Advertisement

Cross-over Application of Enterprise Architecture and Modularization in Telco R&D

  • Heinrich Arnold
  • Michael Erner
  • Peter Möckel
  • Christopher Schläffer

Abstract

This section describes how a cross-over application of enterprise architecture in telco R&D helps to cope with issues in the early innovation stages – complexity management in view of the choice of alternative technological paths and implementation uncertainty in view of distance of strategic and operational levels. Linking enterprise architecture concepts and early innovation stages, it builds on the modularization of R&D results.

As a result it provides the ability to effectively face a number of innovation processes, interfaces, platforms and roadmaps and is associated with knowledge of markets and users.

enterprise architecture (EA) framework has been introduced and widely used in the domains of IT and business processes to bring a holistic picture to both of them. It can – together with a modularization concept – offer an important instrument for coping with the challenges to telco R&D. The applicability of the EA framework is extended so as to focus innovation efforts on specific modules or architectures. At Deutsche Telekom Laboratories, cross-over application of enterprise architecture is used as a fast reaction approach to manage reusable and re-combinable modules and to allocate them properly.

Keywords

Migration Marketing Paral Harness Kreis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, Heinrich M. and Michal Dunaj. 2007. Enterprise Architecture and Modularization in Telco R&D as a Response to an Environment of Technological Uncertainty. ICIN, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, H. M. and Schläffer, C. 2007. Media and networks innovation – technological paths, customer needs and business logic. In e&i “Digitales Fernsehen.” October 2007.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, C. and Clark, K. 1997 ‘Managing in an age of modularity’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75, No. 5, pp.84–93Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, C.Y., & Clark, K. B. 2000. Design Rules. Volume 1: The Power of Modularity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Belzowski,.B.M., Flynn, M.S., Richardson, B.C. and Sims, M.K. 2003 ‘Harnessing knowledge: the next challenge to inter-firm cooperation in the North American auto industry’, International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Vol. 3, Nos. 1/2, pp.929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernus, P., Nemes, L., Schmidt, G. 2003: Handbook on Enterprise Architecture (International Handbooks on Information Systems), Publisher: Springer-Verlag; November 1, 2003Google Scholar
  7. Brockhoff, K. (1999): “Forschung und Entwicklung: Planung und Kontrolle”, 5. Aufl., München et al.: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  8. Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Harvard Business School Press: Harvard, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, C. and Raynor, M. (2003): The Innovator’s Solution, Boston: HBS Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, R.G. 1988 The Mew Product Process: A Decision Guide for Management, Journal of Marketing Management i, 1988, 3, No. 3. 23B–255Google Scholar
  11. Cullen, A., Orlov, L., Radjou, N., Hoppermann, J., Peyret, H. and Sessions, L. 2006. Enterprise Architecture’s Role In IT-Enabled Business Innovation. “EA’s Role In Innovation” series. Forrester Research.Google Scholar
  12. Cusumano, M. and Nobeoka, K. (1998) Thinking Beyond Lean, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Erner, M and Presse, V. 2007. A Modular based approach to reduce uncertainty in R&D. The R&D Management Conference 2007, Risk and Uncertainty in R&D Management, 4–6 July, in Bremen, Germany.Google Scholar
  14. Graziadio, T. and Zilbovicius, M.(2003) ‘Knowledge transfer through the supply system: does modularity make it easier?’, International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Vol. 3, Nos. 1/3, pp.47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson, Rebecca M. and Kim B. Clark. 1990. Architectural Innovating: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative science Quarterly 35.Google Scholar
  16. Hippel, von, Eric 1994 “Sticky Information” and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation” Management Science 40, no.4 (April): 429–439Google Scholar
  17. Hippel, von, Eric (1986) Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 198632: 791–805Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, P., Lagerstrom, R., Narman, P. and Simonsson, M. 2006. Extended Influence Diagrams for Enterprise Architecture Analysis. edoc’. pp.3–12, 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC’06), 2006Google Scholar
  19. Kodama, F. (2004). Measuring emerging categories of innovation: Modularity and business model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71, pp. 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kotha, S. (1995) ‘Mass customization: Implementing the emerging paradigm for competitive advantage’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, pp.21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lampel, J. and Mintzberg, H. 1996. Customizing Customization. Sloan Management Review 37: 21–30.Google Scholar
  22. Lankhorst, M. 2005. Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Matthes, F. and Wittenburg, A. 2004. Softwarekartographie: Visualisierung von Anwendungs-landschaften und ihrer Schnittstellen. Informatik 2004 – Jahrestagung der GI, in Ulm, Germany.Google Scholar
  24. Max, R. (1997) ‘The modular consortium in VW in Brazil: new forms of assembler and suppliers relationship’, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.292–298.Google Scholar
  25. O’Grady, P. 1999. The Age of Modularity - Using the new world of modular products to revolutionize your corporation: Adams and Steele Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Probst, G. J.B., Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. 1999. Wissen managen: Wie Unternehmen ihre wertvollste Ressource optimal nutzen. Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurter Allg. Zeitung für Deutschland.Google Scholar
  27. Pulkkinen, M. 2006. Systemic Management of Architectural Decisions in Enterprise Architecture Planning. Four Dimensions and Three Abstraction Levels. In The Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), January 2006, ed. R. H. Sprague Jr., 179.Google Scholar
  28. Ross, J. W. 2003. Creating a Strategic IT Architecture Competency: Learning in Stages. Working paper number 4314–03, MIT Sloan School of Management.Google Scholar
  29. Ross, J. W., Weill, P. and Robertson, D. 2006. Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business Review PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Salerno,.M.S.2001 ‘The characteristics and the role of modularity in the automotive business’, International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.92–107.Google Scholar
  31. Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J.T. 1996. Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 63–76.Google Scholar
  32. Schekkerman, Jaap. 2003. How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework. Trafford Publishing. See also http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/view-item?item=4668&14262344–16421aaa and www.enterprise-architecture.info
  33. Schläffer, C. 2007. Convergent Media and Networks. Proc. of German-Japanese Symposium. Münchner Kreis.Google Scholar
  34. Schönherr, M. 2004. Connecting EAI Domains via SOA. In: Conference Proceedings: IFIP - ICEIMT’04, International Conference on Enterprise Integration Modelling and Technology. Bernus, P. (Hrsg.), Toronto.Google Scholar
  35. Telecom Industry Value Opportunities for Private Equity. Episode 2, The Telecom Enabler, October 3, 2006. See also web: http://www.consultmerlin.com/latest-thought-papers/the-telecom-enabler.html
  36. Vasconcelos, A., A. Caetano, J. Neves, P. Sinogas, R. Mendes, e J. Tribolet 2001. A Framework for Modeling Strategy, Business Processes and Information Systems, 5th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference EDOC, Seatle, EUA, September 2001Google Scholar
  37. Winter, R. 2003: An Architecture Model for Supporting Application Integration Decisions, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  38. Worren, N., Moore, K., & Cardona, P. 2002. Modularity, Strategic Flexibility, and Firm Performance: A Study of the Home Appliance Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 1123–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. http://www.zifa.com Zachman institute for Framework Architecture, see also: http://www.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/the-zachman-framework

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heinrich Arnold
    • 1
  • Michael Erner
    • 1
  • Peter Möckel
    • 1
  • Christopher Schläffer
    • 2
  1. 1.LaboratoriesDeutsche Telekom AGBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Deutsche Telekom AGBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations