Benefits of Enterprise Architecture Management – Insights from European Experts

  • Rainer SchmidtEmail author
  • Michael Möhring
  • Ralf-Christian Härting
  • Christopher Reichstein
  • Alfred Zimmermann
  • Sandro Luceri
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 235)


Excellence in IT is a key enabler for the digital transformation of enterprises. To realize the vision of Digital Enterprises it is necessary to cope with changing business requirements and to align business and IT. In order to evaluate the contribution of Enterprise Architecture Management to these goals, our paper explores the impact of various factors to the perceived benefit of EAM in enterprises. Based on literature, we build an empirical research model. It is tested with empirical data of European EAM experts using a structural equation modelling approach. It is shown that changing business requirements, IT Business Alignment, the complexity of Information Technology infrastructure as well as enterprise architecture knowledge of Information Technology employees are crucial impact factors to the perceived benefit of EAM in enterprises.


EAM Empirical research Benefit of EAM Use of EAM Enterprise architecture management Study European experts IT business alignment 


  1. 1.
    Ross, J.W., Weill, P., Robertson, D.C.: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy, vol. 1. Havard Business School Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Lankes, J., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: Enterprise architecture management patterns–exemplifying the approach. In: 12th International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2008. EDOC 2008, pp. 393–402 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nurcan, S., Schmidt, R., and others: Introduction to the second international workshop service-oriented enterprise architecture for enterprise engineering. In: Proceedings of Service-oriented Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Engineering (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schmidt, R., Zimmermann, A., Nurcan, S., Möhring, M., Bär, F., Keller, B.: Digitization – Perspectives for Conceptualization (2015, to appear)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., Welch, M.: Embracing digital technology. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev., 1–12 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blevins, T., Harrison, R., Homan, P., Josey, A., Rouse, M.F., van Sante, T.: TOGAF Version 8.1. 1 Enterprise Edition: A Pocket Guide. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Jonkers, H.: The architecture of the ArchiMate language. 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. 367–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wegmann, A.: Systemic enterprise architecture methodology (SEAM), in SEAM. In: International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems 2003 (ICEIS 2003), pp. 483–490 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scheer, A.W.: ARIS-Business Process Modeling. Springer, Berlin (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matthes, F., Buckl, S., Leitel, J., Schweda, C.M.: Enterprise Architecture Management Tool Survey 2008. Techn. Univ, München (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schekkerman, J.: Extended enterprise architecture maturity model support guide (Version 2.0), Institute for Enterprise Architecture Developments (2006). Accessed 20 July 2011
  12. 12.
    Boh, W.F., Yellin, D.: Using enterprise architecture standards in managing information technology. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23(3), 163–207 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ang, S.H.: Research Design for Business & Management. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McBurney, D.H., White, T.L.: Research Methods, 7th edn. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cooper, H.M.: Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, vol. 2. Sage, Beverly Hills (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kennerley, M., Neely, A.: Measuring performance in a changing business environment. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 23(2), 213–229 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winter, R., Fischer, R.: Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. In: 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, 2006. EDOCW 2006, pp. 30–30 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pereira, C.M., Sousa, P.: Enterprise architecture: business and IT alignment. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1344–1345 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luftman, J.: Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Strateg. Inf. Technol. Governance 4, 99 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wegmann, A.: The systemic enterprise architecture methodology (SEAM). Business and IT alignment for competitiveness. In: EPFL I&C, 200265 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang, X., Zhou, X., Jiang, L.: A method of business and IT alignment based on enterprise architecture. In: IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, 2008. IEEE/SOLI 2008, vol. 1, pp. 740–745 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cuenca, L., Boza, A., Ortiz, A.: An enterprise engineering approach for the alignment of business and information technology strategy. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 24(11), 974–992 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boucharas, V., van Steenbergen, M., Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S.: The contribution of enterprise architecture to the achievement of organizational goals: establishing the enterprise architecture benefits framework. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lankhorst, M.: State of the Art. Enterprise Architecture at Work, pp. 11–41. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shah, H., Kourdi, M.E.: Frameworks for enterprise architecture. IT Prof. 9(5), 36–41 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schekkerman, J.: How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework. Trafford Publishing, Bloomington (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Urbaczewski, L., Mrdalj, S.: A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues Inf. Syst. 7(2), 18–23 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lindström, A., Johnson, P., Johansson, E., Ekstedt, M., Simonsson, M.: A survey on CIO concerns-do enterprise architecture frameworks support them? Inf. Syst. Front. 8(2), 81–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wittenburg, A., Matthes, F., Fischer, F., Hallermeier, T.: Building an integrated IT governance platform at the BMW Group. Int. J. Bus. Process Integr. Manag. 2(4), 327–337 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Buckl, S., Ernst, A.M., Lankes, J., Schweda, C.M., Wittenburg, A.: Generating visualizations of enterprise architectures using model transformations. EMISA 2007, 33–46 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lankhorst, M.: Viewpoints and visualisation. Enterprise Architecture at Work, pp. 153–197. Springer, Berlin (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mattern, F., Schönwälder, S., Stein, W.: Fighting complexity in IT. McKinsey Q. 1, 57–65 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simon, H.A.: The architecture of complexity. Gen. Syst. 10(1965), 63–76 (1965)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ashby, W.R., et al.: An introduction to cybernetics. An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman and Hail Ltd, London (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Flood, R.L.: Dealing with Complexity: an Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klir, G.: Facets of Systems Science, vol. 15. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Banker, R.D., Datar, S.M., Kemerer, C.F., Zweig, D.: Software complexity and maintenance costs. Commun. ACM 36(11), 81–94 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vasconcelos, A., Sousa, P., Tribolet, J.: Information system architecture metrics: an enterprise engineering evaluation approach. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 10(1), 91–122 (2007)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Widjaja, T., Kaiser, J., Tepel, D., Buxmann, P.: Heterogeneity in IT landscapes and monopoly power of firms: a model to quantify heterogeneity (2012)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Akella, J., Buckow, H., Rey, S.: IT architecture: cutting costs and complexity. McKinsey Q., 4 (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hoogervorst, J.: Enterprise architecture: Enabling integration, agility and change. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 13(03), 213–233 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lankhorst, M.: Communication of enterprise architectures. Enterprise Architecture at Work, pp. 69–84. Springer, Berlin (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Laudon, K.C.: Managing Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm, 13th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2013)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Allen, I.E., Seaman, C.A.: Likert scales and data analyses. Qual. Prog. 40(7), 64–65 (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Newman, I.: Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. SIU Press, Carbondale (1998)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lee A.S., DeGross II, J.: Information systems and qualitative research. In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG, vol. 8 (1997)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Samoilenko, S., Osei-Bryson, K.M.: Linking investments in telecoms and productivity growth in the context of transition economies within the framework of neoclassical growth accounting: solving endogeneity problem with structural equation modeling. In: Proceedings of 18th European Conference on Information Systems, Pretoria, South Africa (2010)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Markus, K.A.: Principles and practice of structural equation modeling by Rex B. Kline. Struct. Eqn. Model. Multi. J. 19(3), 509–512 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wong, K.K.-K.: Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 24, 1–32 (2013)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Straub, D.: A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Q. (MISQ) 36(1), 3–14 (2012)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Will, A.: SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). Hamburg, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chin, W.W.: The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 295(2), 295–336 (1998)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rea, L.M., Parker, R.A.: Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Wiley, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    LimeSurvey - the free and open source survey software tool! (24 April 2011). Accessed 23 November 2014
  56. 56.
    Friedrich, I., Sprenger, J., Breitner, M.H.: Discussion and validation of a CRM system selection approach with experts. In: AMCIS (2011)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hauder, M., Roth, S., Schulz, C., Matthes, F.: An examination of organizational factors influencing enterprise architecture management challenges. In: ECIS, p. 175 (2013)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schmidt, R., Möhring, M., Maier, S., Pietsch, J., Härting, R.-C.: Big data as strategic enabler - insights from Central European enterprises. In: Abramowicz, W., Kokkinaki, A. (eds.) BIS 2014. LNBIP, vol. 176, pp. 50–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    O’Keefe, R.M., Balci, O., Smith, E.P.: Validation of expert system performance. Department of Computer Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1986)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Williamson, O.E.: Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. J. Law Econ. 22(2), 233–261 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wigand, R.T., Picot, A., Reichwald, R.: Information, Organization and Management: Expanding Markets and Corporate Boundaries. Wiley, Chichester (1997)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Luftman, J., Brier, T.: Achieving and sustaining business-IT alignment. Calif. Manag. Rev. 42, 109–122 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Weill, P., Ross, J.W.: IT Savvy: What Top Executives Must Know to go from Pain to Gain. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Giacomazzi, F., Panella, C., Pernici, B., Sansoni, M.: Information systems integration in mergers and acquisitions: a normative model. Inf. Manag. 32(6), 289–302 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Winter, K., Buckl, S., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: Investigating the state-of-the-art in enterprise architecture management methods in literature and practice. In: MCIS, vol. 90 (2010)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Stelzer, D.: Enterprise architecture principles: literature review and research directions. In: Dan, A., Gittler, F., Toumani, F. (eds.) ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009. LNCS, vol. 6275, pp. 12–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bernard, S.A.: An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture. AuthorHouse, Bloomington (2012)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Braun, C., Winter, R.: A comprehensive enterprise architecture metamodel and its implementation using a metamodeling platform. In: Proceedings of Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, Proceedings of the Workshop in Klagenfurt, pp. 64–79 (2005)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wißotzki, M., Koç, H., Weichert, T., Sandkuhl, K.: Development of an enterprise architecture management capability catalog. In: Kobyliński, A., Sobczak, A. (eds.) BIR 2013. LNBIP, vol. 158, pp. 112–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Niemi, E.: Enterprise architecture benefits: perceptions from literature and practice, evaluation of enterprise and software architectures: critical issues, metrics and practices:[AISA Project 2005-2008]/Eetu Niemi, Tanja Ylimäki & Niina Hämäläinen (eds.). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Information Technology Research Institute, 2008.-(Tietotekniikan tutkimusinstituutin julkaisuja, ISSN 1236-1615; 18). ISBN 978-951-39-3108-7 (CD-ROM). (2008)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schmidt, C., Buxmann, P.: Outcomes and success factors of enterprise IT architecture management: empirical insight from the international financial services industry. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 20(2), 168–185 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    H. Andersson and P. Tuddenham, Reinventing IT to support digitization. McKinsey, 2014Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hirt, M., Willmott, P.: Strategic principles for competing in the digital age. McKinsey Quarterly (May 2014)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Aier, S., Gleichauf, B., Winter, R.: Understanding enterprise architecture management design-an empirical analysis. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik, p. 50 (2011)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Iacob, M.E., Meertens, L.O., Jonkers, H., Quartel, D.A.C., Nieuwenhuis, L.J.M., Van Sinderen, M.J.: From enterprise architecture to business models and back. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 1059–1083 (2014)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C.L.: Clarifying business models: origins, present, and future of the concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16(1), 1–25 (2005)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kluge, C., Dietzsch, A., Rosemann, M.: How to realise corporate value from enterprise architecture. In: ECIS, pp. 1572–1581 (2006)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Pruijt, L., Slot, R., Plessius, H., Bos, R., Brinkkemper, S.: The enterprise architecture realization scorecard: a result oriented assessment instrument. In: Aier, S., Ekstedt, M., Matthes, F., Proper, E., Sanz, J.L. (eds.) PRET 2012 and TEAR 2012. LNBIP, vol. 131, pp. 300–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Morganwalp, J.M., Sage, A.P.: Enterprise architecture measures of effectiveness. Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag. 4(1), 81–94 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Schmidt, R., Möhring, M., Zimmermann, A., Wissotzki, M., Sandkuhl, K., Jugel, D.: Towards a framework for enterprise architecture analytics. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW), Ulm, Germany (2014, in press)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Schaub, M., Matthes, F., Roth, S.: Towards a conceptual framework for interactive enterprise architecture management visualizations. In: Modellierung, pp. 75–90 (2012)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Taylor, G.R.: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Research. University Press of America, Maryland (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rainer Schmidt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Möhring
    • 2
  • Ralf-Christian Härting
    • 2
  • Christopher Reichstein
    • 2
  • Alfred Zimmermann
    • 3
  • Sandro Luceri
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science and MathematicsMunich University of Applied SciencesMunichGermany
  2. 2.Business AdministrationAalen University of Applied SciencesAalenGermany
  3. 3.Computer ScienceReutlingen UniversityReutlingenGermany

Personalised recommendations