Article

{{post_terms.hashtags}}

Processes of Sense-Making and Systems Thinking in Government EA Planning

This purpose of this article is to investigate the systemic properties of Enterprise Architecture Planning (EAP) in the Australian government sector. Based on a case study of the Land and Property Management Authority of New South Wales, the article examines and outlines the crucial necessity for including systems thinking, systems learning, and organizational sense-making in Enterprise Architecture (EA) theory and planning. The main argument is based on qualitative research into the limitations of capturing and modeling organizations using EA methodologies and modeling approaches. The EA discipline, including its tools and methodologies, relies on the metaphor of engineering the enterprise and building stable taxonomies of knowledge and process. The practical reality that e-government programs are facing is technical, sociological, and messy. However, EA tends to operate within an engineering metaphor that assumes stability, predictability, and control. Here, the author highlights the necessity of an alternative, less positivist approach to EA planning in order to understand and articulate the tacit knowledge dimensions and messy, wicked problems of organizational life. Soft systems thinking, socio-technical theory, and sense-making are introduced as theoretical and practical frames to overcome these limitations and produce a better, more viable and realistic model of planning in government enterprises. These concepts are finally amalgamated into a general, integrative model of EA planning.

Business Process Architecture: A Comparative Analysis of Reference Models and Methodologies

There is a general lack of awareness regarding the creation, use, and potential benefits of enterprise-wide process architectures. This article addresses these issues by attempting to address the question: What are the potential benefits of business process architecture and how may they be achieved? This article explores and analyzes a subset of the most popular and widely used process reference models, tools, and implementation methodologies as identified in popular practitioner literature. The models are then compared and critiqued for strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the selected sample of reference models will be evaluated and scrutinized for apparent themes. Considerations regarding how the reference models and methodologies can be selected and combined for maximum benefit are offered. The article provides an overview of the developing business process architecture discipline, and describes the practice conceptually and then discusses potential benefits and common challenges. Analysis of the various models, tools, and methodologies yields that they are often distinguished by relative strengths and weaknesses, and that the best option depends on the situation and objectives. By following generic initial phases of the selected methodologies, organizations can roughly visualize their business context and enterprise-level processes to facilitate the creation of process architecture vision and objectives.

A Lifecycle Approach to Portfolio Management

Portfolio management considers the integrated management of the IT assets of an organization and of the projects that produce and modify these assets. In particular, it is focused on making investment decisions in such a way that the portfolio as a whole conforms to the short-term and long-term strategy and goals of the organization. In order to make well-founded decisions about the replacement or maintenance of enterprise applications, organizations need insight into the current and future business value, technical quality, maintenance costs, and replacement costs of these applications, and in particular, how these develop over time: a lifecycle approach. This article describes our first steps towards the ultimate goal, a portfolio dashboard that indicates the current and future value of applications, and the benefits, costs, and risks associated with changing or replacing them. The method for supporting lifecycle decisions on information systems is on the one hand based on cost predictions from benchmark data and on the other hand on architecture analysis of these systems. The approach is the synthesis of three elements: future cost predictions, portfolio valuation, and modifiability analysis.

Rethinking our Enterprise Architecture Principles

This past recessionary decade has forced many of us to narrow the focus of our respective Enterprise Architecture (EA) programs and concentrate on delivering value to our Information Technology (IT) leadership teams. It was not a time where we typically reshaped our EA programs, expanded into business areas of EA, or considered how other critical guidance documents like EA Principles might need to be updated. Based on recent Fortune 500 CEO surveys and published business articles, we may need to start thinking about changes to multiple aspects of our EA programs. As suggested by these CEO comments, business and IT organizations need to become more closely aligned than ever before. While our EA programs are specifically intended to enable exactly this form of close alignment, many of our building block EA documents including principles are often written with a focus on IT and technology. Intentional or not, the perception of what those principles represent will need to change. We should be putting our best business foot forward with CEOs and business leaders, and Enterprise Architecture Principles may be one best place to start.

Governance of Enterprise Transformation and the Different Faces of Enterprise Architecture Management

Today, enterprises more than ever find themselves confronted with a constant need to transform themselves to better cope with current pressures and to prepare for future opportunities and challenges. Enterprise architecture management plays a crucial role in that context. It may not only aid in shaping the future enterprise, but it may also facilitate subsequent transformation governance. Based on the perception of enterprise architecture management as both a strategic and an operational exercise, this article distinguishes between four general modes of architectural transformation governance and presents the different faces of enterprise architecture management prevalent in these modes. In particular, this involves solution architecture, roadmapping, and business architecture activities.

Delivering Business Value Through Enterprise Architecture

There is a substantial interest and investment in enterprise architecture worldwide, exemplified by the number of enterprise architecture-related professional bodies, consulting services, frameworks, methodologies, and the increasing prevalence of full-time enterprise architecture teams. It may seem surprising in this context, therefore, that the value of enterprise architecture is still poorly understood. Organizations cite difficulties in justifying their enterprise architecture investments and anecdotal evidence suggests that the existence and funding of the enterprise architecture function is often based more on the beliefs of the incumbent management team than on demonstrated value. Although there is no shortage of enterprise architecture benefit claims, explanations of why and how enterprise architecture leads to the proposed benefits are fragmented and incomplete. This article aims to take a step towards improving the understanding of the value of enterprise architecture by focusing on how it leads to organizational benefits. Through a careful review of the existing practitioner and academic literature, the article consolidates knowledge on enterprise architecture benefits and refines the explanations by drawing on relevant IS and management theory. The resultant EA Benefits Model (EABM) proposes that enterprise architecture leads to organizational benefits through its impact on four key benefit enablers: Organizational Alignment, Information Availability, Resource Portfolio Optimization, and Resource Complementarity. The article concludes with a discussion of some potential avenues for future research, which could build on the findings of this study.