Articles

{{post_terms.hashtags}}

Organizational Subcultures and Enterprise Architecture Effectiveness: Findings from a Case Study at a European Airport Company

This paper studies how organizational subcultures influence the effectiveness of the enterprise architecture (EA) function. It provides findings from a case study in a European airport company. We find specific subcultural differences that can lower EA effectiveness. In addition, we discover that not only subcultural differences but also subcultural similarity can reduce EA effectiveness. For instance, the preference for working isolated of some business departments results in a lack of communication between those departments, which lowers EA effectiveness. Also, our data suggest that the subcultural influence is indirect. We identify, amongst others, communication defects as an important intermediary variable.

Dynamic Ambidexterity: Exploiting Exploration for Business Success in the Digital Age

In the digital age, many firms find the pace of change in their industry is increasing. New competitors emerge from previously unrelated industries and innovative digital business models can quickly disrupt well-established market dynamics. Such jolts in the competitive landscape require existing players to be continually innovating while also “keeping the lights on” to maintain existing revenue streams. This paper reviews the IS literature on ambidexterity – the ability to simultaneously pursue strategies of resource exploration and exploitation – and advances a theoretical model for embedding innovative business models into existing organizational routines. It contributes to the literature by reconciling the structural and contextual views of ambidexterity through introducing a dynamic ambidexterity framework. This approach proposes ambidexterity as a dynamic capability which requires differing mechanisms in the initiation and implementation phases of innovation.

The role of organizational culture for grounding, management, guidance and effectiveness of enterprise architecture principles

Enterprise architecture management (EAM) has become a widely acknowledged approach for guiding the continuous change of increasingly complex organizations. While methods and models for describing and analyzing enterprise architectures (EA) have been extensively discussed, principles guiding an EA’s design and evolution are hardly covered in existing research. The paper at hand therefore analyzes the mechanisms of EA principles (EAP), that is EAP grounding, EAP management, and EAP guidance and their effects on EA consistency and EAM utility. Specifically we aim at understanding the role of organizational culture for the mechanisms and effects of EAP. Based on empirical data we find that all relations describing EAP mechanisms and their effects are significantly moderated by organizational culture. Based on our findings we give recommendations on how to deal with selected design decisions when introducing and developing EA principles in an organization.

Why Your Company Needs More Collaboration

Digitization demands a focus on cooperation and collaboration that is unprecedented for most enterprises.What distinguishes companies that have built advanced digital capabilities? The ability to collaborate. MIT Sloan Management Review’s research finds that a focus on collaboration — both within organizations and with external partners and stakeholders — is central to how digitally advanced companies create business value and establish competitive advantage. These companies recognize that digital transformation blurs — and sometimes obliterates — traditional organizational boundaries and demands a focus on cooperation and collaboration that is unprecedented for most enterprises. Based on a global survey of more than 3,500 managers and executives, MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte’s third annual report on digital business found that the most digitally advanced companies – those successfully deploying digital technologies and capabilities to improve processes, engage talent across the organization, and drive new value-generating business models – are far more likely to perform cross-functional collaboration. More than 70% of these businesses use cross-functional teams to organize work and charge them with implementing digital business priorities. This compares to less than 30% for organizations in an early stage of digitization.

Where Do We Find Services in Enterprise Architectures? A Comparative Approach

In recent years, enterprise architecture (EA) has captured growing attention as a means to systematically consolidate and interrelate diverse IT artefacts in order to provide holistic decision support. Since the emergence of Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), many attempts have been made to incorporate SOA artefacts in existing EA frameworks. Yet the approaches taken to achieve this goal differ substantially for the most commonly used EA frameworks to date. This paper investigates and compares five widely used EA frameworks in the way they embrace the SOA paradigm. It identifies what SOA artefacts are considered to be in the respective EA frameworks and their relative position in the overall structure. The results show that services and related artefacts are far from being well-integrated constructs in current EA frameworks. The comparison presented in this paper will support practitioners in identifying an EA framework that provides SOA support in a way that matches their requirements and will hopefully inspire the academic EA and SOA communities to work on a closer integration of these architectures.

Lack of Communication and Collaboration in Enterprise Architecture Development

Enterprise architecture (EA) is widely employed to reduce complexity and to improve business–information technology (IT) alignment. Despite the efforts by practitioners and academics in proposing approaches to smoothen EA development, it is not easy to find a fully successful EA. Because EA development is a complex endeavour, it is important to understand the obstacles that practitioners face during EA development. With the grounded theory, we studied how obstacles during EA development emerged from practitioners’ point of view in 15 large enterprises. The study identifies lack of communication and collaboration as the core obstacle that can explain many other obstacles. Communication and collaboration were also harmed by other perceived EA development obstacles, including lack of knowledge and support inside organization and issues imposed by external parties, hesitation in training personnel, setting too ambitious goals, constant change of management, (lack of) clarity in EA development process, lack of budget, forcing personnel to adopt EA, lack of motivation, organizational culture, and organizational structure deficiencies. The lack of communication and collaboration caused several undesired effects to organizations, such as being unable to set common goals and achieve a shared understanding, personnel’s distrust, endangered EA governance, lack of innovation capability, lost competitive edge, and ineffective EA outputs. The study highlights that organisations should improve their communication and collaboration before embarking on EA to encounter fewer obstacles. We provide four recommendations for practitioners to improve communication and collaboration in EA development.