Interrelations Between Enterprise Modeling Focal Areas and Business and IT Alignment Domains

  • Julia Kaidalova
  • Elżbieta Lewańska
  • Ulf Seigerroth
  • Nikolay Shilov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 208)

Abstract

Efficient support of business needs, processes and strategies by information technology is a key for successful enterprise functioning. The challenge of Business and IT Alignment (BITA) has been acknowledged and actively discussed by academics and practitioners during more than two decades. On one hand, in order to achieve BITA it is required to analyse an enterprise from multiple perspectives. On the other hand, it is also required to deal with multiple points of views of involved stakeholders and create a shared understanding between them. In relation to both of these needs EM is considered as a useful practice, as it allows representation of various focal areas of an enterprise and facilitates consensus-driven discussion between involved stakeholders. Various focal areas of an enterprise are linked to various domains that BITA include, for example, time and function focal areas from the Zachman Framework contribute to analysis of business domain of BITA. This and other interrelations are investigated in this study, which is done by conceptual positioning of Zachman’s focal areas on Information System strategy triangle and Generic Framework for Information Management.

Keywords

Business and IT alignment Enterprise modeling Enterprise modeling focal area BITA domain 

References

  1. Abraham, R., Aier, S.: Architectural coordination of transformation: implications from game theory. In: Rahman, H., Mesquita, A., Ramos, I., Pernici, B. (eds.) MCIS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 129, pp. 82–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aier, S., Winter, R.: Virtual decoupling for IT/Business alignment – conceptual foundations, architecture design and implementation example. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 1(2), 150–163 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernus, P., Nemes, L.: A framework to define a generic enterprise reference architecture and methodology. In: ICARV 1994, Singapore, pp. 88–92 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. Chan, Y.E., Reich, B.H.: IT alignment: what have we learned? J. Inf. Technol. 22, 297–315 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christiner, F., Lantow, B., Sandkuhl, K., Wißotzki, M.: Multi-dimensional visualization in enterprise modeling. In: Abramowicz, W., Domingue, J., Węcel, K. (eds.) BIS Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 127, pp. 139–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engelsman, W., Quartel, D., van Jonkers, H., Sinderen, M.: Extending enterprise architecture modelling with business goals and requirements. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 5(1), 9–36 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., Seigerroth, U.: Method integration: the need for a learning perspective. IEEE Proc. Softw. 145(4), 113–118 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gregor, S., Hart, D., Martin, N.: Enterprise architectures: enablers of business strategy and IS/IT alignment in government. Inf. Technol. People 20(2), 96–120 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Henderson, J.C., Venkatraman, N.: Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Syst. J. 32(1), 4–16 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IFIP-IFAC Task Force on Architectures for Enterprise Integration. GERAM: Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology (1999). http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/~bernus/taskforce/geram/versions/geram1-6-3/v1.6.3.html
  11. Kaidalova, J., Seigerroth, U., Bukowska, E., Shilov, N.: Enterprise modeling for business and IT alignment: challenges and recommendations. Int. J. IT Bus. Alignment Gov. 5(2), 44–69 (2014). ISSN 1947-9611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lillehagen, F., Krogstie, J.: Active Knowledge Modeling of Enterprises. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). ISBN 978-3-540-79415-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luftman, J.: Assessing IT-Business Alignment. Inf. Syst. Manag. 20(4), 9–15 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maes, R., Rijsenbrij, D., Truijens, O., Goedvolk, H.: Redefining business – IT alignment through a unified framework. PrimaVera Working Paper 2000-19 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. Pearlson, K.E., Saunders, C.S.: Managing and Using Information Systems, A Strategic Approach, 4th edn. Wiley, Chichester (2010). ISBN 978-0-470-34381-4Google Scholar
  16. Plazaola, L., Flores, J., Silva, E., Vargas, N., Ekstedt, M.: An approach to associate strategic business-IT alignment assessment to enterprise architecture. In: Fifth Conference on Systems Engineering 2007 (CSER 2007). Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey (2007)Google Scholar
  17. Saat, J., Franke, U., Lagerstrom, R., Ekstedt, M.: Enterprise architecture meta models for IT/business alignment situations. In: 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  18. Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M.: ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management. In: van der Aalst, W.M., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, p. 376. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scheer, A.-W.: ARIS – Business Process Modeling, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). ISBN 978-3-642-63009-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seigerroth, U.: Enterprise modelling and enterprise architecture: the constituents of transformation and alignment of business and IT. Int. J. IT/Bus. Alignment Gov. (IJITBAG) 2, 16–34 (2011). ISSN 1947-9611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Silvius, A.J.G.: Business and IT alignment: what we know and what we don’t know. In: The Proceedings of International Conference on Information Management and Engineering, pp. 558–563. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  22. Stirna, J., Persson, A.: Anti-patterns as a means of focusing on critical quality aspects in enterprise modeling. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 407–418. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Urbaczewski, L., Mrdalj, S.: A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues Inf. Syst. 7(2), 18–26 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. Wegmann, A., Regev, G., Loison, B.: Business and IT alignment with SEAM. In: Glinz, M., Lutz, R. (eds.) The Proceedings of the 14th International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 291–302. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  25. Zachman International home page (2014). https://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework. Accessed 12 Dec 2014
  26. Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–291 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zelm, M.: CIMOSA: A primer on key concepts, purpose, and business value. Technical report, Stuttgart, Germany (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Kaidalova
    • 1
  • Elżbieta Lewańska
    • 2
  • Ulf Seigerroth
    • 1
  • Nikolay Shilov
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.School of EngineeringJönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden
  2. 2.Department of Information SystemsPoznań University of EconomicPoznańPoland
  3. 3.St. Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation of the Russian Academy of SciencesSt. PetersburgRussia
  4. 4.ITMO UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations