Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leveraging business-IT alignment through enterprise architecture—an empirical study to estimate the extents

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Achieving business-IT alignment (BITA) as a long-term and appraising management issue can be accomplished in a few ways, enterprise architecture (EA) being one of them. This paper attempts to give a critical understanding of the effects of performing EA on different aspects of BITA maturity through a global survey. A total of 236 respondents from 60 countries, a relatively large response for a survey, were selected. The main purpose of the research is to examine these impacts and to identify directions for innovative practices in the future, the unique contributions of this work. A questionnaire designed on the Luftman’s maturity model as well as various other statistical methods, including PLS path modeling, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test and Mann–Whitney U test, are applied to understand how the EA can deliver benefits. The implications of our findings in this study as well as its limitations are discussed from different viewpoints to enable both academics and practitioners to detect the flaws in the existing EA frameworks and propose improvements.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. www.esurveyspro.com/Survey.aspx?id=21d43f35-4dc1-40e5-bfab-9f5d6ec1d485.

  2. The value of t for df = ∞ and α = 0.05 in the Table of Student’s t distribution (two-tailed).

References

  1. Craig D, Kanakamedala K, Tinaikar R (2007) The next frontier in IT strategy: a McKinsey Survey. McKinsey Quarterly, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  2. McGee MK (2008) IT and business alignment remains CIO’s top concern. InformationWeek

  3. Reich BH, Benbasat I (2000) Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives. MIS Q 24(1):81–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Valentine V (2011) IT management concerns changing rapidly. Information Management

  5. Alaeddini M, Salekfard S (2013) Investigating the role of an enterprise architecture project in the business-IT alignment in Iran. Inf Syst Front 15(1):67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen HM (2008) Towards service engineering: service orientation and business-IT alignment. In: 41st Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Waikoloa, HI, p 114

  7. Chen HM, Kazman R, Garg A (2005) BITAM: an engineering-principled method for managing misalignments between business and IT architectures. Sci Comput Program 57(1):5–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gregor S, Hart D (2007) Enterprise architectures: enablers of business strategy and IS/IT alignment in government. Inf Technol People 20(2):96–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lagerström R, Sommestad T, Buschle M, Ekstedt M (2011) Enterprise architecture management’s impact on information technology success. In: 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Kauai, HI, pp 1–10

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. Versteeg G, Bouwman H (2006) Business architecture: a new paradigm to relate business strategy to ICT. Inf Syst Front 8(2):91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wegmann A, Balabko P, Le LS, Regev G, Rychkova I (2005) A method and tool for business-IT alignment in enterprise architecture. In: The 17th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE), Porto, Portugal

  13. Wilkinson M (2006) Designing an ‘adaptive’ enterprise. BT Technol J 24(4):81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhattacharjya J, Chang V (2006) Evolving IT governance practices for IT and business alignment—a case study in an Australian Institution. In: 4th Annual conference on information science, technology and management (CISTM), Chandigarh, India

  15. Edwards BA (2000) Chief executive officer behavior: the catalyst for strategic alignment. Int J Value-Based Manag 13(1):47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vitantonio GD, Legh-Smith J, Millar W, Wilkinson M (2006) Meeting business objectives through adaptive information and communications technology. BT Technol J 24(4):113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Henderson JC, Venkatraman N (1993) Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Syst J 32(1):472–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Luftman J, Lewis PR, Oldach SH (1993) Transforming the enterprise: the alignment of business and information technology strategies. IBM Syst J 32(1):198–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rathnam RG, Johnsen J, Wen HJ (2005) Alignment of business strategy and IT strategy: a case study of a fortune 50 financial services company. J Comput Inf Syst 45(2):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  20. Silvius AJG (2008) The impact of national cultures on business & IT alignment. Commun IIMA 8(2):11–22

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wegmann A, Regev G, Rychkova I, Lê LS, de la Cruz JD (2007) Business and IT alignment with SEAM for enterprise architecture. In: 11th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC), Annapolis, MD, pp 111–121

  22. Kang D, Lee J, Kim K (2010) Alignment of business enterprise architectures using fact-based ontologies. Expert Syst Appl 37(4):3274–3283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. van der Raadt B, Bonnet M, Schouten S, van Vliet H (2010) The relation between EA effectiveness and stakeholder satisfaction. J Syst Softw 83(10):1954–1969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elhari K, Bounabat B (2011) Platform for assessing strategic alignment using enterprise architecture: application to e-government process assessment. Int J Comput Sci Issues 8(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  25. Clark T, Barn B, Oussena S (2012) A method for enterprise architecture alignment. In: Proper E, Gaaloul K, Harmsen F, Wrycza S (eds) Practice-driven research on enterprise transformation, vol 120. Lecture notes in business information processing. Springer, Berlin, pp 48–76

  26. Fritscher B, Pigneur Y (2011) Business IT alignment from Business model to enterprise architecture. In: Advanced information systems engineering workshops. Springer, Berlin, pp 4–15

  27. Luftman J (2000) Assessing business-IT alignment Maturity. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 4(14):1–50

    Google Scholar 

  28. Derzsi Z, Gordijn J (2005) Value-based business-ICT alignment: a case study of the mobile industry. In: 12th research symposium on emerging electronic markets (RSEEM), Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp 83–95

  29. Tapia RS (2007) Developing a maturity model for IT alignment in a cross-organizational environment. In: 2nd Dutch/Belgian conference on enterprise information systems (EIS), Groningen, Netherlands

  30. Shpilberg D, Berez S, Puryear R, Shah S (2007) Avoiding the alignment trap in IT. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 49(1):50–59

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cumps B, Viaene S, Dedene G, Vandenbulck J (2006) An empirical study on business/ICT alignment in European organisations. In: 39th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), HI, p 195a

  32. Camponovo G, Pigneur Y (2004) Information systems alignment in uncertain environments. In: IFIP international conference on decision support systems (DSS), Prato, Italy, pp 134–146

  33. Baïna S, Ansias PY, Petit M, Castiaux A (2008) Strategic business/IT alignment using goal models. In: 3rd international workshop on business/IT alignment and interoperability (BUSITAL), Montpellier, France, pp 31–43

  34. Bleistein SJ, Cox K, Verner J, Phalp KT (2006) B-SCP: a requirements analysis framework for validating strategic alignment of organizational IT based on strategy, context, and process. Inf Softw Technol 48(9):846–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Carvalho G, Sousa P (2008) Business and information systems MisAlignment model (BISMAM): an holistic model leveraged on misalignment and medical sciences approaches. In: 3rd international workshop on business/IT alignment and interoperability (BUSITAL), Montpellier, France, pp 104–119

  36. Weiss JW, Anderson D (2004) Aligning technology and business strategy: issues & frameworks, a field study of 15 companies. In: 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Big Island, HI, pp 1–10

  37. Leonard J, Seddon P (2012) A meta-model of alignment. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 31(1):231–259

    Google Scholar 

  38. Clarke R (1994) The path of development of strategic information systems theory. http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/StratISTh.html

  39. Wegmann A (2002) The systemic enterprise architecture methodology business and IT alignment for competitiveness. In: EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 1–8

  40. Yetton PW, Johnston KD, Craig JF (1994) Computer-aided architects: a case study of it and strategic change. Sloan Manag Rev 35(4):57–67

    Google Scholar 

  41. van Eck P, Blanken H, Wieringa R (2004) Project GRAAL: towards operational architecture alignment. Int J Coop Inf Syst 13(3):235–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Baker J, Jones D, Cao Q, Song J (2011) Conceptualizing the dynamic strategic alignment competency. J Assoc Inf Syst 12(4):299–322

    Google Scholar 

  43. Chang HL, Hsiao HE, Lee YJ, Chang J (2009) Assessing IT-business alignment in service-oriented enterprises. In: PACIS, p 40

  44. Gutierrez A, Orozco J, Serrano A (2006) Using tactical and operational factors to assess strategic alignment: an SME study. In: European and mediterranean conference on information systems (EMCIS), Costa Blanca, Alicante, Spain, pp 1–10

  45. Papp R (2001) Introduction to strategic alignment. In: Papp R (ed) Strategic information technology: opportunities for competitive advantage. illustrated edn. IGI Glob, Hershey, PA, pp 1–24

  46. Silva E, Plazaola L, Ekstedt M (2006) Strategic business and IT alignment: a prioritized theory diagram. In: PICMET, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 1–10

  47. Tapia RS, Daneva M, van Eck P (2007) Validating adequacy and suitability of business-IT alignment criteria in an inter-enterprise maturity model. In: 11th IEEE international conference on enterprise distributed object computing (EDOC), Annapolis, MD, pp 202–213

  48. Wang N, Xue Y, Liang H, Ge S (2011) The road to business-it alignment: a case study of two Chinese companies. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 28(1):416–436

    Google Scholar 

  49. Luftman J, Papp R, Brier T (1999) Enablers and Inhibitors of business-IT alignment. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 11(3):1–33

    Google Scholar 

  50. Luftman J (1996) Competing in the information age: strategic alignment in practice. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  51. Weill P, Ross JW (2004) IT governance—how top performers manage IT decision rights for superior results. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  52. Weill P, Ross JW (2004) IT governance on one page. Massachusetts, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  53. Team CP (2010) CMMI® for development, version 1.3, Improving processes for developing better products and services. no CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033 Software Engineering Institute

  54. Giachetti RE (2010) Design of enterprise systems, theory, architecture, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  55. Jahani B, Seyyed Javadein SR, Jafari HA (2010) Measurement of enterprise architecture readiness within organizations. Business Strategy Series 11(3):177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shah H, Kourdi ME (2007) Frameworks for enterprise architecture. IT Prof 9(5):36–41

  57. Zachman JA (2002) The Zachman framework™ for enterprise architecture. Zachman International:79

  58. CIO-Council (2001) A practical guide to federal enterprise architecture, version 1.0

  59. Spewak S, Hill SC (1995) Enterprise architecture planning: developing a blueprint for data, applications, and technology. Wiley, New York City

    Google Scholar 

  60. ITGI (2007) Control objectives for information and related technology (COBIT), Ver 4.1. IT Governance Institute (www.itgi.org)

  61. The-Open-Group (2009) The Open group architecture framework (TOGAF), version 9.0

  62. Pereira CM, Sousa P (2005) Enterprise architecture: business and IT alignment. In: ACM symposium on applied computing, Santa Fe, NM, USA, pp 1344-1345

  63. Veasey PW (2001) Use of enterprise architectures in managing strategic change. Bus Process Manag 7(5):420–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Engelsman W, Quartel D, Jonkers H, van Sinderen M (2011) Extending enterprise architecture modelling with business goals and requirements. Enterp Inf Syst 5(1):9–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Xueying W, Feicheng M, Xiongwei Z (2008) Aligning business and IT using enterprise architecture. In: 4th international conference on wireless communications, networking and mobile computing (WiCOM), Dalian, pp 1–5

  66. Tamm T, Seddon PB, Shanks G, Reynolds P (2011) How does enterprise architecture add value to organisations? Commun Assoc Inf Syst 28(1):141–168

    Google Scholar 

  67. Seigerroth U (2011) Enterprise modeling and enterprise architecture: the constituents of transformation and alignment of business and IT. Int J IT/Bus Align Gov (IJITBAG) 2(1):16–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Bradley RV, Pratt RME, Byrd TA, Simmons L (2011) The role of enterprise architecture in the quest for it value. MIS Q Exec 10(2):19–27

    Google Scholar 

  69. Bradley RV, Pratt RME, Byrd TA, Outlay CN, Wynn DE Jr (2012) Enterprise architecture, IT effectiveness and the mediating role of IT alignment in US hospitals. Inf Syst J 22(2):97–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Saat J, Franke U, Lagerström R, Ekstedt M (2010) Enterprise architecture meta models for IT/business alignment situations. In: 14th IEEE international conference on enterprise distributed object computing (EDOC), Vitoria, Brazil, pp 14–23

  71. Varghese J, Kurien P (2004) IT imperatives beyond strategic alignment: enterprise architecture flexibility and IT delivery efficiency. Handb Bus Strategy 5(1):275–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Plazaola L, Flores J, Vargas N, Ekstedt M (2008) Strategic business and IT alignment assessment: a case study applying an enterprise architecture-based metamodel. In: 41st Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Waikoloa, HI, p 398

  73. Wang X, Zhou X, Jiang L (2008) A method of business and IT alignment based on enterprise architecture. In: IEEE international conference on service operations and logistics, and informatics (IEEE/SOLI), Beijing, pp 740–745

  74. Aier IS, Winter R (2009) Virtual decoupling for IT/business alignment–conceptual foundations, architecture design and implementation example. Bus Inf Syst Eng 1(2):150–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Haki MK, Forte MW (2010) Proposal of a service oriented architecture governance model to serve as a practical framework for business-IT alignment. In: 4th International conference on new trends in information science and service science (NISS), Gyeongju, pp 410–417

  76. PMI (2008) A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Project Management Institute, Inc, PA

    Google Scholar 

  77. Foorthuis R, van Steenbergen M, Brinkkemper S, Bruls WA (2015) A theory building study of enterprise architecture practices and benefits. Inf Syst Front 1–24. doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9542-1

  78. Bahrami A, Sadowski D, Beahrami S (1998) Enterprise architecture for business process simulation. In: Winter simulation conference (WSC), Washington, DC, pp 1409–1413

  79. Buckl S, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2009) Future research topics in enterprise architecture management—a knowledge management perspective. In: International conference on service-oriented computing (ICSOC), Stockholm, Sweden, pp 1–11

  80. El Kourdi M, Shah H, Atkins A (2007) A proposed framework for knowledge discovery in enterprise architecture. In: Trends in enterprise architecture research (TEAR), St. Gallen, Switzerland, pp 41–49

  81. Jafari M, Akhavan P, Nouranipour E (2009) Developing an architecture model for enterprise knowledge: an empirical study based on the Zachman framework in Iran. Manag Decis 47(5):730–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Ross J (2006) Enterprise architecture: driving business benefits from IT. 359, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Information Systems Research (CISR), Cambridge, MA

  83. Vail E (2002) Knowledge management & enterprise architecture: an opportunity for synergy. White paper. Ptech Inc., Quincy, Massachusetts

  84. Cotton LD, Haase GA, Havlicek JD, Thal AE (2009) Value driven enterprise architecture score (VDEAScore): A means of DoDAF architecture evaluation. In: 7th Annual conference on systems engineering research (CSER), Leicestershire, UK

  85. Gustafsson P, Johnson P, Nordstrom L (2009) Enterprise architecture: A framework supporting organizational performance analysis. In: 20th International conference and exhibition on electricity distribution, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 1–4

  86. Ostadzadeh SS, Habibi J, Ostadzadeh SA (2010) A framework for decision support systems based on Zachman framework. In: Elleithy K (ed) Advanced techniques in computing sciences and software engineering. Springer, Netherlands, pp 497–502

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  87. Schelp J, Stutz M (2007) A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Measure the Value of Enterprise Architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 3(4):8–14

    Google Scholar 

  88. Velitchkov I (2008) Integration of IT strategy and enterprise architecture models. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies and Workshop for PhD Students in Computing, Gabrovo, Bulgaria

  89. Lindstrom A, Johnson P, Johansson E, Ekstedt M, Simonsson M (2006) A survey on CIO concerns—do enterprise architecture frameworks support them? Inf Syst Front 8(2):81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Molinaro LFR, Ramos KHC, Cotta Orlandi TR, Abdalla H (2010) Enterprise architecture to IT governance: an approach based on component business model and performance levels. In: Quintela Varajão JE, Cruz-Cunha MM, Putnik GD, Trigo A (eds) Enterprise information systems, vol 110. Communications in computer and information science. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–51

  91. Nakakawa A, van Bommel P, Proper E (2010) Towards a theory on collaborative decision making in enterprise architecture. In: Winter R, Zhao J, Aier S (eds) Global perspectives on design science research, vol 6105. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 538–541

  92. Ireland V (2007) Enterprise architecture—a layer between portfolios and organisation strategy. In: 4th World project management week conference, Singapore

  93. Ross J, Weill P, Robertson DC (2006) Enterprise architecture as strategy: create a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  94. Fairhead N, Good J (2009) People-led enterprise architecture. In: Saha P (ed) Advances in government enterprise architecture. IGI Global, Pennsylvania, pp 285–306

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  95. Coltman T, Devinney TM, Midgley DF, Venaik S (2008) Formative versus reflective measurement models: two applications of formative measurement. J Bus Res 61(12):1250–1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Diamantopoulos A, Siguaw JA (2006) Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. Br J Manag 17(4):263–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Jarvis CB, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM (2003) A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. J Consum Res 30(2):199–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Sharp H, Rogers Y, Preece J (2002) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  99. Presser S, Rothgeb JM, Couper MP, Lessler JT, Martin E, Martin J, Singer E (2004) Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  100. Groves RM, Fowler FJ, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R (2009) Survey methodology, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  101. Bradburn NM, Sudman S, Wansink B (2004) Asking questions: the definitive guide to questionnaire design—for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. Wiley

  102. Couper MP, Baker RP, Bethlehem J, Clark CZF, Martin J, Nicholls WL, O’Reilly JM (1998) Computer assisted survey information collection. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  103. Sandelowski M (1995) Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health 18(2):179–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Adcock R, Collier D (2001) Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am Polit Sci Rev 95(3):529–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Chin WW, Newsted PR (1999) Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Statistical strategies for small sample research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  106. Fornell C (1987) A second generation of multivariate analysis: classification of methods and implications for marketing research. In: Houston MJ (ed) Review of marketing. American Marketing Association, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  107. Chen L (2010) Business–IT alignment maturity of companies in China. Inf Manag 47(1):9–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Sledgianowski D, Luftman J, Reilly RR (2006) Development and validation of an instrument to measure maturity of IT business strategic alignment mechanisms. Inf Resourc Manag J 19(3):18–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Carifio L, Perla R (2008) Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Med Educ 42(12):1150–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘‘laws’’ of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ 15(5):625–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Sheskin DJ (2004) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 3rd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  112. Anastasi A, Urbina S (1997) Psychological testing, 7th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  113. DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM (2007) A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh 39(2):155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Vaishnavi VK, Kuechler W (2008) Design science research methods and patterns—innovating information and communication technology. Auerbach Publications, NY

    Google Scholar 

  115. Chin WW (1995) Partial least squares is to LISREL as principal components analysis is to common factor analysis. Technol Stud 2(2):315–319

    Google Scholar 

  116. Rossiter JR (2002) The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. Int J Res Mark 19(4):305–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Petter S, Straub D, Rai A (2007) Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Q 31(4):623–656

    Google Scholar 

  118. Roberts N, Thatcher J (2009) Conceptualizing and testing formative constructs: tutorial and annotated example. ACM SIGMIS Database 40(3):9–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR (2009) The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv Int Mark (AIM) 20(1):277–320

    Google Scholar 

  120. Straub D, Boudreau M-C, Gefen D (2004) Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 13(1):63

    Google Scholar 

  121. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  122. Hair JF Jr, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2013) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  123. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  124. Woszczynski AB, Whitman ME (2004) The problem of common method variance in IS research. In: Whitman ME, Woszczynski AB (eds) The handbook of information systems research. IGI Glob, Hershey, PA, pp 66–77

  125. Lindell MK, Whitney DJ (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J Appl Psychol 86(1):114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Tenenhaus M, Esposito Vinzi V, Chatelin YM, Lauro C (2005) PLS path modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal 48(1):159–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Esposito Vinzi V, Trinchera L, Amato S (2010) PLS path modeling: from foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. In: Esposito Vinzi V, Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H (eds) Handbook of partial least squares, vol 47–82. Springer, Berlin

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  128. Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Methodology in the social sciences. Guilford Publications Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  129. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract 9(2):139–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Wold H (1980) Factors affecting the outcome of economic sanctions: an application of soft modelling. Paper presented at the 4th World Congress of Econometric Society, Aix-en-provence, France, 1–3 May

  131. Falk RF, Miller NB (1992) A primer for soft modelling. University of Akron Press, Akron

    Google Scholar 

  132. Yeniay O, Göktaş A (2002) A Comparison of partial least squares regression with other prediction methods. Hacet J Math Stat 31(99):99–111

    Google Scholar 

  133. Howell RD, Breivik E, Wilcox JB (2007) Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychol Methods 12(2):205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Chin WW, Marcolin BL, Newsted PR (1996) A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study. In: DeGross JI, Jarvenpaa S, Srinivasan A (eds) 17th International conference on information systems, Cleveland, Ohio

  135. Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg Manag J 20(2):195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Urbach N, Ahlemann F (2010) Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. J Inf Technol Theory Appl 11(2):5–40

    Google Scholar 

  137. Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 7(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1994) An introduction to the bootstrap, vol 57. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  139. Chin WW (1998) Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q 22(1):5–9

    Google Scholar 

  140. Henseler J, Sarstedt M (2013) Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Comput Stat 28(2):565–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Geisser S (1974) A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 61(1):101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodological) 36(2):111–147

    Google Scholar 

  143. Siegel S (1956) The Mann–Whitney U test. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, US

  144. McKnight PE, Najab J (2010) Mann-Whitney U Test. In: Weiner IB, Craighead WE (eds) Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. Wiley, online

  145. Moore DA, Tanlu L, Bazerman MH (2010) Conflict of interest and the intrusion of bias. Judgm Decis Mak 5(1):37–53

    Google Scholar 

  146. Urbaczewski L, Mrdalj S (2006) A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues Inf Syst 7(2):18–23

    Google Scholar 

  147. Tang A, Han J, Chen P (2004) A comparative analysis of architecture frameworks. In: 11th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference. IEEE, pp 640–647

  148. Sessions R (2007) Comparison of the top four enterprise architecture methodologies. ObjectWatch Inc.

  149. Snijders CCP, Matzat U (2007) Reducing social desirability bias through indirect questioning in scenarios: When does it work in online surveys? Paper presented at the General Online Reseach, GOR07, Leipzig, March 26–28, 2007

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are due to Prof. John Zachman for his valuable support and participation in this study. The authors also express their appreciation to Jan van Bon, Manager of LinkedIn group “TOGAF for Architecture,” for his time and assistance in the survey. The authors extend their thanks also to Reza Kaviani, Senior Manager at DIRECTV, for his feedback and pertinent help throughout this work. Further, the authors sincerely thank the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Engineering and Information Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Morteza Alaeddini

  2. School of Progress Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, Iran

    Hamed Asgari

  3. Department of Geo-Informatics, School of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Arash Gharibi

  4. Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7PE, UK

    Mona Rashidi Rad

Authors
  1. Morteza Alaeddini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hamed Asgari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arash Gharibi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mona Rashidi Rad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morteza Alaeddini.

Appendix 1: Frequencies of BITA maturity scores collected

Appendix 1: Frequencies of BITA maturity scores collected

Table 9 shows in detail the growth of the BITA maturity levels in this survey in all the measures, after performing EA and comparing them with the values before EA was implemented. This data was collected from 236 respondents around the world for two states: before performing EA and after it was implemented.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alaeddini, M., Asgari, H., Gharibi, A. et al. Leveraging business-IT alignment through enterprise architecture—an empirical study to estimate the extents. Inf Technol Manag 18, 55–82 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-016-0256-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-016-0256-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation