.3.4
Pilot Phase
We provided the questionnaire to four practitioners employed with one enterprise. The
participants have different job positions that deal with ETs. We want to make sure that
the questionnaire is understandable and can be filled in in reasonable time. During this
126
Paper F – Research Approach
pilot phase we found that filling in the questionnaire takes about 30 minutes. Due to
the complexity of the problem domain this is considered a reasonable amount of time.
During the pilot phase some items needed to be rephrased in order to increase their
understandability. In addition the pretest was meant to identify further items that we
would need to add. However, no further items were added by the experts, which might
serve as an indicator for the quality of the original set of items.
F.3.5
Roll-Out
We provided the questionnaire to a group of executive students in an executive MBA
program on ET. All participants are involved in ETs in leading positions in their respective enterprises. We additionally provided the questionnaire in an online version to
the alumni network of this executive MBA program that are all holding job positions
related to ETs. We further addressed ET managers in additional organizations that we
are conducting research projects with. Thus, in total more than 700 contacts were provided with the questionnaire.
F.3.6
Resulting Dataset
We received a total of 57 responses by experts that hold positions like CxO, Programm
Manager, or Head of Department over a period of three months. Most respondents are
directly employed with the enterprise that was transformed (48) while only a minority
(9) is, working for consulting or other service companies. The ETs take place in different industries (multiple answers possible), see Table 24 for details.
Table 24:
Surveyed industries
Industry
Education
Utilities
Financial Services
Healthcare
Information & Communication
Public Administration
Production
Services
Transport & Logistics
Insurance
Other
Number of analyzed ETs
1
9
13
3
13
1
10
1
1
4
7
Part B – Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support of
Enterprise Transformations
127
F.4 Results
The results of our survey provide some interesting findings about ETs and their information support.
F.4.1
General Findings about ETs
Most of the ETs in the dataset are described as successfully finished or on the way to
be successfully finished (almost successful or completely successful, 76%) while the
average ET takes 3-4 years. Why are so many ETs in our dataset successful although
other studies found that a large part of all ETs fail (Kotter 1995)? One reason might be
that the respondents decided to rather report on successful ETs they were involved in.
A second reason might be found in the specific executive training on transformation
management the respondents have received. However, this arguably nonrepresentative sample of ETs considering success rates does not limit our analysis of
the relation between information provisioning and ET success.
The topmost important drivers of ETs are strategic changes, necessary changes in IT
systems, introduction of new products or services, necessary changes of the culture,
and changes in the environment (e.g., regulatory requirements). Oftentimes, the surveyed ETs are guided by the management of the enterprise. In addition, the IT and
technology development departments of the enterprises play a guiding role in ETs.
Less strongly but still involved in guiding the ETs are production and logistics departments. See Table 25 for details.
128
Paper F – Results
Table 25:
Guiding departments
Department
Average Agreement Standard Deviation
Inbound Logistics
1.37
0.95
Production/Operations
2.19
1.48
Outbound Logistics
1.38
0.87
Marketing
1.96
1.28
Sales
2.29
1.53
Customer Service
2.08
1.38
Firm Infrastructure
1.92
1.40
(e.g., financials, planning, legal)
Human Resources
1.85
1.38
Technology/IT
3.17
1.67
Procurement
1.77
1.38
Corporate Management
3.62
1.59
Other
1.35
0.90
Likert scales, five would be “fully agree”, multiple answers possible
The analyzed ETs represent huge endeavors: on average 513 full time equivalents
(FTE) of internal staff are involved, supported by 33 external FTEs. On average, 8040
employees (in FTEs) are affected by the ET.
The collected descriptions of ETs show that these are indeed fundamental changes like
described in literature. In the next step we analyze the influence of the provided information on ET success.
F.4.2
Available Information and ET Success
We provide our respondents with the question, whether ET related information is
available. Independently from the success of the ET, we evaluate the general availability of the information. Information that is related to general goal descriptions is often
available. However, information about the concrete business case or the history of ETs
in the specific enterprise is less often available.
As a second step, we conduct a regression analysis (linear regressions with each information item as independent and ET success as dependent variable) in order to evaluate the impact of the availability of the information on ET success. We measure success employing a five point Likert scale. The average value for success in the dataset is
3.84, thus, ETs have been mostly successful. Data are summarized in Table 26.
Part B – Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support of
Enterprise Transformations
Table 26:
Category
1.
Information
concerning
general goal
descriptions
2.
Information
concerning
detailed goal
descriptions
3.
Information
concerning
existing
business
structures
4.
Information
concerning
program
management
129
Information availability and influence on ET success
Information
Mean
Availability
RegresR2
sion
Coefficient
.220
.104*
Significance
Consistent goal
4.04
0.0307
description
Important steps (e.g.
3.87
.218
.101*
0.0337
roadmaps)
Market situation
3.04
.163
.082
0.0594
Drivers
3.89
.128
.042
0.1780
Business Strategy
3.52
.005
.000
0.9570
Business requirements
3.64
.383
.259** 0.0005
Solution ideas (scenarios) 3.61
.236
.110*
0.0318
Plan costs (budget)
3.05
.204
.169** 0.0068
Business case for the
2.86
.047
.006
0.6163
transformation
Processes
3.18
.250
.174** 0.0054
Organizational structure 3.98
.252
.156** 0.0088
Product portfolio
3.91
.107
.028
0.2806
Locations /
3.60
.109
.046
0.1674
location concept
Business functions
3.56
.303
.257** 0.0005
Capabilities of the
2.98
-.028
.002
0.7822
organization
Stakeholders of the
3.91
.196
.094*
0.0434
transformation
Overview of projects
3.23
.273
.261** 0.0006
Redundancies between
2.87
.135
.060
0.1080
projects
Dependencies between
3.11
.172
.104*
0.0347
projects / initiatives
Project roles (including
3.59
.155
.083
0.0582
ownership)
Skills of employees
3.13
.109
.027
0.2884
** Significance < 0.01
* Significance < 0.05
130
Paper F – Results
Category
5.
Information
concerning
design options
to achieve the
goals
6.
Information
concerning
method
competence
7.
Information
concerning
change
management
8.
Information
concerning
performance
management
9.
Information
concerning
external
stakeholders
Outsourcing potentials
Evaluations of
technology
Consolidation potentials
2.65
2.80
RegresR2
sion
Coefficient
.033
.004
.109
.048
2.96
.169
.097*
0.0419
Concrete methods for
transformations
Outsourcing support
2.77
.176
.095*
0.0475
2.12
.056
.007
0.6061
Stakeholder
characteristics
Cultural change
Common language
Communication strategy
Trainings
Transformation history
(“Good Practices” and
“Lessons Learned”)
Organizational culture
Benefits of the
transformation
As-Is costs
(qualitative) success
control (e.g. Expert
opinion)
(quantitative) success
control e.g. measure
“process time“)
Business partners
Shareholders/investors/
owner structure
Suppliers
Customers
Master
agreements/contracts
2.96
.174
.096*
0.0405
3.00
3.02
2.91
3.07
2.11
.021
.080
.263
.296
.259
.001
.015*
.189**
.294**
.157**
0.8189
0.4378
0.0036
0.0002
0.0085
2.64
3.14
.027
.164
.002
.098*
0.7700
0.0461
3.21
2.91
.177
.246
.117*
.189**
0.0287
0.0045
3.07
.251
.217**
0.0021
3.09
3.07
.087
.063
.027
.016
0.2938
0.4240
2.79
3.05
3.09
.098
.043
.244
.030
.006
.202**
0.2754
0.6265
0.0032
Information
Mean
Availability
Significance
0.6982
0.1574
Part B – Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support of
Enterprise Transformations
Category
10.
Information
concerning risk
management
11.
Information
concerning IT
Information
Mean
Availability
Regression
Coefficient
.392
.328
.204
.261
131
R2
Significance
Risk assessments
3.23
.426** 0.0000
Legal regulations
3.26
.396** 0.0000
Security aspects
3.02
.147*
0.0132
Internal
3.39
.227** 0.0014
guideline/standards
Data structures
3.29
.170
.099
0.0514
Applications (incl.
3.32
.097
.038
0.2362
interfaces)
IT-Infrastructure
3.29
.123
.052
0.1569
IT-Security aspects
3.00
.154
.076
0.0850
** Significance < 0.01
* Significance < 0.05
F.5 Discussion
F.5.1
Impact of Information Availability on ET Success
We are aware that regression analyses can merely provide hints on relation among all
the variables under consideration. However, we consider discussing the results as valuable since tendencies can be derived.
The first category, denominated general goal descriptions addresses strategic aspects
of the ET. While information is often available, its relation to ET success remains diffuse. For the availability of consistent goal descriptions and of necessary important
steps, we find a significant relation with ET success. An interesting aspect is the availability of information on business strategy. Currently, we do not find a significant relation to ET success (which contradicts other sources that consider business strategy being an important part of successful ETs (e.g. Uhl et al. 2012)). This might have different reasons: First, more data needs to be collected to provide more detailed discussions
about single information items. Second, it could also be the case that business strategy
in general is not detailed enough to guide ETs or changes too often. The reason could
be the ET itself—when it is initiated this usually happens due to the business strategy.
For the subsequent ET, though, the business strategy has no further significance. This
hypothesis is supported by the results of the next category.
132
Paper F – Discussion
The information concerning detailed goal descriptions are much stronger (and significantly) contributing to ET success. Here, information like business requirements and
solution ideas (e.g., in terms of scenarios) are considered and used as input by ET
managers. Especially concrete business requirements seem to be strongly related to ET
success and should be considered important information.
During the ET, many existing business structures are affected. To develop the above
mentioned scenarios, these structures need to be known (Rouse 2005b). For the information about processes, organizational structures, and business functions, we find significant relations to ET success. For the capabilities of the enterprise we cannot identify such a relation. This might be, because the concept of capabilities is oftentimes
blurry and difficult to understand for ET managers.
The operational part of the ET usually is guided and coordinated by program management (Levene and Braganza 1996; Rosemann et al. 2012). Non-surprisingly, an
overview of projects and information about the stakeholders of the ET contributes to
ET success. Information about dependencies between projects also contributes to ET
success. Interestingly, no significant relation is observable between the information
about redundancies among projects and the overall ET success. The reason might be
that certain redundancies are helpful and could be tolerated during the ET.
Concerning information about design options to achieve the goals, only information
about consolidation potential has a significant impact on ET success. Technology
evaluations and information about outsourcing potentials are not found to be significantly contributing to ET success.
Many authors claim that ET-guiding methods have influence on ET success
(Lahrmann et al. 2012). The empirical data at hand supports this claim. We find a positive impact of information availability about ET methods on ET success. The outsourcing support does not explicitly contribute to ET success.
An important aspect of ETs is change management (Kotter 1995). We find that information about trainings have a very high and significant impact on ET success. This
includes information on necessary and available trainings. Also information about a
communication strategy and the ET history (experiences and lessons learned) is found
to have a significant impact on ET success. Surprisingly, no significant impact is
found for information about cultural change or information about organizational culture. Why could this be the case? We assume that the construct of organizational culture as such is too abstract to directly contribute to ET success. It is rather represented
Part B – Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support of
Enterprise Transformations
133
in other information, e.g., ET history, business requirements, or other artifacts that
might be different depending on the predominant culture (Schein 1997).
Information concerning performance management is necessary to monitor the progress
of the ET (Keller and Price 2011). Information in this category has a significant influence on ET success. The relation concerning success control is particularly strong.
While this is not a surprise, it is remarkable that not only quantitative measures need to
be considered but also qualitative ones have a similar impact on ET success.
The impact of information concerning external stakeholders is less strong than we expected. While the availability of information about master agreements has a high impact, other information (e.g., on customers, suppliers, shareholders) is not found to be
significant. The reason might be that contracts describe the relation between the enterprise and its external stakeholders in more detail while information about who the external stakeholders are is not sufficient.
Information concerning risk management has a significant positive impact on ET success. Especially information about legal regulations and the results of risk assessments
is considered to be a major contribution to ET success. Also internal guidelines and
standards are highly significant and positively related to the success. Thus, a solid risk
management can be considered a major success factor in ETs. This finding is in line
with the current literature about ETs, e.g. (Furneaux et al. 2012).
Finally, we analyze the availability of information about IT. In this category no significant relation to ET success is found. While we still have too little data to make definite claims here, one possible reason might be that the significance of IT on ET depends on the ET type. (e.g., those that aim at replacing an ERP system). Since we did
not distinguish different types of ETs in this study, no significant effect could be recognized.
F.5.2
Architectural Support of Enterprise Transformations
The discussion shows that information provision adds to ET success. Such information
can be provided by different disciplines and functions that exist within an enterprise.
One of these is EAM. A question that is often posed is, can EAM provide the information necessary for ETs (Asfaw et al. 2009; Winter et al. 2013)?
From an information perspective, we discuss the question by considering the information we found most significant for ET success. This is information about business
134
Paper F – Discussion
requirements, business functions, projects, communications strategy, trainings, ET history, qualitative and quantitative success measures, master agreements, risk assessments, legal regulations, and internal guidelines/standards. Can EAM deliver this information? Based on The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) (The Open
Group 2011) and a survey of other sources (Labusch and Winter 2013), we discuss the
potential of EAM to support the provisioning of this information (Table 27).
The discussion shows that an EAM that supports ETs needs to focus on business aspects rather than on IT architecture. Especially the collection of business requirements,
qualitative success measures, and different structural information (e.g., business functions) seems to be an important starting point.
Part B – Information Provision as a Success Factor in the Architectural Support of
Enterprise Transformations
Table 27:
135
Architectural support
Information
Business requirements
Business functions
Architectural support
By using business models, business requirements can be
collected and broken down into more detailed ones.
Business functions are a core object that EAM deals with.
Thus information about the existing ones and an analysis
about affected ones in the ET is possible.
Overview of projects Architects are usually well-informed about occuring projects and work hand-in-hand with project management in
order to provide information about these.
Communication
The communication strategy is rather not the focus of
strategy
EAM.
Trainings
Information about trainings can partially be provided by
EAM but in general this task is conducted by human resource departments.
ET history
Can partially be provided by EAM but other departments
are also heavily involved.
(qualitative) success Collecting qualitative measures is a task that EAM can
control (e.g, expert
conduct since an overview of business requirements and
opinion)
functions as much as of goals exists.
(quantitative) success Is rather in the scope of management accounting, not of
control, e.g., measure EAM.
“processing time“)
(Frame-)Contracts
Contracts can be documented, thus support by EAM is possible.
Risk assessments
Risk assessments are conducted by many architects, thus
architectural support can be provided concerning this information. Other disciplines need to be also involved.
Legal regulations
Not part of EAM, rather provided by legal departments.
Internal guideCore strength of EAM to moderate, coordinate, and provide
lines/standards
information about internal guidelines and standards.
F.6 Summary & Conclusions
ETs are endeavors that in many cases fail or do not achieve the expected goals
(Flyvbjerg and Budzier 2012; Kotter 1995). Thus, current research in the field of ET
management should contribute insights on dealing with this challenge. In the paper at
hand, we analyzed, which information provided during an ET contributes to ET success. In addition we discussed whether EAM can appropriately support ETs by providing relevant information.
136
Paper F – Summary & Conclusions
The results show that value can be provided to ETM when business-related information on a detailed level is offered. Examples are business requirements, business
functions, or qualitative measures. Thus, considering information as an important factor in ETs is a valuable perspective.
However, we did not differentiate types of ETs, e.g., based on the importance of certain information. Instead, we focused on identifying the most influential information
for ET success in general. While this step already provides valuable insights in how an
ET support from an information perspective should look like, this nevertheless constitutes a limitation of our work. We plan to further detail and distinguish information
support for different types of ET in future work.
Acknowledgment
This work has been funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)
References
137
References
Abraham, R., Aier, S., and Labusch, N. 2012a. "Enterprise Architecture as a Means for
Coordination – An Empirical Study on Actual and Potential Practice," in MCIS
2012 Proceedings, Guimarães, Portugal, Paper 33.
Abraham, R., Aier, S., and Winter, R. 2012b. "Two Speeds of EAM – A Dynamic
Capabilities Perspective," in Proceedings of the 7th Workshop Trends in
Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR) and Practice Driven Research on
Enterprise Transformation (PRET), S. Aier, M. Ekstedt, F. Matthes, E. Proper,
and J.L. Sanz (eds.), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 111-128.
Abraham, R., Niemietz, H., de Kinderen, S., and Aier, S. 2013a. "Can Boundary
Objects Mitigate Communication Defects in Enterprise Transformation?
Findings from Expert Interviews," in Proceedings of the 5th International
Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures
(EMISA 2013), R. Jung, and M. Reichert (eds.), St.Gallen, Switzerland, pp. 2740.
Abraham, R., Tribolet, J., and Winter, R. 2013b. "Transformation of Multi-level
Systems – Theoretical Grounding and Consequences for Enterprise Architecture
Management," in Proceedings of the Third Enterprise Engineering Working
Conference (EEWC), Advances in Enterprise Engineering VII, H.A. Proper, D.
Aveiro, and K. Gaaloul (eds.), Luxembourg, Luxembourg, pp. 73-87.
Ahlemann, F. 2009. "Towards a Conceptual Reference Model for Project Management
Information Systems," International Journal of Project Management (27:1), pp.
19-30.
Ahlemann, F., and Gastl, H. 2007. "Process Model for an Empirically Grounded
Referenzce Model Construction," in Reference Modeling for Business Systems
Analysis, P. Fettke, and P. Loos (eds.). Hershey, PA, United States of America:
Idea Group, pp. 77-98.
Aier, S., and Fischer, C. 2011. "Criteria of Progress for Information Systems Design
Theories," Information Systems and E-Business Management (9:1), pp. 133172.
Aier, S., and Gleichauf, B. 2010. "Application of Enterprise Models for Engineering
Enterprise Transformation," Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems
Architectures (5:1), pp. 58-75.
Aier, S., Gleichauf, B., and Winter, R. 2011. "Understanding Enterprise Architecture
Management Design – An Empirical Analysis," in Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik WI 2.011, A. Bernstein, and
G. Schwabe (eds.), Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 645-654.
138
References
Aier, S., Kurpjuweit, S., Saat, J., and Winter, R. 2009. "Business Engineering
Navigator – A "Business to IT" Approach to Enterprise Architecture
Management," in Coherency Management – Architecting the Enterprise for
Alignment, Agility, and Assurance, S. Bernard, G. Doucet, J. Gøtze, and P. Saha
(eds.). Bloomington, IN, United States of America: Author House, pp. 77-98.
Aier, S., Winter, R., and Wortmann, F. 2012. "Entwicklungsstufen des
Unternehmensarchitekturmanagements,"
HMD
Praxis
der
Wirtschaftsinformatik (49:284), pp. 15-23.
Allen, B.R., and Boynton, A.C. 1991. "Information Architecture: In Search of Efficent
Flexibility," MIS Quarterly (15:4), pp. 435-445.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., Cole, M.S., Fillmer, L., and Self, D.R. 2007. "A Top
Management Team’s Reactions to Organizational Transformation: The
Diagnostic Benefits of Five Key Change Sentiments," Journal of Change
Management (7:3), pp. 273-290.
Asfaw, T., Bada, A., and Allario, F. 2009. "Enablers and Challenges in Using
Enterprise Architecture Concepts to Drive Transformation: Perspectives from
Private Organizations and Federal Government Agencies," Journal of
Enterprise Architecture (5:3), pp. 18-28.
Ash, C.G., and Burn, J.M. 2003. "Assessing the Benefits from e-Business
Transformation Through Effective Enterprise Management," European Journal
of Information Systems (12:4), pp. 297-308.
Ashurst, C., and Hodges, J. 2010. "Exploring Business Transformation: The
Challenges of Developing a Benefits Realization Capability," Journal of
Change Management (10:2), pp. 217-237.
Aspara, J., Lamberg, J.-A., Laukia, A., and Tikkanen, H. 2011. "Strategic
Management of Business Model Transformation: Lessons from Nokia,"
Management Decision (49:4), pp. 622-647.
Association for Information Systems. 2011. "Senior Scholars' Basket of Journals,"
Association
for
Information
Systems,
10.04.2014
(http://aisnet.org/?SeniorScholarBasket).
Åström, K.J., and Murray, R.M. 2008. Feedback Systems: An Introduction for
Scientists and Engineers. Princeton, NJ, United States of America: Princeton
University Press.
Bailey, K.D. 1994. Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification
Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA, United States of America: Sage.
Barreto, I. 2010. "Dynamic Capabilities: A Review of Past Research and an Agenda
for the Future," Journal of Management (36:1), pp. 256-280.
Bartunek, J.M., and Moch, M.K. 1987. "First-Order, Second-Order, and Third-Order
Change and Organization Development Interventions: A Cognitive Approach,"
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (23:4), pp. 483-500.
References
139
Baskerville, R.L., Pries-Heje, J., and Venable, J.R. 2008. "Evaluation Risks in Design
Science Research: A Framework," in Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and Technology., V.
Vaishnavi, and R.L. Baskerville (eds.), Atlanta, GA, United States of America,
pp. 329-334.
Basole, R.C., Bellamy, M., Clear, T., Dabkowski, M., Monreal, J., Park, H., Valerdi,
R., and Van Aken, E. 2013. "Challenges and Opportunities for Enterprise
Transformation Research," Journal of Enterprise Transformation (3:4), pp.
330-352.
Basole, R.C., Braunstein, m.L., and Rouse, W.B. 2012. "Enterprise Transformation
Through Mobile ICT: A Framework and Case Study in Healthcare," Journal of
Enterprise Transformation (2:2), pp. 130-156.
Baumöl, U. 2005. "Strategic Agility through Situational Method Construction," in
Proceedings of the European Academy of Management Annual Conference
(EURAM), R. Reichwald, and A.S. Huff (eds.), Munich, Germany.
Baumöl, U. 2008. Change Management in Organisationen: Situative
Methodenkonstruktion für flexible Veränderungsprozesse. Wiesbaden,
Germany: Gabler.
Becker, J., Beverungen, D.F., and Knackstedt, R. 2010. "The Challenge of Conceptual
Modeling for Product–Service Systems: Status-Quo and Perspectives for
Reference Models and Modeling Languages," Information Systems and EBusiness Management (8:1), pp. 33-66.
Becker, J., and Delfmann, P. 2007. Reference Modeling. Efficient Information Systems
Design Through Reuse of Information Models. Heidelberg, Germany: PhysicaVerlag.
Becker, J., Delfmann, P., and Knackstedt, R. 2007a. "Adaptive Reference Modeling:
Integrating Configurative and Generic Adaptation Techniques for Information
Models," in Reference Modeling, J. Becker, and P. Delfmann (eds.).
Heidelberg, Germany: Physica, pp. 27-58.
Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Knackstedt, R., and Kuropka, D. 2002. "Konfigurative
Referenzmodellierung," in Wissensmanagement mit Referenzmodellen.
Konzepte für die Anwendungssystem- und Organisationsgestaltung, J. Becker,
and R. Knackstedt (eds.). Heidelberg, Germany: Physica, pp. 25-144.
Becker, J., Janiesch, C., and Pfeiffer, D. 2007b. "Reuse Mechanisms in Situational
Method Engineering," in Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference
on Situational Method Engineering - Fundamentals and Experiences (ME07), J.
Ralyté, S. Brinkkemper, and B. Henderson-Sellers (eds.), Geneva, Switzerland,
pp. 79-93.
Becker, J., Rosemann, M., and Schütte, R. 1995. "Grundsätze ordnungsmässiger
Modellierung," Wirtschaftsinformatik (37:5), pp. 435-445.
140
References
Becker, J., Rosemann, M., and von Uthmann, C. 2000. "Guidelines of Business
Process Modeling," in Business Process Management, W. Aalst, J. Desel, and
A. Oberweis (eds.). Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 30-49.
Beer, M. 1997. "The Transformation of the Human Resource Function: Resolving the
Tension Between a Traditional Administrative and a New Strategic Role,"
Human Resource Management (36:1), pp. 49-57.
Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R.W. 2003. "The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline –
Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties," MIS Quarterly
(27:2), pp. 183-194.
Bernus, P., and Noran, O. 2010. "A Metamodel for Enterprise Architecture," in
Enterprise Architecture, Integration and Interoperability, P. Bernus, G.
Doumeingts, and M. Fox (eds.). Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 5665.
Besson, P., and Rowe, F. 2012. "Strategizing Information Systems-Enabled
Organizational Transformation: A Transdisciplinary Review and New
Directions," Journal of Strategic Information Systems (21:2), pp. 103-124.
Bhattacharya, P.J., Seddon, P.B., and Scheepers, R. 2010. "Enabling Strategic
Transformations with Enterprise Systems: Beyond Operational Efficiency," in
ICIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 55.
Boh, W.F., and Yellin, D. 2007. "Using Enterprise Architecture Standards in
Managing Information Technology," Journal of Management Information
Systems (23:3), pp. 163-207.
Borgers, M., Harmsen, F., and Langheld, L. 2009. "Measuring the Risks of
Outsourcing: Experiences from Industry," in Advances in Enterprise
Engineering II, LNBIP 28, E. Proper, F. Harmsen, and J.L.G. Dietz (eds.).
Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 197-209.
Bostrom, R.P., and Heinen, S. 1977. "MIS Problems and Failures – A Socio-Technical
Perspective. Part I - The Causes," MIS Quarterly (1:3), pp. 17-32.
Bradley, R.V., Pratt, R.M.E., Byrd, T.A., Outlay, C.N., and Wynn Jr, D.E. 2012.
"Enterprise Architecture, IT Effectiveness and the Mediating Role of IT
Alignment in US hospitals," Informations Systems Journal (22:2), pp. 97-127.
Breu, K. 2001. "The Role and Relevance of Management Cultures in the
Organizational Transformation Process," International Studies of Management
and Organization (31:2), pp. 28-47.
Bricknall, R., Darrell, G., Nilsson, H., and Pessi, K. 2006. "Enterprise Architecture:
Critical Factors Affecting Modelling and Management," in ECIS 2006
Proceedings, Gothenburg, Sweden, Paper 146.
Bucher, T., and Dinter, B. 2012. "Situational Method Engineering to Support Processoriented Information Logistics: Identification of Development Situations,"
Journal of Database Management (23:1), pp. 31-48.
References
141
Bucher, T., Klesse, M., Kurpjuweit, S., and Winter, R. 2007. "Situational Method
Engineering – On the Differentiation of 'Context' and 'Project Type'," in
Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Situational Method
Engineering – Fundamentals and Experiences (ME07), J. Ralyté, S.
Brinkkemper, and B. Henderson-Sellers (eds.), Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 33-48.
By, R.T. 2007. "Organisational Change Management: A Critical Review," Journal of
Change Management (5:4), pp. 369-380.
Byrd, T.A., Cossick, K.L., and Zmud, R.W. 1992. "A Synthesis of Research on
Requirements Anaiysis and Knowledge Acquisition Techniques," MIS
Ouarterly (16:1), pp. 117-138.
Cao, J., Crews, J.M., Lin, M., Deokar, A., Burgoon, J.K., and Nunamaker Jr, J.F.
2006. "Interactions Between System Evaluation and Theory Testing – A
Demonstration of the Power of a Multifaceted Approach to Information
Systems Research," Journal of Management Information Systems (22:4), pp.
207-235.
Caverlee, J., Bae, J., Wu, Q., Liu, L., Pu, C., and Rouse, W.B. 2007. "Workflow
Management for Enterprise Transformation," Information Knowledge Systems
Management (6:1), pp. 61-80.
Chen, Z., and Pooley, R. 2009. "Requirement Analysis for Enterprise Information
Systems – Developing an Ontological Meta-Model for Zackman Framework,"
in ICIS 2009 Proceedings, Phoenix, AZ, United States of America, Paper 182.
Clark, B.H., Abela, A.V., and Ambler, T. 2006. "An Information Processing Model of
Marketing Performance Measurement," The Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice (14:3), pp. 191-208.
Clemons, E.K., and Hann, I.-H. 1999. "Rosenbluth International: Strategic
Transformation of a Successful Enterprise," Journal of Management
Information Systems (16:2), pp. 9-27.
Cooper, R.B. 2000. "Information Technology Development Creativity: A Case Study
of Attempted Radical Change," MIS Quarterly (24:2), pp. 245-276.
Corner, P.D., Kinicki, A.J., and Keats, B.W. 1994. "Integrating Organizational and
Individual Information Processing Perspectives on Choice," Organization
Science (5:3), pp. 294-308.
Cross, J., Earl, M.J., and Sampler, J.L. 1997. "Transformation of the IT Function at
British Petroleum," MIS Quarterly (21:4), pp. 401-423.
Cross, R.L., Yan, A., and Louis, M.R. 2000. "Boundary Activities in 'Boundaryless'
Organizations: A Case Study of a Transformation to a Team-Based Structure,"
Human Relations (53:6), pp. 841-868.
Daft, R.L., and Lengel, R.H. 1986. "Organizational Information Requirements, Media
Richness and Structural Design," Management Science (32:5), pp. 554-571.
142
References
Daniel, E.M., and Wilson, H.N. 2003. "The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in eBusiness Transformation," European Journal of Information Systems (12:4), pp.
282-296.
Davidson, W.H. 1993. "Beyond Re-Engineering: The Three Phases of Business
Transformation," IBM Systems Journal (32:1), pp. 65-79.
De Kinderen, S., Gaaloul, K., and Proper, E. 2012. "Integrating Value Modelling into
ArchiMate," in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Exploring
Service Science, Geneva, Switzerland.
Dehler, G.E., and Welsh, M.A. 1994. "Spirituality and Organizational Transformation:
Implications for the New Management Paradigm," Journal of Managerial
Psychology (9:6), pp. 17-26.
Department of Defense. 2012. "DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.02,"
Department
of
Defense,
04.12.2012
(http://dodcio.defense.gov/dodaf20/dodaf20_dm2.aspx).
Detecon. 2013. "Smart Pack – Business Transformation On-Roading with EAM."
Dietz, J.L.G. 2008. Architecture. Building Strategy Into Design. The Hague, The
Netherlands: Academic Service.
Dietz, J.L.G., Hoogervorst, J.A.G., Albani, A., Aveiro, D., Babkin, E., Barjis, J.,
Caetano, A., Huysmans, P., Iijima, J., Van Kervel, S.J.H., Mulder, H., Op 't
Land, M., Proper, H.A., Sanz, J., Terlouw, L., Tribolet, J., Verelst, J., and
Winter, R. 2013. "The Discipline of Enterprise Engineering," International
Journal of Organizational Design and Engineering (3:1), pp. 86-114.
Dietz, J.L.G., and Hoogervorst, J.A.P. 2008. "Enterprise Ontology in Enterprise
Engineering," in Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on Applied
Computing, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, pp. 572-579.
Dixon, S.E.A., Meyer, K.E., and Day, M. 2010. "Stages of Organizational
Transformation in Transition Economies: A Dynamic Capabilities Approach,"
Journal of Management Studies (47:3), pp. 416-436.
Doolin, B., and McLeod, L. 2012. "Sociomateriality and Boundary Objects in
Information Systems Development," European Journal of Information Systems
(21:5), pp. 570-586.
Dorsch, C., and Haeckel, B. 2012. "An EA-Based Approach to Valuate Enterprise
Transformation: The Case of IS Investments Enabling on Demand Integration
of Service Providers," in ECIS 2012 Proceedings, Barcelona, Spain, Paper 129.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. "Building Theories from Case Study Research," Academy of
Management Review (14:4), pp. 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M., and Graebner, M.E. 2007. "Theory Building from Cases:
Opportunities and Challenges," Academy of Management Journal (50:1), pp.
25-32.
References
143
Elliot, S. 2011. "Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability: A
Resource Base and Framework for IT-Enabled Business Transformation," MIS
Quarterly (35:1), pp. 197-236.
Espinoza, F. 2007. "Enterprise Architecture and Change Management," Journal of
Enterprise Architecture (3:2), pp. 27-35.
European Foundation for Quality Management. 1999. The EFQM Excellence Modell.
Brussels, Belgium: EFQM Representative Office.
eurostat (ed.) 2008. NACE Rev. 2 Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in
the European Community. Luxembourg, Luxembourg:
Fettke, P., and Loos, P. 2003. "Classification of Reference Models – A Methodology
and its Applications," Information Systems and e-Business Management (1:1),
pp. 35-53.
Fettke, P., and Loos, P. 2007. "Perspectives on Reference Modeling," in Reference
Modeling for Business Systems Analysis, P. Fettke, and P. Loos (eds.). Hershey,
PA, United States of America: Idea Group, pp. 1-20.
Flyvbjerg, B., and Budzier, A. 2012. "Why Your IT Project May Be Riskier Than You
Think," Harvard Business Review (89:9), pp. 23-25.
Foorthuis, R.M., van Steenbergen, M., Mushkudiani, N., Bruls, W., Brinkkemper, S.,
and Bos, R. 2010. "On Course, But Not There Yet: Enterprise Architecture
Conformance and Benefits in Systems Development," in ICIS 2010
Proceedings, Saint Louis, MO, United States of America, Paper 110.
Fox-Wolfgramm, S.J., Boal, K.B., and Hunt, J.G. 1998. "Organizational Adaptation to
Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of First-Order Change in Prospector
and Defender Banks," Administrative Science Quarterly (43:1), pp. 87-126.
Frank, U. 2007. "Evaluation of Reference Models," in Reference Modeling for
Business Systems Analysis, P. Fettke, and P. Loos (eds.). Idea Group, pp. 118140.
Fredenberger, W.B., Lipp, A., and Watson, H.J. 1997. "Information Requirements of
Turnaround Managers at the Beginning of Engagements," Journal of
Management Information Systems (13:4), pp. 167-192.
Fry, L.W., Vitucci, S., and Cedillo, M. 2005. "Spiritual Leadership and Army
Transformation: Theory, Measurement, and Establishing a Baseline," The
Leadership Quarterly (16:5), pp. 835-862.
Furneaux, B., Janasz, T., Schild, T., and Klimmek, R. 2012. "Risk Management," in A
Hanbook of Business Transformation Management Methodology, A. Uhl, and
L.A. Gollenia (eds.). Farnham, United Kingdom: Gower, pp. 85-107.
Galbraith, J.R. 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Boston, MA, United States of
America: Addison-Wesley.
Galbraith, J.R. 1974. "Organization Design: An Information Processing View,"
Interfaces (4:3), pp. 28-36.
144
References
Galbraith, J.R. 1977. Organization Design, (1st ed.). Reading, MA, United States of
America: Addison-Wesley.
Galbraith, J.R. 2002. Designing Organizations: An Excecutive Guide to Strategy,
Structure, and Process. San Francisco, CA, United States of America: JosseyBass.
Gardner, D., Fehskens, L., Naidu, M., Rouse, W.B., and Ross, J.W. 2012. "PointCounterpoint: Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Transformation as Related
but Distinct Concepts," Journal of Enterprise Transformation (2:4), pp. 283294.
Gartner, I. 2011. "Predicts 2012: Opportunities for EA to Lead Business
Transformation in Turbulent Times."
Gattiker, T.F., and Goodhue, D.L. 2005. "What Happens After ERP Implementation:
Understanding the Impact of Inter-Dependence and Differentiation on PlantLevel Outcomes," MIS Quarterly (29:3), pp. 559-585.
George, J.M., and Jones, G.R. 1995. Understanding and Managing Organizational
Behavior, (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, United States of America: Prentice
Hall.
Gersick, C.J.G. 1991. "Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Exploration of
the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm," Academy of Management Review
(16:1), pp. 10-36.
Glaser, B.G., and Strauss, A.L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies
for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL, United States of America: Aldine
Publishing.
Gordon, L.A., and Miller, D. 1976. "A Contingency Framework for the Design of
Accounting Information Systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society
(1:1), pp. 59-69.
Gorry, G.A., and Scott Morton, M.S. 1971. "A Framework for Management
Information Systems," Sloan Management Review (13:1), pp. 55-70.
Greefhorst, D., and Proper, E. 2011. Architecture Principles – The Cornerstones of
Enterprise Architecture. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Greenwood, R., and Hinings, C.R. 1996. "Understanding Radical Organizational
Change: Bringing together the Old and the New Institutionalism," The Academy
of Management Review (21:4), pp. 1022-1054.
Gregor, S. 2006. "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly
(30:3), pp. 611-642.
Gregor, S., and Hevner, A.R. 2013. "Positioning and Presenting Design Science
Research for Maximum Impact," MIS Quarterly (37:2), pp. 337-355.
Harmsen, F., Proper, E., and Kok, N. 2009. "Informed Governance of Enterprise
Transformations," in Advances in Enterprise Engineering II, E. Proper, F.
Harmsen, and J.L.G. Dietz (eds.). Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp.
155-180.
References
145
Hellström, A., and Peterson, J. 2006. "Adopting Process Management – the
Importance of Recognizing the Organizational Transformation," The Asian
Journal on Quality (7:1), pp. 20-34.
Herbert, T.T., and Estes, R.W. 1977. "Improving Executive Decisions by Formalizing
Dissent: The Corporate Devil's Advocate," Academy of Management Review
(2:4), pp. 662-667.
Hevner, A.R. 2007. "A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research," Scandinavian
Journal of Information Systems (19:2), pp. 87-92.
Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., and Ram, S. 2004. "Design Science in Information
Systems Research," MIS Quarterly (28:1), pp. 75-105.
Hock-Hai Teo, B., Tan, C.Y., and Wei, K.-K. 1997. "Organizational Transformation
Using Electronic Data Interchange: The Case of TradeNet in Singapore,"
Journal of Management Information Systems (13:4), pp. 139-165.
Holten, R., and Melchert, F. 2002. "Das Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR)Modell," in Wissensmanagement mit Referenzmodellen. Konzepte für die
Anwendungssystem- und Organisationsgestaltung, J. Becker, and R. Knackstedt
(eds.). Heidelberg, Germany: Physica, pp. 207-226.
Hoogervorst, J.A.P. 2009. Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering. Berlin,
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Huy, Q.N. 1999. "Emotional Capability, Emotional Intelligence, and Radical Change,"
Academy of Management Review (24:2), pp. 325-345.
IBM. 2014. "What's Holding Back Organizations From Achieving Effective Change?,"
IBM,
15.06.2014
(http://www01.ibm.com/software/info/itsolutions/enterprisearchitecture/).
IEEE. 1990. "IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology (St.
610.121990)," IEEE Computer Society, New York, NY, United States of
America.
IEEE. 2000. "IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software
Intensive Systems (IEEE Std 1471-2000)," New York, NY, United States of
America.
IFIP-IFAC. 2003. "GERAM – The Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and
Methodology," in Handbook on Enterprise Architecture, P. Bernus, L. Nemes,
and G. Schmidt (eds.). Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 21-63.
Inmon, W.H. 2000. "Creating the Data Warehouse Data Model from the Corporate
Data Model," Inmon Consulting Services, Castle Rock, CO, United States of
America.
Innerhofer-Oberperfler, F., and Breu, R. 2006. "Using an Enterprise Architecture for
IT Risk Management," in Proceedings of the ISSA 2006 from Insight to
Foresight Conference, H.S. Venter, J.H.P. Eloff, L. Labuschagne, and M.M.
Eloff (eds.), Sandton, South Africa.
146
References
International Standards Organization. 2000. "ISO 15704:2000: Industrial Automation
Systems – Requirements for Enterprise-Reference Architectures and
Methodologies," Geneva, Switzerland.
Jackson, M. 1978. "Information Systems: Modeling, Sequencing and Transformation,"
in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering,
Atlanta, FL, United States of America, pp. 72-81.
Jaffe, E.D. 1979. "Multinational Marketing Intelligence: An Information Requirements
Model," Management International Review (19:2), pp. 53-60.
Janssen, M., Veenstra, A., and Voort, H. 2013. "Management and Failure of Large
Transformation Projects: Factors Affecting User Adoption," in Grand Successes
and Failures in IT. Public and Private Sectors, Y. Dwivedi, H. Henriksen, D.
Wastell, and R. Dè (eds.). Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 121-135.
Jenkins, J.C. 1977. "Radical Transformation of Organizational Goals," Administrative
Science Quarterly (22:4), pp. 568-586.
Jick, T.D. 1979. "Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in
Action," Administrative Science Quarterly (24:4), pp. 602-611.
Johnson, A.M., and Lederer, A.L. 2005. "The Effect of Communication Frequency and
Channel Richness on the Convergence between Chief Executive and Chief
Information Officers," Journal of Management Information Systems (22:2), pp.
227-252.
Johnston, J., and Madura, J. 2000. "Valuing the Potential Transformation of Banks
into Financial Service Conglomerates: Evidence from the Citigroup Merger,"
The Financial Review (35:2), pp. 17-36.
Keller, S., Meaney, M., and Pung, C. 2010. "McKinsey Global Survey Results: What
Successful Transformations Share," McKinsey & Company.
Keller, S., and Price, C. 2011. Beyond Performance: How Great Organizations Build
Ultimate Competitive Advantage, (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ, United States of
America: John Wiley & Sons.
Kilmann, R. 1995. "A Holistic Program and Critical Success Factors of Corporate
Transformation," European Management Journal (13:2), pp. 175-186.
Kitching, E., and Roy, S. 2013. "70% of Transformation Programs Fail," Association
of International Product Marketing and Management (AIPMM) Webinar Series.
Klecun, E., and Cornford, T. 2005. "A Critical Approach to Evaluation," European
Journal of Information Systems (14:3), pp. 229-243.
Klein, A., and Krcmar, H. 2003. "DCXNET: E-Transformation at DaimlerChrysler,"
in ICIS 2003 Proceedings, Paper 103.
Kluge, C., Dietzsch, A., and Rosemann, M. 2006. "How to realise corporate value
from enterprise architecture," in ECIS 2006 Proceedings, Paper 133.
References
147
Kohnke, O., Reiche, S., and Balla, E. 2012. "Organizational Change Management," in
A Hanbook of Business Transformation Management Methodology, A. Uhl, and
L.A. Gollenia (eds.). Farnham, United Kingdom: Gower, pp. 169-198.
Kotnour, T., and Bollo, T.R. 2011. "Strategic Management of a Transformation in a
Multi-Program Technology Program Involving Convergence and Divergence of
Programs: Observations from NASA," International Journal of Technology
Management (53:2/3/4), pp. 257-272.
Kotter, J.P. 1995. "Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail," Harvard
Business Review (73:2), pp. 59-67.
Labusch, N., Aier, S., Rothenberger, M., and Winter, R. 2014a. "Architectural Support
of Enterprise Transformations: Insights from Corporate Practice," in
Tagungsband Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2014, D. Kundisch, L.
Suhl, and L. Beckmann (eds.), Paderborn, Germany, pp. 1048-1060.
Labusch, N., Aier, S., and Winter, R. 2014b. "A Reference Model for the InformationBased Support of Enterprise Transformations," in Advancing the Impact of
Design Science: Moving from Theory to Practice, M.C. Tremblay, D. Van der
Meer, M. Rothenberger, A. Gupta, and V. Yoon (eds.), Miami, FL, United
States of America, pp. 194-208.
Labusch, N., Koebele, F., Aier, S., and Winter, R. 2013. "The Architects' Perspective
on Enterprise Transformation: An Explorative Study," in Proceedings of the 6th
Workshop on Practice Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation (PRET),
F. Harmsen, and H.A. Proper (eds.), Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 106-124.
Labusch, N., and Winter, R. 2012. "Method Support of Large-Scale Transformation in
the Insurance Sector: Exploring Foundations," in Proceedings of the 7th
Workshop Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR) and Practice
Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation (PRET), S. Aier, M. Ekstedt, F.
Matthes, E. Proper, and J.L. Sanz (eds.), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 60-78.
Labusch, N., and Winter, R. 2013. "Towards a Conceptualization of Architectural
Support for Enterprise Transformation," in ECIS 2013 Proceedings, Utrecht,
The Netherlands, Paper 137.
Lahrmann, G., Labusch, N., Winter, R., and Uhl, A. 2012. "Management of LargeScale Transformation Programs: State of the Practice and Future Potential," in
Proceedings of the Workshop Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research
(TEAR) and Practice Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation (PRET),
S. Aier, M. Ekstedt, F. Matthes, E. Proper, and J.L. Sanz (eds.), Barcelona,
Spain, pp. 253-267.
Lahrmann, G., Marx, F., Mettler, T., Winter, R., and Wortmann, F. 2011. "Inductive
Design of Maturity Models: Applying the Rasch Algorithm for Design Science
Research," in Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research,
Proceedings of the DESRIST 2011, H. Jain, A.P. Sinha, and P. Vitharana (eds.),
pp. 176-191.
148
References
Lange, M., Mendling, J., and Recker, J. 2012. "Realizing Benefits from Enterprise
Architecture: A Measurement Model," in ECIS 2012 Proceedings, Barcelona,
Spain, Paper 10.
Lankhorst, M., et al. 2009a. Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling,
Communication and Analysis, (2nd ed.). Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer.
Lankhorst, M., et al. 2013. Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling,
Communication and Analysis, (3rd ed.). Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Lankhorst, M., Proper, E., and Jonkers, H. 2009b. "The Architecture of the ArchiMate
Language," in Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop, BPMDS 2009,
and 14th International Conference, EMMSAD 2009, held at CAiSE 2009, T.
Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, E. Proper, R. Schmidt, P. Soffer, and R. Ukor
(eds.), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Laudon, K.C., and Laudon, J.P. 2006. Management Information Systems: Managing
the Digital Firm, (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, United States of America:
Prentice Hall.
Lawrence, T.B., Malhotra, N., and Morris, T. 2012. "Episodic and Systemic Power in
the Transformation of Professional Service Firms," Journal of Management
Studies (49:1), pp. 103-143.
Leach, L.P. 1999. "Critical Chain Project Management Improves Project
Performance," Project Management Journal (30:2), pp. 39-52.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., and Beck, T.E. 2005. "Adaptive Fit Versus Robust
Transformation: How Organizations Respond to Environmental Change,"
Journal of Management (31:5), pp. 738-757.
Levene, R.J., and Braganza, A. 1996. "Controlling the Work Scope in Organisational
Transformation: A Programme Management Approach," International Journal
of Project Management (14:6), pp. 331-339.
Levina, N., and Vaast, E. 2005. "The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence
in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems,"
MIS Quarterly (29:2), pp. 335-363.
Likert, R. 1932. "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," Archives of
Psychology (22:140), pp. 1-55.
Lohman, F.A.B., Sol, H.G., and de Vreede, G. 2003. "The Illusion of Effective
Management Information: A Critical Perspective," in Proceedings of the 36th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Big
Island, HI, United States of America.
Lucas, H.C., Agarwal, R., Clemons, E.K., El Sawy, O.A., and Weber, B. 2013.
"Impactful Research on Transformational Information Technology: An
Opportunity to Inform New Audiences," MIS Quarterly (37:2), pp. 371-382.
References
149
Luiten, G., Cooper, G., Froese, T., Junge, R., Björk, B.C., Karstila, K., and Oxman, R.
1993. "An Information Reference Model for Architecture, Engineering, and
Construction," in Proceedings of the First International Conference on the
Management of Information Technology for Construction, Singapore, pp. 1-10.
Lyytinen, K., and Newman, M. 2008. "Explaining Information Systems Change: A
Punctuated Socio-Technical Change Model," European Journal of Information
Systems (17:6), pp. 589-613.
Madu, C.N., and Kuei, C.-H. 1994. "Strategic Total Quality Management —
Transformation Process Overview," Total Quality Management (5:5), pp. 255266.
March, S.T., and Smith, G.F. 1995. "Design and Natural Science Research on
Information Technology," Decision Support Systems (15:4), pp. 251-266.
Mayer, J.H., Winter, R., and Mohr, T. 2012. "Situational Management Support
Systems – Accommodating the Growing Range of Working Styles, Use Cases,
and Access Modes," Business & Information Systems Engineering (4:6), pp.
331-345.
McAdam, R. 2003. "Radical Change: A Conceptual Model for Research Agendas,"
Leadership & Organization Development Journal (24:4), pp. 226-235.
McGinnis, L.F. 2007. "Enterprise Modeling and Enterprise Transformation,"
Information, Knowledge, Systems Management (6:1-2), pp. 123-143.
Mikaelian, T., Nightingale, D.J., Rhodes, D.H., and Hastings, D.E. 2011. "Real
Options in Enterprise Architecture: A Holistic Mapping of Mechanisms and
Types for Uncertainty Management," IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management (58:3), pp. 457-470.
Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook, (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd.
Morgan, P.I., and Ogbonna, E. 2008. "Subcultural Dynamics in Transformation: A
Multi-Perspective Study of Healthcare Professionals," Human Relations (61:1),
pp. 39-65.
Myers, M.D. 2002. "Qualitative Research in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly
(21:2), pp. 241-242.
National Bureau of Standards. 1993. Integration Definition for Information Modeling
(IDEF0). Washington D.C., United States of America: National Bureau of
Standards.
Newman, K.L. 2000. "Organizational Transformation during Institutional Upheaval,"
The Academy of Management Review (25:3), pp. 602-619.
Nicolai, A., and Seidl, D. 2010. "That’s Relevant! Different Forms of Practical
Relevance in Management Science," Organization Studies (31:9-10), pp. 12571285.
150
References
Nightingale, D.J., and Mize, J.H. 2002. "Development of a Lean Enterprise
Transformation Maturity Model," Information Knowledge Systems
Managagement Journal (3:1), pp. 15-30.
Noy, C. 2007. "Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in
Qualitative Research," International Journal of Social Research Methodology
(11:4), pp. 327-344.
Op’t Land, M., Proper, E., Waage, M., Cloo, J., and Steghuis, C. 2009. Enterprise
Architecture – Creating Value by Informed Governance. Berlin, Germany:
Springer.
Orlikowski, W.J. 1996. "Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A
Situated Change Perspective," Information Systems Research (7:1), pp. 63-92.
Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P.,
Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., and Sinz, E. 2011. "Memorandum on designoriented information systems research," European Journal of Information
Systems (20:1), pp. 7-10.
Österle, H., and Winter, R. 2003a. "Business Engineering," in Business Engineering Auf dem Weg zum Unternehmen des Informationszeitalters, H. Österle, and R.
Winter (eds.). Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 3-19.
Österle, H., and Winter, R. 2003b. Business Engineering, (2nd ed.). Berlin,
Heidelberg, Germany, New York, NY, United States of America: Springer.
Otto, B., and Österle, H. 2012. "Principles for Knowledge Creation in Collaborative
Design Science Research," in ICIS 2012 Proceedings, Orlando, FL, United
States of America, pp. 2408-2423.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., and Chatterjee, S. 2007. "A Design
Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research," Journal of
Management Information Systems (24:3), pp. 45-77.
Peristeras, V., and Tarabanis, K. 2000. "Towards an Enterprise Architecture for Public
Administration using a Top-Down Approach," European Journal of
Information Systems (9), pp. 252-260.
Pimmer, C., Haefliger, J., and Blumer, F. 2012. "Competence and Training
Management," in A Hanbook of Business Transformation Management
Methodology, A. Uhl, and L.A. Gollenia (eds.). Farnham, United Kingdom:
Gower, pp. 199-216.
Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors. New York, NY, United States of America: Free Press.
Porter, M.E. 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. New York, NY, United States of America: Free Press.
Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., and Saunders, C.S. 2005. "Information Processing
View of Organizations: An Exploratory Examination of Fit in the Context of
Interorganizational Relationships," Journal of Management Information
Systems (22:1), pp. 257-294.
References
151
Preston, D.S., and Karahanna, E. 2009. "Antecedents of IS Strategic Alignment: A
Nomological Network," Information Systems Research (20:2), pp. 159-179.
Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.L., and Venable, J.R. 2008. "Strategies for design science
research evaluation," in Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on
Information Systems, Galway, Ireland, pp. 255-266.
Project Management Institute. 2004. A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge, (3rd ed.). Newtown Square, PA, Unites States of America: Project
Management Institute.
Proper, E., and Greefhorst, D. 2010. "The Roles of Principles in Enterprise
Architecture," in Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research, E. Proper, M.M.
Lankhorst, M. Schönherr, J. Barjis, and S. Overbeek (eds.). Berlin, Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer, pp. 57-70.
Prosci. 2014. Best Practices in Change Management / 2014 Edition. Loveland, CO,
United States of America: Prosci Inc.
Pulkkinen, M., Naumenko, A., and Luostarinen, K. 2007. "Managing Information
Security in a Business Network of Machinery Maintenance Services Business –
Enterprise Architecture as a Coordination Tool," Journal of Systems and
Software (80:10), pp. 1607-1620.
Purchase, V., Parry, G., Valerdi, R., Nightingale, D., and Mills, J. 2011. "Enterprise
Transformation: Why are we Interested, What is It, and What are the
Challenges?," Journal of Enterprise Transformation (1:1), pp. 14-33.
Radeke, F. 2011. "Toward Understanding Enterprise Architecture Management’s Role
in Strategic Change: Antecedents, Processes, Outcomes," in Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik WI 2.011, A. Bernstein,
and G. Schwabe (eds.), pp. 497-507.
Romanelli, E., and Tushman, M.L. 1994. "Organizational Transformation as
Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test," The Academy of Management
Journal (37:5), pp. 1141-1166.
Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Safrudin, N., and Marketsmueller, R. 2012. "Program and
Project Management," in A Hanbook of Business Transformation Management
Methodology, A. Uhl, and L.A. Gollenia (eds.). Farnham, United Kingdom:
Gower, pp. 217-244.
Rosemann, M., and Schütte, R. 1997. "Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger
Referenzmodellierung," in Proceedings zur Veranstaltung Entwicklungsstand
und Entwicklungsperspektiven der Referenzmodellierung, J. Becker, Rosemann,
Michael, and R. Schütte (eds.), Münster, Germany, pp. 16-33.
Rosenbloom, R.S. 2000. "Leadership, Capabilities, and Technological Change: The
Transformation of NCR in the Electronic Era," Strategic Management Journal
(21:10-11), pp. 1093-1103.
152
References
Roskies, E., Liker, J.K., and Roitman, D.B. 1988. "Winners and Losers: Employee
Perceptions of Their Company's Technological Transformation," Journal of
Organizational Behavior (9:2), pp. 123-137.
Ross, J.W. 2003. "Creating a Strategic IT Architecture Competency: Learning in
Stages," MIS Quarterly Executive (2:1), pp. 31-43.
Ross, J.W., and Quaadgras, A. 2012. "Enterprise Architecture Is Not Just for
Architects," Center for Information Systems Research Sloan School of
Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United
States of America.
Rouse, W.B. 2005a. "Enterprises as Systems: Essential Challenges and Approaches to
Transformation," Systems Engineering (8:2), pp. 138-150.
Rouse, W.B. 2005b. "A Theory of Enterprise Transformation," Systems Engineering
(8:4), pp. 279-295.
Rouse, W.B., and Baba, M.L. 2006. "Enterprise Transformation," Communications of
the ACM (49:7), pp. 67-72.
Roy, R., Souchoroukov, P., and Shehab, E. 2011. "Detailed Cost Estimating in the
Automotive Industry: Data and Information Requirements," International
Journal of Production Economics (133:2), pp. 694-707.
Safrudin, N., Rosemann, M., Recker, J., and Genrich, M. 2014. "A Typology of
Business Transformations," 360° – The Business Transformation Journal (10),
pp. 25-41.
Sammon, D., and Adam, F. 2008. "Justifying an ERP Investment: Critical Success
Factors for Transformation Investments," in ICIS 2008 Proceedings, Paris,
France, Paper 60.
Sarker, S., and Lee, A.S. 1999. "IT-Enabled Organizational Transformation: A Case
Study of BPR Failure at TELECO," The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems (8:1), pp. 83-103.
Schaeffer, J., Szafron, D., Lobe, G., and Parsons, I. 1993. "The Enterprise Model for
Developing Distributed Applications," IEEE Parallel and Distributed
Technology (1:3), pp. 85-96.
Schein, E.H. 1997. Organizational Culture and Leadership, (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA, United States of America: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schlagheck, B. 2000. Objektorientierte Referenzmodelle für das Prozess- und
Projektcontrolling: Grundlagen – Konstruktion – Anwendungsmöglichkeiten.
Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Schmidt, C., and Buxmann, P. 2011. "Outcomes and Success Factors of Enterprise IT
Architecture Management: Empirical Insight from the International Financial
Services Industry," European Journal of Information Systems (20:2), pp. 168185.
References
153
Schrader, U., and Hennig-Thurau, T. 2009. "VHB-JOURQUAL2: Method, Results,
and Implications of the German Academic Association for Business Research's
Journal Ranking," BuR - Business Research (2:2), pp. 180-204.
Schütte, R. 1998. Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Referenzmodellierung – Konstruktion
konfigurations- und anpassungsorientierter Modelle. Wiesbaden, Germany:
Gabler.
Seawright, J., and Gerring, J. 2008. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study
Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options," Political Research
Quarterly (6:2), pp. 294-308.
Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., and Lindgren, R. 2011. "Action
Design Research," MIS Quarterly (35:1), pp. 37-56.
Simon, D. 2009. "Application Landscape Transformation and the Role of Enterprise
Architecture Frameworks," in Proceedings of the MDD, SOA und ITManagement, U. Steffens, J.S. Addicks, M. Postina, and N. Streekmann (eds.),
Braunschweig, Germany, pp. 1-16.
Simon, D., Fischbach, K., and Schoder, D. 2014. "Enterprise Architecture
Management and its Role in Corporate Strategic Management," Information
Systems and E-Business Management (12:1), pp. 5-42.
Simon, H.A. 1962. "The Architecture of Complexity," Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society (106:6), pp. 467-482.
Simon, H.A. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA, United States of
America: MIT Press.
Singh, R., Mathiassen, L., Stachura, M.E., and Astapova, E.V. 2011. "Dynamic
Capabilities in Home Health: IT-Enabled Transformation of Post-Acute Care,"
Journal of the Association for Information Systems (12:2), p. Article 2.
Sitalaksmi, S., and Zhu, Y. 2010. "The Transformation of Human Resource
Management in Indonesian State-Owned Enterprises Since the Asian Crisis,"
Asia Pacific Business Review (16:1), pp. 37-57.
Smolander, K., Rossi, M., and Purao, S. 2008. "Software Architectures: Blueprint,
Literature, Language or Decision?," European Journal of Information Systems
(17:6), pp. 575-588.
Sonnenberg, C., and vom Brocke, J. 2012. "Evaluations in the Science of the Artificial
– Reconsidering the Build-Evaluate Pattern in Design Science Research," in
Design Science Research in Information Systems. Advances in Theory and
Practice, K. Peffers, M. Rothenberger, and B. Kuechler (eds.). Berlin,
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 381-397.
Sowa, J.F., and Zachman, J.A. 1992. "Extending and Formalizing the Framework for
Information Systems Architecture," IBM Systems Journal (31:3), pp. 590-616.
Steinhorst, M., Breuker, D., Delfmann, P., and Dietrich, H.-A. 2012. "Supporting
Enterprise Transformation using a Universal Model Analysis Approach," in
ECIS 2012 Proceedings, Paper 147.
154
References
Stiles, P., and Uhl, A. 2012. "Meta Management: Connecting the Parts of Business
Transformation," 360° – The Business Transformation Journal (3), pp. 24-29.
Stiles, P., Uhl, A., and Stratil, P. 2012. "Meta Management," in A Hanbook of Business
Transformation Management Methodology, A. Uhl, and L.A. Gollenia (eds.).
Farnham, United Kingdom: Gower, pp. 13-29.
Strano, C., and Rehmani, Q. 2007. "The Role of the Enterprise Architect,"
International Journal of Information Systems and e-Business Management
(5:4), pp. 379-396.
Strauss, A.L., and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA, United States of America:
Sage.
Supply Chain Council. 2009. "SCOR Frameworks," Supply Chain Council,
10.10.2009 (http://www.supply-chain.org/resources/scor).
Swapna, R., and Raja, K.G. 2012. "Business Transformation Management – The Role
of Talent Management With Special Reference to Service Sector," Advances in
Management (5:2), pp. 61-63.
Tamm, T., Seddon, P.B., Shanks, G., and Reynolds, P. 2011. "How Does Enterprise
Architecture Add Value to Organisations?," Communications of the Association
for Information Systems (28:1), pp. 141-168.
Teece,
D.J. 2007. "Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The
Nature and
Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance," Strategic
Management Journal (28:13), pp. 1319-1350.
The Open Group. 2011. TOGAF Version 9.1. Berkshire, United Kingdom: The Open
Group.
The Open Group. 2012. "ArchiMate® 2.0 Specification," The Open Group, Berkshire,
United Kingdom.
The Open Group. 2014. "The Open Group Blog," The Open Group, 15.06.2014
(http://blog.opengroup.org/tag/business-transformation/).
Thomas, O. 2006. "Understanding the Term Reference Model in Information Systems
Research: History, Literature Analysis and Explanation," in Business Process
Management Workshops, C.J. Bussler, and A. Haller (eds.), Nancy, France, pp.
484-496.
Thorogood, A., Reynolds, P., and Yetton, P. 2010. "Performing Under Pressure: IT
Execution in a $1.4bn Business Transformation," in ICIS 2010 Proceedings,
Paper 164.
Tichy, N.M. 1983. "Managing Organizational Transformations," Human Resource
Management (22:1-2), pp. 45-60.
Tushman, M.L., and Nadler, D.A. 1978. "Information Processing as an Integrating
Concept in Organizational Design," The Academy of Management Review (3:3),
pp. 613-624.
References
155
Uhl, A., and Gollenia, L.A. (eds.). 2012. A Handbook of Business Transformation
Management Methodology. Farnham, United Kingdom: Gower.
Uhl, A., Houlder, D., Schmid, D., and von der Horst, M. 2012. "Strategy
Management," in A Hanbook of Business Transformation Management
Methodology, A. Uhl, and L.A. Gollenia (eds.). Farnham, United Kingdom:
Gower, pp. 31-55.
Van Aken, J.E., and Romme, A.G.L. 2009. "Reinventing the Future: Adding Design
Science to the Repertoire of Organization and Management Studies,"
Organization Management Journal (6:1), pp. 5-12.
Van der Beek, W.t.H., Trienekens, J., and Grefen, P. 2012. "The Application of
Enterprise Reference Architecture in the Financial Industry," in Trends in
Enterprise Architecture Research and Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise
Transformation, S. Aier, M. Ekstedt, F. Matthes, E. Proper, and J.L. Sanz
(eds.). Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 93-110.
Van der Raadt, B., and Van Vliet, H. 2008. "Designing the Enterprise Architecture
Function," in Quality of Software Architectures, S. Becker, P. Frantisek, and R.
Reussner (eds.). Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 103-118.
Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., Venkatraman, S., and Bates, J. 2007. "Enterprise Architecture
Maturity: The Story of the Veterans Health Administration," MIS Quarterly
Executive (6:2), pp. 79-90.
Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft. 2011. "VHB-JOURQUAL 2.1
(2011) – Alphabetische Übersicht JQ 2.1," Verband der Hochschullehrer für
Betriebswirtschaft, 24.07.2013 (http://vhbonline.org/service/jourqual/vhbjourqual-21-2011/alphabetische-uebersicht-jq-21/).
vom Brocke, J. 2003. Referenzmodellierung – Gestaltung und Verteilung von
Konstruktionsprozessen. Berlin, Germany: Logos.
vom Brocke, J. 2007. "Design Principles for Reference Modeling – Reusing
Information Models by Means of Aggregation, Specialization, Instantiation, and
Analogy," in Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis, P. Fettke, and
P. Loos (eds.). Hershey, PA, Unites States: Idea Group, pp. 47-75.
vom Brocke, J., and Buddendick, C. 2006. "Reusable Conceptual Models Requirements Based on the Design Science Research Paradigm," in
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design Science Research
in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), S. Chatterjee, and A.
Hevner (eds.), Claremont, CA, United States of America, pp. 576-604.
vom Brocke, J., Petry, M., and Gonser, T. 2012. "Business Process Management," in A
Hanbook of Business Transformation Management Methodology, A. Uhl, and
L.A. Gollenia (eds.). Farnham, United Kingdom: Gower, pp. 109-139.
vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., and Cleven, A.
2009. "Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour in Documenting
the Literature Search Process," in ECIS 2009 Proceedings, Verona, Italy, pp.
2206-2217.
156
References
vom Brocke, J., and Thomas, O. 2006. "Designing Infrastructures for Reusing
Conceptual Models – A General Framework and its Application for
Collaborative Reference Modeling," in Proceedings of the Ninth International
Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS'06), A. Abramowicz, and
H.C. Mayr (eds.), Klagenfurt, Austria.
Wagter, R., Proper, H.A., and Witte, D. 2012. "A Practice-Based Framework for
Enterprise Coherence," in Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise
Transformation, E. Proper, K. Gaaloul, F. Harmsen, and S. Wrycza (eds.), pp.
77-95.
Ward, J., Rennebaum, T., and Amling, S. 2012. "Value Management," in A Hanbook
of Business Transformation Management Methodology, A. Uhl, and L.A.
Gollenia (eds.). Farnham, United Kingdom: Gower, pp. 57-81.
Ward, J., and Uhl, A. 2012. "Success and Failure in Transformation – Lessons from 13
Case Studies," 360° – The Business Transformation Journal (3), pp. 30-38.
Watson, H.J., and Frolick, M.N. 1993. "Determining Information Requirements for an
EIS," MIS Quarterly (17:3), pp. 255-269.
Watson, H.J., Houdeshel, G., and Rainer, R.K., Jr. 1997. Building Executive
Information Systems and other Decision Support Applications. New York, NY,
United States of America: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Webster, J., and Watson, R.T. 2002. "Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future:
Writing a Literature Review," MIS Quarterly (26:2), pp. 13-23.
Winter, R. 2008. "Design Science Research in Europe," European Journal of
Information Systems (17:5), pp. 470-475.
Winter, R. 2011a. Business Engineering Navigator – Gestaltung und Analyse von
Geschäftslösungen "Business-to-IT". Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Winter, R. 2011b. "Design Solution Analysis for the Construction of Situational
Design Methods," in Engineering Methods in the Service-Oriented Context, J.
Ralyté, I. Mirbel, and R. Deneckère (eds.), Paris, France, pp. 19-33.
Winter, R. 2011c. "Problem Analysis for Situational Artefact Construction in
Information Systems," in Emerging Themes in Information Systems and
Organization Studies, A. Carugati, and C. Rossignoli (eds.). Heidelberg,
Germany: Physica, pp. 97-113.
Winter, R. 2012. "Construction of Situational Information Systems Management
Methods," International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design
(3:4), pp. 67-85.
Winter, R. 2014. "Catchword: Architectural Thinking," Business & Information
Systems Engineering (forthcomming).
References
157
Winter, R., and Albani, A. 2013. "Restructuring the Design Science Research
Knowledge Base – A One-Cycle View of Design Science Research and its
Consequences for Understanding Organizational Design Problems," in
Designing Organizational Systems: An Interdisciplinary Discourse, R.
Baskerville, M. de Marco, and P. Spagnoletti (eds.). Berlin, Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer, pp. 63-81.
Winter, R., and Fischer, R. 2007. "Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of
Enterprise Architecture," Journal of Enterprise Architecture (3:2), pp. 7-18.
Winter, R., Gericke, A., and Bucher, T. 2009. "Method versus Model – Two Sides of
the Same Coin?," in Advances in Enterprise Engineering III: 5th International
Workshop, CIAO! 2009, and 5th International Workshop, EOMAS 2009, held at
CAiSE 2009, A. Albani, J. Barijs, and J.L.G. Dietz (eds.), Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, pp. 1-15.
Winter, R., and Schelp, J. 2008. "Enterprise Architecture Governance: The Need for a
Business-to-IT Approach," in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium
on Applied Computing, L.M. Liebrock (ed.), Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil, pp. 548552.
Winter, R., Townson, S., Uhl, A., Labusch, N., and Noack, J. 2012a. "Enterprise
Architecture and Transformation: The Differences and the Synergy Potential of
Enterprise Architecture and Business Transformation Management," 360° – The
Business Transformation Journal (5), pp. 22-31.
Winter, R., Townson, S., Uhl, A., Labusch, N., and Noack, J. 2013. "Enterprise
Architecture and Transformation: The Differences and the Synergy Potential of
Enterprise Architecture and Business Transformation Management," in
Business Transformation Essentials: Case Studies and Articles, A. Uhl, and
L.A. Gollenia (eds.). Surrey, United Kingdom: Gower, pp. 219-231.
Winter, R., Wortmann, F., Gubler, P., Elting, A., and Schultheis, W. 2012b.
"Transformational IT Management," in A Handbook of Business
Transformation Management Methodology, A. Uhl, and L. Gollenia (eds.).
Farnham, United Kingdom: Gower, pp. 145-167.
Wischnevsky, J.D., and Damanpour, F. 2005. "Punctuated Equilibrium Model of
Organizational Transformation: Sources and Consequences in the Banking
Industry," Research In Organizational Change and Development (15:4), pp.
207-239.
World Café Community Foundation. 2013. "The World Café," World Café
Community Foundation, 01.02.2013 (http://www.theworldcafe.com).
Yadav, S.B. 1985. "Classifying an Organization to Identify Its Information
Requirements: A Comprehensive Framework," Journal of Management
Information Systems (2:1), pp. 39-60.
Zachman, J.A. 1987. "A Framework for Information Systems Architecture," IBM
Systems Journal (26:3), pp. 276-292.
158
References
Zald, M.N., and Denton, P. 1963. "From Evangelism to General Service: The
Transformation of the YMCA," Administrative Science Quarterly (8:2), pp.
214-234.
Zimmermann, H. 1980. "OSI Reference Model – The ISO Model of Architecture for
Open Systems Interconnection," IEEE Transactions on Communications (28:4),
pp. 425-432.
Curriculum Vitae
159
Curriculum Vitae
Date of Birth:
23. April 1985
Place of Birth:
Duisburg
Nationality:
German
Education
2011 - 2014
University of St.Gallen (HSG), Switzerland
Ph.D. program in Business Innovation
2008 - 2011
Westphalian Wilhelminian University Münster, Germany
Master of Science in Information Systems (M.Sc.)
2005 - 2008
Westphalian Wilhelminian University Münster, Germany
Bachelor of Science in Information Systems (B.Sc.)
1995 - 2004
Bertha-von-Suttner College-Prep High School
Oberhausen, Germany
University Entrance Diploma
Work Experience
2011 2014
Research Assistant at the Institute of Information
Management, Switzerland
University of St.Gallen, Prof. Winter
2009 - 2010
Internship IT-Management, United States
ContiTech North America, Inc.
2008
Internship Consulting , Germany
Deloitte & Touche Wirtschaftsprüfungs GmbH