Information Systems and e-Business Management

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 101–137 | Cite as

Overcoming implementation challenges in enterprise architecture management: a design theory for architecture-driven IT Management (ADRIMA)

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Enterprise architecture management (EAM) is acknowledged as a discipline to drive organizational change, to improve IT landscapes’ transparency, and to align business and IT. Despite its increasing popularity in practice, many EAM initiatives are confronted with substantial challenges, as demonstrated by the low usage level of enterprise architecture (EA) documentation and enterprise architects’ lack of authority, and often fail. This motivates our research, which aims at developing a design theory that may guide organizations to successfully implement EAM. Based on three field studies, we first analyze the issues that arise when implementing EAM in practice. We find that EAM often suffers from being regarded as a separate and parallel initiative, although it needs to be embedded in established management processes and organization. We then suggest a design theory for architecture-driven IT management (ADRIMA) that synthesizes prescriptive knowledge related to embedding EAM practices, artifacts, and roles in the existing IT management processes and organization. By consolidating both IT management and EAM perspectives, our research goes beyond existing EA literature and EA frameworks which describe EAM as a stand-alone management concept focusing on EA models and the EA life cycle.

Keywords

Enterprise architecture management (EAM) EAM implementation IT management IS design theory Design science research 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aier S, Riege C, Winter R (2008a) Classification of Enterprise Architecture - An Exploratory Analysis. Enterp Model Inf Syst Archit 3(1):14–23Google Scholar
  2. Aier S, Riege C, Winter R (2008b) Unternehmensarchitektur—Literaturüberblick und Stand der Praxis. Wirtschaftsinformatik 50(4):292–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aier S, Kurpjuweit S, Saat J, Winter R (2009a) Enterprise architecture design as an engineering discipline. AIS Trans Enterp Syst 1(1):36–43Google Scholar
  4. Aier S, Riege C, Schönherr M, Bub U (2009b) Situative Methodenkonstruktion für die Projektbewertung aus Unternehmensarchitekturperspektive. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference Wirtschaftsinformatik, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bacharach SB (1989) Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):496–515Google Scholar
  6. Baskerville R (2008) What design science is not. Eur J Inf Syst 17(5):441–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J (2010) Explanatory design theory. Bus Inf Syst Eng 2(5):271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baskerville R, Wood-Harper T (1998) Diversity in information systems action research methods. Eur J Inf Syst 7(2):90–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J, Venable J (2009) Soft design science methodology. Paper presented at the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2009), PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Becerra-Fernandez I, Sabherwal R (2001) Organizational knowledge management: a contingency perspective. J Manag Inf Syst 18(1):23–55Google Scholar
  11. Becker J, Niehaves B (2007) Epistemological perspectives on IS research: a framework for analysing and systemizing epistemological assumptions. Inf Syst J 17(2):197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boddy D, Boonstra A, Kennedy G (2005) Managing information systems: an organisational perspective, 2nd edn. Financial Times Prentice Hall, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  13. Boh WF, Yellin D (2007) Using enterprise architecture standards in managing information technology. J Manag Inf Syst 23(3):163–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Booth ME, Philip G (2005) Information systems management: role of planning, alignment and leadership. Behav Inf Technol 24(5):391–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bricknall R, Darrell G, Nilsson H, Pessi K (2006) Enterprise architecture: critical factors affecting modelling and management. Paper presented at the 14th European conference on information systems, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  16. Bucher T, Fischer R, Kurpjuweit S, Winter R (2006) Enterprise architecture analysis and application—an exploratory study. Paper presented at the 10th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference workshops (EDOCW 2006), Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  17. Buckl S (2011) Developing organization-specific enterprise architecture management functions using a method base. Dissertation, sebis TU MünchenGoogle Scholar
  18. Buckl S, Ernst AM, Lankes J, Matthes F (2008) Enterprise architecture management pattern catalog (Version 1.0, February 2008). Research report, sebis TU München, http://wwwmatthes.in.tum.de/wikis/sebis/eampc. Accessed 9 Aug 2010
  19. Buckl S, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2009a) Future research topics in enterprise architecture management—a knowledge management perspective. Paper presented at the 4th workshop trends in enterprise architecture research (TEAR 2009), StockholmGoogle Scholar
  20. Buckl S, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2009b) A Viable system perspective on enterprise architecture management. Paper presented at the IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (SMC 2009), San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  21. Buckl S, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2010a) Towards a method framework for enterprise architecture management—a literature analysis from a viable system perspective. Paper presented at the 5th international workshop on business/IT alignment and interoperability (BUSITAL 2010), HammametGoogle Scholar
  22. Buckl S, Schweda CM, Matthes F (2010b) A design theory nexus for situational enterprise architecture management. Paper presented at the 14th IEEE international EDOC conference (EDOC 2010), VitoriaGoogle Scholar
  23. Buckl S, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2011) A method base for EA management. Paper presented at the IFIP working conference on method engineering (ME 2011), ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. Bussells SE (2006) Assessment of a government agency’s enterprise architecture program. J Enterp Archit 2(1):43–50Google Scholar
  25. Cabinet Office (2011) ITIL Service Design. 2 edn. TSO (The Stationery Office), LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Correia A, Brito e Abreu F (2009) Integrating IT service management within the enterprise architecture. Paper presented at the fourth international conference on software engineering advances (ICSEA 2009), PortoGoogle Scholar
  27. CIO Council (2001) A practical guide to federal enterprise architecture. http://www.gao.gov/bestpractices/bpeaguide.pdf. Accessed 09 Aug 2010
  28. Delen D, Dalal NP, Benjamin PC (2005) Integrated modeling: the key to holistic understanding of the enterprise. Commun ACM 48(4):107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dern G (2007) Management von IT-Architekturen: Informationssysteme im Fokus von Architekturplanung und -entwicklung. Vieweg, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  30. Donaldson L (2001) The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  31. Dubin R (1976) Theory building in applied areas. In: Dunette M (ed) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Rand McNally, pp 17–8Google Scholar
  32. Earl MJ (1988) Information management: the strategic dimension. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. FEA Program Management Office (2007a) FEA Consolidated Reference Model Version 2.3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_CRM_v23_Final_Oct_2007_Revised.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2010
  34. FEA Program Management Office (2007b) FEA Practice Guidance. http://www.cio.gov/Documents/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2010
  35. Ferstl OK, Sinz EJ (1997) Modelling of business systems using the semantic object model (SOM)—a methological framework. Bamberger Beiträge zur Wirtschaftinformatik 43Google Scholar
  36. Fettke P, Loos P (2007) Perspectives on reference modeling. In: Fettke P, Loos P (eds) Reference modeling for business systems analysis. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  37. Findlay D (2006) Implementing enterprise architecture in the federal aviation administration air traffic organization. J Enterp Archit 2(2):29–33Google Scholar
  38. Fischer F, Matthes F, Wittenburg A (2005) Improving IT management at the BMW group by integrating existing IT management processes. Paper presented at the 9th IEEE international EDOC conference (EDOC 2005), TwenteGoogle Scholar
  39. Fischer R, Aier S, Winter R (2007) A federated approach to enterprise architecture model maintenance. Enterp Model Inf Syst Archit 2(2):14–22Google Scholar
  40. Fischer C, Winter R, Wortmann F (2010) Design theory. Bus Inf Syst Eng 2(6):387–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Frank U (1995) MEMO: A tool supported methodology for analyzing and (Re-) designing business information systems. In: Ege R, Singh M, Meyer B (eds) Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and SystemsGoogle Scholar
  42. Ginzberg MJ (1980) An organizational contingencies view of accounting and information systems implementation. Acc Organ Soc 5(4):369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Greefhorst D, Proper E (2011) Architecture principles - the cornerstones of enterprise architecture. Enterprise engineering series. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  44. Gregor S (2009) Building theory in the sciences of the artificial. Paper presented at the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2009), PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  45. Gregor S, Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(5):313–335Google Scholar
  46. Hafner M, Winter R (2008) Processes for enterprise application architecture management. Paper presented at the 41st annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICCS 2008), Waikoloa, 07 Jan 2008Google Scholar
  47. Hevner AR (2007) A three cycle view of design science research. Scand J Inf Syst 19(2):Article 4Google Scholar
  48. Hevner AR, Chatterjee S (2010) Design research in information systems, vol 22., Integrated series in information systemsSpringer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105Google Scholar
  50. Hjort-Madsen K, Pries-Heje J (2009) Enterprise architecture in government: fad or future? Paper presented at the 42th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2009), WaikoloaGoogle Scholar
  51. Hoogervorst JAP (2009) Enterprise governance and enterprise engineering. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. IEEE (1990) IEEE Std 610.12-1990 standard glossary of software engineering terminology. IEEE Computer Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Iivari J (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scand J Inf Syst 19(2):39–64Google Scholar
  54. ISACA (2011) COBIT mapping: overview of international IT guidance, 3rd edn. http://www.isaca.org/Knowledge-Center/Research/ResearchDeliverables/Pages/COBIT-Mapping-Overview-of-International-IT-Guidance-3rd-Edition.aspx. Accessed 23 May 2012
  55. ITGI (2007) COBIT 4.1: Framework, Control Objectives, Management Guidelines, Maturity Models. IT Governance Institute. http://praktische-informatik.fh-luebeck.de/sites/default/files/CobiT_4.1.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2012
  56. Janssen M, Hjort-Madsen K (2007) Analyzing enterprise architecture in national governments: the Cases of Denmark and the Netherlands. Paper presented at the 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2007 (HICSS 2007), WaikoloaGoogle Scholar
  57. Kappelman LA, McGinnis T, Pettit A, Salmans B, Sidorova A (2009) Enterprise architecture: charting the territory for academic research. In: Kappelman LA (ed) The SIM guide to enterprise architecture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Keller W (2007) IT-Unternehmensarchitektur. dpunkt.verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  59. Klein HK, Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q 23(1):67–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kuechler B, Vaishnavi V (2008) On theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. Eur J Inf Syst 17(5):489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lankhorst MM, Iacob M-E, Jonkers H, van der Torre L, Proper HA, Arbab F, de Boer FS, Bonsangue M, Hoppenbrouwers S, Veldhuijzen van Zanten GE, Groenewegen L, van Buuren R, Campschroer J, Steen MWA, Stam AW, Wieringa RJ, van Eck PAT, Krukkert D, Ter Doest HHWL, van Leeuwen D, Fennema P, Jacob J, Bosma H, Cuvelier MJ, Penders PGM, Bekius SF, Janssen M (2005) Enterprise architecture at work. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  62. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  63. Löhe J, Legner C (2012) From enterprise modeling to architecture-driven IT management—a design theory, Paper presented at the 20th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2012), BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  64. Luftman J, Ben-Zvi T (2011) Key issues for it executives 2011: cautious optimism in uncertain economic times. MIS Q Executive 10(4):203–212Google Scholar
  65. Maier MW, Emery D, Hilliard R (2004) ANSI/IEEE 1471 and systems engineering. Syst Eng 7(3):257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. March ST, Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst 15(4):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. March ST, Storey VC (2008) Design science in the information systems discipline: an introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Q 32(4):725–730Google Scholar
  68. Matthee M, Tobin P, van der Merwe P (2007) The status quo of enterprise architecture implementation in South African financial services companies. S Afr J Bus Manag 38(1):11–24Google Scholar
  69. Mayring P (2000) Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 (2):Art. 20Google Scholar
  70. Melao N, Pidd M (2000) A conceptual framework for understanding business processes and business process modelling. Inf Syst J 10(2):105–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Inf Syst Res 12(3):240–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Morganwalp JM, Sage AP (2004) Enterprise architecture measures of effectiveness. Int J Technol Policy Manage 4(1):81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Moser C, Junginger S, Brückmann M, Schöne KM (2009) Some process patterns for enterprise architecture management. Paper presented at the Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, KaiserslauternGoogle Scholar
  74. Niemann KD (2005) Von der Unternehmensarchitektur zur IT-Governance. Vieweg, WiesbadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Niemi E (2007) Enterprise architecture stakeholders—a holistic view. Paper presented at the Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2007), KeystoneGoogle Scholar
  76. OMG (2011) Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/PDF. Accessed 22 Sept 2011
  77. Österle H (1995) Business in the information age - heading for new processes. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Österle H, Brenner W, Hilbers K (1993) Total information systems management: a European approach. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  79. Pettigrew AM, Woodman RW, Cameron KS (2001) Studying organizational change and development: challenges for future research. Acad Manag J 44(4):697–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Riempp G (2004) Integrierte Wissensmanagement-Systeme - Architektur und praktische Anwendung. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Riempp G, Gieffers-Ankel S (2007) Application portfolio management—a decision-oriented view of enterprise architecture. Int J Inf Syst e-Bus Manag 5(4):359–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Riempp G, Müller B, Ahlemann F (2008) Towards a framework to structure and assess strategic IT/IS Management. Paper presented at the 16th European conference on information systems, GalwayGoogle Scholar
  83. Roeleven S, Broer J (2009) Why two thirds of enterprise architecture projects fail: An explanation for the limited success of architecture project. IDS Scheer. http://its.a-cci.com/doc/EA_-_Roeleven_Broer_-_Enterprise_Architecture_Projects_Fail_-_AEP_en.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2011
  84. Ross JW (2003) Creating a strategic it architecture competency: learning in stages. MIS Q Executive 2(1):31–43Google Scholar
  85. Ross JW, Weill P, Robertson D (2006) Enterprise architecture as strategy. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  86. Sauer C, Willcocks LP (2002) The evolution of the organizational architect. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 43(3):41–49Google Scholar
  87. Scheer A-W (1991) Architektur integrierter Informationssysteme - Grundlagen der Unternehmensmodellierung. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schelp J, Winter R (2009) Language communities in enterprise architecture research. Paper presented at the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2009), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  89. Schmidt C, Buxmann P (2011) Outcomes and success factors of enterprise IT architecture management: empirical insight from the international financial services industry. Eur J Inf Syst 18(1):168–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schönherr M (2009) Towards a common terminology in the discipline of enterprise architecture. In: Service-Oriented Computing—ICSOC 2008 Workshops. pp 400–413Google Scholar
  91. Seppanen V, Heikkila J, Liimatainen K (2009) Key issues in EA-implementation: case study of two Finnish government agencies. Paper presented at the 11th IEEE conference on commerce and enterprise computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  92. Siponen M, Baskerville R, Heikka J (2006) A design theory for secure information systems design methods. J Assoc Inf Syst 7(11):725–770Google Scholar
  93. Smith ML, Erwin J (2007) Role & responsibility charting (RACI). http://myclass.peelschools.org/sec/12/4268/Resources/RACI_R_Web3_1.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2012
  94. Software Engineering Institute (2010) CMMI for Development, Version 1.3. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI). http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/10tr033.pdf. Accessed 11 March 2011
  95. Sowa JF, Zachman JA (1992) Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst J 31(3):590–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Spewak S, Tiemann M (2006) Updating the enterprise architecture planning model. J Enterp Archit 2(2):11–19Google Scholar
  97. Strano C, Rehmani Q (2007) The role of the enterprise architect. IseB 5(4):379–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Struck V, Buckl S, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2010) Enterprise architecture management from a knowledge management perspective—results from an Empirical Study. Paper presented at the 5th mediterranean conference on information systems (MCIS)Google Scholar
  99. The Open Group (2009) TOGAF Version 9—The open group architecture framework. The Open Group, ZaltbommelGoogle Scholar
  100. van Aken JE (2004) Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. J Manage Stud 41(2):219–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. van Bon J, Verheijen T (2006) Frameworks for IT management: an introduction (ITSM library). Van Haren Publishing, ZaltbommelGoogle Scholar
  102. van der Raadt B, van Vliet H (2008) Designing the enterprise architecture function. Paper presented at the 4th international conference on the quality of software architectures (QoSA2008), KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  103. van Schaik EA (1985) A management system for the information business: organizational analysis. Prentice-Hall, Engelwood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  104. Venkatesh V, Bala H, Venkatraman S, Bates J (2007) Enterprise architecture maturity: the story of the veterans health administration. MIS Q Executive 6(2):79–90Google Scholar
  105. Visscher K, Visscher-Voerman JIA (2010) Organizational design approaches in management consulting. Manag Decis 48(5):713–731Google Scholar
  106. Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (1992) Building an information system design theory for Vigilant EIS. Inf Syst Res 3(1):36–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wegmann A, Regev G, Rychkova I, Le L-S, Cruz JDdl, Julia P (2007) Business and IT alignment with SEAM for enterprise architecture. Paper presented at the 11th IEEE international EDOC conference (EDOC 2007), AnnapolisGoogle Scholar
  108. Weill P, Olson MH (1989) An assessment of the contingeny theory of MIS. J Manag Inf Syst 6(1):59–85Google Scholar
  109. Whelan-Berry KS, Somerville KA (2010) Linking change drivers and the organizational change process: a review and synthesis. J Chang Manag 10(2):175–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Winter R (2004) Architektur braucht Management. Wirtschaftsinformatik 46(4):317–319Google Scholar
  111. Winter R (2008) Design science research in Europe. Eur J Inf Syst 17:470–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Winter R, Fischer R (2007) Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. J Enterp Archit 3(2):7–18Google Scholar
  113. Winter R, Schelp J (2006) Reference modeling and method construction: a design science perspective. Paper presented at the the 2006 ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2006), DijonGoogle Scholar
  114. Winter R, Schelp J (2008) Enterprise architecture governance: the need for a business-to-IT approach. Paper presented at the 2008 ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2008), FortalezaGoogle Scholar
  115. Wittenburg A, Matthes F, Fischer F, Hallermeister T (2007) Building an integrated IT governance platform at the BMW Group. Int J Bus Process Integr Manag 2(4):327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Zachman JA (1987) A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst J 26(3):276–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Zarnekow R, Brenner W, Pilgram U (2006) Integrated information management: applying successful industrial concepts in IT. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  118. Zink G (2009) How to restart an enterprise architecture program after initial failure. J Enterp Archit 5(2):31–41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Research on Information Systems (IRIS)EBS Business SchoolWiesbadenGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC)University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations