An Analysis of Enterprise Architecture for Federated Environments

  • Niklas Lindström
  • Björn Nyström
  • Jelena ZdravkovicEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 305)


The challenge of business and IT-alignment has been a major concern for IT managers over the last few decades, as an increased congruence between the two aspects improves effectivity and results in organizations. Enterprise Architecture (EA) addresses the alignment by providing a holistic model-based view of the organization. However, previous research has revealed some generic discrepancies in prominent EA frameworks regarding their support towards more decentralized organizational structures. Following a case study research of a federated organization this paper analyzes in depth The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) EA framework, and based on identified discrepancies how it should be extended to provide an adequate support. By enabling the establishment and maintenance of a federated EA, the proposed extension should further increase the business and IT-alignment for federated organizations.


Enterprise Architecture TOGAF Organizational structure 


  1. 1.
    Luftman, J., Ben-Zvi, T.: Key issues for IT executives 2011: cautious optimism in uncertain economic times. MIS Q. Executive 10(4), 203–212 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Silvius, A.J.G., de Waal, B., Smit, J.: Business and IT alignment; answers and remaining questions. In: PACIS 2009 Proceedings (2009).
  3. 3.
    Luftman, J.: Assessing Business-IT Alignment Maturity. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 4(1), December 2000Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kearns, G.S., Sabherwal, R.: Strategic alignment between business and information technology: a knowledge-based view of behaviors, outcome, and consequences. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23(3), 129–162 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tarigan, R.: An Evaluation of the relationship between alignment of strategic priorities and manufacturing performance. Int. J. Manag. 22(4), 586–597 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan, Y.E., Reich, B.H.: IT alignment: what have we learned? J. Inf. Technol. 22(4), 297–315 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan, Y.E., Huff, S., Barclay, D., Copeland, D.: Business strategic orientation, information systems strategic orientation, and strategic alignment. J. Inf. Syst. Res., 125–150, June 1997Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bharadwaj, A., Sawy, E., Pavlou, O., Venkatraman, N.: Digital Business Strategy: Toward a Next Generation of Insights. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2742300, June 2013Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weill, P.: Don’t just lead, govern: how top-performing firms govern IT. MIS Q. Executive 3(1), 1–17 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sessions, R.: A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies, May 2007.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    DODAF - DOD Architecture Framework Version 2.02 - DOD Deputy Chief Information Officer.
  14. 14.
    MOD Architecture Framework - GOV.UK.
  15. 15.
    UK Ministry of Defense. Proposed NAF v4 Meta-Model (MODEM). NATO Architecture Framework v4.0 Documentation (2013).
  16. 16.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wiotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with 4EM Method. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    TOGAF 9.1 | The Open Group Blog.
  18. 18.
    Lindström, Å., Johnson, P., Johansson, E., Ekstedt, M., Simonsson, M.: A survey on CIO concerns-do EA frameworks support them? Inf. Syst. Front. 2006(8), 81–90 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Speckert, T., Rychkova, I., Zdravkovic, J., Nurcan, S.: On the changing role of enterprise architecture in decentralized environments: state of the art. In: 17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, pp. 310–318 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabelo, R.J., Noran, O., Bernus, P.: Towards the next generation service oriented enterprise architecture. In: IEEE 19th EDOC Workshop, pp. 91–100 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., ter Doest, H., Arbab, F., Bosma, H., Wieringa, R.: Enterprise architecture: management tool and blueprint for the organization. J. Inf. Syst. Front. 8(2), 63–66 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leading the development of open, vendor-neutral IT standards and certifications | The Open Group.
  23. 23.
    Lunenberg, F.C.: Organizational structure: Mintzberg’s framework. Int. J. Scholar Acad. Intellect. Divers 14(1) (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobides, M.J.: The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: lessons from a near-war. J. Organ. Sci. 18(3), 455–477 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang, M.H., Harrington, J.E.: Centralization vs. decentralization in a multi-unit organization: a computational model of a retail chain as a multi-agent adaptive system. J. Manag. Sci. 46(11), 1427–1440 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mintzberg, H.: The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. Prentice-Hall, Michigan (1979)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Christie, A., Joye, M., Watts, R.: Decentralization of the firm: theory and evidence. J. Corp. Financ. 9(1), 3–36 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Svee, E.-O., Giannoulis, C., Zdravkovic, J.: Modeling business strategy: a consumer value perspective. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) PoEM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 67–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24849-8_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niklas Lindström
    • 1
  • Björn Nyström
    • 2
  • Jelena Zdravkovic
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.HSB StockholmStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations