Business Value

{{post_terms.hashtags}}

Enterprise Architecture Valuation and Metrics: A Survey-Based Research Study

Enterprise Architecture (EA) is increasingly being adopted and utilized by all types of organizations (Fri 2007; Jung 2009; Kappelman et al. 2008). Despite its growing popularity, the challenge facing many organizations is how to measure and provide evidence of the value that EA provides to an enterprise (Boster et al. 2000; Plessius et al. 2012). This challenge includes determining the best ways to effectively evaluate and measure the impact EA has on an enterprise. To provide some insight into this problem, this article provides an overview of the means used to measure the value of EA within organizations. This article seeks to accomplish four tasks. First, to demonstrate that EA value measurement is a challenge that needs to be addressed within organizations. Second, to highlight the variety of methods and measures that organizations currently use in their attempts to measure the value of EA. Third, to provide insight into the reported challenges facing organizations involved in the process of measuring the value of EA. Fourth, to propose a conceptual model for EA value measurement that can be utilized by organizations who have implemented EA. To provide support and evidence for all four of these tasks, we present the results from a survey that contains the responses from 276 participants whose job roles and responsibilities directly reflected working in EA within their organizations.

Getting More out of Government Enterprise Architecture

The achievement of business value in organizations has been attributed to a higher Enterprise Architecture (EA) maturity level. In attempting to achieve business value, managing performance is necessary because it acts as the sensor to an organization’s management control system. While the Government of Ontario (GO) deserves recognition for instituting corporate governance to ensure its information and information technology (I&IT) initiatives are strategically justified and the proposed solutions are architecturally sound, IT governance goes beyond that. To unlock value from IT investments, the COBIT framework advocates having an internal control system, which measures achievements, evaluates efforts, and signals problem areas, so that an organization deploys its resources and processes appropriately to minimize deviations from desired values. This article presents the case for GO’s EA program, as a means to help fulfill IT governance’s dual- goal of risk management and value creation, to go beyond the alignment and integration decisions to help make EA practices more credible.

EA Heavy and EA Light: Two Examples of Successful Enterprise Architecture

Often literature reports on unsuccessful attempts at enterprise architecture. Many exercises do not progress beyond their initial stages, losing momentum during their execution, or they run to conclusion without delivering the promised benefits. This article reports on a significant experience by the authors—engaged as consultants to two Australian-based multinational companies—during the execution of two very different, successful enterprise architecture projects that managed to deliver and demonstrate tangible benefits to the respective organizations. Although both projects included important IT technical components, their success was based on enterprise architecture teams that clearly understood the business objectives, linked the enterprise architecture activities directly to them, and clearly communicated the benefits in business terms. We argue that to engage and maintain support an enterprise architecture exercise must have a business purpose that is clearly understood by all stakeholders, and it must be carefully tailored to the intended purpose, both in terms of effort and deliverables, and no more. Our discussion includes the strategy, methods, and tools used by the enterprise architecture teams to conduct each engagement, and a discussion of the results and lessons learnt.