Recent publications by reputable market research firms affirm that IT organizations and Enterprise Architecture groupsare not doing very well: high project failure rates and low acceptance of the Enterprise Architecture group. These challenges can be attributed to the “mechanistic” worldview of current IT organizations according to socio-technical systems theory, a theory from the 1950s which has only recently started to be integrated in IT. Over the last decade, therehas been a quasi-exponential growth in the use of the term “socio-technical systems” in the IT literature. From this, onecould suggest that a possible paradigm shift is occurring in the IT space: a shift from a mechanistic view of organizations to a socio-technical one based on the rediscovery that organizations are open socio-technical systems.
Ansoff H.I.: Corporate Strategy, NY: McGraw-Hill (1965).
Blumenthal A.: An Introduction to User-Centric Enterprise Architecture, InfoManagement Direct (May 2008)
Booch G.: Enterprise Architecture and Technical Architecture, IEEE Software (March/April 2010), pp.95-96.
Burton B.: Top EA Challenges in Australia and Singapore are People and Business Issues, Gartner, ID Number: G00170855 (2009).
Burton B.: Enterprise Architecture Seminar Workshop Results: Top EA Challenges, Gartner, ID Number: G00173809 (2010).
Cherns A.B.: Principles of Socio-Technical Design, Human Relations, 29 (1976), pp.783-92.
Christensen C.R., Andrews K.R., Bower J.L, Hamermesh G., and Porter M.E.: Business Policy: Text and Cases (5th Ed), Homewood, IL:Irwin (1982).
DeGennaro T.: The Profile of Corporately Supported EA Groups: Tactics for Improving Corporate Management’s Support for EA in Large Firms, Forrester (September 2010).
Emery F.E.: Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems: The Emergence of a New Paradigm of Work, Canberra, ANU/CCE (1959).
Emery M.: The Current Version of Emery‘s Open Systems Theory, Systemic Practice and Action Research (13:5), (2000), pp.685-703.
Graves T.: Real Enterprise Architecture: Beyond IT to the Whole Enterprise, Tetradian Consulting, The Coach House Balkerne Close. Colchester, England (2007).
Grindley K.: Managing IT at Board Level (2nd Edition), London: Pitman Publishing (1995).
Markus M.L.: Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation, Communications of the ACM (26:6), (1983), pp.430-444.
Mumford E.: The Story of Socio-Technical Design: Reflections on its Successes, Failures, and Potential, Information Systems Journal, 16 (2006), pp.317–342.
Pepper S.: World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. CA:University of California Press (1961). Popper K.: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hutchington & Co. (1959).
Sauer C.: Why Information Systems Fail: A Case Study Approach, Oxfordshire: Alfred Waller Ltd. (1993).
Smit, K. and Graves T.: An Introduction to Peaf: Pragmatic Enterprise Architecture Framework, Pragmatic EC Ltd. (2011).
Taylor J.C. and Felten D.F.: Performance by Design: Socio-Technical Systems in North America, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall (1993). The Standish Group International (SGI): Chaos Summary Report, The Standish Group International (SGI) (2009).
Trist E.: The Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems: A Conceptual Framework and an Action Research Program, Ontario Quality of Working Life Center, Ontario Ministry of Labour (1981).
Trist E.L. and Bamforth K.W.: Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting, Human Relations (4:1), (1951), pp.3-38.
van Eijnatten F.: The Paradigm that Changed the Workplace, Assen, van Gorcum (1993).
Ward J. and Peppard J.: Strategic Planning for Information Systems (3rd Edition), Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (2002).
Journal of Enterprise Architecture