Article

{{post_terms.hashtags}}

A Process Driven Approach to Modelling Leadership

This article proposes a new approach for defining and categorizing the activity of leadership with a strong orientation towards the definition and primacy of management and strategy layers of activity when seeking to attempt to understand and design new and emerging patterns within the enterprise. The specific model type within the emerging Next-Gen EA framework that talks to the concept of leadership is that of Organizational Capability that lies within the Business Function Layer. This new functional category also links to subordinate process models which define the specific activities from which the function is characterized. Together, the Function Type and the underlying process flows can be grouped to be termed a Reference Model of Organizational Behavior (RMOB). Together, this functional component and supporting process flows are fully conformant with the requirements for Process Reference Models, as prescribed by ISO ISO/IEC TR 24774:2010 and ISO/IEC 15504: 2004. This RMOB therefore has all the strength and flexibility of a robust software engineering tool, yet it is coupled with generic ability to describe a core function within the modern organization that has, to date, defied rigorous or quantifiable definition. This ability to describe, model, and capture „capability sets‟ supported by underlying process, information, and technologies within an organization fulfils one of the key determining factors within the Next-Gen EA framework, namely the ability to model the modern organization at all levels and add further sophistication to the model types provided by enterprise architecture in the quest to solve senior management business and strategy problems.

Market-Driven Enterprise Architecture

Throughout the last decade, business leaders have consistently reported their top two challenges as managing change and complexity. Market-orientation and enterprise architecture are two disciplines that lend themselves to helping leaders meet such challenges. Yet, while they have gained separate momentum in academia and practice, they remain poorly integrated and suffer from resulting individual deficits. This article summarizes the findings from an exploratory study (Højsgaard 2010) of what has been entitled Market-Driven Enterprise Architecture (MDEA). Under the premise that organizations can benefit from both areas, and that they hold joint potential in maximizing business success, the MDEA is developed as a conceptual and practical integration of market-orientation and enterprise architecture. By developing the model into a measurement scale and applying it to a sample of the enterprise architecture community, empirical evidence is found for the presence of MDEA in practice, support of reliability and validity of the MDEA measurement scale, as well as positive and statistically significant relationships to business performance.

Better Business-IT Alignment Through Enterprise Architecture: An Actor-Network Theory Perspective

Enterprise architecture has attracted the attention of information systems (IS) academics as well as information technology (IT) and business professionals. While enterprise architecture has been proposed as a solution to the business-IT alignment problem, there is little theoretical basis that would explain how enterprise architecture work can lead to better alignment. Here we draw on the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) to highlight the role of enterprise architecture in achieving and sustaining such alignment. Specifically, we argue that enterprise architecture work helps to achieve agreement and thus alignment of the interests of internal actors within the context of enterprise interests and inscribes such agreement into architectural artifacts. Such artifacts can then be used in negotiations with external parties, such as IT vendors, thereby protecting the interests of the enterprise. Enterprise architecture work is also likely to reduce the likelihood of members of the enterprise, such as IT staff, from forming close ties with external parties, such as IT solution vendors, at the expense of the interests of the enterprise. We argue that this would result in stronger business-IT alignment. We conclude by highlighting two important goals of enterprise architecture as viewed through the ANT lens: (1) to help achieve an alignment of interests within the enterprise, and (2) to serve as a tool for protecting the interests of the enterprise in internal and external negotiations. These in turn point to the importance of the soft skills of enterprise architects and the need for clear and readily understandable enterprise architecture artifacts.

The Frugal Enterprise Architect

In the last three years we have seen a significant focus placed on the practice of enterprise architecture, its importance to the strategic forward momentum of an organization, and the need to master the methodology, mechanics, and traceable metrics attached to the program. With books, magazine articles, and white papers highlighting the need to properly structure and invest appropriately in enterprise architecture, fledgling programs with modest budgets struggle to apply these broad but often considered „best practice‟ recommendations. Depending on corporate culture and tolerance for organizational change, senior management teams may be the toughest to convince of the value of a newer enterprise architecture program when, from their perspective, the wheels of the organization have turned smoothly for years. Lead architects with limited program budgets will need to be creative and extremely careful in their approach to developing an enterprise architecture program, but there are ways to achieve success as a frugal enterprise architect.

Re-thinking Enterprise Architecture Using Systems and Complexity Approaches

This article looks at the issues currently confronting enterprise architects and the challenges posed when extending EA to be the architecture of the enterprise rather than just its information technology. It describes the contribution that Systems Practice and other disciplines can make to Enterprise Architecture (EA), and considers how the Cynefin sense-making framework can be used to help indicate which are the most appropriate types of approach.

Using Structural Performance Ratios to Guide Investments in Enterprise Architecture

Measuring the structural performance of an enterprise offers essential insights into the strengths and weaknesses of its architecture. Executives and their Enterprise Architects need these measurements to guide and monitor their choices of where best to invest time, energy, and money in architectural innovations that enhance performance. Traditional approaches to Enterprise Architecture (EA) offer an abstract and overly-constraining view of its potential contribution to business performance, and of the options for achieving it. How does the Enterprise Architect move beyond these constraints, identify the most appropriate measures of structural performance, and choose the best practical and political interventions to ensure success?