Applying Design Science Research for Enterprise Architecture Business Value Assessments

  • Martin Meyer
  • Markus Helfert
  • Brian Donnellan
  • Jim Kenneally
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7286)

Abstract

In the effort to measure the business value and impact of Enterprise Architecture (EA), we need to adapt an appropriate form of information systems research in order to cope with the encountered challenges. For this purpose, we employed Design Science Research (DSR), a problem-driven approach to provide a solution represented as artifacts to provide the required utility to our stakeholders. The main contribution of this research is the detailed focus on how artifacts are actually conceived in an organizational context and the realization that a complex environment demands for more than just one artifact. Therefore, we are in need of a flexible research methodology. The DSR in this case is conducted within a well-known information systems research framework and follows widely accepted principles and guidelines. We explain the business need that arose from the current business practices in the course of a case study and describe the flexible research methodology we pursue and how we intend to solve the problems we identified as current DSR approaches lack the necessary flexibility we were looking for in practice. This flexibility greatly improves the management of our project in the organizational environment in terms of planning and implementation. Furthermore, we outline the evolutionary state of the artifacts during our adapted research process.

Keywords

Design Science Enterprise Architecture Business Value Assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quaterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    March, S., Smith, G.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4), 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curley, M.: An IT Value Based Capability Maturity Framework. MIT Sloan CISR VI(2D) (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., Sinz, E.: Memorandum on Design-oriented Information Systems Research. European Journal of Information Systems 20, 7–10 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., Chatterjee, S.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(3), 45–77 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S.: Design Research in Information Systems - Theory and Practice. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schekkerman, J.: How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework, 3rd edn. Trafford (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaisler, S., Armour, F., Valivullah, M.: Enterprise Architecting: Critical Problems. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ross, J., Weill, P., Robertson, D.: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy. Havard Business Press (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curley, M.: Managing Information Technology for Business Value. Intel Press (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gammelgard, M., Simonsson, M., Lindström, A.: An IT management Assessment Framework: Evaluating Enterprise Architecture Scenarios. Information Systems and E-Business Management 5(4), 415–435 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmidt, C., Buxmann, P.: Outcomes and Success Factors of Enterprise IT Architecture management: Empirical Insight from the International Financial Services Industry. European Journal of Information Systems (20), 168–185 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iacob, M.-E., Jonkers, H.: Quantitative Analysis of Enterprise Architectures. In: Konstantas, D., Bourrières, J.-P., Léonard, M., Boudjlida, N. (eds.) Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications, pp. 239–252. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schelp, J., Stutz, M.: A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Measure the Value of Enterprise Architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 3(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Steenbergen, M., Mushkudiani, N., Brinkkemper, S., Foorthuis, R., Bruls, W., Bos, R.: Achieving Enterprise Architecture Benefits: What Makes the Difference? In: 15th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, pp. 350–359 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Donnellan, B., Helfert, M.: The IT-CMF: A Practical Application of Design Science. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 550–553. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC: 15939:2007 - Systems and Software Engineering - Measurement ProcessGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaplan, R., Norton, D.: The Balanced Scorecard - Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robertson, S., Robertson, J.: Mastering the Requirements Process. Addison Wesley Professional (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Meyer
    • 1
  • Markus Helfert
    • 1
  • Brian Donnellan
    • 2
  • Jim Kenneally
    • 3
  1. 1.Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.National University of IrelandMaynoothIreland
  3. 3.Intel Labs EuropeLeixlipIreland

Personalised recommendations