Enterprise Architecture Archives - Page 28 of 51

Exploring ‘People’ as the key element in enterprise architecture implementation: A Critical Realist Perspective

TOGAF (2009) describes the purpose of Enterprise Architecture (EA) is to optimise enterprisewide systems – the often-fragmented legacy of data processes (both manual and automated) – into an integrated environment that is responsive to change and supports the delivery of the business strategy (The Open Group Architecture Framework [TOGAF], 2009). However, for a number of reasons organisations still have difficulties establishing an effective EA (Raadt & Vliet, 2008; Gartner, 2009; and Janssen & Klievink, 2012, among others) and various reports suggest up to two thirds of implementations do not fulfil expectations (Roeleven, 2010). Being organisation wide with a strong governance element EA has significant social implications and social dependence, yet many implementations wrongly treat EA as solely a technical program. This thesis argues that the lack of focus on the ‘people’ element of EA could be the reason why many organisations still struggle with EA implementation. Recognising the importance of people in EA implementation requires acceptance of implementation as a social program, heavily influenced by the structural and cultural systems surrounding the architecture. In order to address the need for greater recognition of the role of people and the social aspects of EA implementation, this thesis adopts critical realism (CR) and its most recognised methodology, the morphogenetic approach (MA). Realism emphasises ontology and strongly argues that ontology, methodology and epistemology are closely linked – as Fleetwood (2005, p. 197) suggests, ontology matters: “The way we think the world is (ontology) influences: what we think can be known about it (epistemology); how we think it can be investigated (methodology and research techniques); the kinds of theories we think can be constructed about it; and the political and policy stances we are prepared to take”. In order to examine the social implications of technology implementation it makes sense to adopt a wellrecognized social theory like critical realism. This social realist approach proposes an analytical separation between structure, culture and agency (people) in order to examine their interactions over time. The MA suggests three important cycles – structural conditioning, social interaction and structural elaboration that provide a platform for examining possible change. Archer also importantly suggests that the emergent properties of collectivities and individuals differ. Such a model has clear value for examining the “people” acceptance of the new impositions and opportunities provided by the EA implementation. It acknowledges the sociocultural consequences of interactions between the structure and the culture to provide particular situational logics that direct, but do not determine the actions of people. The MA emphasises strongly the role of time in situation examination suggesting that structure and culture predate subsequent actions by involved agents. The thesis describes particular situational logics or mechanisms emanating from the interaction between structural and cultural systems that encourage particular behaviours in response to the EA program. These actions are then further examined in the sequence of MA cycles. Since mechanisms are only effective if people adopt them or not, another important element in this study is the part played by “reflexivity”. Reflexivity highlights the linkage between people concerns, projects and practices as people act in order to promote their concerns, and form projects to advance or to protect what they care about most. Reflexivity is an important mechanism for explaining how people’s ultimate concerns impact on their approach to the impositions of EA. An Australian university implementing EA (termed UX for anonymity) has been used as a case study in this research – this fortuitous timing allowed a careful and detailed examination of implementation over a 3-year period from initial rollout to ultimate acceptance. The study describes the challenging environment of university implementation where “academic freedom” is paramount and individual and group autonomies are threatened by EA – the study presents the important mechanisms and situational logics that direct people’s actions within the complex social context of a university. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were used as the primary method of data collection across UX stakeholders. A range of interviews were held throughout the study period with the university IT Governance Committee, the University Architecture Board, the CIO, and the Enterprise Business Group, as well as individual end-users such as teaching staff, researchers, students, and administrative staff of the faculties, schools and service centres. The MA provided a basic structure for unravelling the social complexity and helped guide the interview questions to identify the generative mechanisms hidden in the real domain, and to highlight the conditions that encourage individual and collective acceptance of EA practices. The reflexivity indicator developed by Archer –ICONI– is used throughout to explain how personal projects are formed and how they mediate the exercise of structural/cultural constraints and enablement within EA implementation. Passive participation in regular EA implementation meetings at UX was also important and useful to unearth possible perceived causal possibilities emanating from within the program itself and evident within the social context of implementation. Underpinned by a critical realist perspective, the thesis demonstrates that the MA is a powerful analytical tool to uncover the hidden mechanisms (the situational logics of structures and cultures) and social responses that enable success of EA implementation. The research examines the particular situational logics evident within the University under study and how these provide opportunities and constraints to the acceptance of EA over time. Equally important was reflexivity theory in attaining knowledge and understanding about what it is about people’s internal relations that makes EA implementation succeed. This thesis offers organisations a means to focus on the deeper issues of EA implementation programs by understanding the social complexity surrounding the architecture. The recognition of people as a key element in EA implementation provides a useful explanation of how the key stakeholders (and their power, influence and interests) may constrain and enable EA implementation. By including reflexivity as an important mechanism, organisations will be in a better position to understand the role of people and their interactions with preexisting structures and cultures operating over different time periods – reflexivity suggesting that “people” always have the possibility to do otherwise than expected, largely dependent on their personal history and their current personal projects and ultimate concerns.

Towards A Method for Developing Reference Enterprise Architectures

In most economic sectors organizations face rapid environmental changes like regulations. Such changes can force them to adjust both their organizational and operational structure. For instance, in the energy utility sector numerous developments moved German Public Utilities (PUs) towards a liberalized market. Nowadays PUs have to stay competitive while managing a heterogeneous information technology (IT) landscape. We address this demand for aligning business and IT by combining the holistic perspective of Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) with the characteristic of reference modeling to reuse knowledge in a problem domain. Therefore, we utilize configurative reference modeling within Design Science Research (DSR). The artefact at hand is a method for developing a Reference Enterprise Architecture (R-EA), which is applied in the problem domain of PUs. Our contributions are the (i) adaptation of Configurative Reference Modelling (CRM) to develop a R-EA and (ii) a procedure how to elicit knowledge for R-EA development method.

Enterprise Architecture Institutionalization: A Tale of Two Cases

The purpose of this research is to examine why organizations with similar objectives and environments at the beginning obtain different outcomes when implementing enterprise architecture (EA) projects and how EA institutionalization process occurs. We conduct a qualitative multiple-case study using the lens of institutional theory through the analysis of intra-organization relations. The results show that the institutional logic of stakeholders can drive EA projects in different directions during the process of EA institutionalization, and thus organizations obtain different project outcomes ultimately. We contribute by extending the knowledge on EA institutionalization from a micro-level perspective, understanding and explaining how the organizational structure was shaped and influenced by stakeholders’ relations, as well as providing insight into stakeholders’ behaviors and activities during the process of EA institutionalization so that practitioners may improve the success rate of EA projects, particularly in the public sector.

An Exploration of Enterprise Architecture Research

Management of the enterprise architecture has become increasingly recognized as a crucial part of both business and IT management. Still, a common understanding and methodological consistency seems far from being developed. Acknowledging the significant role of research in moving the development process along, this article employs different bibliometric methods, complemented by an extensive qualitative interpretation of the research field, to provide a unique overview of the enterprise architecture literature. After answering our research questions about the collaboration via co-authorships, the intellectual structure of the research field and its most influential works, and the principal themes of research, we propose an agenda for future research based on the findings from the above analyses and their comparison to empirical insights from the literature. In particular, our study finds a considerable degree of co-authorship clustering and a positive impact of the extent of co-authorship on the diffusion of works on enterprise architecture. In addition, this article identifies three major research streams and shows that research to date has revolved around specific themes, while some of high practical relevance receive minor attention. Hence, the contribution of our study is manifold and offers support for researchers and practitioners alike.

Three Schools of Thought on Enterprise Architecture

Three schools of thought on enterprise architecture exist, each with its own belief system (definitions, concerns, assumptions, and limitations). A novel taxonomy of these schools creates a starting point for resolving terminological challenges to help establish enterprise architecture as a discipline.

Seeking to Control Enterprise with Architecture: the Limits and Value of an Engineering Approach From the Perspective of an Enterprise Architect

In this (DMan) thesis, I challenge assumptions underlying my discipline of enterprise architecture that led to two choices facing practitioners: either to work with tools and techniques which predict and control changes towards predetermined ends or to accept informal processes that are unpredictable and wasteful. Orthodox enterprise architecture defines an enterprise as an organisation, which is a system, and prescribes methods that seek to provide control over the transformation of an organisation into a desired state of affairs by achieving complete knowledge of the system before initiating the desired transformation. Drawing on complexity sciences, I offer a different perspective on organisation and claim that organising what we do is an aspect of doing what we do. Organising is process. I furthermore claim that the people who are organising what we do can act spontaneously and surprise both themselves and others, but often they act habitually. Habitual ways of acting allow us to anticipate to some extent how others are likely to respond to us and, as we grow up, we learn how to behave ourselves, that is, how to adjust our behaviour to what we judge socially acceptable to increase the likelihood of being able to garner support and collaboration. I posit that social control is exercised in this way as mutual self-adjustment that forms what is normal and valued conduct. In other words, our shared social norms and values thus paradoxically and simultaneously form individuals and their conduct and are formed by individuals and their conduct. I claim that in this way we have partial, but never full, knowledge of how others generally respond to certain behaviour of ours. We can ever have only partial knowledge of that which is—in the words of Mannheim—in the process of becoming. I therefore reject the central assumptions upon which orthodox enterprise architecture is based. In organisations, we engineer and exploit mechanical mechanisms that can conduct certain action more effectively and efficiently than people can. Materiality, objects in the world, can resist attempts to shape them to suit our needs but do so without intentionality or spontaneity. Accommodating material resistance is thus repeatable. Enterprise architecture as a discipline grew out of engineering of physical mechanisms and assumes a similar repeatability and predictability when working with the social, which I find to be an unwarranted assumption. I argue against the claim of orthodox enterprise architecture that we can bring about a pre-determined state in a controlled fashion and against the claim that without such control we have informal processes that are inevitably unpredictable and wasteful. I posit that what emerges is paradoxically stable instabilities of socially enabled and constrained recognisable patterns of behaviour. When devising a mechanism in a physical object, such as a software programme, a repertoire of scripted action is transcribed into it which remains constant until transcription is renewed. Transcription has a tendency to render action less fluid. Some members of an organisation may judge particular scripted action to be awkward or detrimental while others may judge the same scripted action to be efficient and beneficial. Thus, determining which scripted action to transcribe into mechanisms is a highly political decision which attracts the attention of skilful political players. Enterprise architects can have a valuable role to play, since we have a better than average partial knowledge about technology, and since technology is increasingly important for many enterprises. I posit that becoming more aware of power and power plays, developing a feel for the game, and becoming more detached about our involvement will allow us to play into what is emerging socially with more political awareness and expertise.