Proceedings of theProceedings of the 10th European ... · PDF file10th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance ... of Private Limited Liability Company ... the

Proceedings of theProceedings of the

10th European Conference on

Management Leadership and

GovernanceGovernance VERN' University of Applied

Sciences

ZagrebZagreb

Republic of Croatia

13-14 November 2014

Edited by

Visnja Grozdani

A conference managed by ACPI, UK

www.academic-conferences.org

Proceedings of The

10th European Conference on

Management Leadership

and Governance

ECMLG 2014

VERN' University of Applied Sciences

Zagreb, Republic of Croatia

13 14 November 2014

Edited by

Visnja Grozdanic

Copyright The Authors, 2014. All Rights Reserved.

No reproduction, copy or transmission may be made without written permission from the individual authors.

Papers have been double blind peer reviewed before final submission to the conference. Initially, paper abstracts were read and selected by the conference panel for submission as possible papers for the conference.

Many thanks to the reviewers who helped ensure the quality of the full papers.

These Conference Proceedings have been submitted to Thomson ISI for indexing.

Further copies of this book and previous year’s proceedings can be purchased from http://academicbookshop.com

E Book ISBN: 978 1 910309 77 3E Book ISSN: 2048 903XBook version ISBN: 978 1 910309 75 9Book Version ISSN: 2049 9021

Published by Academic Conferences and Publishing International LimitedReadingUK44 118 972 4148www.academic publishing.org

i

Contents

Paper Title Author(s) Page

No.

Preface v

Committee vii

Biographies viii

Research papers

Family Business and International Establishment andEntry Mode

Mariasole Bannò and Enrico Zaninotto 1

The Challenges of the European Social Fund forCorporate Governance in Romania

Adriana Schiopoiu Burlea, Sorin MariusTudor, Ionut Marius Dragulin andDanut Ileana

9

Mediation in Collective Dispute Resolution as anExample of Organizational Conflict Management –Case of Poland

Felicjan Bylok and Leszek Cichob azi ski 17

Dynamic Modelling of ZOO Management: FromChallenge to Opportunity`

Martina Chalupova, Jan Voracek,Frantisek Smrcka and Petra Kozakova

24

The Crucial Importance of Access to the Advancementof Governance Research

Peter Crow and James Lockhart 34

Project Management Office: The State of the ArtBased on a Systematic Review

José Adson Cunha and Hermano Moura 41

Project Management in the Light of Cognitive Biases: APublic Sector IT Organization Case

José Adson Cunha, , Tales Viglioni, JoãoThomaz and Hermano Moura

50

Leadership Behaviours in Higher Education in Syria Serene Dalati 59

What Makes User Participation Work? A ProjectManagement View on Variation in User Participation

Benny de Waal, Ronald Batenburg andPaul Breman

69

Why Organisations Cannot Justify the Effective Management of Their Information Assets

Nina Evans and James Price 78

Leadership Across Cultures: Conceptualising a “Global”Leader

Tatiana Gladkikh 86

Interpreting the Party Line for Successful BusinessCommunication in Different Cultures

Marina Gluchshenko and AlimaKutybayeva

94

The Importance of Measuring Sustainability inReaching Higher Destination Competitiveness

Tea Golja and Iva Slivar 100

Performance Management: The Proposal of a StrategicScorecard’s map for the Hospital Industry

Ta ána Hajdíková and Veronika Zelená 111

Enterprise Architecture Applied or not? Marco Halén, Sixten Blomqvist andMika Helenius

118

Negative Emotions in Social Media as a ManagerialChallenge

Harri Jalonen 128

Conceptual Model of National Healthcare System Withthe Emphasis on Quality

Miroslav Jankuj, Jan Voracek andDaniela Kandilaki

136

ii


No.

Board Directors in Private SMEs: Beyond “One FormFits All”

Lotfi Karoui, Wafa Khlif and Coral Ingley 145

An Exploration of the Emergence of Governance: AConceptual Journey From Unification to Separation

James Lockhart 154

School Leadership and the Innovative Principals:Implications for Enhancing Principals’ LeadershipKnowledge and Practice

Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie, AfsanehBagheri and Soaib Asimiran

162

The Influence of Family Involvement on CSR Disclosure Nadine Lybaert 168

Free Enterprise and Corruption: The South AfricanConstruction Cartel Case Study

Evangelos Mantzaris and Pregala Pillay 176

The Board vs Executive View of Board Effectivenessand its Influence on Organisational Performance

Denis Mowbray 183

Differences in Leadership Styles and Motives in menand Women: How Generational Theory InformsGender Role Congruity

Duncan Murray and Sarah Chua 192

The Human Resource Management Strategies ofCommunity Businesses in Songkhla Province, Thailand

Chetsada Noknoi and Sunchai Lungtae 200

Family Business Governance in the Czech Republic Pavla Odehnalová 206

Towards a Trust and Attention Based ManagementConcept Paying Attention to Attention First

Marco Oteman and Hendrik vanLienden

212

Versatile Leadership and Organizational Culture Karel Pavlica and Eva Jarošová 221

Service as a Required Leadership Competency Noel Pearse 230

Bread and Corruption: The Case of South African Genetically Modified Bread

Pregala Pillay and Evangelos Mantzaris 237

Linking Knowledge Management With NetworkManagement: Designing the Framework forMonitoring of Virtual Communities

Birute Pitrenaite Zileniene and MonikaMaciuliene

245

The Effect of e Leadership on Organisational Trust andCommitment of Virtual Teams

John Politis 254

A Prosumer Oriented Value Co Creation StrategicModel for Corporate Performance

Sabina Potra, Monica Izvercian andLarisa Ivascu

262

Dominance as a Moderator in the Relationship Between Leader's Warmth and Effectiveness

Jakub Prochazka, Martin Vaculik andPetr Smutny

270

Identification of key Organization Components thatInfluence Enterprise Performance by Means of NonLinear Regression

Pavel Pudil, Petr Pirozek, Petr Somoland Lenka Komarkova

278

The Competencies of Local Self GovernmentAuthorities Supporting the Competitiveness andInnovativeness of Companies

Korneliusz Pylak, Pawe Czy and IzoldaGorgol

285

Smart Green Campus: How IT can SupportSustainability in Higher Education

Pascal Ravesteyn, Henk Plessius andJoris Mens

296

iii


No.

Transformative Change Towards Sustainability: TheCase of an Abu Dhabi Public Sector Organisation

Suresh Renukappa 304

Quo Vadis, Hotel Management? Petr Scholz, Jan Voracek and FrantisekSmrcka

312

E Leadership in Cross Cultural Education Delivery Peter Sinclair 322

Determinants of a Successful Differentiation Strategy Stanislav Tripes, Lenka Komarkova, PetrPirozek and Jiri Dvorak

330

Competencies and Leadership Effectiveness: WhichSkills Predict Effective Leadership?

Martin Vaculik, Jakub Prochazka andPetr Smutny

337

Design of Corporate Social Responsibility: Case Studyof Private Limited Liability Company in Lithuania

Asta Valackiene 345

Mars Attacks! About the Introduction of Social Mediain Large Organizations

Haiko van der Voort, Hans de Bruijn,Yulia Sidorova and Michela Arnaboldi

355

Modelling and Improvement of Hospital Processes Jan Vorá ek, Hana Vojá ková, MartinaKuncová and David Zažímal

363

Corporate Sustainability/CSR and the Influence of theIndependent Director: “100% Pure” New Zealand

Philippa Wells, Coral Ingley and JensMueller

372

PHD Research papers 381

Issues in Sustainable Supply Management Dawuda Alhassan 383

Leadership and Operations Management: ExistingRelationship

Dawuda Alhassan 391

The Reference Model of Corporate Performance Management and its Applicability in Enterprise Practice

Veronika Burešová and Lilia Dvo áková 401

The Implications of Visualization of Information onMarketing Management

Radim Cermak and Vaclav Reznicek 410

MCDM Methods in Practice: Determining the Significance of PESTEL Analysis Criteria

Iveta Dockalikova and Jana Klozikova 418

Leveraging the Cross Cultural Capacities of ArtificialAgents as Leaders of Human Virtual Teams

Matthew Gladden 428

Impact of IT Governance on Organizational Performance: Proposing an Explanatory Model

Saida Harguem, Egide Karuranga andSehl Mellouli

436

Taking the Lead: Gender, Social Context and Preference to Lead

Alain Hong, Juliette Schaafsma, Per vander Wijst and Aske Plaat

445

Employees Training and Development: What Competencies Should be Developed the Most?

Katerina Kashi 452

Corporate Governance Rating: Synthesis of RatingModels of Corporate Governance with UtilizationMethods AHP and DEMATEL

Jana Klozikova and Iveta Dockalikova 460

Strategic Governance of Moroccan State OwnedEnterprises: Risk Mapping Through External PublicAuditing

Abdelmjid Lafram 472

iv


No.

Innovative Integrated Management Systems forBusiness Continuity Management

Dorin Maier, Marieta Olaru, TeodoraFloricel and Georgiana Marin

482

Using MCDM Methods: Evaluation of RegionalInnovation Performance in the Czech Republic

Eva Poledníková and Katerina Kashi 487

Cultural Diversity and Competences in Project Teams Anca Diana Popescu, Roxana Sirbu,Sorin Suciu and Anca Draghici

497

Validity and Reliability of the Social EntrepreneurialPersonality

Radin Siti Aishah Radin Rahman andZaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie

506

Corporate Social Responsibility and ManagerialCompetencies: A Dynamic Requirement

Anusua Saha 514

Multi Project Management KPIs Mircea andru, Marieta Olaru, IonelaCarmen Pirnea and Gregor Weber

522

HR Professionals’ Views on Work Motivation andRetention of Older Workers

Binal Shah and Ales Gregar 532

The Role of Entrepreneurship Education in HumanResource Development and its Relationships WithTeacher’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge Practices

Merhayati Sipon and Zaidatol AkmaliahLope Pihie

538

Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods Appliedin the Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility

Št pánka Sta ková 541

A Conceptual Framework for web DevelopmentProjects Based on Project Management and AgileDevelopment Principles

Martin Tomanek, Radim Cermak andZdenek Smutny

550

Business Strategy Versus the SustainabilityDevelopment Concept

Lucie Vallišová and Lilia Dvo áková 559

Masters Research Paper 567

The Influence of Business Incubation Services on thePerformance of Small and Medium Enterprises in theSouth African Tourism Industry

Gloria Mothibi 569

Late Submissions 577

An Audit of Employee Commitment to Enable Leadersto Manage Organisational Talent

Ophillia Ledimo and Nico Martins 579

Success Strategies for Women on Top: IndigenousCross Cultural Leadership Perspective

Zanele Ndaba 586

Enterprise Architecture Applied or not?

Marco Halén, Sixten Blomqvist and Mika Helenius

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

Marco.Halé[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Abstract: The rapid change of the current information intensive business environment and the increasing importance of

information technology within enterprises create pressure to manage change and make correct decisions that take into

account both business and information technology needs. Enterprise Architecture is a holistic management practice

covering both business and information technology. Enterprise Architecture is gaining popularity as an approach for

organizations to adapt to changes faster than ever before and to manage the complexity of business processes, and

increasing number of information systems. It is widely accepted that successful implementation of Enterprise Architecture

can produce benefits across the whole organization. However, Enterprise Architecture is most often associated with

information technology consolidation and information technology landscape management as well as business and

information technology alignment. The benefits of Enterprise Architecture are mostly indirect and have proven to be

difficult to verify empirically. If the link between benefits and Enterprise Architecture as management practice is not

established, the full potential of Enterprise Architecture cannot be realized. Earlier studies have identified and categorized

the challenges around Enterprise Architecture implementation, but only few empirical studies have been published about

the subject. In this explanatory case study conducted in a large Nordic financial services group, we provide an empirical

view of how the need and the benefits of Enterprise Architecture are understood. Furthermore, we attempt to identify

what are the prerequisites for shifting from IT driven Enterprise Architecture to business driven Enterprise Architecture,

and what leadership challenges have to be mitigated before the full potential of Enterprise Architecture can be achieved.

This study shows that even though the benefits of Enterprise Architecture are well understood, the lack of progress on the

business oriented Enterprise Architecture can potentially result in failure to demonstrate real business value. The results

shed light on issues related to prospective roles of Enterprise Architecture in case organization. This case study is part of an

Enterprise Architecture management research series focusing on social aspects of enterprise engineering.

Keywords: enterprise architecture, leadership, business architecture, management practice, financial sector

1. Introduction

Enterprise Architecture (hereafter referred to as EA) is an approach for providing insight and an overview for

an organization. Moreover, it is a holistic management practice covering both business and information

technology to manage complexity and aid strategic decision making (Op’t Land et al. 2009). Originally, EA was

developed as a tool for information systems management (Kappelman et al. 2008), but during the past decade

the concept has evolved more towards an instrument for business IT alignment (Simon et al. 2013) or even a

leadership practice (Ross et al. 2006).

EA has included business goals and strategy as elements of the framework since it was first introduced by

Zachman (1987). However, at that time the framework was adopted more as a tool for describing an

enterprise from the perspective of information systems architecture. Later on EA has been more and more

attached to strategic planning and business transformation (Ross et al. 2006; Kappelman et al. 2008; Simon et

al. 2014). However, a survey of the state of EA programs shows that a great number of IT professionals still

saw that business oriented EA is implemented on a much smaller scale than it would be required (Leganza

2010). In addition, a variety of studies show that EA is most often associated with IT consolidation, business IT

alignment and IT landscape management, which shows the lack of focus on the business architecture layer of

EA (Winter et al. 2010; Simon et al. 2013). Existing literature includes very few examples of how EA can be

linked with strategy and strategic decision making (Simon et al. 2014). This lack of focus on business side of

architecture seems to indicate a gap between EA implementation and strategic business leadership. One of the

few models truly linking EA with strategy is The Foundation for Execution approach presented by Ross et al.

(2006).

Following contemporary case research practices, we conducted 13 interviews within a large Nordic financial

services group which has a long tradition of practicing EA. In this explanatory study, we attempt to identify

how the need and the benefits of EA are understood. Furthermore, we aim to identify what are the

118


prerequisites for shifting from IT driven EA to business driven EA, and what leadership challenges have to be

mitigated before the full potential of EA can be realized.

This paper is structured as follows. First, the theoretical background of the study is introduced by reviewing

the academic literature on the subject. Secondly, the research method is described. Third, the findings from

the empirical case study are presented. Finally, the findings from the empirical study are discussed and the

results of the study are summarized.

2. Need, benefits and challenges of EA

Following the introduction of EA in the 1980s, the concept has been accepted and widely studied by academics

and practitioners (Simon et al. 2013). However, even though the EA practices and benefits are widely known,

the concept has not yet been extensively adopted by organizations (Ross et al. 2006).

Op’t Land et al. (2009) argue that EA is needed to bring insight and overview to control the complexity. There

are both internal and external factors contributing to increased complexity. Typically mergers and acquisitions

increase the complexity of the application landscape in an enterprise. Moreover, the complexity of the

enterprise can make it inflexible, and fossilize operations if EA is not applied to increase the business agility

(Ross et al. 2006). Thus, business agility depends more and more on the skilful usage of EA practices in the

organization.

EA is also needed to adapt to changes in business environment more rapidly (Ross et al. 2006). Customers are

demanding faster services, organizational functions are becoming more dispersed due to globalization, and

government regulations are constantly changing (Lankhorst 2009). In particular, the regulatory environment

puts a lot of pressure on the governance of enterprise information systems. Companies have to comply with

the changing regulatory environment or fear losing their reliability (Op’t Land et al. 2009). According to Hjort

Madsen and Pries Heje (2009) the ability to handle and integrate larger amounts of data systems and to

comply with the regulatory demands set for the enterprise is one of the major issues why companies need EA.

EA can offer several potential benefits across the whole organization. Table 1 presents the benefits of EA from

a selection of professional and academic studies (CIO Council 2001; Ross et al. 2006; Infosys 2007; Kappelman

et al. 2008; The Open Group 2009; Tamm et al. 2011).

Table 1: Benefits of EA reported in selected literature

Scholar or organization Benefits of EA

Tamm et al. (2011)

Systematic literature review

including 50 studies

Increased responsiveness and guidance to change

Improved decision making

Improved communication & collaboration

Reduced IT costs

Business IT alignment

Kappelman et al. (2008)

Survey of 377 IT professionals

Improved interoperability among information systems

Improving utilization of IT

Aligning business objectives with IT

More effective use of IT resources

Better situational awareness

Infosys (2007)

Survey of 262 IT professionals

Reduced IT costs

Enable business and process flexibility

Improved customer satisfaction

Enable business and process change

Better business IT alignment

The Open Group (2009)

Based on the view of the

Open Group

More efficient IT operations

Better return on existing investments

Reduced risk for future investments

Faster, simpler and cheaper procurement

Ross et al. (2006)

Based on research findings

from over 200 companies

Reduced IT costs

Increased IT responsiveness

Improved risk management

119


Increased management satisfaction

Enhanced strategic business outcomes

CIO Council (2001) Based on

the view of the Federal CIO

Council

Improved alignment between the implemented enterprise and

management intent

Enhanced integration of information across the enterprise

Improved change management

Reduce time to market

Improved convergence of IT product portfolio

As we can see from Table 1 there is an agreement on benefits acknowledged in the studies above. The benefits

can be summarized into five categories: (1) reduced IT costs; (2) improved efficiency, utilization and

integration of IT systems; (3) improved strategic alignment between business and IT; (4) improved change and

risk management; and (5) improved communication and collaboration within the enterprise.

According to Ross et al. (2006) IT costs can be reduced through standardization and reduction of technologies

along with increasing the portion of shared IT services, enabled by EA. The benefits of improved efficiency,

utilization and integration of systems can be enabled through better visibility and transparency through the

complex systems of the organization (CIO Council 2001). Moreover, Lehong et al. (2013) show that a holistic

view of the enterprise is seen as one of the most significant EA benefits. The benefit of improved strategic

alignment between business and IT can be enabled by capturing the company’s business and operational

foundation in a structural and understandable manner, resulting in better decision making (CIO Council 2001).

Furthermore, EA enables the creation of a transition plan to implement the to be organization, project by

project, ensuring better alignment between the business and IT (Ross et al. 2006). The transition plan offered

by EA will improve change management within the enterprise. Moreover, the benefit of improved change

management will reduce the risks associated with new IT investments. Risk is also reduced by having a simpler

and more manageable IT environment (Ross et al. 2006). Additionally, the reduced complexity offered by EA

will make the ground for investment decisions clearer, improving return on future and existing IT investments

(The Open Group 2009). The standard views and terminology enabled by EA will improve the communication

and collaboration within enterprise (CIO Council 2001). EA helps to communicate organizational information

by creating a shared understanding and improving information available for all relevant parties within the

organization (Van der Raadt et al. 2010; Tamm et al. 2011).

EA benefits are mostly indirect, which is why it can be difficult to empirically prove their scope. This is evident

from the systematic review by Tamm et al. (2011) related to EA benefits, which show that only six of the 50

reviewed studies could provide empirical evidence to their claims.

According to Zachman (1999), there are four reasons why enterprises have not adopted EA. First, architecture

is countercultural, meaning that the value and its deliverables are hard to measure and justify. Secondly, EA is

not seen as a survival issue. Thirdly, organizations do not have enough knowledge of how to do EA, which

discourages companies to practice it. Finally, EA takes time and work. Most organizations are looking for quick

solutions to their issues, neglecting to allocate enough resources into EA. The last factor is supported by

Venkatesh et al. (2007), who show that the number one success catalyst for EA is a long term commitment

from senior management. They explain that a great number of executives that initially buy into the EA

program stop the funding when no immediate return is realized.

Active participation of all EA stakeholders is a critical success factor for effective EA implementation (Van der

Raadt et al. 2010; Bouwman et al. 2011). In order to achieve this, it is crucial that EA activity is aligned with

stakeholders’ goals and needs. The different needs can result in difficulties when determining the appropriate

level of detail of the architectural descriptions. Moreover, Rehkopf and Wybolt (2003) point out that

communication issues are often the core challenge with successful EA.

3. Research strategy

3.1 Theoretical research framework

The structure of EA practice in our case organization was designed using the concepts presented in Enterprise

Architecture as Strategy (Ross et al. 2006). Therefore, same frameworks were utilized when designing the

empirical case, when analyzing the gathered data and when synthesizing the findings from the empirical case.

120


According to Ross et al. (2006) an enterprise needs to build a solid understanding about three concepts, to

have an effective Foundation for Execution: (1) the operating model; (2) enterprise architecture; and (3) the IT

engagement model. Figure 1 illustrates how the Foundation for Execution is created and exploited through the

three related concepts.

Figure 1: Creating and exploiting the Foundation for Execution (Ross et al. 2006, p. 10)

3.2 Operating model

Ross et al. (2006) define four types of operating models, which represent the integration and standardization

requirements of the business processes of the organization. Standardization creates processes that are similar

through the organization regardless where the process is executed. Integration links and shares data across

business processes creating a single face towards the customer. The operating model concept is a quite simple

and easy to understand approach to enable better decision making.

Figure 2: The four operating models (Ross et al. 2006, p. 29)

3.3 Enterprise architecture

Enterprise Architecture is defined as: “the organizing logic for business processes and IT infrastructure

reflecting the integration and standardization requirements of the company’s operating model.”(Ross et al.

2006, p.47)

The key with successful EA is to communicate the organizational vision in a clear way in order to create the

required business processes and IT structures. Ross et al. (2006) suggest that the discussion and

121


communication between senior business management and IT management should be facilitated through core

diagrams. In general, the core diagrams include four elements: (1) the core business processes; (2) the shared

data driving the core processes; (3) the key linking and automating technologies; and (4) the key customer. The

elements are specific to the company’s operating model and reflect the realization of the organizational vision.

(Ross et al. 2006)

3.4 IT engagement model

IT engagement model is the governance mechanisms, which ensures that the business and IT projects

launched to implement the foundation for execution will achieve both local and company wide objectives.

(Ross et al. 2006)

Figure 3: The IT engagement model (extended from Ross et al. 2006, p. 120)

3.5 Case study and research design

We selected case study design based on the nature of our research problem and questions being asked. The

relative strengths and weaknesses of different research designs have been widely discussed by variety of

scholars. In this debate, qualitative research in general and case studies in particular are often regarded

inferior when compared to quantitative research with large samples. However, it is evident that most new

ideas and detection of contemporary phenomena arise from the qualitative research and case studies in

particular. Merriam (2009) argues that the appropriateness for addressing the research problem is the single

most important criteria for selecting a particular research design.

Flyvbjerg (2006) discusses the value of case study research and examines five common misunderstandings

related to case study research: (1) theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge; (2) one

cannot generalize from a single case, therefore, the single case study cannot contribute to scientific

development; (3) the case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, whereas other methods are more

suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building; (4) the case study contains a bias toward verification; and

(5) it is often difficult to summarize specific case studies. After reformulating these statements Flyvbjerg

concludes with “Good social science is problem driven and not methodology driven in the sense that it

employs those methods that for a given problematic, best help answer the research questions at hand.”

Flyvbjerg (2006)

Our case company is a Nordic financial services group, which provides banking, non life insurance and wealth

management services for both corporate and retail customers. The case organization consists of multiple

subsidiaries and business segments that are centrally governed. The study was conducted as a case study in

order to create an in depth understanding about the phenomenon in a bounded system (Yin 2009).

122


The study can be characterized as a holistic explanatory single case study. The validity of a case study can be

significantly improved using triangulation (Yin 2009). Hence, three distinct data collection methods were used;

semi structured interviews, in depth interviews and analysis of written documentation.

The number of interviews and the respondents to be interviewed was determined by the method of

theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss 1967). In accordance with theory, new interviewees were added until

the interviews did not reveal any new data for the category development and it was fair to assume that

theoretical saturation was reached.

The study consists of six semi structured and seven in depth interviews. All the interviewees were employees

of the case company, and the respondents were selected based on their role and position in the organization.

Following the structure of IT engagement model roles were divided into business and IT, whereas positions

were divided into three levels: enterprise level, business unit level and project level.

Table 2: Roles and positions of interviewees

Interview designInterview

Role Position

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

IT

Business

Business

IT

IT

Business

Business

Business

Business

IT

Business

Business

Business

Enterprise level

Business unit level

Enterprise level

Enterprise level

Business unit level

Business unit level

Enterprise level

Enterprise level

Project level

Project level

Enterprise level

Project level

Enterprise level

All the interviews were conducted on a one to one basis by meeting the participant. The interviews lasted from

50 to 120 minutes, and all the interviews were audio recorded as well as transcribed.

The data from the interviews was analyzed in parallel with the data collection, according to contemporary case

research methodology (Merriam 2009). The analysis was conducted in four steps: (1) open coding of interview

data into tentative categories by an axial coding process (Corbin & Strauss 2007); (2) verification that the same

categories were present in both datasets; (3) re coding of the interview transcripts with the final

categorization; and (4) segmentation and analysis of interview data by category. The empirical case report was

written based on this final analysis. In line with current case study interview research practice, the report

includes several quotes from the interviews in addition to the empirical narrative (Dubé & Paré 2003).

4. Findings

4.1 EA practice in case organization

Our case organization has a long tradition of EA work and the IT related benefits of EA have been realized

relatively well. The responsibility and primary resources for EA are located in the CIO office. In line with

governance mechanisms depicted the IT engagement model there has for several years been two major

enterprise level decision making bodies. First, the decision making of development investments is centralized

to a group level Development Committee. Chairman of this committee is a member of the Executive Board and

majority of committee members are top business managers. All major development projects are organized

into development plans and investments are prioritized by this committee. Second, the decision making

related to EA initiatives as well as development of common understanding of enterprise level EA is the

responsibility of Enterprise Architecture Steering Committee. Chairman of this committee is a member of the

Development Committee and more than half of the members are business managers. Acknowledging the need

for stakeholder cooperation and active business participation in EA governance (Van der Raadt et al. 2010), the

business management is entirely responsible for the domain of Business architecture. The Figure 4 shows the

EA domains and responsibilities in case organization.

123


Figure 4: Enterprise Architecture domains and responsibilities in case organization

4.2 Current role of EA

Based on the interviews, the concept of EA is associated heavily with IT. The company has a well defined

enterprise wide IT architecture practice, which develops and maintains target descriptions for the IT related

architectures. The company is especially lacking business driven EA.

“Currently the business driven enterprise architecture work has not yet taken shape here in our

group.” (Interview1)

Understanding the concept of EA and related terminology was considered valuable. Language and shared

meanings play important role in implementation of EA.

“Formal EA descriptions might not be easily understandable to top management. Instead, their

reality might be constructed of colors, feelings and personal relationships.” (Interview1)

The case company has previously completed EA project where the objective was to develop a more business

oriented EA practice for the organization. The project was finished, but the implementation of a continuous EA

work failed gain traction in the organization. The primary reason for the failure of the project was that the

work did not just get enough buy in from the organization.

“It is not long ago we had this component based model, which was derived from a process

architecture model. ... So the model should be driving our target state and not only describe our

current business. So as a starting point it was driving more separation than integration.”

(Interview11)

It was also pointed out that EA does not necessarily fit into the current corporate culture of subsidiaries and

business segment. There is no explicit agreement of the enterprise level operating model, instead different

parts of organization have different operational models. At the moment, the organization and business do not

see the need for EA.

“We are doing well enough. Isn’t it so, that big changes happen when the pain grows too large,

that you are forced to do something?” (Interview9)

“I recognize that the underlying structures have strong dependencies to the organizational

structure and to the subsidiary specific processes. ... And now, we have a consolidation under

way. I think [the enterprise architecture] work will help to identify the common processes. The

group should be the strong driver here.” (Interview3)

However, the company has quite recently experienced a major organizational transformation with the

objective to shift more control from subsidiaries and business segments to the group level. The structural

change is expected to result in more centralized decision making and a stronger focus on group performance.

4.3 Prospective role of EA

The conducted interviews revealed that there is a true need for EA in the organization. In addition to stating

the demand for EA directly, the interviewees identified four major needs that could potentially be covered

with an EA practice: (1) a need for explicit business model and operating model descriptions; (2) a need for a

common overview of the business; (3) a need for a systematic way to identify dependencies; and (4) a need for

a systematic structure to link the strategy to operations.

124


“[The models] would bring here to the senior management a kind of understanding, a common

understanding, of the business logic or the logic of our group.” (Interview3)

EA was found to provide several potential benefits to the case organization. All the interviewees could identify

at least one advantage with EA and some respondents saw it even as a self evident truth that EA would bring

value to the organization:

“Of course the enterprise architecture work would be beneficial!” (Interview4)

However, it is hard to point out the specific advantages of the work since the benefits are mostly indirect, as

one interviewee pointed out:

“The benefits of enterprise architecture are indirect. Because of that, it is extremely hard to verify

them.” (Interview1)

Hence, an outright list of proven and verifiable advantages cannot be achieved. Nonetheless, four distinct

benefits of EA were identified from the interviews: (1) EA supports strategy implementation; (2) EA provides a

common overview of the business and increases transparency in the organization; (3) EA facilitates discussion;

and (4) EA enables more efficient use of IT.

In order to meet the current needs and realize the identified benefits, the EA work has to include correctly

defined tasks. The interviews revealed that the work should mainly focus on creating and maintain the

overviews of the current and target organization along with facilitating the business decision making. The

more specific potential future task of EA includes (1) creating and maintaining descriptions of business models

along with operating models; (2) working as a tool for outlining the target state of the business; (3) supporting

business decision making in the development planning; and (4) setting targets and tracking the

implementation of projects.

The premises for successful EA in the case organization are currently much better than before. The conditions

have improved since the previous EA project due to the organizational transformation and integration efforts

that have taken place thereafter:

“Let’s say that the premises for that kind of structuring are much more favourable than it was

few years ago.” (Interview9)

However, it is not enough that the premise for EA has been improved. The interviews revealed four additional

prerequisites that the work has to meet in order to be successful: (1) EA should be integrated into the

organization; (2) common terminology and understanding has to be built; (3) a strong business sponsor has to

drive the work; and (4) the EA work has to bring direct business value.

”It is the business management who should be responsible for enterprise architecture work and

decision making around it” (Interview4)

The prospective roles of EA in the case company are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: The prospective roles of EA in the case company

The prospective roles of EA

Identified need

Need for explicit business model and operating model descriptions

Need for a common overview of the business

Need for systematic way to identify dependencies

Need for a systematic structure to link the strategy to operations

Benefits

Supports strategy implementation

Provides a common overview of the business and increases transparency in the

organization

Facilitates discussion

Enables more efficient use of IT

Potential tasks

Creating and maintaining descriptions of business models along with operating models

Working as a tool to outline the target state of the business

Supporting business decision making in the development planning

Setting targets and tracking the implementation of projects

125


The prospective roles of EA

Prerequisites

EA should be integrated to the organization

Common terminology and understanding has to be built

A strong business sponsor has to drive the work

The EA work has to bring direct business value

5. Discussion and conclusions

The company has a well defined enterprise wide IT architecture practice, and the concept of EA is associated

heavily with IT. The current role of business oriented EA is relatively weak in the case company.

The conducted interviews revealed that there is a genuine need for EA in the organization. Moreover, EA was

found to provide several potential benefits to the case organization if the work would focus on creating and

maintain the overviews of the organization along with facilitating decision making. Furthermore, the premise

for successful EA work in the case organization is better than before due to the organizational transformation.

EA could facilitate better communication and shared meanings. While the recent business architecture project

was considered to have wrong business segment approach, the project successfully demonstrated that

business segments share more than 80 % of their components or functions. This was a significant result in a

situation where each business segment claimed to have their unique characteristics. While pursuing to

implement the results, the key challenge was that the defined framework was not understood as business

model construct. Moreover, there was an intense interest on the potential organizational implications, i.e.

how the organization chart would be affected by the new model. It is exactly these business considerations EA

should provide insight to and bridge the gap between everyday leadership and abstract frameworks.

Efficient implementation of EA requires all relevant stakeholders to be involved in the governance process, and

collaborate efficiently towards shared goals. In addition to participating in decision making, stakeholders

should have shared meanings and promote EA as management practice within the organization. For this part,

our findings are consistent with the findings of Van der Raadt et al. (2010).

Our study has demonstrated the importance of applying EA as an integral part of business development and

corporate governance, not as a separate practice. Moreover, a dedicated business sponsor is required to drive

the process, and business architect resources should reside within business organization.

It is clear that participation of top management is essential when shifting from IT driven EA to business driven

EA. Majority of business decision makers cannot allocate enough time to gain proficient understanding of EA.

Instead they perceive corporate reality in terms of profit, loss and risk. Therefore, the abstraction level and

complexity of traditional EA framework is far too high for the average business decision maker.

While the top management has not participated in EA operations, they have secured the funding of this effort

for several years. This could be interpreted as a positive sign for the initiative and EA as management practice.

However, investing time and money instead of just money would be even more encouraging.

There are some limitations to our research. Firstly, our sample of 13 interviews is insufficient to draw general

conclusions. Secondly, the findings from the empirical case are to a great extent sector or even company

specific. However, the results would seem to indicate that findings related to the prospective role of EA are

more general in nature and can thus be applied in other organizations.

More research attention should be given to identifying the means to attract business decision makers to use

EA as management practice. There could even be demand for a new, simplified framework or construct, taking

into account the aspects of business decision makers’ socially constructed reality.

Successful enterprises should possess flexibility as an inherent capability and be able to adapt to changes

faster than ever before. By applying EA, organizations can manage change and make correct decisions that

take into account both business and information technology needs.

126


Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation and industry partners, for partially

funding the research project. This case study is part of an Enterprise Architecture management research series

focusing on social aspects of enterprise engineering.

References

Bouwman, H., van Houtum, H., Janssen, M. and Versteeg, G. (2011) “Business Architectures in the Public Sector:

Experiences from Practice”, Communications of the AIS, 29(23), pp. 411–426.

CIO Council (2001) A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, CIO Council.

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A.L. (2007) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded

Theory 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Dubé, L. and Paré, G. (2003) “Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and

recommendations”, Mis Quarterly, 27(4), pp. 597–635.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) “Five Misunderstandings About Case Study Research”, Qualitative Inquiry 2006 (12), pp. 219 245.

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine de

Gruyter, New York.

Hjort Madsen, K. and Pries Heje, J. (2009) “Enterprise Architecture in Government: Fad or Future?”, Proceedings of the

42nd HICSS, pp. 1–10.

Infosys (2007) Enterprise Architecture is Maturing: Infosys Enterprise Architecture Survey 2007, Infosys, [online]

http://www.infosys.com/consulting/architecture services/ea survey/Documents/ea maturing.pdf.

Kappelman, L., McGinnis, T., Pettite, A. and Sidorova, A. (2008) “Enterprise architecture: Charting the territory for academic

research”, AMCIS 2008 Proceedings, paper 162.

Lankhorst, M. (2009) Enterprise architecture at work: Modelling, communication and analysis 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin.

Leganza, G. (2010) Topic overview: Information architecture, Forrester Research Report 55951.

Lehong, S.M., Dube, E. and Angelopoulos, G. (2013) “An investigation into the perceptions of business stakeholders on the

benefits of enterprise architecture: the case of Telkom SA”, South African Journal of Business Management, 44(2), pp.

45–57.

Merriam, S.B. (2009) Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Op’t Land, M., Proper, E., Waage, M., Cloo, J. and Steghuis, C. (2009) Enterprise Architecture Creating Value by Informed

Governance, Springer, Berlin.

Rehkopf, T.W. and Wybolt, N. (2003) “Top 10 Architecture Land Mines”, IT Professional, 5(6), pp. 36–43.

Ross, J.W., Weill, P. and Robertson, D.C. (2006) Enterprise architecture as strategy: creating a foundation for business

execution, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Simon, D., Fischbach, K. and Schoder, D. (2013) “An exploration of enterprise architecture research”, Communications of

the AIS, 32(1), pp.1–72.

Simon, D., Fischbach, K. and Schoder, D. (2014) Enterprise architecture management and its role in corporate strategic

management. Information Systems and e Business Management, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp. 5 42.

Tamm, T., Seddon, P.B., Shanks, G. and Reynolds, P. (2011) “How does enterprise architecture add value to organizations”,

Communications of the AIS, 28(10), pp. 141–168.

The Open Group (2009) TOGAF Version 9: The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), The Open Group.

Van der Raadt, B., Bonnet, M., Schouten, S. and van Vliet, H. (2010) “The relation between EA effectiveness and

stakeholder satisfaction”, The Journal of Systems and Software 83, pp. 1954–1969.

Venkatesh, V., Bala, H. and Venkatraman, S. (2007) “Enterprise Architecture Maturity: The Story of the Veterans Health

Administration”, MIS Quarterly Executive, 6(2).

Winter, K., Buckl, S., Matthes, F. and Schweda, C.M. (2010) “Investigating the State of the Art in Enterprise Architecture

Management Methods in literature and Practice”, Proceedings of the 5th MCIS, paper 90.

Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods 4th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Zachman, J.A. (1987) “A framework for information systems architecture”, IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), pp. 276–292.

Zachman, J.A. (1999) “Enterprise Architecture”, DM Review, [online] http://www.information

management.com/issues/19991201/1702 1.html.

127